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 ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. The Department for Transport is engaging with the Welsh Government and other stakeholders to deliver transport connectivity improvements, and we will publish our response to Lord Hendy’s Union connectivity review in due course. In February, we announced a £2.7 million investment to develop options for new stations and services on the south Wales main line, and connectivity between south Wales and south-west England was boosted in 2021 by through services between Cardiff and Penzance.
Jessica Morden
The UK’s connectivity review, the Burns commission and the western gateway rail review, which the Secretary of State will be acquainted with, all highlight the very real need for real investment on the south Wales main line. As part of that, will the Government commit to fund the much-needed relief lines upgrade?
Mr Harper
I am very grateful for that question. When I was on the Back Benches, the hon. Lady and I co-chaired the all-party parliamentary group on the western gateway, so I am very familiar with the requirements for connectivity between south Wales and the south-west. On the specific scheme she mentioned, the south Wales relief lines upgrade is now being progressed to a full business case and that will receive very careful consideration by my Department.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
Good morning to you, Sir. The jet zero strategy was published in July 2022, and sets out the Government’s approach to decarbonising UK aviation. The strategy focuses on the rapid development of technologies in a way that maintains the benefits of air travel while also maximising the opportunities that decarbonisation brings for the UK.
Rachel Hopkins
The new electrically powered Luton DART—direct air-rail transit—is critical to the future sustainable growth of London Luton airport. It will help increase the number of passengers accessing the airport by rail and support the delivery of Luton Council’s 2040 vision of a carbon-neutral town. Do the Minister and the Secretary of State agree that the Luton DART will help reduce the environmental impact of journeys to and from the airport and congestion on surrounding roads, and may I take this opportunity to invite them both to come and visit?
Jesse Norman
How extremely kind of the hon. Lady to extend that very interesting invitation. I would accept in a flash except that I do not want to usurp the prerogative of my colleague in the House of Lords, so maybe I can pick up with her. I am very interested to hear what the hon. Lady said and very grateful for the update. I will ask my officials to look closely at that.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
The Government are investing more than £5 billion between 2020 and 2025 in highways maintenance. On top of that, we are putting in another £200 million announced in the spring Budget, which will allow local communities to plan effectively for managing their roads, with enough money to fill millions of potholes, repair dozens of bridges and resurface roads right across the country. It is up to local authorities to determine how best to spend this funding.
Simon Baynes
Would the Minister urge the Labour Welsh Government to follow the UK Government’s example by setting up a national pothole fund to deal with the severe problems we have with potholes in my constituency of Clwyd South in areas such Rhos, Hanmer and Bronington and the Ceiriog valley?
Mr Holden
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I would indeed. While this is of course a matter for the Welsh Government, I am sure residents across Wales, and actually the tourism industry from the rest of the country as well, would appreciate the sort of additional investment into addressing potholes that the Chancellor has provided in England. I am afraid it seems rather indicative of the Welsh Government’s approach to the road network that while England is investing, they are not.
Sir John Whittingdale
I can tell my hon. Friend that in Maldon also the repair of potholes is one of the top issues on the doorstep. Would he therefore congratulate the Conservative-led administration at Essex County Council, which is putting an additional £9 million into the repair of potholes on top of the Government funding, and is he surprised to learn that the Liberal Democrats voted against it?
Mr Holden
Well, Mr Speaker, sadly nothing surprises me when it comes to the Liberal Democrats. I would not be surprised to hear them claiming to do one thing but actually doing another, which is what they do regularly in my experience of local government. No doubt my right hon. Friend will ensure that his local residents are fully aware of any such political chicanery from his local council’s political opponents. I praise the local council there for putting in an extra £9 million, on top of the extra £5.5 million that the Government have provided, to deal with those potholes.
Vicky Ford
It is shocking that Essex Lib Dems voted against more money to fix our potholes. Local Lib Dems also voted for the ultra-low emission zone charge in London, the zoning charge in Oxford, the congestion charge in Cambridge, and the parking charges at Chelmsford’s Hylands. Does my hon. Friend agree that when it comes to local roads, local Lib Dems are much more likely to be flinging out fines than filling up potholes?
Mr Holden
I recently visited my hon. Friend in Chelmsford to see the excellent Conservative councillors there working hard on behalf of local residents, and the stats speak for themselves, with Conservative councils repairing around double the number of potholes when they are in charge, compared with Liberal Democrat-controlled councils. She raises an important point: whether it is ULEZ, which the Lib Dems backed, backing the Labour Mayor in London, or other schemes right across the country, it is Conservatives in local government who are supporting our road network and ensuring that potholes are repaired, and Lib Dems who are at war with the driver.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, how kind. It would be terrible—wouldn’t it?—if the Government were claiming to be putting more money into potholes, when in reality in the past two years alone, there has been a £534 million reduction in real-terms funding for highways. I am convinced that local election voters in two weeks’ time will make their decisions based on realities, rather than on bluster.
Here is another reality: Cumbria gets 20 million visitors a year, and we are delighted to receive every single one of them. But our highways are in a state, because we do not get a penny from the Government to compensate for any one of the cars that those 20 million people visit us in. Is it time that the Government gave a funding formula to Westmorland and Furness Council, and Cumberland Council, that takes account of the fact that our roads, and indeed our hospitals, doctors services and police services, are used by others, and not just by ourselves?
Mr Holden
As I pointed out in a previous answer, when it comes to councils repairing roads, it is about getting on with the job on the ground. Conservative councils repair on average twice as many potholes per council area as Lib Dem councils do. The recent Government announcement about ensuring that utility companies are properly held to account is also in the right direction. If Lib Dem-controlled councils are interested in potholes, have they implemented a lane rental scheme that enables them to get cash, like Surrey, Kent and West Sussex County Councils have done, all of which are Conservative controlled? There is nothing from the Lib Dems on that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Let me take the focus away from Conservatives and Liberals, and focus it on my constituency if I can. I do that for a reason. In the past, the Government from Westminster have been helpful to the Northern Ireland Executive and to our road surfaces, and they have given us money for potholes under the Barnett consequentials. Ards and North Down Borough Council in my constituency has the worst potholes in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister hold discussions with the Chancellor to ensure that under the Barnett consequentials, we can get some help for potholes in my constituency?
Mr Holden
I will always be delighted to do so. I was recently in Northern Ireland and drove along some of its brand new roads. I was delighted to see that Northern Ireland is still investing in our highway infrastructure, unlike in Labour controlled Wales.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sometimes you just have to admire the brass neck of the Conservative party. As Chancellor, the Prime Minister personally slashed the pothole budget by £400 million, which is enough to fill 8 million potholes. Lined up side by side, that giant Tory pothole would stretch from here to John O’Groats and back again. Will the Minister accept that after 13 years, the British public see that our roads, like the Tories’ excuses, are full of holes?
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady heard me have a go at the Lib Dems, because Tory councils have filled twice as many potholes. You will be surprised to learn, Mr Speaker, that Conservative councils have filled three times as many potholes as Labour councils, and with an extra £5 billion going in over the next five years, and an extra £200 million this year, I hope the hon. Lady will welcome the Government’s investment in potholes.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
The Government have provided over £2 billion since March 2020 to protect vital bus services, with that support set to continue until June 2023. As a result, bus service provision in England outside London remained at over 85% of pre-covid levels in 2021-22, despite patronage and commercial fare revenue remaining significantly lower. We are actively working on long-term plans to support the sector from the start of July and will set out further details in due course.
Nicola Richards
I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Minister and Andy Street in my campaign to save the No. 45 bus route in my constituency. It is vital for residents in Yew Tree and Tame Bridge, and I thank Yew Tree Primary School for joining my campaign to save the route. The service is only safe for a further six months. Does my hon. Friend agree that communities like mine in Yew Tree and Tame Bridge cannot be left without a long-term secure bus route?
Mr Holden
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this matter. She has mentioned it to me in meetings already and I know she is really campaigning in this area. The Government have provided significant help to support our bus sector, with over £1.8 billion in 2021-22 alone. That includes over £7.3 million since March 2020 to West Midlands Combined Authority to protect bus services. We are also considering further support for the sector from July onwards. I look forward to working with her to convince other parts of Government to ensure we can deliver that.
Jane Hunt
According to the Department for Transport, bus usage remains, as we just heard, at around 85% to 90% of pre-covid levels. That means many bus routes are no longer considered commercially viable for operators, despite being vital to communities. That is true of the No. 2 bus in my constituency, which will no longer connect Loughborough and the villages of Quorn, Barrow and Sileby with Leicester. Will the Minister please consider further subsidising bus routes to ensure reliable services, which will help attract passengers back and prevent rural communities becoming isolated?
Mr Holden
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She has already mentioned this to me and I know how important these services are. I have a semi-rural constituency myself, so I understand that such connections are vital. Prior to the pandemic roughly 40% of operator revenues came from public funds, including from concessionary bus fares, and at the moment the figure is at about 57%. It is right that councils decide which bus routes they want to support, but I hope that with the extra moneys we have provided over the past two years, and hopefully into the future, we will be able to provide a long-term solution for the communities she represents.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
If the Minister came to my constituency and talked to residents waiting for a bus, which will probably not turn up, how would he go about persuading them that their bus services now are as good as when the Conservatives came to power in 2010?
Mr Holden
What I would say is that—like the hon. Gentleman, I am sure—I recently held three bus meetings right across my constituency to enable people to speak to local operators and to bring those operators face to face with my constituents. I am sure he is doing something similar in his constituency. The bus sector has faced major challenges over the last couple of years, including around driver shortages—all things we are working very hard to address. We are looking at concessionary fare travel at around two-thirds of where it was pre-pandemic. That has really fallen off a cliff in the last couple of years. It is up to us to encourage people back on to our bus network. That is why this Government have provided six months of support, with a £2 fare cap, to encourage people back on to our bus network.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
To help the public grapple with rising costs in the cost of living crisis and promote sustainable public transport, the Scottish Government have supported more than 50 million free bus journeys made by under-22s across Scotland since the policy came into place last year. Not only has that benefited young people by saving them money during this Tory cost of living crisis; it has also, crucially, encouraged a shift away from cars to public transport in the next generation. To provide certainty for investment by world-leading bus builders such as ADL in Falkirk, will the Minister consider replicating this successful Scottish policy in England?
Mr Holden
I was delighted to visit Lothian Buses in Scotland recently to see for myself the impact of Scottish policies on the ground. The BSIP—bus service improvement plan—funding here in England has enabled fare caps right across the country. UK Government money is providing the £1 fare cap for under-22s in the north-east and the £2 fare cap in combined authorities in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and other parts of the country. On free bus travel, it is about getting the balance right. We want a service that is respected by people when they use it and I am not sure that providing something totally for free is always the best solution.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
The cross-party Transport Committee recently published its report on the Government’s national bus strategy, which found that the Government are unlikely to meet their target on zero-emission buses. The Committee is disappointed that the Government have not delivered on their promise to publish guidance on franchising and socially necessary services. The long-term future of the bus sector remains uncertain. Labour has a plan to get our buses back on track. What is the Government’s plan? Will it be more dither, delay and short-term sticking plasters?
Mr Holden
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman said that, because through the city regional sustainable transport settlement this Government have provided billions of pounds of long-term funding for greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and other combined authorities right across the country, allowing them to do that long-term investment. Labour might claim credit for it on the ground, but this Government are providing the money to allow it to happen.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
Transport in London is devolved to the Mayor of London, and he is accountable to the electorate for the decisions that he makes, including those regarding road schemes that charge users. We have been clear that Government grant funding, via the longer term funding settlement, cannot be used to cover the cost of implementing the scheme.
Gareth Bacon
Several outer London boroughs have refused to enter into section 8 agreements with Transport for London to allow ULEZ cameras to be installed on their roads. Sadiq Khan believes that he can override the boroughs and install his hated ULEZ expansion without their permission. Ministers have previously said that they would get legal advice on that. What advice has been received?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend has been campaigning strongly on behalf of his constituents against the expansion of the ULEZ scheme. Under schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Mayor of London and Transport for London have the relevant statutory powers to install the infrastructure required for the expansion without obtaining the London boroughs’ consent. That reinforces my earlier answer that the Mayor of London is accountable. If electors in London do not like what is going on, they have the power to deal with it at the ballot box.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Properly funded scrappage schemes make a massive difference to ensuring that people transition to low-emission vehicles. This Government have provided funding for clean air zones and scrappage schemes in Bristol, Bath, Sheffield, Birmingham, Portsmouth and other areas around the country. The previous Conservative Mayor of London supported the London clean air zone, and it is recognised in the Government’s air quality strategy, so why have the Government not provided a single penny of scrappage funding for London since the introduction of the ULEZ in 2019?
Mr Harper
Frankly, it is a bit rich for the hon. Lady to talk about this Government’s support for Transport for London. The latest TfL settlement supports almost £3.6 billion-worth of projects. This Government’s total funding to TfL has been more than £6 billion since the start of the pandemic. There are significant resources. The Mayor of London is expanding his ULEZ scheme—that is his decision, and it is therefore for him to fund the necessary scrappage scheme. If he does not want to fund a proper scrappage scheme, he should not be expanding the ULEZ.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
The Government are committed to supporting the introduction of 4,000 zero-emission buses and a zero-emission bus fleet. As the roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), said, he has focused on sustainable public transport recently in a visit to Scotland, which included meetings with the traffic commissioner in Glasgow and Lothian Buses.
Chris Stephens
The Transport Committee’s recent report referred to earlier on the implementation of the national bus strategy confirmed that meeting this Government’s bus decarbonisation targets initially for England and Wales actually relies on the Scottish Government. That is evidenced by Scotland’s ordering of 10.11 zero-emission buses per 100,000 people, compared with just 0.94 in England outside London. Will the Minister explain the vast chasm of delivery? What is the Government’s revised target for zero-emission bus delivery in England and Wales?
Jesse Norman
The Government are on track to deliver the policy. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are working with companies to build substantial supply chains that then have to scale up by several orders of magnitude in order to meet the scale of orders. If we look at the number that have been ordered alone: for zero emission bus regional areas, the ZEBRA scheme, 1,342; 275 for Coventry; 20 will be going to Cambridgeshire in the next few weeks, I am pleased to say; and 350 to other schemes in England outside London. The total so far is 3,429, which is well on track to meet our target.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Minister visit Morebus, serving my constituency, because there he will learn that its new buses generate fewer emissions than I do pushing my lawnmower?
Jesse Norman
One can take that as a comment either about buses or about the size of my right hon. Friend’s lawnmower—let us assume that it is about buses. I thank him for his interest and I am certainly happy to discuss that further with him.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
We remain committed to delivering the integrated rail plan, which, as the Chancellor confirmed in the autumn statement, includes HS2 and delivering the Northern Powerhouse Rail core network. We are also delivering on the multibillion-pound TransPennine route upgrade between Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and York, which represents a bigger central Government commitment than Crossrail in London.
Dan Jarvis
The Department set up the Northern Transport Acceleration Council to put rocket boosters on rail upgrades in the north, but three years on we are no closer to high-speed rail services between Sheffield and Leeds, there are no more trains on the Hope Valley line and NTAC has not met in full since May 2022. Does the Minister think that the appropriate governance arrangements are in place to enable effective decision making?
Huw Merriman
Yes, I do. The delivery speaks for itself in terms of what is being done. In recent months, I have been up to visit the team on the TransPennine route upgrade. With 76 miles of rail line, 23 stations, 6 miles of tunnels and 285 bridges or viaducts being upgraded, it is a vast engineering project. From next year, electric trains will be able to run between Manchester Victoria and Stalybridge. I remind the hon. Member that there was a grand total of nine miles of electrification under the last Labour Government in 13 years. We are also delivering the Northumberland line, HS2 all the way to Manchester and various other projects. It is about delivery rather than talking.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
When it comes to rail infrastructure improvements, the opening of a train station in Aldridge would be a huge boost, providing connectivity to the north of England and beyond. We are currently working on a business case. As soon as that comes forward, can we expect a speedy response from the Minister?
Huw Merriman
My right hon. Friend has met me to champion the cause of the new station at Aldridge. I can give her an assurance that as soon as that business case comes through, we will make a very fast decision. I will continue to work with her and Mayor Andy Street in delivering more improvements for her constituents.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I am proud to support an application to reconnect Oswestry with Gobowen in my constituency, using an existing railway line that has been closed for a number of years, and we submitted an excellent bid in September. Can the Minister update me about when we will hear the outcome and, ideally, whether he will be supporting the bid to restore the connection between Oswestry and Gobowen?
Huw Merriman
The restoring your railway programme is delivering on eight lines, and another 32 lines have business cases or are at other stages of progress. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady and provide detail about the specific project she mentions, but in my view the restoring your railway programme has been a great success.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
We have some vital projects going on across the north and in Hyndburn and Haslingden, such as the improvements at Accrington rail station; Lancaster County Council’s levelling-up fund bid, which—apologies, Mr Speaker—is focused solely on east Lancashire; and the bus service improvement plan. But other schemes are needed, such as Access for All at Oswaldtwistle and Church, work at Rishton station and the reopening of the Rawtenstall-to-Manchester line. Will the Minister meet me to discuss those projects? Will he visit Hyndburn and Haslingden to see why they are desperately needed?
Huw Merriman
I should be delighted to visit. Taking a leaf out of Michael Portillo’s book, I am hoping to do my own great British railway journeys over the summer. I very much hope to meet my hon. Friend while doing so. Since 2006, Access for All has delivered step-free access to 220 stations. The programme has been a great success, and I am pleased to say that the stations that my hon. Friend mentions are within the portfolio of the 300 stations that we are currently assessing.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
Our Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 received Royal Assent on 23 March and will protect seafarers who are working on vessels that operate regular international services to and from the UK from being paid less than the national minimum wage. It will boost the pay of thousands of seafarers who work tirelessly to maintain supply chains and transport passengers safely across our waters.
Gerald Jones
DP World, the shamed parent company of P&O Ferries, saw its profits soar to £1.5 billion last year and paid out a massive dividend after sacking 786 seafarers and replacing them with cheaper agency crew. The P&O workforce now face 60 more redundancies. When will this compromised Government start working with trade unions such as the RMT and prioritise the jobs and rights of seafarers and port workers in the UK over the merciless profiteering of DP World? Or does it just prove that it pays to exploit workers in Conservative Britain?
Mr Holden
I disagree. When I took the Seafarers’ Wages Bill through this House, I ensured that the Government made a number of concessions in this space. The Secretary of State has recently discussed with the French Government further options to work together to improve conditions for seafarers working on cross-channel routes between England and France. That work continues apace.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Dover is the headquarters and home of P&O Ferries, but the management of P&O Ferries and DP World have treated Dover and its workforce absolutely disgracefully. Will the Minister outline the steps that this Conservative Government are taking to improve conditions for seafarers and hold P&O Ferries and DP World to account?
Mr Holden
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work on the frontline in Dover. She has done a huge amount to raise the profile of the issue and to stand up for her constituents and for workers in Dover. She will know of the work on the Seafarers’ Wages Act, which was largely brought forward with her support. I have been disappointed to see some of the recent redundancies that P&O has brought forward locally. I know that she will continue to work with us to champion seafarers’ welfare and will not shy away from ensuring that Britain maintains its role as an international leader in championing the rights of seafarers, including their employment rights.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
If we want to champion seafarers’ welfare, where is the seafarers’ charter? We have been waiting for it forever.
Earlier this month, disgraced P&O made another 60 people redundant, despite recording a £1.6 billion profit. Can the Minister explain how on earth Peter Hebblethwaite has still faced no sanction in over a year? Does that not show that under the Conservatives it quite clearly pays to trample over the rights of workers?
Mr Holden
As the hon. Member knows, we have worked together on the Seafarers’ Wages Act to tackle exactly the issues that he has raised. With regard to Mr Hebblethwaite, civil action is still being considered and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this time.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Seafarers’ Wages Act remains a real missed opportunity. Let us look at points six to nine of the Government’s nine-point plan:
“Developing a statutory code for ‘fire and rehire’ practices”?
Nope.
“Taking action against company leaders who break the law”?
Nope.
“Improving the long-term working conditions of seafarers”?
Nope. As the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) asked, where is the seafarers’ charter?
“Encouraging more ships to operate under the UK flag”?
Nope. The figures went down by another 3% last year and are down by 30% since the Tories came to power. Other than the utterly anaemic Seafarers’ Wages Act, what have the Tories ever done for seafarers?
Mr Holden
When SNP Members start talking about ferries, we can tell that they think they are on to a good one. It is interesting that they have not raised the subject of motor homes today instead.
Work on the seafarers’ charter continues as we speak, and I will update the House as soon as more information is available.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the brilliant work he has done on apprenticeships in Harrogate and Knaresborough over the last few years. I note that some 12,430 new apprenticeships have been created there since 2010. As he knows, the Department is committed to working with the transport industry to create high-quality apprenticeships so that the sector has the skilled workforce it needs. I work closely with the transport employment and skills taskforce to see what we can do to promote apprenticeships still further in the industry.
Andrew Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I have been meeting representatives of bus companies that run apprenticeship schemes. They tell me that the rules governing the number of hours per month in the classroom can be problematic for smaller companies when it comes to rostering, and that if there was some flexibility—a change not in the total number of hours, but in the delivery pattern—they would be able to take on more apprenticeships, which they want to do. Will he consider that idea?
Jesse Norman
As my hon. Friend knows, the Department for Education published fresh guidance last year on how apprenticeship training can be delivered flexibly to fit business needs. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), the Roads Minister, has been to talk to him and, I believe, has visited the classroom in Harrogate with him, so he can take it from us that we are very much seized of the issue of flexibility and the importance of improving it.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister will know that when it comes to the delivery of charging infrastructure, we are way behind the curve in comparison with our peers in France and Germany. We need more skilled individuals to deliver that infrastructure. Many young people in my constituency benefit from the courses run by Warwickshire College Group, although I am not sure how good the courses are in the rest of the country. What are the Government doing to ensure that the next generation are really electrified about the opportunity this presents?
Jesse Norman
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman meant to begin his question by congratulating the Government on the zero-emission vehicle mandate and our new investments in the local electric vehicle infrastructure scheme. The effect of that, of course, is precisely to create the further investment that will itself drive private sector demand for apprenticeships. We are certainly working as hard as we can on our side, along with the transport employment and skills taskforce, to ensure that we meet this increased demand.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
In February this year I set out our commitment to reforming the railways. Last month I was pleased to be able to visit Derby and announce its success in being named as the location of the headquarters of Great British Railways. We will publish our response to the rail reform legislation consultation before the summer recess. Meanwhile, we are continuing to deliver rail reform, including the roll-out of pay-as-you-go technology across the network, simplifying industry processes and developing the long-term strategy for rail.
Theo Clarke
I welcome the Government’s commitment to railway reform, but the Secretary of State will know from my recent meeting with the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), that my constituency is heavily impacted by the construction of HS2. We have always been promised that the Handsacre link will bring economic benefits to Stafford, but given the recent push to find savings in this project, concerns have been raised that the link will be scrapped. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will indeed go ahead?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to raise her constituents’ concerns about HS2, both with me and with the Rail Minister, thus doing the job that she was elected to do extremely well. Our priority is to deliver the opening stage of HS2 on schedule and to ensure that high-speed services from Old Oak Common to Birmingham Curzon Street begin between 2029 and 2033, but I have made it clear that phase 1 construction works north of Birmingham from Delta Junction to Fradley—including works at Handsacre—will continue to progress.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
In Scotland, through our publicly owned ScotRail franchise, peak fare rail travel will be scrapped for six months from October. This progressive reform would not have been possible without those powers being with the Scottish Parliament. Does the Minister welcome a measure that will aid hard-pressed families in this cost of living crisis, or does he agree with his arch-Brexiteer colleague who said this morning that devolution should be reversed?
Mr Harper
This Government strongly support devolution, and not just to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but through what we are doing with combined authorities across England, because we think that having decisions taken more locally is a good thing for the country. The Scottish Government have an enormous number of powers and they should use them widely. I am pleased to see that in the past couple of weeks they are starting to be held to account for their decision making.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
When it comes to railway reform, the Conservative Government seem to know only two approaches—hike up fares and cut railways back to the bone. They are not content with slashing services, cancelling investment and reducing reliability: a leaked Network Rail report reveals that the Government want to cut funding to such a dangerous level that it will be unable to “operate, maintain and renew” tracks and bridges. On top of that, a £3 billion risk fund to help in emergencies such as severe weather will also be cut. Fewer repairs mean more obstructions, risking more delays and accidents and more compensation to private operators. Why are Ministers so passionately committed to making our railways less reliable and ever more expensive? Have the public not suffered enough already?
Mr Harper
That was an extraordinary question, containing not a single fact. The Government have provided a record £44.1 billion settlement for Network Rail in control period 7—in English, that is between April 2024 to March 2029. Compared with the previous control period, that is a 4% increase in real terms when compared on a like-for-like basis, and an above-inflation settlement during a highly challenging fiscal environment. That demonstrates our continued commitment to running and maintaining vital railway infrastructure.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency is increasing the number of driving tests by conducting out-of-hours testing, recruiting over 300 examiners, and re-employing retired examiners. Recovery measures have created 35,000 extra test slots each month, which equates to approximately 813,000 additional slots since April 2021. As of 27 March, there were over 50,000 tests still available to book. The DVSA’s Ready to Pass? campaign aims to increase the pass rate and reduce waiting times by ensuring that people do not take their test until they are absolutely ready to do so.
Munira Wilson
Learner drivers are increasingly falling victim to a flourishing black market in driving tests. Third parties are using bots on the Government’s website to snap up driving test slots that are then sold for double or triple the price. One of my constituents saw a test advertised for £240. Even driving schools are gaming the system. With AA research showing the most vulnerable, including young care leavers, being hit the hardest, what are the Government doing to crack down on this exploitation, and will Ministers stop the bots?
Mr Holden
I had a meeting with the DVSA on this matter earlier this week, and we will continue to take steps to block cancellation services from accessing the booking system. There has been a significant drop in traffic to those services because of the DVSA’s successful work in identifying booking apps and bots, but there are some driving instructors who book slots for their own use. In the hon. Lady’s constituency, in Isleworth and Tolworth, the waiting times in February were 8.5 weeks and 7.3 weeks respectively, well below the national average, so there is no need for people to use the bots as they can book a few weeks in advance.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I have received correspondence from a number of constituents struggling to get driving tests in my constituency in recent weeks. For example, a constituent reported that the nearby Bletchley testing centre has nothing available for six months. On top of the question from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) about the growing purchasing of tests by third parties, will my hon. Friend consider changing the point at which tests are released? I am led to believe that it is 6 am on a Monday, which enables those third parties to get in and book them all up quickly rather than leaving them open for the genuine public, most of whom are probably not at their computers at that time.
Mr Holden
I will certainly look at that. Of the 300 extra driving instructors we have recruited, 87 are in London and the south-east. We have made hundreds of thousands of new slots available in the region over the last couple of years, but we continue to take great ideas from both sides of the House to see what more we can do to ensure people can take their test at the appropriate time.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
HS2 is a transformational project, and the Government remain fully committed to building the line from Euston to Manchester. HS2 is being delivered in stages, with cost estimates published for each phase of the programme. We remain transparent on the emerging cost position of HS2, and we publish six-monthly reports to Parliament. The recent announcement will clearly require us to work through adjustments for certain phases, and we will provide updated estimates in due course, including through those six-monthly reports.
Wera Hobhouse
Tens of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds in economic growth depend on building HS2. The National Audit Office has noted that the decision to delay HS2 by another two years will increase the costs of the project yet again. The Institution of Civil Engineers says that delaying HS2 could make the building process
“more difficult as construction firms shift their focus to other countries.”
Is it not time that the Government came clean with the public that HS2 is happening, and stopped the dither and delay that will only cost the taxpayer more money?
Mr Harper
As my hon. Friend points out, the Liberal Democrats have different views on HS2 in different parts of the country, which would not be the first time.
The Government remain fully committed to HS2. Picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) about the supply chain, I made it clear in my statement to the House that we are going full steam ahead on phase 1 from Curzon Street to just north of Birmingham, precisely to make sure we protect jobs and the supply chain, and to demonstrate clearly that the project is going to happen. We see the transformation it is having in the west midlands, as Andy Street never tires of telling me, in generating economic growth in Birmingham. We want to see more of that across the country and across the route.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
Last month I announced measures to decarbonise transport, to help ensure that the UK continues to lead the international fight against climate change. That included the second round of the advanced fuels fund and further measures to progress the 2025 sustainable aviation fuel mandate, to help us fly sustainably. Earlier this week, we published Phil New’s independent report on attracting more sustainable aviation fuel investment to the UK, which I discussed with the industry and academia while chairing the Jet Zero Council on Monday.
The House will also be aware that we announced the zero-emission vehicle mandate, demonstrating how our post-Brexit regulatory freedom allows us to do more and to be more ambitious than our European Union partners. This will enable us to provide the green growth we need to grow the economy and to create better-paid jobs and opportunity across the country.
Jamie Stone
The establishment of the Cromarty Firth freeport will hopefully mean more freight travels through Invergordon, which has a railhead. Our railway network is one of the UK’s greatest national assets. What are the Government doing to make sure more freight is taken off the roads and on to rail? The establishment of HS2 will surely mean that capacity is freed up on other lines that could be used to move freight.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, to which I have two responses. First, HS2, as I frequently say but is not always well understood, is about freeing up capacity on the west coast main line both for passenger services and for freight. In my George Bradshaw address, I made it clear that later this year Great British Railways will set a freight target to get more freight off our roads and on to our railway network to help decarbonise our transport system.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I thank my hon. Friend for that; he has been a great champion of this cause. I absolutely join him in praising Joe Skinner. Let me also praise Cameron Wood in my constituency, who has been equally hard-working in pressing the case for the improvement of disabled access. I know that my hon. Friend has already met the buses Minister, whom I know is keen to get up to Burnley—I would be very supportive of that.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Last year, the Prime Minister said:
“Smart motorways are unpopular because they are unsafe.”
Yet last week he confirmed that he would leave 400 miles- worth in place. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many breakdowns were missed by the stationary vehicle detection system on our smart motorway network last year?
Mr Harper
It is worth saying to the House that smart motorways remain the safest roads on the strategic road network, which is why the existing smart motorways are going to remain in place and we are finishing the construction of the two that are almost completed. However, it is also worth saying that the public do not have as much confidence in smart motorways as we would hope, which is why the Prime Minister delivered on the promise he made to cancel future smart motorways. That is a sensible, balanced position that we have taken, one that I strongly endorse in the House.
Louise Haigh
The combination of smart motorways and faulty technology is giving drivers serious cause for concern. Last year, more than 4,000 breakdowns were missed by that faulty technology. That shocking statistic shows that motorists have been left at risk by the Government’s shambolic roll-out of smart motorways. Will the Secretary of State do the right thing and urgently reinstate the hard shoulder?
Mr Harper
This is a very good example of why the Labour party is not fit for government. The hon Lady does not want to face up to difficult choices. If she wants to reinstate the hard shoulder and maintain the capacity of the road network, that would mean spending billions of pounds on road improvements and she has no plan to pay for that. If she is not doing that, it means massive congestion on the motorway network, which will force people off that network and on to less safe A roads, and that will lead to more people losing their lives, not fewer. That is a choice she is not willing to face up to.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Obviously, my heart goes out to all of those affected, including the family of his friend. My understanding is that there were two incidents in 2021 on the roads in his constituency where a police officer attended and said a contributory factor was a poor or defective road surface. This is up to the local authorities; they have a statutory duty to maintain their roads. There should also be a proper inspection scheme for all of the areas that he talks about. The Department encourages good practice in highway maintenance through our “Well-managed Highway Infrastructure” code of practice. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss road safety further.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Government had a relative paucity of ambition on Active Travel before slashing the budget. They now plan to spend less than £1 per head in England outside London, compared with £17 per head in Wales and £50 in Scotland—5,000% more. In the Transport Committee yesterday, the Secretary of State spoke of other Active Travel spending not in core funding, but we have that, too, with the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District Scotland—AMIDS—levelling-up project and the River Cart walking and wheeling bridge city deal project in my constituency. Without the waffle, what will the Government do to deliver transformational change—
Mr Speaker
Order. I must help Members from all parts of the House. Topical questions must be short and sweet—quick answers, quick questions. Minister, please show us an example.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
The Government are spending £3 billion on this area over the current spending period. Active Travel England is making an enormous difference to the quality of schemes throughout England. Significant amounts of money are going in through the levelling-up fund and through City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements and other schemes, so we believe that we are on track to meet our targets.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
The Department commissioned station nominations for Access for All in May of last year and is currently assessing more than 300 stations that were put forward. They include Barrow-upon-Soar and Sileby. I hope to be in a position later this year to announce the successful projects.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
If the Minister’s Portillo-style tour of the railways takes him north of the border, will he reflect on the eye-watering track access charges paid by ScotRail and the eye-watering disruption caused to ScotRail services by problems with that track? Is it not just common sense that train tracks as well as train services should be fully devolved to Scotland?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman I hope knows that the way track access charges are paid for is in two parts. If he looks at the total charges paid for track access by ScotRail, he will see that they are done on the same basis as in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a very fair deal for ScotRail, and I do not think that there is anything for the hon. Gentleman to complain about.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Mr Holden
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me on my recent visit to her constituency where I saw the Army and Navy roundabout. The outline business case has been submitted by Essex County Council. It is currently proceeding through our assessment and decision-making process, which includes consideration by Ministers in my Department and also in the Treasury. I look forward to a positive announcement before too long.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Mr Holden
Safety on public transport is a vital matter. Like me, I am sure the hon. Lady is delighted to see the extra money that the Government are making available through our largest bus service improvement plan right across the country, and for the north-east of England, which covers her constituency and mine. Indeed, funds from that will be made available for transport safety in the future.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend will never need to encourage me to ask the Treasury for more cash for our road network. Potholes are a menace for all road users. The funding will be available in May. I will also be visiting Nottinghamshire in May, so I may be able to tack on a visit to his wonderful constituency during that time.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
In February and March, nearly a quarter of TransPennine Express services were cancelled, continuing a pattern that has been going on for more than a year. In the north, our economy and our residents are suffering as a result of TransPennine’s failures. Surely there cannot be any question of rewarding those failures with a contract extension.
Huw Merriman
Every week I review the figures and performance related to TransPennine Express. It has been said before that those figures are not good enough; there has been some improvement, but they are still not good enough. As the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have informed the House, the contract expires on 28 May 2023. We have made clear that all options are on the table and a decision will be announced in the House shortly.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
Recommendation 7 of Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity review says that the north Wales main line should get good connectivity with HS2 and electrification. Given that the massive white elephant of HS2 no longer comes anywhere near north Wales, can the Minister confirm that at least the Government will be proceeding with the electrification of the north Wales main line and give us an idea of when that might happen?
Mr Holden
I know how important not only rail connectivity, but road connectivity is to people in north Wales. I urge the hon. Gentleman to work with me and partners across Government to ensure that transport connectivity is a top priority for people across north Wales.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister is forever promising better bus services for tomorrow, but tomorrow never comes—much like the buses—leaving my constituents stranded at bus stops. When will he deliver better buses for Newcastle and when will he hold the bus companies to account for the atrocious services my constituents are experiencing?
Mr Holden
I am holding the bus companies to account. In fact, we have seen a reduction of over 80% in the issues with driver shortages locally. I have had two bus meetings in my own constituency with local residents and Go North East—I am sure the hon. Lady has had similar meetings where she has put residents in touch with the bus company—and we are providing over £100 million from central Government to the north-east for that long-term funding that she constantly asks about, but was never delivered under the last Labour Government.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
At 410 miles, the A1 is Britain’s longest road, and it is largely free-flowing until it reaches my constituency, where it goes through no fewer than four roundabouts, as the Road Minister saw for himself. That is an absurd situation, but to make National Highways change its views will require intervention by the Secretary of State. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a meeting to discuss that further?
Mr Holden
I thank my hon. Friend for those important points. I drive up the A1 myself on a regular basis to my North West Durham constituency, so I am aware of the issues around Sandy and Biggleswade. I will continue to work with National Highways and the Secretary of State to see what more can be done to improve life for my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Gavin Newlands
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), the Minister said, “If we look at the number that have been ordered alone: for zero emission bus regional areas, the ZEBRA scheme, 1,342”, but, as was discussed in the Transport Committee yesterday, that number is not correct. In the ZEBRA scheme, there have been 503 buses ordered, only six of which are on the road, and 792 are funded. The Minister was talking about the total funded, and one of the big issues is that funding is not being delivered. I appreciate that this is not a question for you, Mr Speaker—
Mr Harper
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, it may be helpful for the House to know that we had a detailed question and answer session on this yesterday when I was giving evidence to the Transport Committee. It is a complicated matter and I committed to write to the Committee to set out the details in full. I will arrange for a copy of that to be placed in the Library of the House for the benefit of all hon. Members so that they can see the facts.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Secretary of State. We will leave it at that, since we at least have the answer.
Fishing Industry: Visas for Foreign Workers
(1 year 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
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office if she will make a statement on visas for foreign workers taking employment in the fishing industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for this question. I know this is a topic of significant interest to many in the House. Ordinarily, the Immigration Minister would respond, but he is on an operational visit this morning.
It has been the long-standing position of this and previous Governments that foreign nationals coming to work in the UK, be that on land or on our waters, should comply with the immigration system when doing so. I do not believe that that is controversial, and the fishing industry is no exception to that. Section 43 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 clarifies the Government’s policy position to date: that foreign nationals working in our waters need permission to do so. It does not introduce a new policy. Acknowledging that many in the industry have been incorrectly relying on transit visas rather than work visas to crew their boats, the Government delayed the implementation of section 43 for six months from October 2022 to allow time for the industry to regularise the position of its workers. However, we have decided not to delay implementation any further.
We are aware of the problems that the industry is having in relation to access to labour, and we are fully cognisant of the important contribution that it makes to the economy, particularly in smaller, rural and coastal areas. There are routes in the immigration system that are available for the fishing industry to use. In recognition of the fact that the industry has not been a wide user of the immigration system to date, we will make a generous offer, going over and above what is usually available to employers, to assist it. We are currently finalising the details of our offer of support as a matter of urgency. Once it is ready, my Home Office colleagues will ensure that it is communicated to the industry and to interested Members of the House.
Mr Carmichael
I have to say that fishermen listening to that will have seen it not so much as an answer but as an insult. As you will know, Mr Speaker, this issue has been raised on many occasions in the House. The fishing industry has for years struggled to source the labour that it needs to function properly, and has looked beyond these shores to meet its needs.
Those in the fishing industry have worked hard to construct a scheme that would meet their needs, and its details—written by the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance—have been under consideration by the Home Office. It is, to all intents and purposes, identical to schemes made available to workers in aquaculture and the offshore renewables industry. On Thursday last week, however, the Home Office announced that there would be no such scheme for the fishing industry and, furthermore, that the temporary arrangements that have been in place for the fishing industry would be ended with immediate effect.
My first ask of the Minister is this: will the Home Secretary or the Immigration Minister agree to meet me, with a delegation of fishermen’s organisations and Members from all parties, to discuss the details of this? We need answers from the Home Secretary. Why is the fishing industry not allowed the same opportunities given to people working in aquaculture and offshore renewables? Why was no grace period allowed for fishermen to make alternative arrangements?
The people who will be most affected are those fishing in inshore waters using both fixed and mobile gear. If they are to go to sea at all, it will have to be further out, which could bring them into conflict with other sectors that are already fishing there, and will inevitably compromise safety in an industry that is already acknowledged as one of the most dangerous. The excluded areas are very widely drawn and, in Orkney, include uninhabited islands, some of which are 90 miles from the Orkney mainland, making a difficult situation catastrophic. One Shetland fisherman told me last week that he currently works inside the 12-mile limit because he has quota only for haddock. If he has to fish outside the 12-mile limit, he will catch not just haddock but ling and saithe, for which he has no quota and which he is not even allowed to discard. What would the Minister have him do?
Those fishermen have done everything that every Minister in every Government have asked of them. They have worked hard, saved and invested, but they are now left facing ruin. This is a betrayal on the scale that we saw when Ted Heath said that our fishermen were expendable.
Miss Dines
I do not accept that this is a betrayal of the industry. There has been much discussion in this area, and a generous package is imminent to bring the fishing industry in line with other industries. Allusions to the agriculture industry—a seasonal, low-skilled industry—are not apposite because fishermen are highly skilled and should apply through the usual routes. The wind farm system is closed, so it is not right to draw a comparison there either. The right hon. Gentleman asks to meet the Home Secretary or the Immigration Minister. I can put that request to the Minister this afternoon, and I hope that it will be agreed.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I am not crying wolf when I say that this is really putting the scampi industry at risk. Whitby Seafoods has substantial investment in Whitby, as well as in Kilkeel, near the constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Those 500 jobs would be at risk without the supply of scampi. That can be done only using crew who are, in the main, from the Philippines. I hope that this Minister or the Immigration Minister will join me in Kilkeel to see how the crew of Filipinos work together as a team, conversing in their own language. On safety, we need to come up with a solution to the language situation so that we can keep that fish coming in, keep those jobs onshore, and keep Whitby scampi on our pub restaurant menus.
Miss Dines
I know that my right hon. Friend has been very keen in his work in this area, and he always supports the workers in his constituency and the wider industry. The Government have already delayed the implementation of section 43 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. It is only right that when this House passes legislation, we expect it to be implemented, and there has already been a delay once.
In relation to the particular point that my right hon. Friend made, I am sure the Immigration Minister will want to talk to him and perhaps visit. I cannot commit him to too many visits, but I will try when I see him this afternoon. This is an important industry, but it is only right that these systems are brought into line with those that everybody else has to abide by. The language provisions are there for important reasons—for the safety of those workers. There has to be a proper system for English language attainment, as with every other industry in this country; there should be no exceptions.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Labour recognises the vital role that the fishing industry plays in securing the food that we all rely on. That is why it is so important that our immigration system is designed alongside the agricultural sector with the specific sector bodies representing its constituent parts. The announcement this week is a prime example of the Government’s points-based system not working as it should. Too many industries rely on immigration to fill skills gaps, but we cannot just turn off the tap. If we want to back British industries to buy and sell more in Britain, they need the workforce to do it.
Under the Conservatives, the immigration system exists entirely in isolation from long-term plans for the labour market. Action in both areas is far too weak. On immigration, the Home Secretary claims to want to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands, in disagreement with the Prime Minister, while net migration exceeds 500,000. On the labour market, the Chancellor speaks of tackling economic inactivity, despite soaring levels of people off work due to long-term illness. There is no proper interaction between these two areas. The consequence is no long-term plan to balance sector-specific labour shortages with immigration rules, and instead, panicked fixes developed on an ad hoc basis. A concession is in place for offshore wind and not for fishing. Thousands of visas are released for HGV drivers but not for the meat industry. If those differences were justified by evidence, one might have sympathy, but sectors such as the fishing industry would be forgiven for thinking the Government are just making it up as they go along.
The Labour party supports the principle of a points-based system, but we will improve the current system to make sure it is fair, firm and well managed. We will balance the requirements of businesses and public services with the need to provide the right levels of training and support for home-grown talent, while recognising the critical role that immigration can play and ensuring that we treat those migrant workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. This year, the Labour party is undertaking a review of the points-based system, but unlike the Government, we are engaging in a dialogue with businesses, trade unions and communities, so that the system works for all.
The fishing industry will be keenly watching this, and I want to ask the Minister three quick questions. What are the Government doing to help the fishing industry transition? What consultation have the Government had with the fishing industry on these changes, and how have they adopted their approach as a result? What reforms are they considering to the points-based system to ensure that businesses train up home-grown talent in exchange for recruiting from overseas, so that the labour force is resilient? I hope the Minister can answer those questions.
Miss Dines
The hon. Lady mentioned a few areas. The offshore wind concession has now closed, so that is no longer of any relevance. It is not accepted that insufficient work has been done in this area. We have a very well-honed skilled workers programme, which has been developed after much work and consultation, and it is not accepted that this is a panicked fix. It is a typical Labour suggestion that something is panicky if it has been delayed for six months—that is hardly a panicky quick fix. This is calculated, bringing this industry into line with everybody else. There needs to be a level playing field.
The Government are doing much in relation to transition. The hon. Lady asked what provision there will be. If she was listening earlier, she will have heard me mention that there is going to be a detailed, generous package, which will be announced imminently, to allow the fishing industry, which has taken time to get away from this historical practice, to come into line. There will be generous support, and it will be announced imminently.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The UK Government’s decision to not create a bespoke visa scheme for the fishing industry has created huge challenges for the sector, with some crew members forced to stop working and some boats unable even to go out to sea. The chaos caused by the Home Office announcement that a concession would not be provided to the fishing industry for foreign crew working within 12 nautical miles prevented workers on transit visas from going on to fish in international waters. What will the Minister do to address the fact that overnight, fishermen and businesses found themselves in legal limbo, with no time to make preparations to continue working? It makes no sense for concessions to be provided for workers in the aquaculture and offshore renewables sectors, but not the fishing sector.
Around one fifth of fishermen working in Scotland come from outside the European economic area and rely on transit visas to work. How does the Minister respond to concerns that it will be very difficult to find enough crew to meet demand, and what reassurances can she give to the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, which has raised serious concerns about the Government’s willingness to sacrifice Scotland’s fishing industry—concerns echoed by the Scottish Government, who have been similarly ignored? That threatens this sector, which is so important to Scotland and to our rural and island communities.
Miss Dines
The Government accept that there are special requirements in relation to fishing, which is why these fishermen are skilled workers, and they should be applying through the skilled worker scheme. It is not accepted that the industry has been left in limbo: it has been allowed a six-month delay, with plans for generous support that will be announced imminently.
Again, comparisons with the agricultural industry are false, because we have seasonal, low-skilled workers in that industry for a good reason, and they have a different scheme. For fishermen, it is all year round, and these are highly skilled workers. It does the industry a disservice to say that they should be treated in a similar, seasonal, once-a-year or twice-a-year way. The industry needs to be able to accept these changes, which have been passed by the Government in this House. There will be a generous package of support to assist it so that it will no longer be in limbo—as the hon. Lady says—but will be able to plan to be treated in the same way as the rest of the UK.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Home Office’s treatment of sectors employing large numbers of migrant workers has been hapless for years, so can I press the Minister: by when will we see the generous offer that she has talked about today?
Miss Dines
I do not accept that the system has been dealt with by the Government in a haphazard or hapless way. There has been a lot of consultation with the industry, and there has been the significant delay that I mentioned. The industry has been given time. Of course, the Government are very sympathetic to every industry across this great nation of ours. However, we do now need to move on with the will of Parliament and make sure that this industry goes along with what everybody else has to use—the skilled worker route. That is what we are going to do, but there will be generous support for employers to make sure they are able to make those changes.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Be in no doubt, Minister: this is a betrayal of our inshore fleet. It is particularly galling that it comes just 24 hours after the Tories demanded that the Scottish Government listen to, and consult further with, our fishing communities over highly protected marine areas, which I am delighted to say they have committed to do. That the Tories have become so callously deaf to the pleas of those same fishing communities, who have made the reasonable request that they be treated no differently from other sectors, is a betrayal, and will be seen as political opportunism of the worst kind. Can the Minister not see and understand that?
Miss Dines
I can understand, on behalf of the Government, the concerns about this area. However, I think the hon. Member does himself a disservice with the emotive language he uses. He says that we are callously deaf, but we have delayed on special grounds for six months and are bringing in a supportive and very generous package that will be announced imminently. The rhetoric therefore does not ring true; I know that sometimes, rhetoric is used to try to divide us in this nation, but I do not accept that that is the right way forward. A generous package of support will be announced imminently.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The plight of the fishing industry is closely allied to hospitality and tourism in coastal areas and other parts of the United Kingdom, which face a similar crisis. Some 63% of the hospitality and tourism businesses in my community are operating below capacity, because of a lack of staff. The Minister’s Department has been in discussions with me and the tourism industry about a youth mobility visa scheme with France, Spain, Poland and other countries. Can she give me an update or at least allow a meeting between me, the tourism industry and Ministers to see how they are getting on with bilateral negotiations over youth mobility visas to solve this problem?
Miss Dines
The Government are fully aware of shortages in all sorts of industries in the country, which is why we want to get more British people back working, particularly the over-50s, and there have been a lot of schemes on that. The Government are working hard, and there will be a package of support to enable employers to implement this measure, so that the fishing industry is the same as every other industry. We are cognisant of differences—geographical and otherwise—and the idea is that the will of this House to have a skilled worker scheme is brought into play.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Minister may not be aware that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation was literally the only part, across the entirety of Scottish civic society, that openly supported Brexit. It continued to support the Government’s approach for a number of years. Even it now says that it has gone badly wrong. If the only cheerleaders that Brexit ever had in Scotland are telling the Minister that they have been sold a pig in a poke, is it any wonder that as well as resoundingly rejecting her party and her Brexit, the vast majority of people in Scotland now believe that her Union’s days are severely numbered?
Miss Dines
It is unfortunate when the nationalists try to bring everything down to Brexit or independence. This is a whole of the United Kingdom system. We have a skilled worker programme, and fishermen will need to apply. There will be generous support. Despite the six-month delay, we need to give further assistance to the industry, and we will announce a generous package imminently.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has put his finger on it. Today I have spoken to Mr William Calder, who runs Scrabster Seafoods, a highly successful firm in Caithness. William said to me that if the skippers cannot get the crew for the boats, the boats do not go to sea, and if the boats do not go to sea, they do not catch the fish. That means he may not have the fish he needs. He employs people in vital jobs in Caithness. The Government have to ask themselves one simple question: are they about business and nurturing business, or not?
Miss Dines
Of course the Government are about nurturing business, but this is about assisting industries that have been using the wrong visa for many years to come into line with the rest of the country. The fishermen should be employed through the skilled worker visa. This Government are about economics and industry, and this is about encouraging the sector with generous support to recruit local people where possible, rather than people from abroad who may not have the language skills needed to promote their safety. That is why the English language is so very important in the visa system.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) points out the problems caused for his community if the fish are not landed. If that happens, there is no fish and no seafood to process. That feeds into communities such as mine, which may not have a food processing industry or fishermen, but do have a massive hospitality industry that is dependent on that food. Can the Government not see that by taking these steps, they are failing the entire economy and the business they claim to support?
Miss Dines
With respect, it is not failing the economy to demand that one industry does, with extra help, what everybody else does. There will be extra financial support for employers to apply through the skilled worker scheme. There has been a six-month delay. There will be support for employers to apply through the route that they should use. This practice needs, after a six-month delay, to be brought to an end, and fishing industry employers need to recruit locally if possible and use the visa system that exists.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance has asked for an extension for fishermen’s safety. They need to be trained to the appropriate English language standard. In the meeting that we had with the Minister for Immigration in January, the fishing organisations outlined how they were going to achieve that goal through a college in Sri Lanka that could train the fishermen and fisherwomen up to a standard of the English language that enables them to come here and fit into the scheme. We had some indication from the Immigration Minister that he was sympathetic to that.
I represent Portavogie in my constituency of Strangford and, because the other MP does not attend this place, I ultimately represent Ardglass and Kilkeel on fishing as well. It is imperative to have a managed, safe transition, and time is needed to deliver that. Analysis shows that 600 jobs could be lost. I say to the Minister again very respectfully—the Minister knows that I am always respectful to her, as I am to every person in this Chamber—that, for the communities that will be impacted, a further grace period is needed to enable the fishing sector to thrive and create jobs and opportunity. We need 12 months to make that happen, so that people can learn the English language and come here and do the jobs.
Miss Dines
I know the hon. Member has worked hard on this area. However, there has already been a six-month delay. The point about the English language is crucial. The English language requirement is fundamental to the successful integration into British society of workers coming from abroad. That is for many reasons: it is not just for integration, but to keep them safe. The level is B1 English, which is lower intermediate, and migrants do need to understand that. I am interested in the work that he has been watching in Sri Lanka, but there has already been a six-month delay. We need to bring this practice to an end, and applicants need to go through the skilled worker route.
Business of the House
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 24 April will include:
Monday 24 April—Second Reading of the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Public Order Bill.
Tuesday 25 April—Opposition day (14th allotted day). Debate in the name of the Leader of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Wednesday 26 April—Remaining stages of the Illegal Migration Bill.
Thursday 27 April—General debate on progress on reforms to NHS dentistry, followed by a general debate on reducing plastic pollution in the oceans. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 28 April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 1 May includes:
Monday 1 May—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 2 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, followed by a general debate on support for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Wednesday 3 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the National Security Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill.
The House will rise for the coronation recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 3 May and will return on Tuesday 9 May.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.
I do hope everyone had a good recess, but for some it was probably more so than for others. On that note, can I welcome the leader of the SNP’s comments that he, ahem, does “not believe” the SNP is operating criminally—reassuring—when it comes to its “Carry On Campervan” saga? The problem the SNP has is that it does not sound all that convincing, perhaps with good reason.
Seriously, it has emerged that the SNP’s auditors have resigned from doing its Westminster group’s accounts as well as from doing the national party’s. I understand that senior SNP figures failed to inform the authorities here about that. Will the Leader of the House tell us if she knows whether that is correct, because this is serious—it is taxpayers’ money? Can I ask the Leader of the House to intervene to make sure that SNP money that is provided for some of its political staffing here in Parliament has been properly accounted for and used for the purposes for which it is intended? Does she agree with me that, as the police investigation spreads, the First Minister and leader of the SNP should take the basic step of suspending Members of the Scottish Parliament who are the subject of police inquiries? Is it not time that the SNP came clean about who knew what and when? The Scottish people deserve much better than this.
The Government snuck out 17 written ministerial statements on the day Parliament broke up for Easter—Whitehall’s big spring clean! Why, then, did the Leader of the House not dust off the Government’s impact assessment for the Illegal Migration Bill? It has been stuck down the back of Downing Street’s infamous sofa for so long that she cannot be surprised that I am bringing this up. On the 10 separate occasions I have raised it, she has been unable to provide an answer 10 times. Could she have another go today? I was starting to wonder whether it was something personal, but she also could not give an answer to the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), at business questions just before the recess. Who knows how many times the shadow Home Office team have asked? There are now just six days until the remaining stages of the Illegal Migration Bill, as announced this morning. What good is publishing an impact assessment after a Bill has been rushed into law? How is that good law making? Surely the Leader of the House does not want to accept that. What are the Government trying to hide? Is it, by any chance, that the Bill is unworkable and they know it? If not, why does she not prove us wrong and publish the impact assessment?
The Leader of the House has just confirmed that the remaining stages of the Bill are scheduled for next Wednesday, instead of Tuesday, presumably to give the Government more time to table last-minute amendments. Is that because the Prime Minister could not even get his own MPs to line up with him? It does look that way. We are here again, with a weak Prime Minister who is forced to cave in to appease a small minority of right-wing Back Benchers. What a mess. Can the right hon. Lady clear it up? The Government must table any amendments such as we read rumours about in the press this morning as a matter of urgency, because MPs need to see them and scrutinise them as soon as possible.
Finally, will the Leader of the House please consider a debate on the time people have to wait for cancer care? Figures released by Labour this morning show that under the Tories, people are waiting up to six months to see a cancer doctor after an urgent referral from a GP. Some are waiting for more than a year to start treatment—a year! Labour has a plan to bring down NHS waiting times and get patients seen and treated faster. The Government have stolen enough of our policies, so could they please, please pinch our policy on this? We would double the number of medical training places, increase nursing and midwifery clinical placements, and recruit more health visitors, and we would pay for that by ending the non-dom tax loophole so that wealthy individuals—[Interruption.] It is not funny. I do not think any of our constituents find cancer waiting times funny. Will the right hon. Lady consider who the Government are siding with? Is it non-doms, or is it nurses and cancer patients?
Penny Mordaunt
Let me start with the hon. Lady’s final point, which is a serious and timely one in a week when the nation is focused on improving bowel cancer diagnosis rates, and we had that wonderful documentary celebrating the work of Bowelbabe and other cancer campaigners. The Health and Social Care Secretary has been doing much more to ensure that we get down the backlog in our NHS, and a large part of that, and one of the main barriers to people being able to come forward for treatment, is a backlog in diagnostics. That is why we have invested so much in setting up new diagnostic centres to crack through that backlog which, as the hon. Lady knows, is due to the pandemic. These are serious matters, and I know all Members of the House are concerned about them. I am sure hon. Members know how to apply for a debate in the usual way.
The hon. Lady raised the matter of the SNP and Short money, and although we all enjoy a joke at the SNP’s expense, these are serious matters. I shall not comment on her suggestion about people being suspended under police investigation—I shall save her blushes as that might have included the Leader of the Opposition, who has been in that camp before. These are not matters for me, but I understand that unless the SNP has audited accounts by 31 May, it will lose its Short money after the April payment. I understand that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority may also have considerations to make. The SNP membership will feel rightly let down by this, which is similar to how the rest of Scotland will feel about the SNP’s poor stewardship of public money. On the upside, I guess it will be easier for them to have a whip-round among the membership, as that number is dwindling to the point where most of them could fit into, well, a luxury camper van.
The hon. Lady raises the issue of an impact assessment. I did say, in my response to the shadow Deputy Leader of the House at the last business questions, that I hope material can be brought forward to assist Members on Report. I understand that that is still the case. I also understand that the majority, if not all, of the amendments will be tabled today.
The hon. Lady is critical of the new amendments. I want a Bill that will work. I ask her to look at them and judge them with an open mind, and urge her party to consider supporting us in obtaining the tools we need to make our systems fit for purpose and protect our borders. As a country, we cannot be soft on these issues. We regret Labour voting 44 times against tougher sentences. We regret Labour blocking the deportation of foreign criminals. We regret that crime levels in Labour-controlled police and crime commissioner areas are on average 34% higher than elsewhere, and that Labour is still against the Bill to stop the small boats.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister exposed the Leader of the Opposition as being Mr Softie, just as his predecessors have done with other Labour leaders. Mrs Thatcher, as you remember Mr Speaker, was an authority on this, having made a study of ice cream so liquid and air-filled it could be poured. Today, the Mr Softie opposite is topped with hundreds and thousands of unfunded spending pledges and one big flake. We know it, Opposition Members know it and the public know it, too.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware of the importance of local banking to local communities. With news of the closure of yet another bank in Aldridge in July, we will be left with just one bank for the whole constituency. It really worries me that older residents struggle with access to banking, cash and valuable services, so will she consider providing time for a debate to discuss this really important topic, which I am sure is of interest to Members on both sides of the House?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this very important point. Although these are commercial decisions for banks, it is a matter of concern to us to ensure that people have access to banking services and are able to access cash. As she knows, we have announced more than 50 new shared banking hubs. I will certainly raise the matter with the relevant Minister, as the next departmental questions are not until 9 May, to ensure that she has all the information she needs to look at alternatives. We are progressing legislation in the Financial Services and Markets Bill to ensure that communities are protected.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I suppose I should start by thanking the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) for that remarkable outburst. In many ways we should be grateful, because never before has she shown such an interest in Scotland—that was, indeed, painfully obvious. There is much I would say, but it will suffice if I say that perhaps people in glass houses should not throw stones.
It is a pleasure to be here and come off the subs bench to make my debut at business questions. Members can see that, like all great athletes, I have been weeks in preparation for the big event. There is, however, a chance that more folk will have witnessed this particular substitution than any of the five changes made during Scotland’s famous and magnificent victory over Spain last month. Unlike our free-to-air Parliament TV, no such thing exists as free-to-air live football in Scotland. Scotland’s football fans have to subscribe to all manner of providers if they are to watch domestic or international matches. It is becoming an increasingly expensive hobby. May we therefore have a debate to find a way that will, at the very least, return Scottish international matches to free-to-view telly?
But of course, it is not just our international football that is facing an international blackout. Scotland’s democratically elected politicians are facing one too, as the hyper-insecure Foreign Secretary is now frantically telling foreign Governments that they should not engage with Scottish Ministers without his or his Department’s permission. Quite what has triggered this bizarre bout of ministerial paranoia in the Foreign Secretary is unclear, so perhaps it would be very helpful for all of us if the Government were to make time for a debate about what it is exactly they fear from Members of our democratically elected Parliament speaking to people furth of these islands.
Surely, talking to others, learning from one another’s experiences, sharing new ideas and understanding difference is at the heart of all that we are about. Given that exactly 55 years ago today, on 20 April 1968, Enoch Powell gave his now infamous rivers of blood speech, would it not be great to have a debate in Government time to put on record our overwhelming belief that immigration has been good for this country and has greatly enriched every one of the nations on this island?
Penny Mordaunt
Let me start by sending my thoughts and good wishes to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). I wish her and her family well. I thank the hon. Gentleman for stepping up and standing in, especially as it has been a painful few weeks for his party. For some time now, BBC “Politics Scotland” has resembled an episode of “Taggart”. I thank him for showing up today.
I have great sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says about viewing the considerable recent Scottish sporting victories, and I will ensure that colleagues have heard that.
The hon. Gentleman raises the matter of the Foreign Secretary’s concern that the Scottish National party is spending so much time, effort and money on matters on which it does not have competency, in both senses of the word. He asks why the Foreign Secretary might feel that way; I suggest that it might be the hon. Gentleman’s own views.
The hon. Gentleman raises the small boats Bill, on which he has done a lot of work recently, making his views very clear. Making our asylum system effective is a compassionate thing to do. It is compassionate to break the business model of people smugglers and to enable us to use the finite resources that we have to help those in genuine need. We have to deal with the reality of the situation. The hon. Gentleman’s arguments against the Bill are drawn from fantasy. He says that our motivation is
“a legacy of our colonial past,”
or the fact we wish to profit from supplying “warring factions with weapons”. Is he talking about Ukraine? Ukraine is not a warring faction but a sovereign nation under attack. I am proud of what this country has done to support the Ukrainian people.
Let me enlighten the hon. Gentleman about some other things that we should be proud of in our country, rather than talking down. The Halo Trust, based in Dumfries and Galloway, is one. It has done more to de-mine and strip out weapons than any other organisation in the world. We should be proud of that. He says that the small boats Bill is a legacy of “our CO2 emissions” and the impact they have had on
“many of the world’s poorest nations.”
No industrial nation has done more to cut its carbon emissions, or done it faster than the UK. It has done more than any G20 nation, and Glasgow played a huge part in that. The UK is more than halfway to meeting its net zero target.
I hope that the SNP will stop talking Scotland and the rest of the UK down. We will do what is necessary in the Bill and in other areas to protect the vulnerable and the planet and to promote peace. We do not pass the buck and shirk responsibility—that we will leave to the hon. Gentleman and his party.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Tomorrow I will meet homeowners at Brookside Park in Bromham, one of a number of park home sites in my constituency. They will raise issues such as the 10% commission charged when they sell their home, the fact that their pitch fees increase annually at the rate of the retail price index and not the consumer prices index, the general laxity of regulation for park homes, and the recent difficulties—now largely overcome, happily—with the energy support programmes. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a general debate in the House on the particular needs of homeowners in park home areas?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. He will know that the issue is a focus for this Government, in part because of the energy bill support scheme alternative funding that is available and wanting to make sure that everyone can make use of that. The relevant Department has set up surgeries for Members, particularly because of the issues they have raised about park home owners, and we supported the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Bill. We are focused on the issue and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it. He will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for her statement and for announcing the Backbench Business debates on 27 April and 2 May. I am glad to say that the Committee had no fewer than six applications yesterday, which keeps us on track to fill up the appropriate slots. Slots for May are already filling up rapidly, so if Members are looking to access slots for debates in late May or June, I urge them to submit their applications as soon as possible.
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Gateshead football club on getting to Wembley to play in the FA trophy final on 21 May? It will be my second visit to Wembley in recent history. I am afraid to say that Newcastle was not as successful against Manchester United as I had hoped, but I am hoping that Gateshead will have greater success against Halifax Town on 21 May.
Finally, may I ask the Leader of the House if we can we have a debate about children being hungry at school? Because of the very low income required to be eligible for free school meals and the sadly increasing cost of school meals for those who have to pay, many more children are being sent to school with totally inadequate, nutritionally deficient packed lunches. That is in addition to the growing number of children who rely on breakfasts provided in school, through the support of Magic Breakfast, Greggs and Kellogg’s. So can we have an urgent debate about the growing number and the dreadful problem of children being hungry in our schools? Hungry children do not learn, and that is bad for everyone.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his update and advert for future debate applications. We all appreciate the work he and his Committee do.
I join him in congratulating Gateshead. I had better wish both teams well, but particularly Gateshead, as the hon. Gentleman has raised the match this morning.
On his substantive question, I will ensure that both the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Education have heard his concerns today. He will know that we have widened access to free school meals, but obviously in these very difficult times we want to make sure that all children have good nutrition and are able to have a good day at school.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
In light of yesterday’s coroner’s court ruling that the death of Dr Stephen Wright was due to
“unintended complications of the vaccine”,
we now have a legal precedent to review all cases of deaths that fell within the first 14 days of receiving these experimental treatments.
Stephen sadly died 10 days after receiving his first dose of AstraZeneca. As previously any death within a fortnight of receiving the vaccine was regarded as an unvaccinated death, his death was originally attributed to natural causes. Will the Government issue a statement and release details of other such cases where people sadly died within 14 days of vaccination?
Penny Mordaunt
I will ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to update the House in light of this recent change. These are very serious matters that I know are shared concerns for many Members on all sides of the House.
MPs from across the House have spoken on many occasions about medical licensing and medical device licences, the processes and policies of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, our covid response and compensation for the vaccine injured, which was recently raised on the Floor of the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the former Attorney General. These are totally legitimate and correct debates to have. Parliamentary scrutiny and debate is one of the many checks and balances that we have in this country to ensure that we are taking the right course of action on these and all other matters. That is what many colleagues do.
What other colleagues are not doing is promoting false propaganda, which is widely known to originate from the Kremlin, abusing and undermining colleagues and the occupant of the Chair, and using the autopsy of a 14-year-old girl as clickbait on their social media feed, all of which the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) has done in the past week. He might like to reflect on that.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Many of my constituents in Battersea have been victims of car theft, a distressing and disruptive ordeal. Last year, on average, one car a day was stolen, but of all those incidents only five led to a charge. Tory cuts to policing in London have had a devastating impact and have led to severe consequences, so can we have a debate in Government time on the desperate need for more neighbourhood policing in London?
Penny Mordaunt
I hope that I am always helpful to hon. Members, but I think the hon. Lady needs to direct her questions to the Labour London Mayor. Since 2010, this Government have halved crime on pretty much the same resource. In my opening remarks, I set out the clear fact that Labour-run police and crime commissioner areas are 34% more likely to have a higher crime rate.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Barclays bank has recently closed its branch in Thornaby and now looks set to close its branch in Yarm. That will have a huge impact on many vulnerable and elderly people in my patch, who will lose their access to banking services; it will also reduce footfall for Yarm’s incredible retail and hospitality businesses. Will my right hon. Friend grant a debate on access to banking in our high streets and town centres?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for asking the second question today on that issue. I urge him to get together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) to secure a debate in the usual way, but of course I will make sure that the Department has heard his concerns. I thank him for being a champion for services in his community.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate the Leader of the House on her excellent response to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). She was absolutely right.
The Prime Minister has boasted that 500 new dentists are practising in the NHS because of Government reforms. In reality, over 500 dentists are doing just one NHS check-up a year. The British Dental Association has described official data on NHS dentistry as a work of pure fiction; it also says that the Government have never attempted to collect data on the workload of NHS dentists or how much time they spend on private and NHS patients. Can we have a statement from the relevant Minister to explain why the Government are not collecting that important data in the middle of an NHS dentistry crisis?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know that that is a huge focus for the Department. The Secretary of State is collecting more data and using it in a way we had not done previously. As I announced in the business statement, on Thursday 27 April we will have a general debate, thanks to the Backbench Business Committee, on progress on reforms to NHS dentistry. The hon. Lady will know that we have brought forward new money and that contract reforms and many other things are under way, not just to deal with the immediate situation, which has arisen in part because of treatment backlogs, but to make the right provision and have the right number of dental schools around the country to ensure a pipeline and a strong workforce in future.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for visiting Hyndburn and Haslingden last Friday to see the Veterans in Communities organisation in Haslingden and speak to volunteers and veterans— I must just plug the open day from 10 to 3 o’clock tomorrow in Accrington town centre, where people can see the amazing work that they do. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such organisations make a huge difference to places like Hyndburn and Haslingden and to veterans in general? Can we have a debate in Government time on the support that these organisations give to veterans in our communities?
Penny Mordaunt
It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and see Veterans in Communities, an amazing organisation—I am particularly keen to get updates on the progress of the giant model railway that it is constructing. I thank her for what she has done to champion such organisations and ensure that they have all they need to reach everyone in the community who can benefit from their services.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Yesterday Private Eye revealed truly shocking, industrial-scale corruption on Teesside. A huge site acquired by the public body South Tees Developments Limited for £12 million in 2019 subsequently received hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer investment. Any future sale had to be on market terms, but we now know that private developers exercised their option to purchase for a mere £1 an acre plus inflation, paying £96.79 in December 2022. I have the transfer. The only economic growth that is being delivered is being delivered to the accounts of Ben Houchen’s pals Messrs Musgrave and Corney, who, for a bargain £100, will benefit to the tune of £100 million—and all the while the state remains on the hook for the ongoing environmental costs. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities comes to that Dispatch Box and tells the House what plans the Government have for a full investigation of this industrial-scale corruption?
Penny Mordaunt
The relevant questions session will not take place until 5 June, but I will write a letter, on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, to ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he has said. I should add that the Mayor has been doing an incredible job in regenerating that part of the country and making it a world leader in clean technology. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised serious issues, so I will, as I say, raise them with the Secretary of State on his behalf, although I assume he has already done so.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I think it fair to say that in the past, communities in Sandwell have felt that there has been a bit of “cut and run”, but in recent times the Government’s £4 million investment in historic high streets such as the one in Wednesbury has come as a sign of hope. That being said, the removal of the Wednesbury market from its Union Street site to the clock tower has caused no end of controversy. The traders did not want it, and nor did the community. May we have a debate in Government time on the broader topic of how we can realise investment in our communities, and how there can be real accountability when we are trying to level up historic market towns such as Wednesbury?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done to secure new investment, focusing on Wednesbury and other parts of his constituency. His important question illustrates why it is vital for people to consult the local community, including businesses and market traders, when such matters are under consideration. This seems like a good topic for an Adjournment debate, and he will know how to apply for one.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
May I return the Leader of the House to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara)? I have held a roundtable with the Scottish Football Association, broadcasters representing both free-to-air and subscription channels, the Scottish Football Supporters Association and an observer from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on securing access to live coverage of both Scotland’s national football teams on free-to-air television, equivalent to the coverage currently afforded to English and Welsh football fans. I have also discussed the issue with various sports Ministers over the years, but I should like to work with the DCMS, or indeed anyone, to find a solution. Will the Leader of the House give the Secretary of State a nudge about arranging a promised meeting, and might she also make time for the debate suggested by my hon. Friend?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important question, and, in particular for the words “work with the DCMS”. I shall do all that I can to assist him. I think that people do want to be able to follow their local and national teams, and I am also aware of the burden on those in charge of pubs and other venues who wish to stream these events. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, which is now in force, has made it a criminal offence to arrange a child marriage in England and Wales, but unfortunately marriage policy is devolved, so Scotland and Northern Ireland have not yet banned child marriage in their jurisdictions. The sustainable development goals commit the whole UK to banning child marriage entirely by 2030. May we have a statement from the responsible Minister about what steps the UK Government are taking to ensure that the actions of the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive do not cause us to fail in our international obligations?"
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for all the work she has done to make this important step a reality. I can inform her that Lord Bellamy wrote to the Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments in November last year to encourage them to follow suit and meet the sustainable development goal in particular. I understand that the devolved nations are now considering that matter. I personally found it a matter of deep regret that when we introduced the Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019, people in Scotland had to wait a further six months to benefit from that legislation. I encourage both Scotland and Northern Ireland to follow suit when able to do so.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May we have a debate about the treatment of refugees from Afghanistan? I recently visited a group who are housed near Cardiff, including consultants, doctors, people who had translated for us in Afghanistan and people who fought alongside our armed forces there. Even after all this time since they were evacuated, they have still not been housed and face great difficulty getting into employment. They also told me that they were beginning to suffer from abuse because of the dog-whistle politics on refugee status that is sadly going on at the moment. Without pivoting to such dog-whistle politics, will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to explain to the public that those refugees helped us in our foreign policy aims in Afghanistan, and tell us what the Government would do in such a debate to explain what will be done to help them?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter, which I know many Members will be concerned about. It is a key example of where we want to help not just those in greatest need, but people to whom we have a particular moral responsibility. Afghan refugees, especially those who served alongside us, supported our armed forces, helped us with translation and other services, or worked with some of our aid agencies, are exactly such people. I shall make sure that the relevant Minister has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he wishes to pass me details about the particular site in Cardiff, I would be happy to pass those on too.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In Cumbria in the last year, 44% of all people diagnosed with cancer waited more than 62 days to get their first treatment. That is 464 individuals waiting more than two months after a diagnosis to get their first treatment, when we know that every four weeks’ delay in treatment reduces people’s chance of surviving by 10%. May we have a debate on the Government’s current lack of a cancer strategy to tackle that crisis, and will the Leader of the House consider making radiotherapy a key part of that discussion, bearing in mind that 53% of people with cancer should have radiotherapy by international standards but only 27% of British patients do? Will she also consider the impact on rural communities such as mine, in which travelling times to undergo radiotherapy can be three or four-hour round trips every day for weeks on end, and the bid that we are making for a satellite radiotherapy unit at the Westmoreland General Hospital?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue: he is the second Member to raise it today, and I shall certainly make sure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has heard his concerns. As I said before, we are acutely aware of the need to ensure that while we work through the backlog, new cases are dealt with swiftly. It does make a massive difference to outcomes, which is why we have stood up the new diagnostic centres and are bolstering the NHS in the way that we are. As well as the provision of those services, how people are able to access them is critical, and I know that hospital transport and accessibility of those services is very important. I wish him well in his bid.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
My office was contacted in March 2022 by a young Albanian national who entered the UK in 2019 and is still, to this day, awaiting a decision on her immigration status. She had a Home Office interview in May 2022, and in October 2022 she received long-awaited confirmation that she is a victim of modern slavery and that sexual exploitation had occurred in the UK between January and April 2019. She has a degree in English from Tirana University and a British interpretation qualification, yet she is unable to seek employment in Britain. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how much longer my constituent will have to wait for a final outcome from the Home Office on her immigration status?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about this case. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has used the Home Office’s new surgery. We know it is very difficult to get answers via hotlines and correspondence, so the Home Office has established a new service, both on site and on Teams, so that Members can talk directly to a person dealing with an individual’s case. I am not part of that service, so I cannot give an answer on this case, but I will make sure he is able to access those surgeries. If he has any future problems, please contact my office.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Despite living in a colder climate, consumers in the highlands still face higher energy tariffs than consumers elsewhere in the UK. There is no regulation at all for off-gas-grid supply, there is price discrimination for those with prepayment meters, and companies are raising direct debits while holding on to credit. There are faulty meters, the failure of smart meters, and incorrect and confusing billing. Is it not past time that we had a debate in Government time on the failure of energy regulation for people in the highlands and other rural areas?
Penny Mordaunt
After advertising the Home Office surgeries, I now advertise that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has stood up surgeries in Portcullis House where individual cases and policy issues can be raised. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has introduced new measures on prepayment meters and other things to ensure that people are not paying a poverty premium and are not disadvantaged by where they live in the UK.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My constituents are not only fed up with potholes—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We cannot have two Members on their feet at the same time. Mr Burgon, please, you must give way to the Member I called. You cannot remain standing.
Matt Western
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
My constituents are not only fed up with Tory potholes, but frustrated and upset by Conservative-led Warwick District Council’s lack of action on the Gypsy and Traveller sites that, by law, should be provided. The council has talked, but not delivered, for more than 10 years, so communities such as Woodloes, Chase Meadow, Whitnash and Lillington, as well as Central Ajax football club, have suffered illegal encampments. Labour councillors want to bring forward a site urgently to resolve the problem, so can we have a debate, 12 years on from the introduction of the Conservative national planning policy framework, to consider the number of local authorities that have not delivered on these sites? I think it is a widespread problem.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman cannot blame us for creating potholes, but he will know that the Chancellor has brought forward a considerable uplift in funding to address potholes, which are extremely concerning for a lot of people. I urge him to make sure his local authority and other agencies are making use of that fund to rectify the situation in his area. I would also be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman’s local authority is making use of the powers we introduced earlier in our administration to ensure that illegal encampments are not set up. I will ask the relevant Minister to get in touch with his office to make sure he has everything he needs to deal with both situations.
Richard Burgon
A new poll shows that 51% of people think the coronation should not be publicly funded, with just 32% thinking it should. Given today’s report that the King has a personal fortune of £1.8 billion, and given that the monarch already benefits from not paying inheritance tax, it is easy to see why so many people are not happy. Can we have a debate on the level of public money being spent on the coronation, especially given the incredibly difficult economic situation for so many people?
Penny Mordaunt
I was waiting for a question of this flavour, and it is no surprise from where it came. It affords me the opportunity to say that I am very grateful that this nation has a monarchy. We benefit hugely from it. Even in the times of tremendous turmoil that we saw last year, it provided stability and a constant Polaris to see this nation through some very difficult times. I urge the hon. Gentleman to go to read the tributes that were paid to Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I think her son will be a similarly great monarch, and that is something to celebrate.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Financial Services and Markets Bill is setting new parameters for the Financial Conduct Authority, but we are waiting for its Report stage in the other place. When steelworkers were duped by financial sharks, the FCA was far too slow to act. I understand that the FCA is also now renewing the rules on its consumer duties, which is welcome. However, after years of campaigning it is clear that we need proper oversight of the FCA. So, for clarity, may we have a statement on how Parliament will gain better scrutiny of our financial regulator and its duty to protect consumers across our country?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I know that many Members of this House will have campaigned on behalf of businesses that have endured all kinds of malpractice, by banks and by all sorts of other organisations, including the issue that he raises. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), did a huge amount of work on this when he chaired the all-party parliamentary group and takes this matter incredibly seriously. I shall make sure that the relevant Minister has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said today and gets in touch with his office.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is right that businesses across our country are embracing new technology, but I have genuine concerns that a cashless society could discriminate against some of the most vulnerable in our communities. Some people face significant barriers when opening a bank account or using a card to make payments, and this is exacerbated by high street bank closures. Mencap Cymru is calling for shops and restaurants to have to accept cash payments. Will the Leader of the House support me in securing time for an important debate on this issue?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this incredibly important point. She is right to say that particular groups in society will be worse off and poorly served by the closure of these important local services. She is the third person to raise this issue, which shows the benefit of business questions. She will know that other Members on my side of the House are similarly concerned and I ask them to get together, join forces and secure a debate on these matters.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
On Saturday, I spent a lovely afternoon at the 103rd birthday party celebrations of Largs resident Jack Ransom. Jack’s 100th birthday party was cancelled because of covid restrictions. London-born and now an adopted son of Scotland, Jack is believed to be the last living survivor out of those captured in 1942 and held as prisoners of war on the infamous Thai-Burma railway, which was also known as the Burmese railway of death. He survived the harshest of conditions there. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Jack and wishing him many happy returns? Will she also make a statement setting out the need to ensure that true heroes such as Jack are awarded the appropriate recognition and honour they deserve for the huge service they have done to protect the freedoms we all enjoy?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this matter and informing the House just a little about Jack’s amazing life. I am sure that all Members would want to pay tribute to him and to send him good wishes. It is absolutely right that we recognise the service of individuals such as Jack. Sometimes that has been difficult to do for people who have been prisoners of war, as there is not an award or medal that people gain from having endured these appalling hardships and, in many cases, abuses. I thank her for getting that on the record and we all send our best wishes to Jack.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
In 2017, when Emmerson Mnangagwa took over as Zimbabwean president from Robert Mugabe, he promised a new time for the people of Zimbabwe. In fact, he has done the opposite. He kept on the henchmen and thugs who forced my constituent, Paul Westwood, and his family literally to flee for their lives at midnight, taking with them only the clothes that they could wear. We have seen human rights in Zimbabwe collapsing into the same kind of brutality that we saw under Mugabe. The Westwoods are very concerned to hear that President Mnangagwa is likely to be honoured as a guest at the coronation in a couple of weeks’ time. I understand why the Government cannot comment on individual invitations, but can the House be given an opportunity to look at the criteria that are considered before any Head of State or Head of Government is treated as a guest of our Government, our monarch or our Parliament? Can we have an assurance from the Foreign Office that any attempt by Zimbabwe to come back into the Commonwealth will not be considered until it starts to treat UK citizens and its own people like human beings?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. On a slightly wider point, he will know that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in particular and also other Departments will be running briefings for Members of this House about the coronation and the events surrounding it. I suggest that he raises this specific issue at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions on 2 May.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Last weekend, I had the great privilege of presenting my constituent, Brandon Grant, with his title of Scottish Elite Flyweight at the Boxing Scotland Elite Championships. It is a big achievement that speaks to his talent and hard work. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Brandon and his club, Priestfield boxing club, in Blantyre and schedule a debate on the achievements of Scottish boxers?
Penny Mordaunt
I can tell from the noises from all parts of the Chamber that we would all want to congratulate Brandon Grant on his amazing achievement. I am glad that the hon. Lady was able to celebrate that. I also want to put on record our thanks and gratitude to boxing clubs such as Priestfield that do so much to support and spot amazing talent.
Mr Speaker
Until Jack Catterall boxes and takes the title from Scotland to England.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am not sure if I ever was a boxer, but I am a real good fighter.
Over Easter, the Reverend Dr Hkalam Samson was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment in Myanmar. The Reverend Samson is a non-violent Christian pastor and a tireless advocate for justice, human rights, and freedom of religion and belief. I had the privilege, which I remember well, of meeting him when he visited Parliament in 2018. He is a humble and courageous man. This sentence is a clear use of anti-terror legislation to silence a high-profile and vocal critic of a genocidal military regime. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning this imprisonment in the strongest terms and, as our voice in Cabinet, which I am very pleased to have, ask appropriate Ministers to co-ordinate a strong international response to it?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for again raising these very important matters and shining a spotlight on particular cases and individuals. We condemn the arbitrary detention of people, whether they be politicians, civil servants or journalists, by the military regime. On 18 April, the UK special envoy on freedom of religion or belief called for the immediate release of the pastor and all those detained arbitrarily by the military regime in Myanmar. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, on 21 September last year, the UK co-ordinated the landmark UN Security Council resolution, which urged immediate action to release all those in detention. We will continue that fight, as I know he will. He may wish to raise this matter with the Foreign Secretary on 2 May.
Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
I know the whole House will join me in condemning the horrific murder of Lucy, Maia and Rina Dee by a terrorist just over a week ago, and in offering our deepest condolences to Rabbi Leo Dee and the rest of the family in their pain and grief. My colleague, the noble Lord Ahmad, recently joined Lucy Dee’s family in London to sit shiva, the Jewish mourning period. I pay tribute to the extraordinary and noble decision of the Dee family to donate Lucy’s organs, saving five lives so far and possibly more. That act of compassion and generosity in a moment of tragedy stands in vivid contrast to the senseless and abhorrent violence that robbed a family of its mother and two sisters.
The United Kingdom unequivocally condemns that act of terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen on the Friday, shortly after Maia and Rina had been murdered, to offer our sympathy and co-ordinate our response. We also condemn the second act of terrorism against Israel on Good Friday, when a car rammed into civilians in Tel Aviv, killing an Italian citizen and injuring many others, including some British nationals.
Those callous acts are more examples of the attacks that have plagued the lives of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians for too long. As the British Government has made clear, the UK remains steadfast in its commitment to work with the Israeli authorities, the Palestinian authorities and all parties in the region and in the international community to bring an end to the terrorism that Israel faces and to the destructive violence that we continue to witness.
The people of Israel deserve to live free from the scourge of terrorism and antisemitic incitement, which gravely undermine the prospects for a two-state solution. The UK strongly condemns the numerous terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians this year, including the killing of seven Israelis on Holocaust Memorial Day. In recent months, Israel has also faced indiscriminate rocket, missile and drone attacks from groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and from hostile groups in Lebanon and Syria, unjustifiably and unlawfully threatening the lives of civilians. Israel must also contend with appalling rhetoric from Iran and others calling for an end to its very existence. That underlines the threats that Israel faces every day, and the UK will never waver from supporting Israel’s legitimate right to self-defence.
However, our support for Israel is not confined to its defence and security. I can also inform the House that on 21 February the Foreign Secretary signed the 2030 roadmap for UK-Israel bilateral relations, alongside his Israeli counterpart Eli Cohen. The UK is proud of its deep and historic relationship with the state of Israel. Both countries are committed to a modern, innovative and forward-looking relationship, focusing on shared priorities for mutual benefit.
The roadmap is the product of detailed negotiations to deepen and expand our co-operation up to 2030, following the elevation of our relationship to a strategic partnership in 2021. It provides detailed commitments for deepening UK-Israel co-operation, including in trade, cyber, science and tech, research and development, security, health, climate and gender. The roadmap also demonstrates the seriousness with which we take the global problem of antisemitism. The UK is proud of being the first Government to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition. There is no better tool to define how antisemitism manifests itself in the 21st century.
I turn now to the alarming violence we are seeing across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The conflict is exacting an ever-greater human toll. The numbers of Palestinians killed by the Israeli security forces in the west bank, including 15-year-old Muhammad Nidal, and Israelis killed in acts of terrorism, including Lucy, Maia and Rina Dee, is significantly higher than at this point in 2022. In that regard, we call on the Palestinian Authority to denounce incitement to violence and resume their security co-operation with the Israeli authorities. We say to the Israeli Government that although Israel has a legitimate right to defend its citizens from attack, the Israeli security forces must live up to their obligations under international humanitarian law.
In this situation, it is all too easy for actions by one side to escalate tensions. The raid by Israeli police on Al-Aqsa mosque during Ramadan and on the first day of Passover was one such incident. When Israeli security forces conduct operations, they must ensure that they are proportionate and in accordance with international law. The anger that arose across the region and beyond from the police’s actions in Al-Aqsa underlines the necessity of respecting and protecting the sanctity of Jerusalem’s holy sites, especially when Ramadan, Passover and Easter overlap, as they have done this year. It is vital that all parties respect the historic status quo arrangements in Jerusalem, which allow coexistence between faiths. I welcome Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent announcement on de-escalating tensions. We value Jordan’s important role as custodian of the holy sites in Jerusalem, and I pay tribute to the Jordanian authorities for protecting the safety and security of the holy sites and all who worship and visit them.
Let me restate clearly the position of the UK: we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with agreed land swaps, with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees. To be clear, the UK-Israel road map agreement that I have mentioned in no way alters our position on the middle east peace process. A two-state solution offers the best prospects of achieving sustainable peace.
We do not underestimate the challenges but firmly believe that, if both parties show bold leadership, peace is possible. The Israelis and the Palestinians showed leadership recently when their representatives met in Aqaba and Sharm el-Sheikh to discuss ways to de-escalate. Those talks—the first of their kind for many years—were a positive and welcome step. The UK is working with both sides and our international partners to support this process and uphold the commitments that were made.
The UK continues to be a strong supporter of all efforts to promote peace in the middle east and a lasting and sustainable agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and we will work with all parties to progress that goal. I commend this statement to the House.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and join him in condemning the appalling and cowardly murder of Lucy, Maia and Rina Dee. On behalf of the Labour party, I send our deepest condolence to Rabbi Leo Dee and the rest of the family at a time of unimaginable grief for them.
We are deeply concerned by escalating violence against Palestinians and Israelis. This year has been one of the deadliest for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories: 98 Palestinians, including at least 17 children, have been killed by Israeli forces, and 17 Israelis have been killed so far in 2023. Each life lost is a tragedy, and every Palestinian and Israeli deserves a just solution to the conflict.
As Ramadan ends, it is crucial that steps are taken to reduce tensions and avoid any further escalation in the days ahead. There must be no repeat of the unacceptable violence used against worshippers at Al-Aqsa mosque during Ramadan earlier this month. Israeli authorities must respect all places of worship and maintain the agreed status quo around holy sites. Since the formation of the new Israeli coalition Government, which is led by Prime Minister Netanyahu and includes extreme far-right elements, there has been a renewed assault on the rights of Palestinians, a ramping up of inflammatory rhetoric, and dangerous new moves to try to legitimatise illegal settlements, threatening the viability of a two-state solution. Israel has suffered from appalling terrorist attacks and rocket attacks, including indiscriminate attacks from Gaza and escalation with Lebanon. Labour strongly opposes all actions that make a two-state solution harder to achieve, including rocket attacks, the expansion of illegal settlements, settler violence and evictions and demolitions, and we condemn all acts of terrorism.
The UK must be a strong and consistent advocate for justice, human rights and international law in this conflict. Escalating violence and human rights violations leave us further than ever from a two-state solution and a thriving and prosperous Palestinian state, alongside a safe and secure Israel. All sides must demonstrate through their words and actions a genuine commitment to peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. We are therefore incredibly concerned about measures already being taken by the Israeli Government, such as giving Defence Minister Bezalel Smotrich control over much of the Civil Administration, the military body that administers the occupied west bank—a far-right Minister who called for the Palestinian village of Huwara to be “wiped out” in February amid the unprecedented settler violence against Palestinians.
Last month, the Prime Minister welcomed Prime Minister Netanyahu to the UK as the Government signed the 2030 road map for UK-Israel bilateral relations. The UK has a strong relationship with Israel, and there are many areas of important bilateral co-operation, but this comes at a time when the Israeli Government are taking steps that threaten to undermine Israel’s democracy and curb the power of the judiciary, and we continue to see mass protests in Israel, demonstrating the divisions and unease across Israeli society.
This road map appears to dilute long-standing UK positions held by successive Governments in relation to international law. It makes no mention of supporting a two-state solution, and it implies that there could be a change in the long-standing UK position that illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories should not be treated as part of Israel. It also raises concerns about the UK’s commitment to apply proper diplomatic scrutiny to breaches of international law and its support for the role and independence of international legal institutions such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
How is the UK using diplomatic efforts to call for de-escalation following recent violence as we approach the end of Ramadan? Will the Minister condemn the attacks against worshippers at the al-Aqsa mosque earlier this month? There needs to be more accountability, and the UK Government should challenge human rights breaches wherever they occur. Labour is committed to international law, human rights and a negotiated peace based on a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a sovereign Palestinian state. What steps are being taken to bring about a two-state solution?
As the UK Government continue to consider Israeli settlements within the west bank to be in breach of international law, what further steps will the Government take to put pressure on Israel to stop evictions and demolitions in the occupied west bank? Finally, can the Minister tell the House whether the recently signed 2030 road map amounts to a change in policy, and can he assure us that it does not dilute our long-standing commitment to international law and the two-state solution?
Mr Mitchell
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the Dee family, which I am sure will be warmly welcomed across the House. I also thank him for the measured comments he made about the current position and for his helpful and consensual approach on these issues. When the House speaks with one voice, particularly in its condemnation of human rights abuses, we have an impact, and our voices are heard. I thank him for the words that he used on the two-state solution and respect for human rights.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues that I suspect we will discuss further in this place this afternoon, during the second debate. I can assure him that the road map does not indicate any change in the long-established and long-stated position of the British Government on these matters. There is no change in our position. In respect of his second question, we condemn all acts of violence and terror without qualification, whenever they occur and whoever perpetrates them.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
May I express my deepest condolences to the Dee family for the wicked murder of Lucy, Maia and Rina? The family had great links with my constituency, with Rabbi Leo Dee working at Hendon United Synagogue at Raleigh Close.
Can the Minister advise the House what the UK Government are doing to protect innocent civilians in Israel, and particularly British tourists as they visit sites of interest?
Mr Mitchell
I thank my hon. Friend very much for expressing so eloquently his condolences to the Dee family, and I know of the links with Hendon about which he spoke. We condemn all attacks against civilians, from wherever they come. They are unjustifiable and unlawful.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I also thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is a horrific murder, and our deepest condolences go to the family of Lucy, Maia and Rina at this time for this brutal murder, and indeed to the family of the Italian tourist killed in Tel Aviv and those affected. Violence on either side must be thoroughly condemned. No innocent Israeli or Palestinian should face this kind of terror when going about their day. Respect for international law, human rights and due process must prevail.
There is little to disagree with, and much to support, in the Minister’s statement; however, there is also little specific action outlined. The UK Government must act to call out the glaring and obvious mass and systematic discrimination in the Occupied Palestinian Territories at the hands of the Israeli Government and military, so why does the 2030 road map for UK-Israeli bilateral relations contain no reference to the Israeli authorities’ treatment of Palestinians there? This situation is rapidly deteriorating, so did the Prime Minister raise these concerns with his counterpart when he visited last month? Will the Government cease licensing arms and security equipment while these settlements are being illegally progressed and exempt construction equipment from tariff-free deals? Will they halt trade negotiations while illegal settlements are being progressed, too?
More needs to be done to de-escalate the situation. If the UK Government are going to use the strong relationship that they have with Israel to move beyond platitudes and promises of raising concerns, it is critical that they take direct action to ensure that those things are real, and they need to do so now.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the SNP spokesman for his comments. The wide Dee family will draw strength, at a dreadful time, from the solidarity that the House is showing towards them.
The hon. Gentleman asks how often discrimination in the Palestinian territories is raised, and whether the Prime Minister has done so recently. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raise these matters regularly in all the conversations that they have with both sides. On arms sales, as he will know, the Government have the strongest and toughest export regulations of any country in the world. On his comments about discrimination, we welcome the recent engagement between Israeli and Palestinian leadership at Aqaba and Sharm el-Sheikh.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend condemning all acts of violence. Obviously, our thoughts are with all those people who have lost loved ones in this recent period.
The UK accepts that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, and continued trade with them facilitates and legitimises their existence. Will my right hon. Friend set out what consideration has been given to banning the importation of goods from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and including such a ban in any forthcoming trade deal with Israel?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend takes a great interest in humanitarian issues as well as in issues affecting Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. On the specific issue that she raises, such trading is not allowed under the existing trade and partnership agreement, and we have no plans to change that—our position is absolutely clear. I hope she will be reassured by that point.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
May I associate myself and my party with the expressions of condolence to all those who have suffered acts of violence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the recent upturn in violence? May I press the Minister, though, because he is at risk of conflating the positions of the Palestinian Authority, who are not a sovereign Government, with the Israeli Government, who are a sovereign Government, and as such have responsibilities towards the Palestinian people as an occupying force? Will he confirm that in any dealings and agreements with the Israeli Government, it is made explicit in writing that any agreement applies only to the sovereign state of Israel, and not to the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman is right on the second point that he makes. I should explain to him that while his description of the governance arrangements is entirely correct, we do our best to remain even-handed in assisting the cause of peace in the middle east, and that is the point we were making. We were not equating the two forms of governance in the way that he feared.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
May I associate myself with the condolences, the tribute and the condemnation that my right hon. Friend has expressed from the Dispatch Box? Has he considered the possibility that sooner rather than later we will need to decide what our priority is? Is it to preserve even the physical possibility of a two-state solution, or is it to maintain at quite the current level of intensity the strategic partnership that he has announced with the current Israeli regime?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend, with his usual incisiveness, poses an important and interesting question, but the position of the UK Government is precisely as I have set out, and I hope that he will therefore reflect that all these discussions we are holding are aimed at that singular end.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I join other members of the House in expressing condolences to all those who have lost dearly loved family members. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we are now probably further away from peace and a two-state solution than we have ever been, and that we will continue to see this kind of violence again and again and again until such time as new courageous political leadership emerges on the part of the Government of Israel and of the Palestinians that is prepared to compromise in the interests of that peace?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman, who has dealt with these matters in government and understands them well, makes the case with impeccable clarity.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
May I add my deepest condolences to Rabbi Dee and his family following the murder of his wife Lucy and his daughters Maia and Rina in the west bank? I welcome the statement by the Minister, who has laid out the issues clearly, but can he tell me what discussions he has had with the Palestinian Authority and what help has been offered to bring the violence to an end?
Mr Mitchell
I thank my hon. Friend very much for her comments and her support for the statements of condolence across the House today. These discussions take place all the time. I can tell her that the UK is committed to working with all parties to reduce tensions and maintain calm across Israel and the OPT. These discussions do not go forward in leaps and bounds; they are continuous and take place all the time.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It was disappointing that there was no announcement in the Minister’s statement on recognition, on settlement trade and on supporting international law processes in the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice. We all agree with the condolences that he has expressed, and we have a debate this afternoon. Will he deal with one point, which is the transfer of a major part of the occupied territories to civilian administration? As a matter of law, that is de facto annexation. What has he addressed specifically with the Israeli Government on that point?
Mr Mitchell
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman details of very recent discussions that have taken place, but he is right in his analysis of the issue, and the British Government are doing everything we can to advance that.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I join my right hon. Friend in condemning the recent increase in tension and violence in Israel and the west bank, and in particular the tragic killing of Lucy, Maia and Rina Dee. Fuelling this conflict is undoubtedly Iran. It has been promoting violent uprisings in Israel and the west bank and welcoming new terror networks, such as the Lions’ Den, as well as orchestrating rocket attacks across three of Israel’s borders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that the UK proscribed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety and sent a strong message out that the British Government are against state-sponsored terrorism?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend draws attention to the point I made in my statement that Iran is a malign actor in the region, in the very way that he sets out. As he knows, the IRGC is a sanctioned organisation. While we keep all these things under review, he will understand why we do not tend to comment on the precise position we have reached from the Dispatch Box in the House.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Can I first associate myself with the condolences for all the lives lost and the condemnation of all violence? Since 2005, 2022 was the deadliest year. We are not even six months into 2023, and it is even more deadly. What assessment has the Minister made of the escalating violence and the impact that will have on a two-state solution?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is right to echo the point I made in my statement about the levels of violence. We do everything we can to try to see that they are diminished, and we are committed to working with all parties to reduce the tensions and maintain calm across Israel and the OPT.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Remarkably, the recent road map makes no mention whatever of human rights abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, preferring to concentrate on trade and defence co-operation. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) from the SNP Front Bench, will the Minister take this opportunity to acknowledge that Palestinians in the OPT are subject to calculated and systematic mass discrimination? Only by addressing that issue can we move forward to a just and lasting peace.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman invites me to condemn violence on one side and not on the other. The point I want to make is that in order to advance to the objectives that are commonly held across the House, we should condemn all these things on all sides whenever they take place.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that he has raised the issue of the eviction of Palestinians from their homes in Masafer Yatta with his Israeli counterpart? In the run-up to the elections, Benjamin Netanyahu stated that he wanted to annex the west bank, which would be a loss of 30% of Palestinian territory. Can the Government outline how they intend to ensure that the new Israeli Government abide by their obligations under international law?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will understand that we press the Israeli Government to abide by international law on all relevant occasions. In respect of my own discussions, I should mention that this is not an area where I normally have ministerial responsibility, but I will write to him on the specific question he has raised to give him the latest information in respect of the Government’s action on that.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I share the Minister’s expressions of condolence and sorrow at the loss of all the lives in the middle east over these 70 years, and I share his commitment to international law. Yesterday, I met Defence for Children International Palestine to discuss its campaign, “No Way to Treat a Child”. Eleven Palestinian children are being held by the Israeli military in administrative detention, a relic of the British mandate. Children can be held indefinitely without ever being charged, some for more than one year. The Government’s current approach has failed to discourage these gross human rights abuses, so will the Minister commit to impressing upon the Israeli Government the need to end this brutal practice, and reserve the option of sanctions should they fail to do so?
Mr Mitchell
I am not going to get into the issue of sanctions at this point, but on the hon. Member’s substantive point about sticking with internationally agreed regulations and conventions, particularly in respect of children, he makes the point extremely clearly, and I agree with him.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and join him, the shadow Minister and colleagues across the House in sending our heartfelt condolences to Rabbi Leo Dee and the rest of the family on the horrific murder of Lucy, Maia and Rina. May their memory be a blessing.
The Minister is right that the UK and this House must condemn violence and terrorism in all its forms, but can I ask him what the Government’s assessment is of the current security situation and of the recent loss of life in Israel and the occupied west bank?
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Member will know from news reports, the position has been extremely tense. We seek at all stages to try to de-escalate that tension, advising both sides in that respect. I very much hope that our words and, indeed, the words of many others will be heard. I should like to thank her for the very kind and generous way in which she expressed her condolences in the first part of her comments.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I, too, express my condolences to all the families and those who have lost loved ones in all the violence. The Israeli High Court of Justice recently rejected appeals against eviction orders issued to Palestinian inhabitants of Masafer Yatta and allowed the Israeli Government to forcibly evict Palestinians. That is happening at the same time as legislation in Israel is transferring control of the west bank to civilian Ministries and away from the military. Obviously, this is in effect annexation, and we know that there are going to be violations of international human rights laws. Can the Minister confirm that the Government regard the forced transfer of civilian populations in occupied territories, whether in south Hebron in Palestine or in Donbas in Ukraine, as illegal under international law?
Mr Mitchell
In response to the hon. Member’s general point, the British Government welcome the decision by the Israeli Prime Minister to pause the legislation to reform Israel’s judiciary; that is relevant to the main point she made. In respect of her interpretation of international law, Britain will always urge all Governments to abide by their commitments under international treaties and under international humanitarian law.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
On top of the ongoing day-to-day restrictions on life for Palestinians in the occupied territories, in February there was unprecedented settler violence towards local Palestinians in Huwara, during which Israel’s Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, called for the town to be “wiped out”. Has the Minister raised concerns with his counterparts about settler violence and the culture of impunity in relation to attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinians?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is quite right to condemn settler violence, and Britain condemns it in the strongest possible terms. Although I have not had those discussions, I can assure her that Foreign Office officials in country and in London do have those discussions, and they emphasise the point that I have made.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Minister will know that we now have the most extreme right-wing Government there has ever been in the history of the Israeli state, including Ministers who are openly racist and who deny the very existence of the Palestinian people. Yet, while other countries were using diplomatic pressure to try to curb the Tel Aviv Government’s actions, this country and this Prime Minister invited the Prime Minister of Israel to London, rolled out the red carpet for him and signed an agreement with Israel that makes no reference to human rights abuses or to the upholding of international law. How does the Minister think that, in the space of a generation, the UK has gone from being seen as an honest broker in the middle east to being an outlier in its support for the Israeli Government?
Mr Mitchell
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, and I would say two things to him. The first is that the very close relationship Britain has with Israel enables us to have conversations at all levels of Government. If he is serious, which I am sure he is, about pursuing his wish for peace and de-escalation, the fact that the Prime Minister of Israel comes and is seen by our Prime Minister is a very good way of advancing that dialogue. Secondly, he spoke about the very significant and contentious issues that are part and parcel of Israeli politics at the moment, but he will know that in Israel too there is free and open discussion, with many different opinions put. The view he takes is also expressed by many within the state of Israel, and that happens because it is a democracy, and we of course respect that.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is true and right that we all condemn violence on all sides, and the Minister said:
“When the House speaks with one voice…we…are heard.”
However, I must ask the question: who does he think is listening, because the violence escalates and more illegal settlements are built, making a two-state solution more difficult? The Government often talk about diplomatic engagement and private representations, but that is clearly not making any difference, so what new approaches or ideas are the Government considering to try to move the dial on this issue?
Mr Mitchell
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration. It is a frustration that we all share. We use our very considerable diplomatic presence in the region and our diplomatic work from London to try to advance a position that I think the House is agreed upon, as I have said, and I do believe that that voice is heard. Let me make absolutely clear what the position is and remains. It is that a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living side-by-side with a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, should take place, and that Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees should be at the centre of what we do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his statement and for the understanding he has of the issues. On behalf of my party, I join others in condemning the horrific murders of Lucy, Maia and Rina Dee by terrorists earlier this month, and we send our sincerest condolences to their immediate family and friends. In Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin aligns itself alongside Hamas, a terrorist organisation proscribed by our own UK Government, and has called for sanctions, including a boycott of Israeli products. Does the Minister agree with me that Hamas are terrorists and that the boycotting of Israeli goods is utterly abhorrent?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With that wonderfully brief answer, we come to the end of proceedings on the statement.
Backbench Business
International Trade and Geopolitics
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered international trade and geopolitics.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate today. I declare my interests as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I applied for this debate because I am concerned about Britain’s standing in a world that is changing more quickly than we appear to be responding. From trade and industrial policy to innovation and skills, we have just sticking-plaster policies and no long-term economic plan. There is no strategy for UK plc that shows the path to prosperity, and I hope this debate may trigger some answers from the Government on their plan to drive economic growth within the UK and through exports abroad.
The era of increasing globalisation that we have come to know over the past decades is coming to an end. We are now in an era of economic retrenchment, higher levels of state subsidy and new forms of partnership between the public and business, but how is the UK responding? Ministers are merely saying to competitor countries, “This is not how you’re supposed to play the game,” but they are not listening, and we are losing. There are several factors underpinning these changes: geopolitical competition between China and the United States; war in Europe and security tensions in Asia; the need for democratic nations to show their people that our system of government can deliver good jobs, good pay and prosperity; the net zero transition; and the technological arms race in both its military and civilian contexts.
Based on current data, our direction of travel as a country is not a good one. Only this morning, the Government announced that the UK fell from being the fifth largest exporter of goods and services in the world in 2020, to seventh in 2021. Our trade deficit has ballooned from £2.3 billion to £23.5 billion, meaning that we are exporting fewer goods and services, while being increasingly dependent on other countries for our own supplies. According to the International Monetary Fund only last week, the UK is set to have one of the worst economic growth projections of the seven most advanced economies. Even Russia, to our shame, is projected to experience better economic growth than we are.
Our drop in exports to the European Union, coupled with the Government’s deeply short-sighted decision to agree a trade deal that blocks the sale of most UK-based services to the EU, while allowing the EU to sell services to us, has been a structural blow to the UK economy. In that context, our high levels of national debt, which have increased year on year since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, have put us in a fiscally precarious position. The Government should be ashamed of their record on UK national debt. We all remember David Cameron and George Osborne telling us that the Conservatives would fix the roof while the sun was shining. But what do we have now, 13 years after those promises to the country? A national debt that is projected to be larger than the entire size of the UK economy. A national debt that has increased year on year—yes, in response to covid and the energy crisis, but it was also increasing year on year before those crises.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be part of this debate and to listen to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will not mind me picking him up on this point. He kindly acknowledged that the sizeable increase in UK debt is due to the response to covid, and I do not think he has concerns about the major schemes that comprised that. He also talks about the increase in debt that occurred in the intervening years. Will he accept that for each of those intervening years, the Labour party was calling for more expenditure and more debt?
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman and I, perhaps surprisingly, share something in common, in that we would like to get the national debt under control. He will recognise that his party was in government for each of those years from 2010 when debt increased, year after year. The Opposition can come forward with policy proposals, but he must take some responsibility for the fact that the Conservative party was in government, taking decisions that resulted in a significant amount of national debt before covid and the energy crisis, due to the mishandling of Brexit, the inadequate trade deal with the EU and to the failure of austerity economics, which cut our public services back to the bone without adequate investment to create opportunities for economic growth in the future.
One might have assumed that in that context, the latest form of Conservative Government would wish to do everything they can to underpin, support and incentivise growth in the UK economy. Their most whizzy recent announcement has been the UK’s entry to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership for trade in Asia—a trade arrangement that is estimated to grow the national wealth by only 0.08%. It is a trade arrangement with 11 countries, nine of which we already have a trade deal with, and one that will pose due political challenges to the UK as China seeks to join it too.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful case. Does he agree that geography still matters when it comes to trade, and if we as a country choose to make our trading arrangements with our biggest trading partner, which is still the European Union, more difficult, more costly and more bureaucratic, that is bound to have an adverse effect on the British economy?
Darren Jones
I think everybody recognises that that is completely right, and my right hon. Friend recognises that with both the European Union and the United States, the bulk of our trade exists in this bit of the planet in which we find ourselves. Trade with Asia is welcome, but it will not be able to deliver larger economic opportunities for the UK than trading with our closest partners. Our arrangement with the CPTPP could cause conflicts in future trading negotiations with the European Union because of issues such as embedded carbon in the case of imported goods. Although we might want to do more trade with the European Union in line with our net zero targets, that might cause difficulty with imports from parts of Asia.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
China’s growing assertiveness on the international stage is rightly cause for concern, and the CPTPP is an example of where the Government need to be cautious. If China is successful in joining, it could block Taiwan’s application in the face of growing tensions between the two. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the UK Government should formally acknowledge Taiwan’s sovereignty?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for giving that suggestion to those on the Treasury Bench, and perhaps the Minister can answer when she responds to the debate.
Darren Jones
I have two examples that are relevant to intervention of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), but I will give way one more time, for old times’ sake.
Richard Fuller
It’s not that old-time! As the hon. Gentleman will realise, the Benches are not replete with Members for his debate, so I hope he will continue to be generous.
The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important issue, and this could be an informative debate on both sides. He has just mentioned one potential conflict between this country’s trade engagements and those of others, regarding our engagement with the European Union and with CPTPP, and different paces of change when dealing with net zero. As Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, will he give the House a little more detail on his thoughts about what this country’s pace should be, and in particular his views on the carbon border tax?
Darren Jones
I will do so briefly so that I do not test the patience of the Chair too much, given the number of pages I have left to read before the end of my speech. My initial observations are that it is in the UK’s interest to be a global leader on the net zero transition, both because that is the right thing to do and because it is a significant industrial opportunity, and that we should be partnering with the European Union to do so through our trade deal. In my view—I have not taken evidence on this; it is just my view—that would generate a larger rate of return for the British economy and British people than some of the other opportunities that have been presented.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that in pursuance of net zero and the decarbonisation agenda, the automotive industry, for example, faces significant challenges in ensuring not only that we have a self-contained supply chain, but that we can engage with the European Union on our doorstep given restrictions on rules of origin? Will that present a difficulty, and is there an opportunity with the review of the trade and co-operation agreement to address that issue once and for all?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and electric vehicles are a prime example. He and I were in Sweden last week on a Select Committee visit to look at how its electric vehicle battery manufacturing looks in comparison with the UK. If we are to continue to export cars to the European Union, we will have to hit the so-called rules of origin requirements where the components come from local or regional sources. Eventually they will have carbon embedded within them, in order to meet carbon border adjustment mechanisms and net zero targets. It is therefore crucial that the UK Government work with the private sector successfully to deliver that industrial policy outcome, or I fear we will see the near total decline of car manufacturing in the UK. While it is not for me as Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee to prejudge the conclusion of its inquiry into this issue, the contrast between what we saw in Europe last week, and what is happening in the UK, was stark.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I cast the hon. Gentleman’s mind back to his comments about the CPTPP? The Northern Ireland constituency that I represent has a large farming and agricultural manufacturing sector, and we export right across the world. Businesses in my constituency tell me that they are looking forward to opportunities that will potentially arrive from the far east. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that farming in Northern Ireland has the potential to grow more, and that part of that growth will be in the far east through the CPTPP? If that grows, there will be extra jobs, extra opportunity, and real growth in my constituency and across Northern Ireland.
Darren Jones
I have to take the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion at his word as he knows much more about his constituency and farming than I do. If there are export opportunities that is great, but the question is whether that will deliver the wholesale economic growth that we need across the whole UK economy. It will be an important piece of the puzzle, but my proposition is that there is a much broader area where there are problems, and where Government policy is lacking.
In Sweden last week, we learnt about the sheer complexity of delivering a so-called gigafactory for electric vehicle battery manufacturing. We held in our hands, physically, fossil fuel-free iron made using hydrogen, which was being turned into low-carbon steel. I finally saw, after years, a carbon capture facility working, plugged in and capturing carbon in real life. Here in the UK, we just have ministerial statements setting out our intention to be world leading, without anything real or tangible to show for it. The British people will soon realise, if they have not already, that at the end of this yellow brick road set out by the Government there are just Conservative Ministers blowing smoke. The tragedy is that this is not just a dream: it is 13 years of Conservative economic mismanagement that will take years to clean up.
This sorry story is not just about what is happening in the European Union; it is about what is happening in the United States, too. During our Committee visits last year, it quickly became clear that the US is doing what Europe is doing, but on steroids. The Inflation Reduction Act, which is really a green new deal for the United States, sets long-term, multi-decade, easy-to-access tax incentives, grants, loans and market-setting standards to not only drive the net zero agenda but reinvest in the industrial capacity of the United States. This $500 billion multi-decade initiative is acting like a magnet, pulling investment, jobs and businesses into the American economy. Access to those tax incentives, grants and state-level support is predicated on agreements to train and employ Americans in areas that have been crying out for investment for years. In some circumstances, it is even predicated on business owners investing in childcare to help optimise the economic activity of the American labour market, including women.
Andy McDonald
Was my hon. Friend not struck by the stark report on Sky News, I think from Ed Conway, from AMTE Power in Thurso, one of the British manufacturers of car batteries? It was indeed attracted by the Inflation Reduction Act, so much so that we risk that factory—a gigafactory we do have—being relocated to the United States. Should that not be sending a signal warning to the Government that time is not on our side?
Darren Jones
Once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the European Union has responded to what is happening in America, but what do we have here in the United Kingdom? I tried to be generous to the Government in a collegiate fashion, but the only thing I could find that allowed me to give the Government credit was the recent establishment of the Office for Investment, whose job it is to secure inward investment to the UK. But it has no budget.
As I understand it, when two American businesses looked at the UK as an investment destination, they did not know who to contact. Was it the Department for International Trade, the Department for Business, the Department for Transport, the Treasury, the regional mayor or the local council? The Germans, meanwhile, put together an inward investment package with significant incentives and the Americans presented a map with different options in different states, topped up with significant federal incentives. In the UK, we have an Office for Investment whose job it is to go around Whitehall, cap in hand, trying to put together an offer within existing budgets. The tragedy is that the reason those companies were looking at the UK in the first place was that we have great natural resources: huge potential for low-carbon fuel energy supplies, great industrial clusters, world-leading research and development, and great pools of highly skilled labour. But we just did not compete and we lost out on both investments.
Let me take another example, which we have already talked about: the semiconductor industry. The United States is securing multibillion dollar inward investments, as too are the Europeans. As my Committee concluded in its recent report, while we will never have end-to-end supply chains in the UK, we should be collaborating with our American and European allies to agree that the UK invests in the parts of the supply chain where we excel: chip design and advanced compound semi- conductors. Britain can play a crucial exporting role within a multinational supply chain. So when the Government take decisions to decline or unwind Chinese-linked investments, such as Newport Wafer Fab, they must follow through with finding new investment and new owners. Instead, we have a semiconductor strategy that is now even more delayed than it was already because, as it was reported, Ministers cannot decide who is going to announce it. Meanwhile, other countries are racing ahead of us.
It seems to me that we have Ministers stuck in the headlights of a changing world, convinced that the best thing to do is for the state to get out of the way and let the free market fix our problems, praying that someone, somewhere might find the sunlit uplands of post-Brexit Britain that Conservative Prime Minsters promised to deliver—while our competitors race ahead of us. The question, therefore, is what should we do about it? Beyond the obvious points of having a proper industrial policy, ideally a stable Government, a stable economy and a stable policy framework; beyond the obvious point that we continue to fail to highlight the importance and value of the service economy to our exports—we are the largest exporter of services in the world after the United States—and beyond the obvious point that we must improve our trade deal with the EU, what can we do that is new, global and in Britain’s interests?
We should be leading the debate about a new model of multilateral co-operation between democracies. We clearly already collaborate on defence matters, but what we define as critical supply chains or as critical national infrastructure, what we think resilient supply chains should look like to create economic security for our countries, and how we collaborate as allies and partners to show that democracies will continue to prevail over authoritarian regimes—those issues warrant a new partnership, a new model of multilateral working. It is in Britain’s interest to lead that debate and to play a central role in it.
Some will understandably say that there is a risk of decoupling the existing post-war institutional frameworks. My response is that this is already happening and that Britain can do little to stop it. That does not mean walking away from the UN, the World Trade Organisation or the G7—of course not. And it certainly does not mean Britain should play fast and loose in breach of agreed global rules. But it does mean that we must respond to lead and to influence what happens next.
If this Government had a real mission-led approach to the UK economy, we would see co-ordinated strategic action from No. 10, the Treasury, the Foreign Office, the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and others. But we do not. We do not see that because the Prime Minister does not have an answer. He cannot tell us what our path to prosperity is, what he thinks our unique selling points as a country are, or how Britain will maintain its standing as one of the largest, most advanced economies on the planet.
I have had the good fortune, over the past few years, of being able to represent our Parliament in many countries. From Brussels to Washington, Sydney to Tokyo and elsewhere, I keep being asked, “Are you guys okay? What’s happening to the UK?” It is embarrassing and it must stop.
Darren Jones
It is a factual statement. The hon. Member is chuntering from a sedentary position, as I think we say in this House, but I can assure him and the House that on many occasions that is the exact conversation people have had with me.
I hope that the Minister, when she responds, will be able to inform the House, on behalf of the Prime Minister, how this latest round of Conservative Ministers are going to clear up the mess of all the former ones over the past 13 years. The Minister and I know that the opportunities for the UK are there to be taken; that the British people have within them the drive, energy and potential; that our islands and our seas give us the potential not just to lead the net zero transition at home, but to export it abroad too; and that our greatest minds, entrepreneurs and universities mean we can ride the wave of the technological revolution in the interests of the British economy and the British people. We can achieve all those things, but only if Britain has a Government with the leadership, the ideas and the energy to start delivering. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow that very detailed and impressive speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones). My speech will take a slightly different tack. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, I want to talk about the geopolitical significance of Kashmir. I think everybody here accepts that the UK’s security and safety are paramount in trade agreements, but I want to talk about the importance of human rights in those agreements as well.
Many Members will know that Kashmir is located between Pakistan to the east, India to the south and west, and China to the north. There is also Afghanistan, which borders Kashmir on its north-west frontier. There is a very good reason why Kashmir is known as the longest running territorial dispute in the world. Basically, the British—us—messed it up and that has had a long-running impact. According to some historians, prevarication by the then ruling Hindu maharaja at the time of partition contributed to violence breaking out in Kashmir, as he alone was given the choice of whether the majority-Muslim Kashmiris should join India or Pakistan.
The unfairness of the decision to accede to India was rigorously challenged by Pakistan at the time and since. It was the first significant threat of conflict since world war two, and the newly formed United Nations took it very seriously. Hon. Members will be aware that several UN resolutions exist today, but the most significant is the UN Security Council resolution 47 from 1948, which called for a plebiscite—a referendum—of the Kashmiri people to determine their future.
The line of control was established between Pakistan-administered Kashmir, or Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan, and Indian-administered Kashmir, or Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. It is very well-guarded by the respective armies. There is also a United Nations military observers group permanently based there, such is the seriousness of the border issues between these two nuclear powers—and we must not forget China to the north, so three nuclear powers. When I visited Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir in February 2020—unfortunately, I could not get into India and Indian-administered Kashmir—the officers of that team, who are completely independent and have no axe to grind from any country, convinced me of the fragility and serious threat to global peace of the stalemate over Kashmir.
There are several reasons why Kashmir has been, and will continue to be, fought over. First, Kashmiris are immensely proud of their home and their heritage. Many of my constituents have relatives who live there, and I hear the pride in their voices when they speak about Kashmir. Secondly, and key to this debate, there are vast material resources across Kashmir, including timber, minerals, land and water. For example, Kashmir provides much-needed water for agriculture in both Punjab and Sindh provinces. The third reason is the geopolitical significance of the region to an emerging and increasingly powerful China.
On the second reason, the 2019 unilateral revocation of articles 370 and 35A from India’s constitution, which removed the special status and relative independence that Indian-administered Kashmir had enjoyed, has led to mining activity in areas that the World Bank and others are concerned may lead to flooding in an already flood-prone area. That could endanger lives and ecology. Kashmiri-owned companies that have traditionally mined in Kashmir were unable to compete with outside Indian corporations for mining rights, as the continued throttling of internet speeds prevented their participation in the online bidding process. The elimination of Kashmir’s forestry laws in favour of Indian federal law has been harshly criticised and is resulting in devastating deforestation. But water is the region’s most important and at-risk resource. It has not just regional but global significance. That is the third reason why Kashmir is strongly contested.
In the last two years, China and India have been at loggerheads at the line of actual control that separates China from IAK, as each seeks to develop infrastructure along the border. Some argue that the diversion of water is the biggest issue. However, tensions are extremely high after recent clashes, including the deaths of both Indian and Chinese troops in 2020 and reports of shots being fired at the line of actual control for the first time in 45 years—there are not meant to be any weapons at the line of actual control. More clashes were reported at the end of last year.
The poor relationships have trade implications. As we have seen, trade between India and Pakistan fell significantly in 2019 after the revocation of articles 370 and 35A, with negligible exports to India from Pakistan. It is also having a detrimental impact on trade across Kashmir. One of the key asks from the Kashmiris and non-governmental organisations I have spoken to is to rebuild the economy and provide jobs for Kashmiris. Opening the line of control is vital to achieving that— I was told that it would not only promote trade across the region but allow families to reconnect. Given that the G7 is being hosted by India this September, and will include meetings in Srinagar in Indian-administered Kashmir, I hope that India will consider reopening the line of control crossings at Lithia, Chakothi and Tetrinote, to allow trade as well as community and family reunions. I ask the Minister to respond to that point and to agree to raise this issue with the Indian high commissioner. Given India’s record trade deficit to China, which last year reached more than $100 billion for the first time, this might be a seemingly insignificant but symbolic gesture to Kashmiris and the international community, including Pakistan and China.
China has heavily invested in its so-called One Belt, One Road initiative, which it says is part of its vision to improve trade routes across Asia and parts of Africa. In Gilgit-Baltistan, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, land has been sold off to develop infrastructure projects as part of the China-Pakistan economic corridor stretching across Pakistan and the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region of China. The first of those is a dam, which, in addition to water storage and flood control, will also be used to generate power. However, it has come at a heavy financial cost to Pakistan, which is funding the developments via loans from China.
My final point concerns human rights and trade. The UN produced two reports on human rights abuses in Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir—the first in 2018 and the second before the revocation of articles 370 and 35A. They are quite shocking to read—and I do not want to stretch your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. They include the reported killings of civilians by off-duty police and army personnel with impunity, and the failure to independently investigate and prosecute widespread reports of sexual violence by security services personnel. This list goes on. I invite people to read them. Pakistan-administered Kashmir has also been challenged about human rights violations, including the Government having control over affairs in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, hence the sale of land for the Pakistan-China economic corridor.
Most importantly, the human rights abuses have not abated. We are in the process of negotiating trade agreements with India. I feel very strongly, as do thousands of people, that we should begin to consider who, what and how we trade with Governments that systematically abuse their citizens. We must commit to making the delivery of human rights explicit in any UK trade deals with India and Pakistan, or any other country.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to take part in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on introducing the debate this afternoon.
I would like to make a fairly brief contribution in the context of the UK’s changing international trade landscape and accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—the CPTPP—by highlighting the potential and the importance of the UK’s trading relationship with Mexico. It is the 15th or 16th largest economy in the world, and an integral member of the CPTPP. Geopolitically, Mexico is a strategic partner for the UK. For businesses, it is a gateway to Latin America, the broader Pacific region, the United States and Canada. In May last year, the Government launched negotiations for a Mexico 2.0 free trade agreement, seeking to bolster and grow our £4.5 billion-worth of bilateral trade.
I have chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Mexico for the last five years, and in November last year I led a delegation of the British group of the Inter- Parliamentary Union to Mexico City and Oaxaca.
Our delegation included the new Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), and the former trade envoy to Mexico, Baroness Bonham-Carter. We met senior Government representatives, the Mayor of Mexico City, members of the Senate and Congress, state governors and local government leaders. We also met strategic partners of the then Department of Trade and Industry, as well as UK and Mexican businesses and global companies with a shared interest in strengthening our bilateral trade and diplomatic relationships.
There is an active UK business community in Mexico. I am grateful to members of chambers of commerce in Mexico and the Mexican chamber of commerce in London for their guidance and support over the years. I pay particular tribute to our ambassador in Mexico City, Jon Benjamin, and his fantastic team. We keep in regular contact on issues from human rights to strengthening diplomatic relations, both between politicians in the legislatures and between Governments.
A stronger UK-Mexico trade relationship would have far-reaching benefits for the whole of the UK, including for the north-west and for Liverpool, my home city, which I have the privilege to represent in this House. As I have said in the House before, the largest chain of department stores in Mexico is actually called “Liverpool”. It was founded in 1847 and it was named after the city and the port for all the merchandise that was shipped through it. That is just one example of the historical links that exist between our countries.
In 2022, trade between Mexico and the north-west reached £224 million, making up 10.8% of all UK exports to Mexico, which was more than London and the second highest region in England. The most recent data from 2021 shows that in Merseyside alone, 153 businesses exported goods to Mexico and 68 businesses were reliant on imports from there.
UK-wide businesses depend on Mexico for various specialised manufactured goods, including cars, tele- communication equipment, power generators and office machinery. Trade in services is also growing rapidly. The UK financial sector is present in Mexico, with insurance and pensions representing the top service exports, and Mexico, and Latin America more generally, represent the key to boosting two of the UK’s most important future economic pillars: financial tech and the green economy.
Mexico’s appetite for cutting-edge financial tech products and services makes it a natural destination for UK-based fintech start-ups and more traditional financial investment. Mexico also offers significant opportunities for trade in clean technologies. It has had rapidly growing electric vehicle production and export in recent years, and I have no doubt that our growing trading relationship will make it an indispensable partner in our common fight against climate change.
I want to conclude my remarks by highlighting the clear opportunities in education and the wider benefits that can be unlocked, because the benefits of deeper trade ties with Mexico will be more than simply economic. Educational and cultural exchanges are a fundamental precursor to more and better trade. I had the privilege of hosting a recent educational technology—EdTech—inward mission from Mexico in Parliament last month, working with our ambassador in Mexico City and the Department to strengthen ties and develop co-operation in the education sector between UK and Mexico.
It is clear to me that countries across central and South America are crying out to widen access to English language learning for their populations. We need a concerted effort to promote language and student exchange programmes in tandem. As a graduate of the London School of Economics, I had the immense privilege of being part of a global student body, and I benefited in the classroom from the diverse perspectives of students from across the world. I want to see far greater numbers of Mexican, Colombian and Uruguayan students coming to the UK, but just as importantly, I want to see more UK students having the opportunity to spend some of their study time in central and South American universities.
I have had meetings with universities, including the University of Liverpool, as well as with representatives from the Mexican education sector on this topic. Much more needs to be done to encourage UK students to look to countries in central and South America countries as places to study. I ask the Minister: what is being done to expand our study abroad programmes to countries in the CPTPP? One challenge the Minister may wish to take up is how we can ensure the mutual recognition of higher education qualifications between institutions in CPTPP countries.
Mexico is an ally and trading partner of growing importance. By 2030, it will be the ninth biggest economy on the planet, and I welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to the Mexico free-trade agreement and the benefits that could bring for both countries. In this era of increasingly complex geopolitical dimensions to international trade, Mexico and countries in central and South America deserve renewed attention by Government and businesses across the United Kingdom.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to have listened to the contributions so far, not least the contribution just made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). I echo his words about the opportunity to strengthen connections, particularly for our young people, between our country and countries in Latin and South America. The area is often overlooked by Government and it is not high on the list for teachers or in what is learned in schools. His calls on the issue are very welcome. On Monday, at the University of Cambridge, I had the opportunity to talk to a group of Argentinian politicians. From their country’s perspective, I know that is something they would welcome as well.
Madam Deputy Speaker, here is my point: it is an afternoon, we have plenty of time, it is an incredibly interesting and broad debate, and it will not have escaped your attention that the Government Benches are not crowded with participants. Therefore, I beg the indulgence of Opposition Members to make a number of points on a series of areas. [Interruption.] The Minister is asking that they be quality contributions, so I shall therefore make my speech even longer.
I will start by addressing some of the points made by the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who I think is one of the most talented Members of this Parliament. He and I do have some strong disagreements, sometimes on principle and sometimes on practice. Let me start with two words that encompass the fundamental disagreement we have: industrial strategy.
To the Chair of the Select Committee, industrial strategy is the elixir that somehow unlocks the growth in our economy that proves elusive to all others. Not only that, it is industrial strategy as conceived by the Labour party that somehow has the unique ability to generate growth that perhaps could not be accomplished in other ways. I have always found that intellectual position interesting. When I went to business school and we were given a chance to give three words to describe ourselves to other students, I decided to call myself “arrogant”, because actually at that age—I know it is hard to believe now—I was quite arrogant. But I would never have the arrogance to think that my unique perception of an industrial strategy was the right way to galvanise growth in this country. On that issue, the Chair of the Select Committee and I differ. I would like to hear what he has to say.
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way, but as he has put words into my mouth on the record, I ought to correct him, if I may. From our Select Committee’s work on industrial policy and from my comments on that work, it should be clear that I am not somebody who believes that the state is where wealth is created or that the state is in the driving seat of a growing economy. However, when the private sector, which creates wealth, is driving down the road at speed and trying to win the race for workers, customers and shareholders, I recognise that somebody needs to build the public infrastructure for it to succeed if the road runs out.
That opportunity for the state to play an important role in partnership with business is what I refer to as industrial policy. Might I say that it is why so many businesses are talking to the Labour party right now? They are asking for such a partnership with the Government, as opposed to having a Government who stand out of the way and hope the free market will solve all the problems.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point. He is suggesting that if a company chooses to use its shareholders’ money to drive down a road that runs out, somehow taxpayers should pay for the extension of the road. The whole point of capitalist markets is that it is a business’s responsibility if it makes incorrect allocations of capital and its shareholders lose money. It is the job of business and business leadership to have the insight to understand how best to create value for shareholders in the long term.
Businesses are now coming to smart Labour Members—who are desperate to show that after years of hating business the Labour party now thinks prawn cocktails are a nice idea—and saying, “Can you spare us a few bob, mate? We’d like to support your party and we’ve got this really sexy thing we want to do, but frankly we don’t want to use our own capital because we know that the Labour party in government will be suckers enough to use taxpayers’ money to pay for it.”
Andy McDonald
I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as a former member of our Select Committee, will take this point in good heart. Just last week, we visited HYBRIT in Sweden, which has made some incredible advances in creating sponge iron and is on the road to creating green steel. One of its major partners in that enterprise, without which it would not have been possible, is the state-owned utility company Vattenfall. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that point.
This country’s version is to plough hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into the South Tees Development Corporation, transferring those assets to private individuals in return for options for land—for buttons—leaving the state on the hook for the environmental remediations. There could be no bigger contrast with more intelligent responses to industrial challenges. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will take that point in good heart and look at the differences in practice between the United Kingdom and Sweden.
Richard Fuller
Actually, the hon. Gentleman is exactly right. He and I share a concern for the defence of taxpayers’ money: if it is going to be spent, it should be spent wisely. If a strategy is not working, that is fine, but the point that I raised at the start of my speech was that we hold different points of view on whether industrial strategy per se will be an answer to the problems. My general position is that leaving the market and businesses to themselves and allowing the free allocation of capital in open and competitive markets has proven time, time and time again to be the best way to achieve progress, with better living standards for households in this country and around the free world. That is why the developed nations are the developed nations: because we have supported that approach.
Richard Fuller
I know you are being very lenient today, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I give way.
Wera Hobhouse
Nobody—certainly no Liberal Democrat —would pretend that wealth is created by the state. It is created by businesses, but what business leaders have said time and again is that the Government need to set a direction. Is it not true that this Government are currently giving no purposeful direction to business, particularly when it comes to the green economy and the transition to net zero?
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady is right that businesses like certainty—that is absolutely true. Setting a direction, inasmuch as it creates certainty, is useful; more than that, it is a strong part of the foundations. If we go on to talk about climate change in this debate, it may be that questions about national and international strategies and about what our response should be to issues among British businesses, businesses in other countries and multinationals will drive us apart again.
Darren Jones
May I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect, for the benefit of the House, on his recent involvement in the Conservative report on the reform of economic regulators? I was afforded the courtesy of being shown the embargoed report, but I am not sure whether the embargo has now been lifted and I can talk about the report directly.
Darren Jones
Oh, I can. Very good. The report recognises—I invite the hon. Gentleman to confirm or contest this point—that industrial policy is not just about money, but about policy direction, about regulation by economic regulators and about creating the conditions for business to prosper, for entrepreneurs to create businesses and for innovators to innovate. Industrial policy, as I refer to it, is not about somebody in the Treasury writing a cheque for businesses that should get their money from elsewhere, as the hon. Gentleman suggests; it is about the broader competitive market that needs to be created. Of course the Government and Parliament have a role in creating optimal circumstances for businesses to succeed. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that?
Richard Fuller
I do. Again, the hon. Gentleman is showing that there are a number of areas in which we can find agreement on the details.
Let me focus on the point about regulatory policy, because it is an important one. A group of Conservative MPs have put together a report calling on the Government to look at how we deal with the stock of regulation, the process of making regulation and my particular area of interest, the accountability of regulators for performance. As Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of our interactions with our regulators. Effective regulation, by which I mean regulation that is regularly, systematically and rationally appraised, plays a role in the competitive advantage of the United Kingdom. It is an area that we have locked away, saying, “It’s not nationalisation, it’s not the free market—it’ll do okay.” Those days need to come to an end, because too much of our economic output happens in sectors that are subject to regulators whose performance directly affects the ability of our country to compete.
Richard Fuller
The Chair of the Select Committee nods. It is nice to have an area of agreement.
Let me move on to the second area about which the hon. Gentleman spoke: the Inflation Reduction Act and the associated EU measures. As he well knows, that Act represents a $370 billion commitment of US federal funds, or their equivalent in tax credits. It followed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, which meant $1 trillion of investment, not only in infrastructure but in green energy. By purchasing power parity, the US economy is approximately six times the size of the UK’s. An equivalent response, which is what the hon. Gentleman says we need, would essentially require writing a cheque for £40 billion, £50 billion or £60 billion. If industrial strategy is not about expenditure, what are we supposed to be doing to compete, other than putting in that amount of money? There seems to be a part missing.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about inward investment and said that we should be sharpening up our act. He is absolutely right. In countries such as Germany, which he mentioned, the package on offer to those who are interested in investing is not just a financial package, but a coherent one. When someone looks into making an inward investment, there are people to sort out all the Government intricacies for them at a single point on day one. That is how the UK did it when Margaret Thatcher was leading efforts with Lord Young, but over the intervening years we have made things a little too complicated and we have not found our way. I would be interested to hear the Minister address that point; it may not be directly in her remit, but it would be interesting for all hon. Members present to know the Government’s view. What are the Government doing to make sure people know that the UK can take a foreign company from thinking it wants to invest in this country to actually getting going and investing in this country, whether that involves, say, bricks and mortar or servers? What can we do to make that easier?
I know this sounds as though I am picking the hon. Gentleman’s speech apart. I am not picking it apart but asking questions about it, and I trust he is happy with that. He talked about economic security and collaboration. I think the short-term version of that is called friendshoring, which essentially means saying, “Let us conduct a geopolitical review of important strategic supply chains, and then let us be smart and make sure we are doing business with countries that are our allies.” That is a massive change, because there is no clarity about what the extent of friendshoring areas should be. Does this apply only to strategic industries determined by the United Kingdom, or is it imposed on the United Kingdom because other friends think we should be doing business with someone else? Are we prepared as a country to outsource the way in which British companies do business to the Government of the United States?
Andy McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, but does he not agree that when it comes to critical areas of our economy such as energy security and the opportunities presented by carbon capture, utilisation and storage, it makes consummate sense to have strong relationships with those neighbouring countries with which we are aligned? As we face the spectre of Putin, who has caused so much damage to our energy security of late, would it not be infinitely more sensible to look to the new technologies and look to those neighbours to work together in that domain for our mutual economic benefit? Surely that makes sense.
Richard Fuller
There are two parts to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Is it sensible for us to ensure that our national security is itself sensible, along with some of the elements that are important for national security? I do not think there are too many concerns about that; the issue is, should we be focusing our policy on the issue of only going with our allies, or at least making that the primary consideration?
I think this will be a problem if it becomes part of the international discourse. The Chair of the Select Committee seemed to be talking about unbundling the existing international organisation, paying it respect but recognising the “reality” of what is happening, but then looking at ways in which we can make side arrangements with our friends. I fear that that will mean pooling the understanding of what is a friend and what is not among others, which is a substantial change in the way in which this country seeks to run its economy. My view is that the United Kingdom should be an open society, an open trading economy, and that we should lean primarily towards openness.
Richard Fuller
Obviously not with Russia. We have already imposed substantial trade sanctions on Russia, and I think there is consensus in the House about what our response should be when one country invades another. However, to conflate Russia with China, which has not, as far as I know, invaded another country, is to move into a different area. My point is philosophical: the United Kingdom’s history of success has been as an open trading nation, and the current push, in this country and others, for us to engage in friendshoring strikes me as a significant change from the way in which, historically, we have created wealth.
Darren Jones
The point I made in my opening remarks was that we should recognise, with some humility, that Britain can have only so much influence on these global trends. The hon. Gentleman is inviting us to conclude that were we to do more deals with our friends and allies, as I have suggested, those arrangements would be dictated by other countries; I think he was alluding to the United States of America. My response to that is that Britain should therefore lead the debate, and be involved in how this is developing across the world. If we just sit back and wait to see what happens, we will end up having no influence over the way these things are being designed, which, by definition, will be dictated by others who are leading the global debate. I am suggesting that we, as a smaller country, have global clout, and should be convening and leading that debate.
Richard Fuller
That is a brilliant point well made, and characteristic of the hon. Gentleman’s understanding and grasp of these issues. He has put his finger on it. I, for my part, am merely raising questions and concerns about the perils of doing something that others may see as somehow buttressing our national security and doing what is right by us. This is not a road we can go down without trade-offs, and there will be some significant trade-offs if we take that road. However, I think the suggestion that we should be an active participant while those discussions are going on is very sensible.
Let me return to the question of money, and the current issues involving the so-called Inflation Reduction Act and the EU. A significant proportion of the funds spent by other countries are being spent on what I would term competitive discovery, which means looking at possible solutions when we do not yet have the solution to a problem. I would place that at the higher end of the risk investment spectrum, and would therefore approach it with caution. It is like dotcom for the green era—not in all sectors, and not all the money is being used for that purpose, but a considerable amount of what we need to do if we are to achieve net zero will require money to be spent on the discovery of solutions.
I am leery of the idea that British taxpayers’ money should be stacked up in competition with taxpayers’ money from EU member states and from the United States. Let me use that dotcom analogy again. When there is a big rush of substantial amounts of funds into discovery on a global scale, yes, there are winners, but an enormous amount of capital is wasted on losers. We have heard, in other debates, Members pushing us to do what President Biden is doing, or saying that we should be doing the same as the EU. Politicians need to remember that that means taking taxpayers’ money which could be spent on education or healthcare, and putting it in the casino of winners and losers in the green tech revolution. We need to be very cautious about spending money in that way.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech with deep interest. Does he therefore think it would be more reasonable for the UK Government to end its fossil fuel subsidies—we know where that is going, and we have been subsidising fossil fuels for generations—and put the money more directly into green inward investment?
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but let me answer his question in this way. The 2017 Labour party manifesto was not a hugely sensible document, but a second document was put together by the then shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), in which he enumerated all the tax breaks that were given to different sectors of the economy, which amounted to an enormous sum. As one who can, I think, claim to be a low-tax Conservative, I suggest that those running a more efficient economy would get rid of almost all of them. They would say to those in, for instance, the carbon fuels sector, “You are on your own now. If you do not have enough money, go to the market and raise the money you need from your own shareholders or from other investors to grow your business.” We have had conversations about the level of debt—the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is now present, so he can correct me if I am wrong. I read his document in 2017, and I thought it was an excellent analysis. One point that the Labour party made at the time of that election, about the need to look at tax breaks for large corporations and sections of the economy as a method of public spending, was spot on. We are not vigilant enough in that regard. My own free-market view is that the fairer the market, the lower the subsidy.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not going to engage in the debate, but I was passing and heard a reference to me—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I would normally chastise the right hon. Gentleman for attempting to speak in a debate when he has not been present, but I happened to notice that he was in the Chamber although not in his normal place. Given that we are not under enormous time constraints this afternoon, I will be much more lax than I normally am.
John McDonnell
As generous and wise as ever, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To reinforce what the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said, we did that piece of work because we wanted to review every tax relief. In opposition, that is impossible to do, but we would have done it in government. The reason was that we were discovering tax reliefs that had been introduced decades earlier that the Treasury had never reviewed to see whether the original purpose had been achieved or whether they should be amended. Example after example was found, and it was clear that the tax relief system was not working effectively or as it was originally planned.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking part in the debate. I do not think I agreed with anything else in the Labour party’s 2017 manifesto, but the point that he has just made is a point for the ages for whoever is in the Treasury.
In addition to my concern about taxpayers’ money, behind the big funding race between the EU and the US to put amounts of money at risk in a casino of green discovery is an open question about the trajectory of unit costs for the materials that will be required by those sectors that will assist us to achieve net zero. When others are rushing to do something, it is a natural human urge to rush to do it too. We can all remember the shortages of toilet paper at the start of covid, which was a shortage for no apparent reason. Because everyone else was buying loo paper, we all thought we should buy it. As we know, that created a surge in unit cost, which abated and—although I have not checked recently—the cost is now back down to a normal market price. As goes toilet paper—perhaps I should not use that phrase—so goes the unit cost for other items. A significant cost will be experienced by early adopters. My question is whether we would be better off participating in that surge in unit costs in an era of technological discovery, or keeping our money in our pocket until the unit costs come down once the successful discoveries have been made.
We should remember that there will always be opportunities for economic gain and financial success, even if the initial discoveries and the bulk of investment are elsewhere. There will always be international flows of trade. For example, in the 1940s and 1950s, most of the motor industry was in the United States, but in the 1970s the UK benefited because it needed to reshore to the UK. That will be the same in other sectors. Look at value-added: iPhones are made in developing countries, historically mostly in China, but most of the value added is in Apple’s design, and the UK has advantages in that area. We can be thoughtful about such areas, but I wanted to put on the record some questions for the Chair of the Select Committee who introduced this welcome debate.
I know that I have tested everyone’s patience with my opening remarks, so I will address another couple of points before allowing time for others. This issue tilts to the Indo-Pacific region, both through the trade arrangements and the infrastructure. The global review that the Government have done is welcome. Much like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, who talked about the issues in Latin America, before getting involved in politics I spent a lot of time in the Philippines, Korea and Australia. It was clear that in those areas of the world, there is not only great opportunity for the United Kingdom, but a great recognition of the talents that we have and a great need for the various skills that we can provide in economics, defence and other areas.
When I hear politicians pooh-pooh the impact of CPTPP as a small percentage of GDP, I worry that they are missing the deeper point that it is a bigger connection. It is part of a globalisation of what the United Kingdom does. It is a recognition not that the UK is a big global superpower, but that it is seen by people around the world as having its place and having things to offer. We should look at this trade agreement as just the start of us pushing further into that part of the world in all the ways that we can.
I yearn for the day when we can do a similar deal across Africa. Trading with countries in Africa and opening up our markets to goods and services from Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, Kenya and other growing economies is surely not only in our economic interests but in the interests of humanity. The greatest benefit to humanity in economic terms over my lifetime was made by Nixon’s visit to China and its redirection from Russia towards the west, and the consequent movement of hundreds of millions of people in China and surrounding areas into the global trading system. It has been a great sadness to me that the countries in the continent of Africa have not been part of that. For this generation of politicians over the next 10 or 20 years, I hope that we can look to play our small part in achieving that.
Wera Hobhouse
As we have a little time and we are debating seriously, does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that cutting ourselves off from the biggest trading partner in the world directly on our shore was the complete opposite of his vision of a global Britain? Of course the European Union also seeks to be open to other trading blocs, other countries and other big nations, and Britain is losing out by having left it.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady has made her point clearly. She asks if I agree, and the straight answer is, “Absolutely not.” Ahead of the referendum in 2016, one of the most important reasons I felt we should look for a different arrangement from our EU colleagues was that I wanted us to focus on trade and economic interests with the laser-like focus of the UK. People can differ on this, but for me being part of the EU was a compromise too far in the pooling of those interests in an ever more competitive world. That is one of the reasons I felt it was right for us to leave.
Beyond that, we just need to look at the subsequent reactions—and I am critical of the UK in some ways, but I am certainly critical of the EU—in the artificial period that we have now thankfully mostly got past, when everyone was trying to be difficult with everyone else. We are all pleased that the Prime Minister has not only achieved in the Windsor framework the resolution, in large part, of many of the concerns in that frictionful period, but indicated his desire that the EU and the UK should do precisely what the hon. Lady seeks—to work together where we can. In our current position, we do that primarily because we are looking to promote our own focused interests.
It has been a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I have been very complimentary about the Chair of the Select Committee, despite the fact that he is a Labour Member. By leading the debate as he has, he has demonstrated that we can agree in substantial areas even if fundamentally our philosophies start from a different place.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate my friend, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), on securing this important debate, which I co-sponsored, and on making such an excellent speech that has sparked such an interesting debate.
I know the Government do not want to hear about the loss of international reputation, but I know it to be true. I have lived in the UK since 1990, and I became a proud British citizen in 2006. I am proud to be a citizen of a country that played such an important role on the global stage, and which I have looked up to all my life. I weep that Britain’s global reputation is now in such peril. If only the Government would listen to our neighbours and to people across the world about the loss of international reputation they face. That would be a good way forward.
Is it not lamentable that no Conservative Members put in to speak in this important debate, with only one putting in to speak retrospectively, albeit interestingly? No other Conservative Member felt it was important to participate in this debate.
The world is in crisis. War engulfs Europe. China is asserting itself on the world stage. Protectionism is on the rise, certainly in this country. The doomsday clock, which measures how close the world is to global catastrophe, is now at 90 seconds to midnight, which is the closest it has been to midnight since its inception in 1947.
The President of the United States has defined this century as a battle between autocracy and democracy, and I am sure everyone in this House agrees. Taiwan is one of the world’s most democratic countries. It is an independent country whose people have the freedom to express themselves, and it provides a striking contrast with its autocratic Chinese neighbour. I do not always laud what is done in the European Union, and the French President has stated that Europe should distance itself from the brewing tension between the US and China over Taiwan. Will the Minister please restate the UK Government’s support for Taiwan? I see the Minister nodding, for which I thank her, but I would like her to make a statement in her winding-up remarks.
People are not only threatened by other countries. Climate change is the biggest risk to people worldwide, and it will only exacerbate the world’s insecurity. Climate change is a threat multiplier. A 27 cm rise in sea levels is now inevitable, and it will be devastating for the 150 million people who live less than 1 metre above sea level. Some 1.2 billion people are set to be displaced due to climate change by 2050. If people are concerned about migration and immigration now, they have not seen anything yet.
Conflict will worsen as resources disappear. Research has shown that every 1°C increase in temperature increases the chance of a riot or civil war by 11.3%. NASA has said that climate change is making droughts more frequent, more severe and more pervasive. This means less fresh water is available to each country, causing major problems in the middle east and Africa. Observers have warned that conflict over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance dam could erupt into a water war.
We need global responses to global threats, so international co-operation is vital. We cannot fight the climate crisis by isolating ourselves from the world. The UK must be a leader and use all available avenues to strengthen global commitments. Trade deals are a crucial avenue to push countries to adopt better environmental standards. Unfortunately, this Government failed to guarantee British standards on environmental protection in the recent trade deals they negotiated.
It has been reported that the Government have already bowed to Malaysian demands to lower tariffs on palm oil in the CPTPP negotiations. That is terrible for the climate because palm oil-related deforestation and conversion of carbon-rich peat soils is throwing millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The trade deals we negotiate have an impact on the climate emergency.
The Government must not set a precedent that our climate commitments are disposable. If we fail to protect our own interests in trade deals, we will be forced to accept lower standards. The UK must implement a set of minimum environmental standards to benchmark future trade deals and to ensure the environment is a priority when negotiating such agreements.
Prioritising the climate emergency would also improve the UK’s global standing. If the UK is to be a significant actor in the world, it must show far more ambition in its green policies. Putin’s war has shown how long-term dependence on fossil fuels can empower hostile regimes. Russia has used Europe’s dependence on its natural gas as a weapon. If the UK had moved harder, faster and earlier towards renewables, Putin would not have had that leverage and our constituents would not be paying the price for his war.
We must invest in the UK’s renewables sector to secure our energy supply, and we must do much more than is currently being done. The Prime Minister has labelled China as
“the biggest long-term threat to Britain.”
China is currently the biggest investor in renewable energy, accounting for just under half of global energy transition investment. We are already seeing the effects on energy supply chains. Cumulative growth in Chinese wind power between 2021 and 2022 was more than three times greater than in the US and more than seven times greater than in Europe. China’s share of manufacturing for solar power already exceeds 80%. If we want to be a global competitor, we have to get our act together.
By 2029, China could have 70% of the world’s lithium-ion battery gigafactories. Without competition, it is set to dominate electric vehicle supply chains. If we fail to prioritise renewable investment now, we risk moving our energy dependence from one autocratic power to another.
Unfortunately, the Government seem content to sleepwalk into energy dependence. At a time when both the EU and the US are introducing massive stimulus packages, this Government have refused to match the US Inflation Reduction Act. Although the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) spoke for more than half an hour, I still do not quite understand the connection between toilet paper and investment in the green transition.
There is no investment in renewables, and the Government have slashed their contracts for difference auction budget for renewables by 28%. These are not the actions of a Government who understand the peril we are in. I hope they finally realise that there will be no coming back and no next time if we miss the 1.5°C target to avert climate catastrophe. The Government must show climate leadership in their investment and their dealings with other countries. Our actions now will determine the future of both the UK and the planet.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak in such a wide-ranging and comprehensive debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on the knowledgeable and expert way in which he opened the debate that he secured. It is extremely important that we are discussing the various intersections of this subject, as geopolitics is about our interaction with the world not only through our conventional power but through our soft power and trade. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) rightly alluded to the soft power we exert and the benefits we offer to the rest of the world through our leading education opportunities.
The Government made a statement on CPTPP earlier this week and, as Members might expect, I questioned the value of that deal relative to how much the Government have lauded what they see as its benefits. Clearly I touched a bit of a nerve with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, because not content with chastising me in her immediate response, she then took the opportunity in her responses to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) to have a second and a third go at me. I am tempted to say that that might betray a bit of a snowflake tendency, which seems to run slightly at odds with the carefully curated political persona. None of the overhet assertions to the contrary that were handed out to all Members who questioned the CPTPP did anything to dispel my fear that it represents an agreement that will drive down standards, that lacks adequate safeguards for domestic regulation and that represents a poor substitute for all the other trade deals that we have been forced to leave behind through exiting the European Union.
I am sorry to say that that trade and geopolitical picture is not an especially happy one at the moment. UK goods exports are the lowest in the G7 following Brexit and they have not shown much sign of recovery, even since covid. It turns out that putting up trade barriers to our largest export market, and our closest one geographically, carries hefty economic consequences—who could have guessed that? Business investment is not forecast to return to 2019 levels until mid-2025, and the UK is forecast to have the worst economic record of any G20 country in 2023, including, astonishingly, sanctions- hit Russia, according to the International Monetary Fund’s latest forecasts. Its “World Economic Outlook” estimates that UK GDP will contract this year. All of that is compounded by the 4% hit to GDP that we know has come from Brexit. I am left wondering whether there are sufficient trade deals around the world yet to be concluded to ever adequately fill that gap.
This manifestation of the UK Government’s trade policy, a bit like the Australia and New Zealand trade deal, might appear to put some political chalk on the board for the Government, which they would find convenient, but these deals potentially come at the expense of domestic producers and of our sovereignty, through the investor-state dispute settlement clauses, with all the implications they carry. They also threaten to make a mockery of the Government’s oft-stated sustainable trade goals.
I am forced to pose the question: how could matters that we are told are so important to this Government, such as sovereignty, economic growth, domestic production, domestic standards and global environmental and human rights concerns, end up being compromised by the deals the Government then go out to negotiate? Sadly, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that outcomes from those deals will end up being contradictory to the public statements and publicly stated policy objectives, simply because the Government do not appear to have any kind of trade strategy written down anywhere.
In her foreword to “The UK government’s strategy for international development”, a document published last May, the then Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), stated that
“in the world we face today our development work must form an increasingly key part of a coherent UK foreign policy.”
There are quite a few reasons why I could take issue with that statement on its own terms, but it is bizarre, is it not, that the Government have a document setting out how they seek to link aid to foreign policy but not one that links their trade policy to their domestic and international objectives? The UK Government certainly do not have a published document to that effect. If they have an internal one, it is clearly not working. This really does matter, not just because of its domestic impacts but because of the negative effect it will have on the international impact that the Government might hope to have.
Let us consider the facts. As it stands, the UK Government are negotiating trade deals on behalf of the UK, the four nations that make up the UK and the devolved Administrations without having a comprehensive trade strategy in place—or at least one that any of us can measure them against. That means that harmful concessions are much more likely in the process of engaging in the wider world, as has already happened, particularly with regard to the agrifood sector. This comes at a time when many countries, including even the United States of America, recognise that trade policies need fundamental transformation to support a step change to a sustainable green economy based on workers’ rights and shared prosperity. However, the UK Government are pursuing a policy of free trade deals, seemingly at any cost, without that framework in place to guide them.
In contrast to the UK Government, the Scottish Government do have a published written trade strategy. It sets out five principles that underpin the Scottish Government’s trade decisions and relationship, which are based around pillars of inclusive growth; wellbeing; sustainability; net zero; and good governance. It positions trade within a framework of a wider economic, social and environmental context and considers the strategic role of trade in contributing to those wider governmental ambitions. The Scottish Government are using all the powers and influence available to them to make tangible progress on delivering on that in support of Scotland’s national strategy for economic transformation. Where powers are currently reserved to Westminster, the Scottish Government are seeking to engage as best as they can with the UK Government to act in a way that acknowledges the interests of Scotland and supports our economy and our people, and the planet.
We saw some news break this week that the Foreign Secretary has written to UK ambassadors and high commissioners around the world to try to get them to ensure that there is a “strengthened approach” to dealing with Scottish ministerial visits, to make sure that the Scottish Government are kept firmly in their box and do not get any ideas above their station in their international engagements. There is a supreme irony here: a Scottish Government who do have a trade strategy are to be chaperoned around the world so that Ministers are kept in their place by officials representing a Government who do not have a trade strategy.
Food security is a matter of key concern, and we have seen its impacts in the bare supermarket shelves, the shortages of certain vegetables and the rotten meat scandal. Clearly, climate change and conflict pay an enormous part in disrupting supply chains, but there is no doubt that leaving the EU has not helped either. It has left us at the end of those strained supply chains and hampered our domestic food production and our ability to acquire food on the open market. So, sadly, we are hit the first and the hardest when those supply chains break.
The integrated review update from a few weeks back said that the UK Government are worried enough that they will be assessing vulnerability in our food system and supply chains. Frankly, it is incredible that that has not happened already. We desperately need a food security resilience plan that looks at that intersection of trade and domestic food production.
The issue of food security has not suddenly crept up on us and we could look at many other areas of the economy too. One key lesson we should have taken from the pandemic is surely that no matter how much we can be ideologically committed to free trade and open markets, there is a fallacy in assuming that this country will always be able to buy whatever is needed at any point on the open market and, consequently, that it is possible or desirable to run down domestic production. Our approach to trade in food should reflect our need to be self-sufficient where that is possible, and it should reflect our values. Food should be produced in ways that keep us and the animals in the food system healthy and safe; it should seek to reduce our global environmental footprint; and it should support high-standards producers at home and abroad who are pioneering the farming and land stewardship methods that will get us to net zero.
In this vacuum, there is a real opportunity to start matching industrial strategy to trade strategy in a way that does not happen at present. There is perhaps no better example of an opportunity in that area than when it comes to technology and the environment, and that is of particular interest to me not just as a Scottish MP, but as a Member of Parliament representing a constituency right at the heart of the energy economy in the north-east of Scotland.
Scotland has the potential to be a green energy powerhouse, creating up to 385,000 jobs, boosting our economy by up to £34 billion a year by 2050, permanently lowering energy bills and embedding energy security by being a reliable energy partner from the resources around our shores and on our landmass. The Government’s own net zero tsar has written about the former Department for International Trade in his most recent report. He notes that
“there is a missed opportunity to further trade in environmental goods which could expand UK exports in these goods.”
He goes on to say:
“Promoting environmental goods and services should be a top priority for the Government…In order to maximise the potential of free trade agreements to make a positive difference for the net zero transition to remove the barriers to trade in climate change products and services, the Government should be establishing a minimum threshold for the environmental provisions which all new FTAs should adhere to.”
I would very much like to start seeing evidence that that is happening.
Finally, I wish to touch on the matter of aid. In November 2022, the current UK Minister for International Development said:
“We used to be a foreign aid superpower, but our reputation has declined.”
Aid cuts are clearly a huge part of that reputationally. My party will once again take this opportunity to reiterate our calls for the 0.7% of GNI spent on international aid—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I was very lenient earlier in the debate about the length of speeches, because I appreciated that there was plenty of time this afternoon, and I am sorry to say to him that, having been lenient, the plenty of time has run out. Normally, I would have asked him to speak for something like six or seven minutes. I did not do so, because I was not aware that we had run out of time, but I hope that he will help by concluding quite soon.
Richard Thomson
I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will endeavour to bring my remarks to a controlled and orderly stop very soon.
Having made my point about aid, that seems like a good cue to finish by recalling the words of the NATO General Secretary, Jens Stoltenberg, from last year, when he said:
“Our economic choices have consequences for our security. Freedom is more important than free trade. The protection of our values is more important than profit.”
I am certain that no one in this House disagrees with that, but, in the absence of a clear, coherent trade strategy aligned with a clear, coherent domestic policy, it is impossible for the Government to say that they are acting in the interests of upholding freedom, prosperity, quality of life, quality of environment, social justice or human rights around the world, and that urgently needs to be addressed.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, on securing this debate. I am sure that the whole House would agree that he chairs the Select Committee with considerable distinction. The way that he approached this debate and his thoughtful and provocative speech—provocative in the best sense—are testament to him and to his expertise in this area.
We had a very interesting contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) spoke in particular about the significance of trade with Mexico and Latin America—a matter that no one else had focused on until that point. We were lucky to have the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) in the Chamber. The whole House will have cherished his contribution as there was no other Conservative Member available. We were 30 minutes into his speech when he made a particularly interesting point on the trade and geopolitical significance of Africa, which I want to return to, if I can, later in my speech. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) underlined the fundamental importance of considering the climate emergency for our trade and geopolitical agenda, and she was absolutely right to do so.
The prediction by the Office for Budget Responsibility that exports will plummet this year, will drop again next year, and will manage only anaemic growth in the next three years underscores the importance of this debate and the 13 years of economic failure that have seen trade targets repeatedly missed, rampant inflation, taxes through the roof and huge numbers of businesses in real difficulty.
The OECD expects the UK to suffer the worst performance on economic growth this year of any G7 country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West alluded to in his opening remarks, today’s global figures from the UN specialist trade body revealed that Britain has dropped out of the world’s top five for exports of goods and services. That underlines the fact that there is still no White Paper on trade; no clear plan to boost green trade; no industrial strategy to help address supply chain issues; and certainly no consultation on what Britain’s strategic trade goals should be, or what funding and other resources should be allocated to support a UK-wide trade strategy that delivers for all the nations and regions of the UK. That was a point that the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) also made.
Our trade relationship with our nearest neighbours remains in serious need of improvement. It is clear that the much-promised trade deal with the United States will not happen while the current crop of Ministers are in post. Furthermore, the Indo-Pacific tilt, at least in trade terms, does not look like being the great solution to our economic woes that various Conservative Prime Ministers once promised. Progress on a trade deal with India seems to have been considerably hampered by tensions between the Home Office and the Department for Business and Trade, and Africa has largely been ignored.
The invasion of Ukraine has had considerable trade and geopolitical consequences. It is a reminder of the importance of our allies in eastern Europe; of working through NATO; of the continuing significance of global supply chains; and of maintaining close relationships with both America and the European Union, even while we look for other trade opportunities, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West made the point that Europe remains our biggest, nearest market. It is home to crucial allies, and making Brexit work better ought to be a fundamental strategic priority for both trade and geopolitical reasons in the coming months. It is clear that the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which the first of last year’s Prime Ministers negotiated with the European Union, is not working, as we were once promised that it would.
Three quarters of firms that trade with Europe and that are members of the British Chambers of Commerce say that the Government’s trade deal is not helping them increase sales or grow their businesses. The Institute of Directors has reported similar problems, too. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) alluded to in one of his early interventions, the rules of origin, which are expected to get tighter at the start of next year, pose real problems for the automotive industry. It would be good to hear from the Minister on how she and her colleagues intend to address those points.
Although Ministers may like to ignore these difficulties in general, Europe remains our biggest export market. Therefore, while progress on the Windsor framework is welcome, if we are to make Brexit work better, Ministers need a clear plan to make trading with the European Union less cumbersome and difficult, in particular for small and medium-sized businesses. A veterinary agreement with the European Union would be a good starting point, helping to reduce the considerable red tape and trade barriers that many of our agri-exporters now face. More direct Government assistance to support different business groups negotiate mutual recognition agreements of professional qualifications would be sensible, too. We also need to find new, flexible labour mobility arrangements for those making short-term work trips and for musicians and artists seeking short-term visas to tour within the EU. We also need to resolve the position on Britain’s data adequacy status, so that there is no threat to UK digital services companies’ ability to compete in the EU.
The failure to negotiate a trade deal with the US, as Conservative Members promised in their 2019 manifesto would be struck, is being compounded by the failure to grasp the scale of the potential risk to British business from the US Inflation Reduction Act, while the EU’s own response, published in February, could further divert green investment from the UK unless Ministers act. I hope we will hear from the Minister how her Department is responding to those threats.
I welcome the apparent progress made on the Indo-Pacific tilt and the Government’s decision to accede to the CPTPP, albeit we will need to examine the agreement in considerable detail. The Secretary of State’s comments on Monday suggest that she may well have made very significant concessions to secure that accession agreement. The Minister will know only too well that, while I am sure membership of the CTPPP will bring benefits in geopolitical terms, it is not clear that the trade benefits will be huge. The Government’s own predictions suggest it will add just 0.08% to our GDP, so it will not make up for the failure to deliver a trade deal with Europe or all the extra red tape, customs deals and higher costs that the poorly negotiated deal with the EU has delivered.
It is striking, too, that we have still not seen a trade deal signed with India, despite the promises that it would be done by Diwali last year. The concern on India is that other countries are racing ahead to get their business interests in front of Indian Ministers. With India set to be the world’s third largest economy by 2030, we need to step up significantly our trade efforts there.
Why, for example, is there not a greater effort to engage with Gujarat, where the fastest growth is taking place? We have a large Gujarati diaspora in the UK, with many highly successful businesses that already have links to Gujarat, yet we appear to be doing very little to capitalise on that knowledge and expertise. Other countries, notably France, have significantly stepped up their diplomatic and trade efforts with India in recent years. I have to say that there has been a notable failure of late by Ministers to back up negotiations to secure trade deals with the resources to help businesses to take advantage of all the claimed benefits of those deals.
Lastly, on Africa—a point that the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire brought to the attention of the House—the lack of trade and geopolitical attention that Ministers are giving to that remarkable continent is striking. The cuts in development assistance, in particular cutting back on key programmes of trade assistance such as the TradeMark Africa programme, have created the sense that Britain is less interested than it once was in Africa’s future.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) constantly reminds me, the International Monetary Fund says that in just eight years’ time, fully half of all the young people entering the labour market globally will be in Africa. The continent still faces huge challenges, notably on the climate crisis, poverty and conflict, but the establishment of the African continental free trade area is an indicator of increasing African self-confidence, and new partnerships to support mutual growth and development are surely in Britain’s long-term interest.
The Conservatives’ record on trade is one of failure and broken promises, a point my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West made explicitly in his excellent opening contribution. In 2012 the Conservative party pledged to reach £1 trillion of exports by 2020. Six Chancellors and four Prime Ministers later, the OBR is predicting that the target will be hit 15 years late. I am very much an optimist about our country—Britain will do better—but I gently suggest to the House that it will take a Labour Government to get Britain back on the road to the brighter and better future that the British people most definitely deserve.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) for securing this important debate. I too was on the Select Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, so this feels like a Tuesday morning love-in all over again.
To continue that love-in, I must say that many points that the Select Committee chair made were valid, although unfortunately others were somewhat completely off the mark. As always, I will defer to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire; we played a good tag team on the Select Committee, so it is fantastic to have him here in the Chamber. I thank all colleagues from across the House for their valuable contributions and I will do my very best to reference all of the very important questions that they raised.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful for the praise; I just want to point out that I am the Member of Parliament for Middlesbrough—my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is a different guy altogether.
Ms Ghani
Goodness—I am no longer on the Christmas card list, so things are already going downhill. You have made it clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not have as much time to speak as I thought I had, so I will do my best to refer to all the contributions.
First, to the Chair of the Select Committee, you were such an optimist when I was on the Select Committee, but there has been nothing but negativity today. You touched on UK investment—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I think you meant “the hon. Gentleman”.
Ms Ghani
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We are one of the leading countries for start-up capital outside the United States. Most recently, we attracted £20 billion into technology, twice as much as France and Germany. The hon. Member for Bristol North West talked about our economy; the recent PwC report said that the UK is the fastest-growing G7 economy up to 2050, which means that our economic growth will outpace that of Germany, France and Italy combined. He talked about the OBR, which has revised its figures and is no longer forecasting our falling into a recession in 2023. I just wanted to ensure that he did not spend his weekend being utterly depressed, but instead looked at some of the stats out there that will perk him up.
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate, because it is important to understand the link between trade and geopolitics. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it is a fast-changing world out there and geopolitics is a challenge awaiting everyone, not just us here in the UK. It is only right that we ask ourselves what kind of country we want the UK to become. What part should we play in helping to shape the world of tomorrow? Should we be an outward-looking, truly global, free-trading nation that flies the flag for progress and stands up against the rise of authoritarianism and protectionism worldwide, or a country that battens down the hatches and shields itself from change?
I know what kind of nation the Prime Minister and I and the rest of this Government want the UK to be. We want to strengthen our country’s role as a global champion of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, driven by free trade and free enterprise. Considering the contributions we have heard, I think we all agree that trade is the most powerful force for progress we have at our disposal.
Only trade can create jobs, drive growth and deliver the long-term prosperity that communities across the UK and around the world need to flourish. Only trade has the power to lift millions more people out of poverty in developing nations, helping to build a more secure and prosperous future for us all. Only trade can drive forward co-operation in the battle against climate change, by building networks of green innovation worldwide.
Only trade can strengthen our critical supply chains, as discussed earlier, as we adapt to the energy security challenges unleashed by Putin’s barbaric illegal invasion of Ukraine. We have shown that by joining forces with our partners to cut the Kremlin’s oil revenues, removing tariffs on Ukrainian goods, signing a digital trade agreement with Kyiv and mobilising British businesses to play a leading role in rebuilding the Ukrainian economy—a task that we will drive forward with our partners when we host the second Ukrainian recovery conference in June.
The global challenges were covered in many speeches in this debate. That is why trade is forged at the heart of our economic security and defence policy as we adapt to the challenges of a competitive and multipolar world, just as we outlined in our refreshed integrated review, and why we are using our post-Brexit freedoms to position the United Kingdom at the centre of a network of free trade agreements that span the globe.
We are making it easier and cheaper for British firms in our constituencies, including smaller businesses, to trade and invest overseas by tackling tariffs and opening markets. We are helping them to unlock the fantastic potential of those deals through the work of our network of trained specialists, based here in the UK and worldwide, who provide the advice and guidance that firms need to do business overseas, from offering specialist market and sector intelligence to connecting British firms to export our investment opportunities on the ground, while flying the flag for the best of British business through the promotional work and other trade activities our teams are doing globally.
We have signed trade deals worth more than £850 billion with more than 70 nations so far, including some of the world’s most diverse and dynamic economies such as Japan and Australia. We are working at both state and federal level to strengthen our economic ties with the United States, our biggest bilateral trade partner, bringing down barriers to business through the memorandums of understanding we have agreed with North Carolina, South Carolina, Indiana and Oklahoma—the International Trade Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), has just got off a flight from Oklahoma—with discussions ongoing with other states
We are also making progress in negotiating an FTA with India, although it is always about getting the right deal, not about rushing ahead. That FTA would boost our trade with the world’s biggest democracy by as much as £36 billion.
Let me shift to the Indo-Pacific, which was touched on by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire. A key plank of our policy is to strengthen Britain’s trade ties with markets across the Indo-Pacific as the global economic centre of gravity shifts eastward. China’s increasing assertiveness in the region is set to become one of the most significant geopolitical and geo-economic shifts over the next decade, so our response will define our relationship with the world that is emerging.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) in particular mentioned China and Taiwan. In trade talks back in 2021, we agreed to deepen and broaden our trading relationship. In the last talks—held in Taiwan in November 2022, with the previous Trade Minister—the UK progressed market access ambitions in a range of sectors, including energy and offshore wind power, financial services, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and, of course, food and drink. It gives me great pleasure to reassure the hon. Lady, the House and the good people of Taiwan that there is no change in the UK’s position, as stated at the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting a few days ago. I also note that President Macron has emphasised that position since making his initial comments. The UK remains resolutely against any unilateral change to the status quo, and we agree with our partners that Taiwan’s meaningful participation to international bodies should be possible. Of course, we are obviously aware of attempts to redefine the status quo, but we are fundamentally focused on ensuring that we de-escalate any tensions in the region.
There has been a lot of discussion about CPTPP, which is pivotal to the growth of our economy and will provide access to international markets for all the fantastic businesses in our constituencies. There has been so much doom and gloom in the debate, but it is worth remembering that we have access to markets in Europe and the CPTPP—the only country in the world to have that access. Our membership of the CPTPP was successfully secured by the Secretary of State just last month, and the deal is a game-changer for our country, placing the UK at the centre of a free trade zone of 500 million people, spanning Asia and the Americas, with a combined GDP of £9 trillion. We are the first European country to join the CPTPP, showing what we can achieve as an independent global trading nation. It also shows how we are valued internationally. There is a lot of doom and gloom about how the UK is branded and whether it is respected overseas, but I think this shows our value and what we have to offer.
CPTPP enables us to be a part of a major geopolitical scene. Of course, tilting towards the Indo-Pacific supports jobs and creates new export opportunities for businesses in every part of the United Kingdom. We have signed an additional agreement with Singapore, and a digital innovation partnership with 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, strengthening our growing network of prosperity across the region. Those deals are underpinned by our expanding commitment to security in the Pacific, led by the AUKUS defence and security pact that we signed with the US and Australia last year. Without secure trade routes and supply chains, commerce cannot flourish and nations cannot prosper.
There has been a lot of conversation about supply chains. The war in Ukraine has starkly exposed the vulnerability of global supply chains over the past year —particularly energy security—so we are pulling out the stops to identify alternative sources for the critical goods that our economy needs to flourish while boosting our energy independence at home. The integrated review included the critical minerals refresh, which I was pleased to put together. Just this morning, the critical minerals taskforce—a collaboration with industry—met for the first time. I take this opportunity to recognise the work of Katherine Bennett, the taskforce chair. This shows how we are working not only with industry, but internationally, to ensure that UK manufacturers have access to the critical minerals and goods that they need in their supply chains.
As we move towards cleaner, more affordable sources for power, Britain is once again leading the charge and we have a head-start on our global competitors. More than 40% of our energy came from renewable sources last year, and we are ramping up our investment in the sector, directing record sums into new projects, research and innovation. We know that the US Inflation Reduction Act is a significant intervention in the global race for green energy, and we are not attempting to enter any kind of distortive subsidy race with our greatest ally—as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire said, we need to make sure that we always get good value for taxpayers’ money—but although that drive to net zero in the United States should be welcomed, it is, of course, incredibly disruptive. One cannot throw a stone into the water and not expect any ripples, and IRA is a massive stone that has caused ripples worldwide, particularly in Europe. It is incredibly important that we stick to our net zero ambitions and ensure that we have resilience in our supply chains.
We are trying to do everything that we can to ensure that businesses in the UK have a competitive advantage while leveraging billions more in private capital to drive growth—and not just in green energy. We want to grow our nuclear energy capacity, too, through the development of small modular reactors, while investing in our key growth industries—from advanced manufacturing to life sciences and artificial intelligence—forging a British economy that is fit to face the challenges of a fast-changing world. [Interruption.] I am being rushed along, so I will briefly respond to some of the points raised by hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire talked about the Office for Investment. We now have a joint Department—BEIS and DIT have become the Department for Business and Trade—with far more focus. An event in October will focus on global investment into the UK. We are focusing our resources and ensuring that we are reaching out.
The hon. Member for Bath spoke about CPTPP and Taiwan. It is not for us to talk about the accession of other countries, but is it not fantastic that we are at the table to ensure that our voices are heard?
There was also conversation about Liverpool and Mexico—[Interruption.] I am going as fast as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for his speech, which was positive about the work that we are doing in Mexico. He talked about the education strategy and the desire to promote exports, especially in education. I can confirm that we are most definitely doing that. If that work continues to be as positive as it is, I am sure that we would work with him to ensure that it is progressed.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) spoke about Kashmir. Those issues are fundamentally for the Foreign Office. These conversations often take place behind closed doors, but I do not doubt that her comments are on the record and will be reflected in other Departments, as necessary.
With a new chapter in global history being opened, we must have the courage to stand up for our convictions that only free trade and open markets hold the key to prosperity. It is clear that we are living in dangerous times. Autocracies are emboldened and behaving in a way that many of us have not seen in our lifetimes. The UK stands at the crossroads of the geopolitical stand-off between the international rules-based system as we know it and the system that autocratic leaders would like it to become. Trade and investment are at the very heart of that crossroads. Securing UK prosperity while protecting our way of life must be at the core of our trading strategy. We must work with our partners and allies to forge a freer, fairer future for the global economy, standing up to protectionism and economic coercion wherever we find it, delivering for people across the UK by growing British exports until we achieve our ambition of trading £1 trillion-worth of goods and services by 2030—we have a few years to go before we hit that target —and making our economy the undisputed top investment destination in Europe, so that millions of people across the UK and around the world can be set free to realise their economic potential and enjoy the benefits that only free, fair and sustainable trade and investment can bring.
I do not want to cause you any more upset, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will finish by saying that I was at the Dispatch Box 30 days ago on the first day of Ramadan. Tonight we may see a full moon and tomorrow may be Eid, so I wish you and the House—especially the staff in the Tea Room—Eid Mubarak. I wish in particular for a full moon tonight so that I and my two brothers, Nasim and Rasalat, who are watching, can celebrate Eid tomorrow.
Darren Jones
I thank Members for their interventions, contributions and—dare I say—compliments, for which I was very grateful. I think we all agree that the world has changed. The question is: what next for Britain? From empire, to Europe, to what? A new chapter in our long history. Clearly, there is disagreement on both sides of the House about the state of the UK economy, but the Labour party knows that the data shows 13 years of economic decline, and that that must change. That change will come, we hope, with a new Labour Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered international trade and geopolitics.
Human Rights Protections: Palestinians
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We have 14 speakers for this debate. It is a Back-Bench debate, which is why we try to limit the Front-Bench contributions. It is normally six minutes for the SNP, eight minutes for the Opposition and eight minutes for the Minister. I believe the opening speech will last about 15 minutes, so all other contributions will have to be about seven minutes. I would prefer not to put a time limit on speeches. I think that will give everybody an equal opportunity to get in, because it is a very well subscribed debate. That is why I was hurrying things along in the previous debate.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of human rights protections for Palestinians.
Since the start of this year, the security situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories has deteriorated rapidly. Israelis have been killed outside a synagogue in East Jerusalem. During Ramadan, Palestinians have been beaten by police while worshipping in al-Aqsa mosque. Car-ramming attacks have claimed the lives of Israeli citizens and visiting tourists. Extensive military raids have caused the deaths of numerous Palestinians and injured many more. This unnecessary loss of innocent life is of deep and grave concern, and I want to begin this debate by paying my respects to all the victims who have been killed. In particular, I am sure all of us here today will want to send our sincerest condolences to the family of British-Israeli sisters Maia and Rina Dee and their mother Lucy, who were murdered in a horrific attack in Tel Aviv earlier this month.
Extremist ideology, rhetoric and violence carried out by any party to the conflict is never acceptable and cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet. Silence is complicity. It is not until we visit the region, bear witness and listen to the testimonies of people on all sides that we really learn the depth and scale of the horrors of what life is like for the people who live there. Last October, I made my first visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the International Development Committee and heard at first hand stories that are the stuff of nightmares. Things that we take for granted such as freedom of speech and freedom of movement—basic human rights that we would wish for all peoples—either do not exist for many or are under constant threat.
I am a strong believer in a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. It should go without saying that the state of Israel has the right to exist and prosper and should be our friend and ally. However, for the two-state solution to be realistic, the state of Palestine must also be recognised. Similarly, the actions of the Israeli Government, which undermine the feasibility of that peace process and seek to deny the rights, identity and legitimacy of the Palestinian people, must be called out.
While the shocking images of violence between Israelis and Palestinians that we see in newspapers, on television and online often prompt statements of condemnation and renewed calls for peace, these are not isolated incidents that we can simply push aside with sympathetic platitudes and move on from. In order to achieve a sustainable peace, we cannot ignore the fact that systematic discrimination and human rights abuses are the daily reality for all Palestinians living under occupation, 365 days of the year, and the UK Government have a significant role to play in ensuring that this is brought to an end.
During Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions last month, the Foreign Secretary told the House:
“The UK enjoys a strong bilateral relationship with Israel, which allows us to raise issues where we disagree.”
He went on to say:
“We seek to protect the viability of a sustainable two-state solution. We raised with the Israeli Government our concerns about activities that might put that future at risk.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 672-673.]
In the face of ever increasing human rights violations at the hands of the Israeli authorities, when will simply “raising issues” with our Israeli counterparts no longer be enough?
I know that other Members will want to examine many of the points I am about to make in more detail in their speeches, but we must open this debate by acknowledging how the Israeli Government discriminate against and violate the human rights of Palestinians on a regular basis. As I have said, unlawful killing and the excessive use of force, illegal under international law, are commonplace within the Occupied Palestinian Territories, despite the Israeli military having an international legal obligation to protect the Palestinian population under its control.
The use of lethal force has escalated, with the UN reporting that last year was one of the deadliest years for Palestinians. At least 151 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces in the west bank—the highest in 18 years. Tragically, that pattern is seemingly spreading into this year as well. Already, nearly 100 Palestinians have been killed in the west bank, including, shockingly, 17 children. That is more than three times as many as in the same period last year.
In many instances, it is not only the military and police that are responsible for these fatalities but settler violence, aided and abetted by Israeli authorities. This state-sanctioned impunity has been aptly highlighted in Huwara in recent weeks, where Israeli settlers have set Palestinian property and possessions on fire with no intervention. Sakir, a 22-year-old mechanic from Huwara, said:
“We have never seen anything like this. The settlers have nothing to be afraid of anymore; they know they can do whatever they like.”
In February, a 27-year-old Palestinian was shot in the head and killed by a settler. Despite all this, Israeli human rights group Yesh Din collated data from 2005 to 2022 that demonstrates, shockingly, that 93% of all investigations into ideologically motivated crime committed by Israeli settlers in the west bank are closed without an indictment.
To go back to the role of the UK Government, the FCDO often talks of its strong relationship with its counterparts in Israel and its ability to raise human rights concerns, so my first question is this: does the Minister accept that, with ever increasing provocations and bloodshed, more needs to be done? It is a simple question. The UK Government must move beyond hollow promises to raise concerns, as the situation on the ground is too critical and serious to be cryptic and dismissive of the facts. Once again, silence is complicity.
The process of settlement expansion, forced evictions, demolitions and dispossessions is further evidence of systematic aggression designed to force Palestinians from their land and deny them their rights. Despite regularly pledging to pause settlement expansion, 7,000 settlement homes in 35 settlements are set to be approved by Israel—the largest number of settlement homes ever agreed in a single planning meeting. At the same time, in Masafer Yatta in the south Hebron hills, over 1,000 Palestinians face losing their homes—the largest eviction of Palestinians since the 1970s. What a stark and blindingly obvious contrast. Similarly, in East Jerusalem, demolition of Palestinian homes has escalated, with 30 homes being demolished since the beginning of this year.
The displacement of Palestinians and the demolition of Palestinian property is a violation of international law and can never be tolerated or ignored. The systematic forced displacement through home demolitions and building of settlements is a deliberate attempt to re-engineer the demographic make-up of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and is illegal under international law. When will the Government finally acknowledge that? What concrete steps will the UK take to hold Israel to account for its repeated and flagrant breaches of international law, including continuing settlement expansion? If illegal Israeli settlement construction does not stop, will the UK Government commit to suspending trade deal talks with Israeli counterparts until we can ensure that human rights are being safeguarded?
Many will be aware that Palestinians’ rights to freedom of movement are restricted by the Israeli authorities. In the west bank and East Jerusalem, the separation barrier, checkpoints, arbitrary closures, a complex permit system and biometric surveillance are used to control, fragment and dominate Palestinians. This June will mark the 16th year of Israel’s illegal blockade of the Gaza strip, which has effectively been turned into the world’s largest open air prison. The 2 million Palestinians trapped there face a permanent humanitarian crisis. It is virtually impossible for Gazans to travel to the west bank, violating their rights to work, education, family life and healthcare. For example, human rights organisation B’Tselem has uncovered that in 2022, Israeli authorities rejected more than one third of all medical exit permits requested by ill or dying Palestinians to leave the Gaza strip to seek treatment in Israel, the west bank or East Jerusalem.
The unequal and discriminatory policies pursued by the Israeli Government have led to divergent health outcomes for Israelis and Palestinians, and these are growing. The evidence is stark. For example, Israel has three times more doctors per 1,000 people than the Occupied Palestinian Territories; women are nine times more likely to die due to complications from pregnancy and childbirth in the Occupied Palestinian Territories than in Israel; and, on average, Israelis live nearly nine years longer than Palestinians, with the gap between the two increasing by almost a year in the past 20 years.
How is it for children? Four out of five Gazan children reportedly live with depression, grief and fear, and it is Palestinian children who often bear the brunt of Israeli discrimination and aggression. Even the fundamental right to education has been destroyed. Some 58 schools in the west bank, serving around 6,500 students, are currently under threat of demolition. In November, Israeli authorities carried out the demolition of a school in Masafer Yatta while children—get this, Madam Deputy Speaker—were still in the school building. Israel stands out as the only country in the world that systematically prosecutes children in military courts, with up to 700 prosecuted each year. Right now, there are 151 Palestinian children held in an Israeli prison, of whom 70% have been unlawfully transferred out of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
While Israel ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child in 1991, Palestinian children living under Israeli military occupation are routinely denied their rights to life, education and adequate housing, and are denied access to healthcare, among other rights denials inherent in the decades-long Israeli military occupation, with no end in sight. Everyone in this House will agree that that is no way to treat any child, anywhere.
In all these instances, it is evident that the Israeli Government are acting with impunity and without accountability. As a result, they are emboldened and determined to continue with these policies. The nub of the issue is that this should come as no surprise to any of us, as Israeli politicians are open about their plans for the Occupied Palestinian Territories and their attitudes towards Palestinians. The evidence is staring every one of us in the face. The country now has the most far-right and extreme Government in its history. The de facto annexation of large parts of the west bank was an overarching principle in the December 2022 coalition agreements for the new Israeli Government, which stated that
“the Jewish people have an exclusive and incontestable right on the entire land of Israel. The government will advance and promote settlement in all parts of the land of Israel, in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan Heights and Judea and Samaria”.
Where are the UK Government in all of this?
Last month, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich triggered international outrage by saying that the Palestinian village of Huwara in the west bank should be “wiped out” following a rampage by Israeli settlers. He also said that the Palestinian people are “an invention” of the past century, and that there is
“no such thing as Palestinians because there’s no such thing as the Palestinian people”.
Is this not the language of ethnic cleansing that we have heard from other states around the world? Throughout my time in this House, I have time and again called out Governments and politicians who have used this abhorrent rhetoric, whether it be Russians talking about Ukrainians, Chinese talking about Uyghurs or, indeed, Tibetans, or Azerbaijanis talking about Armenia and Armenians. Nobody can stand by and condone this disgusting, hateful language, but equally importantly, we cannot let it be put into practice. I say again: silence is complicity. Those words are reality for Palestinian people. They are entrenched in their day-to-day lives, in the policies of the Israeli Government, and in law.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have been listening to his speech with interest. Is he concerned about the human rights of Palestinians only in relation to Israel, or is he also concerned about the abuses of Palestinian human rights by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority?
Chris Law
That is a very valid and good question, but right now I am particularly focused on the occupied territories, which of course are under the command of Israel. That is why I am pertinently directing my points to that today.
In February 2022, Amnesty International published a report concluding for the first time that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians. Under international law—just to be clear, because most of us assume apartheid was solely in South Africa—apartheid is defined as systematic discrimination and domination, and inhumane acts committed in order to maintain that system. That is set out in the international convention on the suppression and punishment of the crime of apartheid and the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. This is not about politicising language: this is language that is respected in international law.
Amnesty International’s report is the result of more than four years of research and analysis, and I recommend that everyone in this room read it, as other international, Israeli and Palestinian organisations have previously drawn similar conclusions, including the respected Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, Yesh Din, Al Mezan and others. If the UK Government are serious about protecting the human rights of Palestinians, it is fundamental that the problem—the crime being committed against them—is first acknowledged, then investigated; that perpetrators are brought to justice; and that it is not allowed to continue.
I will now move to the last part of my speech, which is the most pertinent point about where the UK stands: the UK Government are actively blocking action, and that is the biggest crime at all. Why do I say this? Let us look at the UK Government’s position, which is that
“we do not recognise the terminology about apartheid. Any judgment on serious crimes under international law is a matter for judicial decision, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 876.]
Let us follow that logic. Why is it that the UK Government have quite rightly called out war crimes being committed by Russia in Ukraine without any judicial decision, or called out in this House crimes against humanity—language that includes ethnic cleansing and, indeed, genocide—against Xinjiang by China? How can we pick and choose when we apply this logic? The UK Government must make a choice: they either unequivocally champion human rights around the world, or they turn the other way when it is not politically expedient to call out what they see.
Here is the evidence that the UK is standing in the way of courts and other bodies making such a judicial decision. First, the UK stated its strong opposition to the International Criminal Court’s Palestine investigation in 2021. How can the UK continue to oppose the investigation on the basis that it does not recognise Palestinian statehood, while at the same time allegedly respecting the independence of that court—which, incidentally, has ruled by majority that it has jurisdiction? Secondly, the UK voted against the Human Rights Council’s resolution in 2021 establishing the current independent UN commission of inquiry on the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Finally, the UK Government voted against the UN General Assembly’s resolution to request that the International Court of Justice provide an advisory opinion on the question of the legality of Israel’s occupation, and only last month, the UK and Israeli Governments signed the 2030 road map for UK-Israeli bilateral relations. The only pathetic concrete reference to Palestinian people in that document is this:
“We will cooperate in improving Palestinian livelihoods and Palestinian economic development.”
Not a mention of those suffering human rights abuses, and not a slight glimmer of hope for them.
The evidence is clear: the treatment of the Palestinian people is not primarily an economic or poverty concern, but one of systematic discrimination, erosion of human rights, and denial of identity and legitimacy. Therefore, under no circumstances can the UK Government continue to bury their head in the sand on this issue. As I have said throughout, silence is complicity.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
For me—like many people in this House, I suspect—human rights are universal and indivisible. That is why I want to start by telling Members a little about the relationship of Israel and Palestine to the Council of Europe, which owns, as it were, the European Court of Human Rights.
At the institutional level, the Israeli Knesset has enjoyed observer status with the Parliamentary Assembly since 1957, and the Union of Local Authorities in Israel was granted observer status with the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe in 1994. Israel has signed and ratified 11 Council of Europe conventions and signed but not ratified a further two. Israel participates in four partial agreements and 18 inter- governmental committees.
With respect to high-level meetings, the secretary-general of the Council of Europe paid a couple of official visits to Israel, and the President of the Knesset has paid similar visits to the Council of Europe. We at the Council of Europe have just completed a study on Israel and Palestine, which was led by the former Mayor of Turin, Piero Fassino, who has taken a strong stand on this issue.
The Palestinian National Council was granted partner for democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly in October 2011. The Association of Palestinian Local Authorities was granted observer status with the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities in 2005. I mention those things not as an example just to show that we are linked with Palestine and Israel, but because the Council of Europe looks after the convention on human rights. Israel signed and ratified the convention in 1986. I personally put a lot of effort into using that link with Israel to establish a firm place where we can not just talk about human rights, but actually get Israel to do something about human rights, and I think that is important. It would help us enormously if the Palestinians would accept the same approach to human rights in their own territory and deal with those human rights themselves. We cannot have one side following one rule and another side following a completely different rule—they both have to fulfil the same conditions.
I want to concentrate somewhat on how Hamas and the Palestinians do not protect Palestinian rights. The first place to start with that is LGBT matters. Tel Aviv Pride, as the House will have seen, is the largest LGBT pride festival in the middle east and Asia. Israel welcomes people no matter how they choose to identify. It is not the same in Gaza, where people in LGBT communities fear for their lives, and where same-sex couples are so afraid that they will be condemned that they do not bring themselves forward. We need to protect that fundamental human right of the Palestinians, and we need to put pressure on the Palestinians to be able to do that. The more we can do that, the more it will influence our ability to put pressure on Israel in other areas.
A second issue is freedom of journalism and freedom of expression. We have some very good examples of how the Palestinians have gone out of their way to systematically torture those in detention. I am not aware of anyone in Israel systematically torturing people in detention, but if we can put pressure on the Palestinians to bring forward measures to curb the instincts to have a go at Palestinian journalists, it will help us enormously in resolving the human rights issues in the region.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about torture. He may not be aware that Palestinian children are often deported into solitary confinement, where they spend hour after hour. If that is not torture, I do not know what is. They emerge from those situations with Stockholm syndrome. Perhaps he will reflect on that in his comments.
John Howell
I am aware of that, but that is completely different from how Fatah security forces in Hebron dispersed a peaceful protest against the rising cost of living. That protest was not against political things, but domestic things. Those security forces detained the organisers. What the hon. Gentleman talks about is also completely different from the security forces banning the Palestinian People’s Congress, an umbrella organisation of activists and politicians calling for reform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
A third area where there is great difficulty on both sides and where we need to do more to push forward human rights is freedom of women and gender differentiation. Neither side has signed the Istanbul convention, and Israel has said that it is not going to sign the Istanbul convention at the moment. I think that is such a shame, because it is a landmark piece of international treaty work that protects women from domestic violence. In the Palestinian territories, there is plenty of domestic violence against women, and women suffer severe inequality under Hamas rule and have no protection against domestic violence. If they have been raped, they are seen as tainted and can be subjected to honour killings if that is known.
The final point I will mention is the death penalty. Israel at the moment has a ban on the death penalty, in compliance with its signing and ratification of the convention on human rights. The Palestinians do not have a ban on the death penalty. I know there has been considerable talk in Israel about restoring the death penalty, and I absolutely deplore that. I have told the Israeli authorities that I deplore it and that they should not do it. We should have parity on both sides to move away from the use of the death penalty, as a fundamental part of helping to establish human rights on both sides.
When we look at the Palestinian situation, there is quite a lot to have a go at in order to protect human rights. If we can get its human rights system working properly, it will help enormously in our negotiations with the Israeli side.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Before I get into my substantive speech, I would like to put on record that my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) both wanted to be here. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn wanted to raise the issue of her constituent Mr Ismail Adam, who on 5 April witnessed his son—they are British nationals—being beaten when visiting al-Aqsa, and she would have wanted the Minister to comment on that. Both are unable to be here because of constituency engagements.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) for securing today’s debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. The motion is simple—human rights protections for the Palestinians. Therefore, the logical and very simple question that must be addressed, and it is glaringly obvious, is: why are the Palestinians’ human rights not being protected? When it comes to protecting the human rights of the Palestinians, not only do our Government maintain a position that is morally indefensible, but they fail in their responsibility to protect the Palestinians from the most egregious violations of international law.
It is an indisputable fact for any rational person that Palestinian human rights are being violated. The massive amount of evidence that has been lodged at the International Criminal Court provides forensic detail of the thousands of criminal acts perpetrated by Israel. The evidence of Israel’s human rights violations is not in doubt. What is in doubt is the international community’s will to do something about it. To put it simply, because of the United Kingdom Government’s position, they have failed in their responsibility to uphold even the most basic international principles of human rights norms and laws.
What do I mean when I say basic human rights? I mean the right to be born free and equal in dignity and rights; the right to freedoms without any distinction of any kind; the right to life, liberty and security; the right to privacy, family and a home; the right to freedom of movement; the right to freedoms without any discrimination; the right not to be persecuted; the right to nationality; the rights to freedom of opinion and expression; the right to leave any country, including your own, and return to your home; the right to recognition; the right to protection; and the right to justice. That list is not exhaustive, but these are the international human rights that we in this country epitomise as British values.
No one in this Chamber can honestly say that any of those human rights are afforded in full to the Palestinian people, so these are questions for us all: what would we do if we were forced, for hours each day, to go through a military checkpoint because of our race, just to get to work? What would we do if we woke up one day and JCB bulldozers was demolishing our homes or our school? What would we do if we were parents whose child needed urgent cancer treatment, but we, as well as our child, were denied a permit to access the only hospital where the care we needed was available? What would we do if we were worshipping in church on Christmas Day, and we were tied up, beaten and arrested on Christmas morning? What would we do if F-16 fighter jets blew up the BBC or ITV buildings in central London? What would we do if we were forced to live in the world’s largest open-air prison?
What would we do if our home had been set alight by settlers, and our child had two options: either die of suffocation, or go outside and be pelted by rocks thrown by settlers? What would we do if NHS ambulances rushing to save lives were routinely stopped at checkpoints, or if NHS doctors rushing to care were shot at? What would we do if we were subjected to mass collective punishment? Those might be hypotheticals for us, but they are not hypotheticals for the people of Palestine living under occupation. That is their daily existence, that is their lived experience, and that is the reality they cannot escape from.
The people of Great Britain would never accept such treatment for any of us, so why do we find it acceptable when it comes to the people of Palestine? If we would not accept it, what do we do to stop this from happening to the Palestinians? It is 75 years since the Nakba, and no one is able to return home; 50 years of growing Israeli occupation, which seemingly no one can stop; 16 years of a blockade of Gaza that has not been lifted, despite the severe humanitarian crisis it has caused for 2 million people. Now it is Ramadan. After Ramadan, the storming of al-Aqsa, the third holiest site for Muslims, has become a routine practice for the Israeli military. For Palestinians, such anniversaries highlight decades of violations that have been continuing against them, unaddressed. For us, they have been a stain on our conscience, and that of the world, for more than 75 years.
Let me explain what we should be doing. We should show a real commitment to universal rights and British values. We should show leadership in demanding equality, justice and fairness, as currently we clearly do not. We should support Palestinians by holding their violators accountable for their crimes. Britain, which prides itself on the rule of law, should set the highest standard for Israel to follow, and insist on that in its dealings with us. To do otherwise means that we are continuing to fail not only the Palestinians, but the people of Israel too. In our country, we hold our politicians to account, and even when the Prime Minister broke lockdown rules or did not wear a seat belt, our laws are applied equally. We should afford Palestinians the right to self-determination, and recognise the state of Palestine. We should immediately support the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the situation in the region, instead of maintaining the current obstruction for justice to be done.
However, I am under no illusion. I could expect justice only if I had the recognition, let alone the power to advocate for my needs. Again, returning to a point that is glaringly obvious, this is not a clash of two equals. This is not a clash of religions, and neither is it a clash of peoples. This is an illegal military occupation. This is a conflict in which a protected oppressor is persecuting the unprotected Palestinian people. This is about Israel acting with impunity. Israel has been gifted impunity, which means it has zero incentive to deal with the Palestinians fairly. Indeed, we incentivise it to continue to break international law, because the world fails to hold it to account. That makes us complicit in the persecution faced by the Palestinians.
Our Government have failed to support any mechanisms of accountability, whether by opposing an investigation by the International Criminal Court, abstaining on crucial votes, or voting against resolutions condemning illegal settlements and the right to self-determination. Instead, they continue to ignore Israel’s crimes. If we truly believe in a two-state solution, it is time to act before it is too late. Only a few weeks ago, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, the Israeli Minister for responsibility for administering the occupied west bank, said that there was no Palestinian history or culture, and no such thing as the Palestinian people. That Israeli Minister also spoke at a podium covered in what appeared to be a variation of a map of Israel, which showed an Israeli state with expanded boundaries that included the west bank, east Jerusalem, Gaza and Jordan. Here we are talking about a two-state solution, the only fit and proper resolution to this crisis, yet the actions of Israel show a complete contradiction to that aim.
That leads me to my concluding remarks, and to three clear asks of the Government. First, any relationship with Israel, or any other country for that matter, should be based on a demonstration of an acceptance of our values, which we hold dear. In the recent Netanyahu visit, did the UK ensure that our trading partner would comply with international law, or did we further signal to it that it could continue to act with impunity at our behest for our financial gain over the duty to protect human rights? Secondly, the UK should immediately enable international systems of accountability for criminal law violations in the region and must immediately support the International Criminal Court’s investigation. Thirdly, the UK must recognise the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, which means the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine.
Britain has a moral duty to act on Palestine and not just present empty words. I assure the Minister that this is an issue at the ballot box, so soon empty words will lead to empty Tory seats in elections. I urge the Government to do the moral thing and act on human rights for the Palestinians. It is the right thing to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Just a little reminder of my guidance on seven minutes—because otherwise some people will have a lot of time and others will have very little.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) on securing the debate and on his eloquence in putting forward the case for human rights in Palestine, as the title of the debate suggests. He acknowledged that he only put one side of the story. I hope, in the next few minutes, to be able to put the other side of the narrative.
We are aware that incidents in Gaza and the west bank show us that human rights abuses are occurring and it is clear to see who is perpetrating them. We have reports that LGBT people, women and girls, young people, journalists and critics of the Palestinian Authority have all been abused. These are people in Gaza and the west bank, and their abuse occurs in Gaza and the west bank. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) said, there are no LGBT rights in Gaza. In fact, if people are identified or identify themselves as being gay, they are thrown off buildings. If they are not thrown off buildings, they are often prosecuted. They are criminalised for being gay or identifying as being gay and they are imprisoned or sometimes executed. Let us contrast that with Israel, as has been mentioned, and Tel Aviv Pride, where all people are welcome.
In the United Kingdom, as a democracy, we take for granted our basic rights of freedom of speech plus a free press. However, the same does not occur in Gaza and the Palestinian territories. There are no rights of freedom there. Indeed, journalists are often attacked just for criticising the Palestinian Authority. In 2022, Journalist Mujahed Tabjana was detained after publicly criticising the PA. After being freed, he recounted:
“I was beaten on arrival. I was hit with a hose, kicked, placed in stress positions for many hours, asked about my work, and my friends and colleagues. This went on for days and nights.”
I am sure we all agree that no journalist, or anyone critical of a Government, should be tortured in that way, so the Palestinian Authority must take steps towards a free press and against human rights abuses.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley also said, gender-based violence and honour killings are encouraged in the west bank and Gaza. Women are not treated as equals; they do not have the same rights or protections as men. Women suffer that inequality under Hamas itself. They have no protection against domestic violence. If they have been raped, as my hon. Friend said, they are seen as tainted and can be subject to honour killings. In 2022, the Gazan authorities prevented sisters Wissam and Fatimah al-Assi, aged 20 and 24, from pursuing domestic violence complaints through the courts by impeding them from accessing a prosecutor to testify on their behalf in court. I would therefore like to see the United Kingdom Government assess where we are spending aid and introduce a strategy, such as on violence against women and girls, in these areas.
In July last year, the United Nations Committee Against Torture said it was “seriously concerned” about the consistent reports of torture taking place in Palestinian detention centres and stations. Tens of millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money has been spent on training Palestinian security forces. Despite that, Palestinian security forces have a terrible record on beating and torturing detainees in interrogation centres. These are Palestinians they are torturing. I know the hon. Member for Dundee West will condemn that, as well as others, but it would be useful if other Members acknowledged the abuse that is occurring in Gaza and the west bank.
We need to ask ourselves why this is happening. In recent weeks we have seen some terrible violence. I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee West that some of the inflammatory statements made by politicians in Israel have contributed towards that—they are unacceptable and I certainly would not condone such behaviour, but it has led to incidents such as the murders of my former constituents, and it is having a great impact on many people who visit Israel. We need to ask why there has been an upsurge in violence in recent weeks.
Last Friday marked Quds day, which Iran used to stoke violence in Israel and the west bank. Iran called for resistance to protect Jerusalem, and the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Mohammad Qalibaf told demonstrators in Tehran that Israel is the root of problems in the region, and that Palestinians are actively confronting Israeli aggression from Gaza to the heart of Tel Aviv. That is a clear promotion of violence by Iran. Those words have effect, particularly among younger, more impressionable people. That is how the violence starts. It is worth repeating: I encourage the Government to proscribe the IRGC because its malign activities have an effect on the human rights of Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) and the Backbench Business Committee for securing this debate.
The conditions on the ground in the occupied Palestinian territories are the worst they have been for nearly 20 years. That is directly related to the new far-right Government in Israel, and their willingness to terrorise or to allow the terrorising of the Palestinian civilian population and to ignore international law in the quest for the formal and actual annexation of large parts of the occupied Palestinian territory. We have heard that 98 Palestinians— 17 of them children—have been killed so far this year, and 17 Israelis. That includes a 15-year-old Palestinian boy killed by Israeli troops in the Aqabat Jaber refugee camp in Jericho. As we heard earlier, it also includes the murder of three British-Israeli women. Every one of those deaths is a tragedy, but they are the most serious instances of brutality, and include state-backed settler violence, as in Hawara, and the massive expansion in illegal settlement building and the violence that occurs around that. It includes the 1,000 Palestinians at imminent risk of forcible transfer from Masafer Yatta.
I am grateful to Medical Aid for Palestinians, Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights and others who have briefed us for this debate. MAP says that 2,560 Palestinians have been injured so far this year, and there have been 260 settler attacks against Palestinians and their properties. It is very worrying that not only are there attacks on health workers and not only are ambulances routinely used as cover for Israeli troops engaged in military operations, but medical staff are prevented from reaching wounded people.
We have heard about the effect on children. I was briefed by Defence for Children International, which has been in the UK this week. It is one of six organisations proscribed—on no evidence—as a terrorist organisation, along with Al-Haq and other well-known Palestinian human rights organisations. It told us about the thousands of children who have been imprisoned, some in administrative detention, which is a disgrace. The majority are in Israeli prisons, which is a breach of international law. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) mentioned solitary confinement—a quarter of Palestinian children are detained in solitary confinement, for an average of 16 days but in some cases up to 40 days. That is a form of torture being practised on a widespread basis.
Let me mention Gaza briefly, as I suspect there will not be much mention of it. It is a trap that we all fall into, because Gaza is blockaded and is kept away from the rest of the world. It is under occupation, effectively, despite the withdrawal of Israeli troops. Some 2.2 million people are in that open prison; there is about 50% unemployment and 60% of people rely on food aid. A whole generation has grown up in those abhorrent and appalling traditions. Again, those are breaches of international law. The Government should be asking for an immediate end to the occupation and the blockade, but I fear they are stuck in time and the only moves that the current Government have made are in the wrong direction.
Let me turn briefly to the issue of international law. The whole apparatus of occupation has been in effect for 56 years, and in three weeks’ time it will be the 75th anniversary of the Nakba, when 750,000 Palestinians were displaced from their homes. That occupation, which has gone on, has an apparatus that controls every aspect of the daily lives of Palestinians, whether through home demolition, forced displacement, illegal settlement construction—there are now 750,000 illegal settlers, if east Jerusalem is included—greatly increased settler violence, movement restrictions, arbitrary detention and systematic discrimination.
What do we expect from the UK Government? I return to the point I made earlier, when I talked about annexation. The Minister, who is always very courteous and thoughtful in these matters, said that my analysis was right, so I hope that he will have got some more briefing notes from his civil servants and will be able to say a little more about that.
Two things have happened so far this year. First, there has been a clear statement, both in the coalition agreement and from Prime Minister Netanyahu, to the effect that
“the Jewish people have an exclusive and uncontestable right on the entire land of Israel. The government will advance and promote settlement in all parts of the land of Israel,”
including in Judea and Samaria, which is their description of the occupied west bank. It does not matter whether we are talking about de facto or de jure annexation—that is what is happening on the ground. When this was previously threatened, by a previous Netanyahu Government, the Government and the Opposition said that they would ban settlement goods if annexation took place. Annexation has taken place and it is now time for action, not simply for words. I am sorry that I do not have more time to expand on these thoughts.
There are very clear legal principles. The International Criminal Court investigation, which will investigate the crimes of all combatants not just Israel, and the UN investigation deserve the support of the British Government. They would have had that support in previous years, but now, consistently, this Government are voting against that and blocking independent, international investigations. That is a disgrace. The Palestinians deserve justice, peace and a country of their own. We should recognise Palestine immediately and I hope we will hear some movement from the Minister when he responds.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) for bringing forward this important debate. I declare an interest as I visited Israel and Palestine in 2016 with some other MPs, and that is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I want to concentrate on one aspect that is not often raised in public: the detention and imprisonment of Palestinian adults and children from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which is a central part of Israel’s military occupation.
In 2016, we visited the Israeli military court at Ofer and saw how it works in person. Only Palestinians are tried in military courts. Settlers in the OPTs are tried in Israeli civil and criminal courts. As part of his report in October 2018, the UN special rapporteur wrote about how
“the extension of Israeli laws to the West Bank”
since 1967 has created “a discriminatory legal regime”.
If an Israeli settler child and a Palestinian child throw a stone in the same area, the former will almost certainly not land up in a court and will be protected by Israel’s legal system. However, the Palestinian child will face a military court. Israel’s military court at Ofer has, by its own figures, a 99.74% conviction rate. Why? Because lawyers advise Palestinians to plead guilty in order to get out earlier. I will leave it up to hon. Members to weigh whether that is justice.
International law is very clear on the legal authority to impose military law and establish military courts to try civilians. The key provisions are found in the Hague regulations and the fourth Geneva convention. Articles 64 and 66 of the fourth Geneva convention state that local laws
“may be repealed or suspended…where they constitute a threat to…security”
and replaced with military law, enforced in
“properly constituted, non-political military courts”.
That is what the Israeli military authorities use as the jurisdictional basis for establishing military courts in the west bank. However, international law also stipulates that occupation should be on a temporary basis, including the prosecution of civilians under military law. As we have heard, Israel’s military court policy has been in existence for 56 years—hardly a temporary solution.
The PLO Ministry of Detainees and Ex-Detainees’ Affairs estimates that more than 850,000 Palestinians have been detained since 1967. Wide-ranging military regulations govern every aspect of Palestinian life. Military orders provide for a wide range of offences, divided into five categories—some credible, some not. Hostile terrorist activity and disturbance of public order are classified in that way, which I think is acceptable, but so are classic criminal offences, illegal presence in Israel and traffic offences committed in the OPT. Do the last three categories of offence really need to be tried in a military court? Are the sentences proportionate? Under military order No. 1651 of 2009, for example, throwing stones is considered a security offence with a punishment of up to 20 years’ imprisonment.
There is also detention without trial. Palestinians may be held without charge for up to six months under an administrative detention order issued by an Israeli military commander. Recently, with Breaking the Silence, we met a military commander who I think had made such orders when he was 21—a very young age to have such an impact on somebody. The orders can be renewed without charge or trial. As of October 2022, there were 798 Palestinian prisoners being held under an administrative detention order, including eight members of the Palestinian Legislative Council. The majority of those prisoners have served more than six months behind bars.
It is important that I give the House some detail about what happens. Detainees, including children, are handcuffed and blindfolded. Some are kept in total isolation, as we have heard, and there are widespread allegations that they are threatened during interrogation. Some 70% of child detainees and 80% of adult detainees have been unlawfully transferred to prisons in Israel, in violation of the fourth Geneva convention and the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.
I want to concentrate on what happens to children. Israel is the only country in the world that systematically prosecutes children in military courts. Some 95,000 children have been detained since 1967 in the west bank. The most common charge is stone throwing, and it is often unclear who has thrown the stones. Stone throwing is not acceptable, but no child should be arrested in the middle of the night, roughed up, taken by the army without a parent or a responsible adult and interrogated without a lawyer present.
Worst of all, families are not informed where their children are taken, even though military order 1676 requires that a police officer inform the parents of the child’s detention. In most cases, Palestinian children are taken to detention centres in larger Israeli settlements across the west bank, and parents take the time to find out where their child is. In 99% of cases, children are denied access to their parents or a lawyer and are unaware of their right to remain silent. During covid, families were unable to visit their children. Confessions are often signed in Hebrew, which few of the Palestinian children understand, and 90% plead guilty regardless of whether they committed the offence.
Children should be offered the same protections that would be granted in a civil court. In all of this, Israel is violating the numerous provisions of the UN convention on the rights of the child, which it ratified in 1991. The criminal age of responsibility is 12. In 2011, military orders raised the age of majority from 16 to 18. Under-18s must therefore be tried in juvenile courts, which brings Israel into line with international standards. However, that does not apply to sentencing: 16 and 17-year-olds are still sentenced as adults.
All of this is common knowledge if anyone cares to look. It was confirmed in the legal report that the Foreign Office funded in 2012, which found that Israel was in breach of eight of its international legal obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child and the fourth Geneva convention. Eleven years on, sadly little has changed. As of 31 March 2023, 151 Palestinian children are in military detention, an 11% increase on the 2022 figure. I urge the Minister to revisit that report and push for change.
Following UNICEF’s report “Children in Israeli Military Detention”, which found that there was ill treatment of children in the military detention system, Israel reduced the maximum time for which a child could be detained before appearing in front of a judge, from four days to 24 hours for children aged 12 and 13 and from four to two days for children aged 14 and 15. However, there was no change in the period for 16 to 17-year-olds, which is still 96 hours. Settlers’ children enjoy much shorter periods of detention before seeing a judge, and are allowed access to parents and lawyers.
The resentment towards the Israeli defence force that each of those 95,000 children must grow up with must be huge, and to say that it is counterproductive must be one of the biggest understatements I have made in the House. As the right hon. Sir Stephen Sedley writes in his foreword to the Save the Children report “Defenceless”,
“Whatever one’s view of the ongoing conflict and its causes, there is no excuse for the systematic infliction of psychological harm on a generation of young Palestinians.”
Sadly, most Palestinian children’s only experience of Israelis is framed by such experiences, and violence from Israeli soldiers and illegal Israeli settlers. I urge Israel to ensure that throughout the arrest, interrogation and court process, Palestinian children are given the same safeguards as Israeli children in civil courts. The UK Government and their partners have a direct responsibility to ensure that that happens, as high contracting parties to the fourth Geneva convention. I urge the FCDO to deal with this as a matter of urgency.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
One thing that I share with many others taking part in the debate is a concern for the human rights of Palestinians. The failure to reach a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict means that the human rights of both Palestinian and Israeli civilians are frequently put at risk. As the parliamentary chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I know that all too often this subject is presented as if only the Palestinians experienced threats to their human rights and only the Israelis were responsible. In response to my earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) said that he was talking about the Palestinian territories, but the title of the debate is “Human rights protections for Palestinians”, which, I suggest, is wider.
The Palestinian Authority has full civil control over the vast majority of Palestinians living in the west bank, and as we all know, the Palestinian Authority is plagued by authoritarianism and corruption. In neither the west bank nor Gaza do Palestinians enjoy the right to vote. The Palestinian Authority has not held presidential elections since 2005 or legislative elections since 2006. President Abbas is now in his 18th year of a four-year term. New laws are simply introduced as presidential decrees. Meanwhile, the Gaza strip is governed by a proscribed terrorist group whose ambition is to destroy the state of Israel. No elections have been held in Gaza since Hamas seized power in 2007. Freedom House, a not-for-profit democracy group, describes Gaza as a
“de facto one-party state”.
It also rates the west bank as being on a par with Rwanda and Ethiopia when it comes to human rights, civil liberties and political rights. Gaza is given a score of 11 out of 100 for its human rights record.
Freedom of speech and due process fare no better. The Palestinian Authority has a track record of arbitrary detention, with more than 200 Palestinians detained last year. In June its security forces attacked a peaceful demonstration on the cost of living, and detained the organisers. It has banned the Palestinian People’s Congress, a pro-reform group, from convening, and forcibly dispersed a press conference held by the same group in Ramallah, while threatening journalists with sticks and batons. As we have heard, torture is commonplace, with a number of reported deaths in PA custody, including that of anti-corruption activist Nizar Banat.
The Independent Commission for Human Rights received more than 130 complaints of torture by the Palestinian Authority last year. Just last month, the PA refused registration to Lawyers for Justice, an organisation that represents victims of detention and torture. In Gaza, a general climate of repression exists following a brutal crackdown on peaceful protest in 2019. In 2022, at least 105 Palestinians were arbitrarily detained by Hamas, and more than 160 reports of torture were made to the Independent Commission for Human Rights. The deputy programme director of Human Rights Watch, Tom Porteous, concluded that where the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have autonomy, they have developed parallel police states.
As we have heard, women and girls in the Palestinian Authority territories continue to face discrimination, including early enforced marriage, partner and family violence, rape, incest, psychological abuse and sexual exploitation. We would not ignore such abuses here in this country; we should not ignore them in the Palestinian territories.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We would not ignore those abuses against women and girls in the UK, and rightly so. As an advocate for women and girls, especially on the issue of honour killing, it seems to me that there is a thread running through the speeches today when we talk about the rights of women in Palestine. Does he agree that when it comes to discussing women in Palestine, all of a sudden everyone becomes a women’s advocate, because we are not talking about anything on the other side? Women are always used when it comes to Islamophobic tropes too.
Steve McCabe
I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend, and what I would say to her is that I am citing something that we are all very familiar with and would raise if it was happening here. I am saying that we should not ignore it when it happens there.
As the hon. Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Hendon (Dr Offord) said, among the communities who face the most threats to their human rights are Palestinians who are gay. LGBT+ Palestinians routinely face harassment, torture and physical attacks, including directly from the Hamas Government. Although homosexuality is not illegal in the Palestinian Authority, the PA does little to defend the rights of LGBT+ Palestinians. It has restricted the activity of LGBT+ organisation Al Qaws for violating
“the ideals and values of Palestinian society”.
In December 2019, a trans woman and a gay man were beaten and robbed by a group of men in Kafr Aqab, south of Ramallah, while the PA police stood idly by. The human rights situation faced by LGBT+ Gazans is even worse. Homosexual acts are illegal in Gaza, in line with Hamas’s fundamentalist ideology, with the most serious punishment for offences being the death penalty. Perhaps unsurprisingly, at least 100 Palestinians have claimed asylum in Israel on grounds of their sexual orientation.
I conclude by asking colleagues to consider this damning record when discussing the topic of Palestinian human rights. There is no doubt that the absence of a Palestinian state and Israel’s continued military presence in the west bank have a pernicious impact on the lives of many Palestinians, but human rights abuses against Palestinians take place on a daily basis by their own governing bodies.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said during the earlier statement, we need fresh and enlightened leadership on both sides. The Palestinian Authority’s failure to act as a credible partner for peace is one of the significant barriers to the negotiated two-state solution that many of us wish to see.
Human rights are virtually non-existent for the long-suffering people of Gaza under the violent and bloodthirsty rule of the Hamas terrorist group. Palestine is under occupation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) suggested—occupation by Hamas. We will not do the Palestinian people any favours by turning a blind eye to the record of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. [Interruption.] Do you want me to finish, Madam Deputy Speaker? I thought I had an extra minute because of the intervention.
I am happy and willing to criticise the excesses of Israeli politicians and Israeli forces, but we have to be honest and criticise the excesses of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, too, if we want a balanced and reasonable debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Just to be clear, the time limit is an advisory one so that colleagues think of each other and everyone has an equal shot.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) for securing this important and timely debate on human rights protections for the Palestinian people at a crucial moment in Palestinian history and, as I know from talking to my Israeli friends, at a time when many people in Israel are fearful of the dangerous political direction being taken by their own Government, who are becoming more extreme with each election. Palestinians across the occupied territories are currently subject to an explosion of violence from illegal settlers and the state-sanctioned Israeli Defence Forces alike, under what is widely seen as one of the most extreme and inflammatory Governments in Israel’s history.
I take this moment to remember the British rabbi Leo Dee, following the awful death of his wife and daughters—British nationals who lost their lives in the west bank 13 days ago. I also remember those who were injured in Tel Aviv. Every life lost in this 75-year-old conflict is to be mourned.
This year alone, 98 Palestinians, including 17 children, have been killed by Israeli forces—not by terrorists or by a semi-legitimate Government but by a Government who want to be seen to be on a par with their European, middle eastern and Mediterranean neighbours. The number is three times as many as during the same period a year ago. The UN reports that last year was the deadliest year for Palestinians in the west bank since 2005, with at least 151 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces, 35 of them children. Settler violence is also rising. Since January, the UN has recorded 260 settler attacks against Palestinians and their property, including the devastating rampage through Huwara in February that left 418 Palestinians injured.
In the past few days, I have received nearly 1,000 emails and letters from local residents in Ilford South, not just from my Muslim community but from my Jewish community and local churches, expressing their sincere concern about the abuse of Palestinians’ human rights and the horrendous violence on both sides of the conflict.
When the al-Aqsa mosque was raided and Palestinians were evicted from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah during the holy month of Ramadan in 2021, I received more than 5,000 emails from constituents expressing their concern about these illegal acts and calling for justice for the Palestinian people. Just last week, I met worshippers outside my local Islamic centre, with many telling me of their profound kinship with the Palestinian people and their deep feeling of injustice over the ongoing violence.
Churches are supporting organisations such as the Amos Trust to raise money to support people in Palestine. For people in Ilford South and in many seats like mine, this is not a remote issue on the other side of the world; it is one of the foremost issues in their minds, and it should be taken seriously and with the gravity it rightly deserves.
I first visited Palestine and Israel in 1999. I went with a group of young people from Ilford—Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. At the time, people believed that the Oslo accords might still be enacted. I have visited the Holy Land about half a dozen times over the years. I recall a time when one could sit in Ramallah, where I sat, with people from the Palestinian negotiation support unit and Israeli Knesset Members, talking about what might be enacted. I recall at that time walking through the checkpoint at Qalandia, which was just a few barbed wire stacks on the floor, and people could walk through, showing their passport. When people go through Qalandia now, all these years later, they see the size of the gun turrets, the encasement and the brutality of the occupation. It is so visceral and so wrong.
I still speak to the Israelis and Palestinians we met back in 1999, many of whom have remained friends because of that experience. I also still speak to those in my community in Ilford, and there is hope that one day this conflict could be resolved. But we need to be clear in calling out honestly what is happening in Israel and Palestine, the asymmetry of that conflict and what we can do in this country, using our foreign service and our Government, to bring real pressure for genuine change.
There are so many aspects to this, including the ever-worsening health crisis, which further compounds the situation in Palestine. According to research by Medical Aid for Palestinians, attacks and obstructions on health workers on the ground have risen exponentially, with a 290% increase in the rate of violations against Palestine Red Crescent Society medical teams. During the recent attacks on al-Aqsa, Red Crescent ambulances were fired upon by the IDF with rubber-coated steel bullets, and a paramedic was severely assaulted and injured by an Israeli soldier. In total, nine ambulances were denied access to the courtyards of al-Aqsa, preventing them from reaching the wounded inside.
In another raid in Nablus, the IDF obstructed Red Crescent ambulance crews from accessing a two-year-old girl who had heart problems and was suffering from tear gas inhalation. The ambulance crews had to rush to the child’s home, under gunfire, to reach her. Israel is supposed to be a democratic country. Is this really what people in Israel voted for—the brutality of an occupation such as this? First responders and hospitals cannot cope with the influx of fresh casualties, and that is compounded by a severe shortage of essential medicines and basic supplies, such as syringes, bandages and painkillers. These instances, and many more, are a clear violation of international humanitarian law. As an occupying power, Israel is required under the Geneva convention to ensure the adequate functioning of health services and to allow medical personnel to carry out their duties. Article 59 obliges Israel to permit the free passage of humanitarian relief and to protect, not fire upon, any such relief.
Turning closer to home, last month the Government published their 2030 road map for UK-Israel bilateral relations. The road map has been widely condemned by a host of international organisations as poorly timed and the most egregious effort to date to try to insulate the relationship between the British and Israeli Governments from anything to do with Israel’s behaviour towards the Palestinians. This is clearly unacceptable. In my view, it is a breach of the approaches of Governments of many different stripes to that conflict over the decades. Perhaps most concerning is the agreement’s rejection of the latest ICJ referral, which requests that the Court render its opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s ongoing violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation, on the grounds that it undermines efforts to achieve a settlement through direct negotiations between the parties.
I have a few questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer when he sums up. Is it the Government’s view now that the situation in Israel/Palestine should be exempt from international scrutiny and that Israel should be held to a lower standard when it comes to human rights violations against Palestinians? Although no one would expect Israel to be held to a different or higher standard, we should certainly not be granting Israel the kind of impunity that has led to the extreme behaviour exhibited in today’s Netanyahu Government.
Will the Minister also clarify whether it is still the Government’s view that this is an occupation, that the settlements are illegal, and that bilateral co-operation should not include co-operation with Israel’s illegal settlements or allow for violations of international law and Palestinian human rights? I and my constituents believe that our Government, and all of us in this House, have an historical obligation, arguably going back to the Balfour declaration, to support the creation and recognition of an independent and viable Palestinian state and to ensure that people in the Holy Land can co-exist one day on the same land. This Government must start right now by looking again at that bilateral agreement and, in my view and the view of my constituents, by formally recognising a Palestinian state.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Following Madam Deputy Speaker’s strictures, I call on Members to try to stick to seven minutes.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Let me add my thanks to the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) for securing this debate, and associate myself with every word of the condolences that he offered to those who have lost loved ones.
We must send a clear message from this House this afternoon that the spiral of violence has to stop. It has to stop because the dream of Palestine, the dream of justice and the dream of dignity are disappearing before our very eyes. They are being destroyed outrage by outrage, stun grenade by stun grenade, and bullet by bullet. Palestinians today are now losing all hope that there will ever be a future where two people and two nations can co-exist side by side in peace.
I am afraid that I have to tell the Minister that there are now too many people in this House who see this Government as standing by idle, in silence, when they should be taking the initiative, when they should be acting, and when they should be determined to ensure that there is justice for Palestine.
This House today has already heard a catalogue of horror. We have heard about the 98 Palestinians who have lost their lives already this year—far more than in previous years—the Israeli citizens who have been killed, and the children who have been killed with live ammunition. We have also heard about the 1,000 Palestinians in Masafer Yatta who are at imminent risk of forced transfer, which is in complete violation of Geneva conventions. We have heard about the brutality at the al-Aqsa mosque, where even UN observers said that there was blatantly excessive and unjustified force, with stun grenades and rifle butts used in a holy place.
All of us in this House would stand four-square behind Israel’s right to self-defence. Many of us would associate ourselves with the words of the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) that we should be proscribing organisations such as the IRGC and taking a tougher line on Iran. Most of us here know that the Palestinian Authority needs radical reform, and most of us would condemn the brutality of Hamas, but all of us also know that this is not a time for whataboutery. This is a time to call out the root cause of the violence today, which is the radical spread of settlers illegally through the west bank. The fact that we now have 279 settlements, almost all of them illegal and now home to 700,000 people, must surely draw our attention to the root cause of the problem, and that is the fundamental sin that the Government should be calling out.
If the Government are serious—and they might be—about their idea of a rules-based order, then we in this House must insist that those rules also apply in the west bank, in Gaza and in Jerusalem. If the Government do not insist that the rules-based order extends to the places that the Palestinians call home, how can we ever be credible in our arguments for peace and justice for Palestine? How can we avoid the charge of double standards in international affairs, and how can we contribute meaningfully to keeping the dream of a two-state solution alive? It is time for the Government to turn their rhetoric about a rules-based international order into some red lines.
We have to ask this: when are the Government going to accept that those red lines have indeed been crossed? When we have a UN rapporteur saying that what is going on is now getting close to the legal definition of apartheid, how much more evidence do the Government need to call out a violation of the red lines? When we have Israeli Cabinet Ministers appearing in Paris before a map of greater Israel that includes the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and when we have members of the Israeli Cabinet leading the protests for the expansion of settler communities, how much more evidence do we need? It is time for the UK Government to act.
My constituents are very clear about the five things this Government need to do. They need to implement a ban on settler goods. They need to ensure there are no trade deals with Israel until it demonstrates a fundamental respect for human rights. They need to ban weapons sales until it is clear that there is a strong regime for supporting human rights. They need to start using UN mechanisms for delivering accountabilities and, as many people in this House have said and have voted for, it is time for immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. Those are practical, determined steps that we can take—and take now.
I conclude by reminding the House of what was in the Balfour declaration. When this country said that it would support the establishment of a state of Israel, it came with the words,
“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
The rights of those communities are being violated every day, and it is time the Government not only called that out, but did something about it.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I too congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) on securing this debate and on his eloquent and thoughtful speech.
Since the formation of the far-right Israeli Government at the end of last year, we have seen opposition spilling out across civil society in the region, and it has continued to escalate as Israeli Ministers pursue their very frightening agenda. Last month it came to a head and we saw tens of thousands of people protesting not only on the streets of Israel, but in Germany and the UK, as they voiced their opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to override the Israeli judiciary. Of course, that move on Netanyahu’s part is central to his attempt to avoid being put on trial for corruption. Although he has put those plans on pause for the moment, that has come at the price of concessions to his coalition partners.
First, there is National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, who just 15 years ago was convicted of inciting racism and supporting a terrorist organization. It appears that Netanyahu is set to hand Ben-Gvir control over his personal militia as part of a deal over putting the judicial overhauls on pause—a truly terrifying prospect that will see many Palestinian lives put in danger.
Then there is Finance Minister Smotrich, who describes himself as a “fascist homophobe” and only recently said that
“there is no such thing as the Palestinian people”.
This is the same man who called for the Palestinian village of Huwara to be wiped out, following what an IDF spokesperson called a “pogrom” at the hands of illegal settlers and some Israeli soldiers. Smotrich has been given powers over the west bank, transferring authority away from the Israeli Defence Ministry to Israeli civilian control.
Human rights groups consider that the latest example of the irreversible entrenchment of the occupation of Palestine as de facto annexation by the Israelis becoming de jure. Occupied territory is supposed to be under temporary military control, but this temporary occupation has now endured for more than half a century and is the root cause of all the violence that we witness day in, day out across the territory. Not only is it morally indefensible, but the imposition of Israeli civilian control over settlers and Palestinians in the west bank is illegal under international law. We heard the Minister say earlier that he was totally at one with the need for adherence to international law.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has concluded:
“In light of the fact that there is no intention of granting civil rights to the millions of Palestinians living in the West Bank, the result of the agreement is a formal, full-fledged apartheid regime.”
That is the direction in which the Israeli Government are moving, and they will not stop unless they face robust consequences. Yet for all the demonstrations against Netanyahu’s Government, only certain parts of the opposition are joining the dots between the attacks on Israel’s democratic structures and the broader ideology that denies democracy to millions of Palestinians, whose lives are under the control of the occupying Israeli regime and who are being subjected to gross human rights abuses.
For Palestinians, that far-right Government are no different from the Government who came before them. In fact, 2022 was the deadliest year for Palestinians in decades: hundreds were killed at the hands of Israeli soldiers and illegal settlers in the West Bank, including dozens of children. Yesterday, I met representatives of Defence for Children International Palestine. Ayed Abu Eqtaish, the director of its accountability programme, told me that Netanyahu’s far-right Government are really nothing new for the Palestinian people who live under the brutality of Israel’s illegal occupation.
Israel automatically and systematically prosecutes children in military courts that lack fundamental fair trial rights and protections. Between 500 and 700 Palestinian children are tried in military courts each year, and around 150 children are currently in detention. Of those 150 children, 11 are being held by the Israeli military in administrative detention—a relic of the British mandate that is a form of detention without charge or trial. Children can be held indefinitely, and some have even been locked up for more than a year.
The way in which Palestinian children are detained by Israeli forces is horrific. About one in four are placed in solitary confinement for interrogation purposes. On average, a Palestinian child placed in solitary confinement will be isolated for 15 days. In at least one case, a child was isolated for around 40 days. As DCIP says, that is no way to treat a child. It is no way to treat any human being. I hope to hear from the Minister an outright condemnation of such inhumane and unjust practices. For far too long, the UK Government’s approach has failed to discourage the Israeli regime from inflicting such abuses.
First, it is high time that Ministers looked at the more impactful options available to them to bring an end to those practices. That could begin today if the Minister had the courage to do the right thing and recognise the state of Palestine with immediate effect. Secondly, he could abide by international law and impose economic sanctions to bring an end to Israel’s illegal settlements in occupied Palestine. Thirdly, he could revoke the Government’s statement on the investigation of Israeli war crimes by the International Criminal Court. Finally, he could heed the calls of the Palestinian people by pushing for an international peacekeeping mission in the region to ensure that there are human rights protections for Palestinians.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but we need more than strong words; we need actions from our Government, and we need them now.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I, too, put on record my sadness that this debate should come in the context of the awful recent violence in the region—the terrible scenes in Huwara a few weeks ago, the raid of the Al-Aqsa mosque by Israeli security forces earlier this month and the awful footage of dreadful beatings, the escalation that followed, and the tragic death of British-Israeli nationals Rina and Maia Dee and their mother, Lucy. I and my party join others in paying tribute to them.
The violence over the last few weeks has been sickening to watch, and we cannot afford for it to spiral out of control any further, as we have heard many times this afternoon. The terrible violence of May 2021 also started in a similar fashion, with a raid on the al-Aqsa mosque during Ramadan. We need to do all we can now to prevent this from deteriorating any further, which includes ensuring that the status quo arrangements at holy sites are upheld.
The reality is that this comes at a very concerning time for the peace process. The aims of the new far-right Israeli Government and the conduct of their Ministers are hugely concerning. It is not just Itamar Ben-Gvir, with whom our Government will rightly not engage. What about Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who stood up in Paris just weeks ago and said
“there is no such thing as a Palestinian people”?
Will the Government condemn these deeply racist remarks and rule out engaging with Smotrich too?
One of the new Government’s aims is promoting the continued expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories, and we have heard about the large number of them. They have continued to progress with the proposed E1 settlement in the west bank, which would involve the construction of thousands of units and create a hugely challenging physical barrier to the territorial contiguity of the west bank and, accordingly, to a Palestinian state. If we in this place care about peace, we must understand that settlements such as this make a two-state solution much harder to attain.
The United Kingdom must be absolutely clear that we stand on the side of international law. It is therefore hugely disheartening that the Government are opposed to the International Criminal Court’s investigation into international crimes in the west bank. It damages our credibility in the region, and it undermines our efforts to speak out when international law is violated in other parts of the world, including on our own continent. We cannot pick and choose. We must acknowledge the UK’s historic obligations to the region, and we have heard this afternoon the powerful words of the Balfour declaration. It is vital that we do what we can.
The reality of the situation right now is that hope is evaporating. I have already touched on the far-right Israeli Government and the expansion of settlements, but we can add to this the increasing violence and deaths in the last two years. Last year was the deadliest in the west bank since 2005. Meanwhile in the west bank, the Palestinian Authority are devoid of any credibility and have refused to call elections. Where hope is extinguished, radicalisation sadly thrives exponentially.
The UK has an important card that it can play now: recognition of the state of Palestine. In the context of this deteriorating situation, what a powerful sign that would be, not only to demonstrate a tangible commitment to a two-state solution but to provide real hope to Palestinians—hope that peace is possible. Parliament has already called on the Government to recognise Palestine as a state. I join many colleagues in the Chamber in saying that now is the moment to do so. I hope the Minister will realise that at moments such as this, the UK cannot simply sit and watch in silence.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
As we have heard today, Israel has elected the most extreme Government in its history. There has recently, rightly, been a huge focus on the threat that this new Government pose to judicial independence in Israel, which has prompted the largest protests in Israeli history. This new Israeli Government have also sparked widespread fears that they will deepen and entrench the illegal military occupation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, not least because the Government include extreme right-wing figures such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, previously convicted of inciting racism and supporting a terrorist organisation and who campaigned in the election on aggressively extending military control over Palestinians. Meanwhile, the Government’s new Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, recently said:
“There is no such thing as a Palestinian nation. There is no Palestinian history. There is no Palestinian language.”
That is truly chilling.
This is all deeply alarming for those of us who wish to see an end to all violence, and a future based on peace and justice. Already, 2023 is set to be even more deadly than 2022—itself one of the deadliest of recent years—with around 150 Palestinians killed in the west bank and East Jerusalem, and 30 Israelis killed. The United Nations has reported that already this year, by the end of March, 16 Palestinian children have been killed in the west bank, compared with two in the same period in 2022.
Today, I want to make a few remarks about the human suffering that I witnessed when, as a new MP in 2016, I visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Jerusalem. I met Palestinian families struggling against Israeli state-sanctioned human rights abuses, and I met Israeli human rights groups. In those few days, I got a glimpse of the daily suffering that the Palestinian people have endured for over 50 years under the Israeli state’s illegal occupation of the west bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza. I saw Israeli settlements that were illegally seizing land, and which do more than anything else to prevent a two-state solution. I visited a Palestinian village that had been repeatedly demolished. I spoke with Palestinians cut off from family and friends as a result of Israel’s illegal separation wall that divided Palestinian communities and annexed more land.
I attended military courts where Palestinian children are tried in a language they cannot read or speak, and in the old city of Jerusalem I visited the home of a Palestinian family who had lived there since 1953, who Israeli settlers were trying to force out of their home. Sadly, in recent weeks, that elderly couple whom I and other Members met—Nora Ghaith-Sub Laban, who is 67 years old, and her husband Mustafa, who is 72—faced imminent eviction. I have written to the Foreign Secretary about this. The spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has called on Israel to halt any such actions that lead to a risk of forcible transfer, which he said
“may amount to war crimes”.
On my visit, I did not have the opportunity to visit Gaza. It is almost impossible to imagine what it must be like to live on that tiny strip of land, smaller than the Isle of Wight, where 2 million inhabitants are unable to move freely, and whose access to clean water, electricity and healthcare is restricted by Israeli state actions.
A long-lasting peace for both Palestinians and Israelis can only be secured through a solution that tackles the underlying injustices faced by the Palestinian people. A two-state solution means that Palestine must have the right to exist, but Israeli state actions make that ever less likely. As the former colonial power in Palestine, Britain has a special responsibility to do all it can to end Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land, its colonial settlements, its denial of the right of Palestinian refugees to return, the siege of Gaza, and Israel’s violations of human rights and international law.
But words alone are not enough. We need action too. That means—it has to mean—that the British Government should recognise the state of Palestine, as this Parliament voted to do back in 2014. It means that we should end all trade with illegal Israeli settlements, and that we should impose an embargo on arms sales to Israel. The Government cannot pose as an honest broker when Britain has licensed around half a billion pounds-worth of arms exports to Israel since 2015. Without such actions, the Israeli state is effectively given the green light to continue its illegal actions, which are likely to kill all hope of a Palestinian state.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
What we saw at al-Aqsa in Jerusalem this month, with Israeli security forces storming the mosque, firing stun and smoke grenades within its grounds and brutally beating worshippers, was one of the most concerning incidents, because it marks a worrying escalation in the abuses being perpetrated by the Israeli security forces. While the desecration of a holy site is wrong at any time, to march heavily armed soldiers into al-Aqsa to use weapons on the site of one of the most revered places of worship during the holy month of Ramadan, at the start of Passover and just before Easter, and in one of the holiest cities in the world, is frankly outrageous. Let us be clear in this House that what we saw was not a policing operation, but a clear and deliberate provocation by the Israeli security forces.
For hundreds and hundreds of years, the sanctity of places of worship and the convention that they should as far as possible remain untouched during conflict has been respected, whether in law or in unspoken practice. It is clear, however, that this reverence, this convention and this respect for one of the most fundamental human rights—for people to worship and practise their religion—is being rapidly eroded, because that was not the first raid on al-Aqsa; nor was it even the first raid during Ramadan. It is now becoming an all-too-common occurrence, with the international community failing to take a stand to end this abuse. It leaves us with this question: how much blood must be spilled on consecrated ground, how many bullets must be fired in hallowed halls and how many holy sites must be trampled upon before the UK Government live up to their historical, moral and global responsibilities towards the region?
We must also remember that the raid on al-Aqsa came just weeks after the riot of settlers through Palestinian villages. This violence by settlers towards Palestinians should not be surprising, because rather than being deterred by action from the international community, the Israeli Government, security forces and settlers have instead been emboldened by their silence. The UK Government and the rest of the world have a lot to answer for in failing to present a united front against these illegal settlement plans that are in deliberate violation of international law under the fourth Geneva convention. By de facto annexing Palestinian land, these illegal settlements, approved by the Israeli Government, are undermining the future viability of Palestine as part of a two-state solution. We have to ask: just how much more land do the Palestinians have to lose? How many more Palestinian homes have to be razed to the ground by army bulldozers? How much more does the future state of Palestine have to shrink before the UK Government will consider recognising a viable and independent state of Palestine?
The raid on al-Aqsa, the settler violence and the expansion of illegal settlements is just the tip of the iceberg, because there is a long and exhaustive catalogue of human rights abuses still being committed by the Israeli Government against the Palestinians. Living under occupation, Palestinians have their freedom of expression and assembly heavily restricted. They are subject to arbitrary detention, and they are beaten and tortured. Palestinians face the prospect of enforced disappearances, they see children subjected to military detention and, in a worrying number of cases, they face what is best described as summary execution by the Israel Defence Forces.
However, we know that the human rights abuses faced by Palestinians will not end there, and nor will they lessen in intensity, because in office right now is the most worryingly right-wing Government under Benjamin Netanyahu. That Government are composed of some of the most racist, anti-Palestinian Ministers, including those who have called for the Palestinian town of Huwara in the west bank to be erased. It is therefore clear to everyone that more innocent blood will continue to be spilled on all sides if the international community does not set clear red lines and if it does not do more to end the violence.
We are not even halfway through what is already one of the deadliest years since 2005, and we therefore cannot escape the urgency of reaching a lasting solution to the conflict. That solution lies in a real two-state solution, and the need for the UK Government and others to immediately recognise a full and independent state of Palestine to give effect to this two-state solution. From what we have seen with the escalating violence towards civilians and the increasing persecution that Palestinians face, the region simply cannot wait any longer. If the UK does not act now, when the UK Government finally recognise the state of Palestine, all this future Palestinian state will control will be nothing more than a thin strip of land, and the Palestinians will be denied forever the state they were promised more than 75 years ago.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I associate myself in particular with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain).
I have simply one issue to raise and one question. I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, which is a cross-party group. We have campaigned for the freedom of journalists to undertake their profession free from censorship, intimidation and, indeed, risk to their lives. We link with the International Federation of Journalists. We have raised issues of journalistic freedom across the globe, to be frank, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraqi Kurdistan, China and Colombia—you name it, we have raised it—but we have consistently expressed the NUJ’s and the IFJ’s concerns about the harassment, intimidation, physical abuse and, unfortunately, murder of Palestinian journalists by Israeli state forces.
Last year, on behalf of the NUJ, I attended the commemoration of the life of Shireen Abu Akleh. People may remember that Shireen, who was an al-Jazeera correspondent, was shot dead by the Israeli armed forces on 11 May 2022, while she was reporting in Jenin. Shireen fulfilled her duty as a journalist until her last moment. She was wearing her blue protective vest and helmet, and she was preparing to report on the Israeli raid on the west bank city of Jenin when an Israeli sniper fired a bullet into her face and killed her instantly.
Since then, Reporters Without Borders has compiled video and audio evidence about at least 11 other journalists who have been targeted or aggressed by Israeli security forces in the west bank. In fact, we now know that at least 30 journalists have been killed by Israeli security personnel over the last few decades. What has also been occurring—this has been reported time and again, and we have raised it in this House before—is that, as the Palestinian Centre for Development and Media Freedoms has reported, the number of infractions of Palestinian journalists has increased over the last decade. Some 368 Israeli offences against Palestinian journalists have been recorded.
It has also been reported that Palestinian journalistic organisations have been subject to closure or complete destruction by Israel, resulting not just in the loss of jobs, but in some instances in the loss of life. Some 31 news organisations were either closed or destroyed by Israel in 2021 alone, 30 of them during the attack on Gaza in May 2021. A report from the International Federation of Journalists, which has world standing and respect, has referred to the violations as
“a clear attempt by Israel to silence media reporting on the ground”,
and has said that
“no one has been held to account.”
In 2018, two deaths of journalists along with many injuries were reported by Reporters Without Borders to the International Criminal Court, and these were reported as what were regarded as war crimes. In 2022, a group of organisations came together and submitted further reports to the International Criminal Court. Those organisations were the International Federation of Journalists, the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate, and the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians. They were working with human rights lawyers—Bindmans, Doughty Street Chambers—all of which have a reputation for upholding human rights, and they put a formal complaint into the ICC. That complaint detailed the systematic targeting of Palestinian journalists. It was on behalf of four named victims in particular—Ahmed Abu Hussein, Yaser Murtaja, Muath Amarneh and Nedel Eshtayeh—who were killed or maimed by Israeli snipers while fulfilling their duties as journalists covering the demonstrations in Gaza. We have now also submitted the name of Shireen, so her case will be investigated as well. At the moment, the ICC’s Prosecutor’s Office has formally acknowledged receipt of the complaint, and that complaint alleging war crimes will have to be investigated.
I am raising the issue of the protection of journalists, and the harassment and murder that has taken place. The specific request I have of the Government is for them to assist in putting pressure on the ICC’s Prosecutor’s Office to bring these investigations to an early conclusion, so that we can have some justice in relation to what many of us believe to have been murders committed by the Israeli defence forces. We must also send a message to the Israeli state that it can no longer act with impunity when it harasses, intimidates, and indeed murders journalists who are trying to fulfil their profession of reporting freely and willingly on the circumstances for the Palestinian people.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I completely agree with the remarks made by my Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). The loss of Shireen Abu Akleh is deeply felt by Palestinians all over the world. She was the iconic voice of reporting on behalf of al-Jazeera from Palestine, and she was the trusted voice that many Palestinians woke up to every day, to find out what was happening in their land. The case was exposed by some other journalists at the time, and we should also pay tribute to the school of forensic architecture at Goldsmiths University, which managed to reconstruct her death scene. That will no doubt help the prosecution, and although that will never bring justice for her because she has been killed, it will at least bring some comfort to her family and to all those who miss her so much.
This debate is about human rights for Palestinians, and fundamentally the whole overarching issue is that of the occupation. Everything we say should be measured against the situation facing Palestinians. The Nakba of 1948 occurred on 15 May, which has now been declared Nakba Day around the world. It saw 750,000 people expelled, and 500 towns and villages destroyed as a result of that, with people for ever living in exile. I have never forgotten on the first visit I made to Gaza in the 1990s, meeting an elderly woman and I asked her about her life. She described the way she lived until 1948, and then she described her life since 1948. She said, “Thanks to UNWRA I’ve had food and water, but that’s all.” She had her whole life under occupation, and she brought up her family under occupation.
It is hard for anyone outside to understand what it is to live under occupation, where a simple journey down the road requires going through several checkpoints, and the humiliation that goes with that. Many of us in the House have visited the west bank and Gaza on various occasions, and found the checkpoints irksome, annoying, irritating, they wind us up and so on, but we are there for only a few days or a week or two. For others it is every single day, and I wonder what goes through the mind of a Palestinian building worker who has to go into Israel to work during the day, and go through the humiliation of dozens of checkpoints. Then, when he is on his way home, he gets delayed for no reason whatsoever, often for hours and hours, while exhausted from a day’s work, and he has to do it all again the next day. That plays on people’s minds. Then, when an ambulance cannot get through and medical aid cannot be delivered because of it, that is where the anger gets worse and worse.
As others have pointed out, the settlements now contain over 700,000 people. There is an interesting synergy on the numbers. Some 750,000 Palestinians were expelled in 1948 and now 750,000 settlers have chosen to live on the west bank. There, they are given protected status, access to water and access to roads. The wall that has been constructed goes through much Palestinian land, and destroys and divides farmland. The occupation is utterly brutal and the UN is not wrong when it describes the situation on the west bank as an apartheid state, where some people are allowed to use some roads and some are not, some are allowed to travel and some are not, and some are allowed to get through borders and some are not. That is the brutality of the situation facing them.
When the settlements are built, house demolitions take place to get ready for them. I have in mind the memory of the late, great Tom Hurndall, whose mother I know very well, because I supported the campaign to try to get justice for Tom. Tom was in Rafah. He was carrying a child across the road. He was helping to save children, because the Israeli defence force was demolishing their homes. He was shot dead on the street. Eventually—eventually—somebody was prosecuted for it. The memory of Tom, Rachel Corrie and so many other internationals who went there to try to help and bring about justice will never go away. This year alone, 98 Palestinians have been killed, including 17 children, and over 2,500 have been seriously injured. The settler violence towards local Palestinian communities largely goes unpunished and the brutality gets worse and worse.
There is an issue about access to healthcare. Even within the terms of the fourth Geneva convention, the occupying power, Israel, is required to do two things. One is not to make any long-term decisions on the future of the people’s existence. That is one of the conditions. The other is to ensure that necessary medical services and aid are provided. It is failing on both counts, never mind on many other counts as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) spoke very well about human rights abuses. He was also quite right about the anger in Israel about the new laws Netanyahu is introducing. What I find mind-blowing is that there are so many on those demonstrations in Israel—I support them if they want to defend their independent judiciary; I absolutely agree with them that that is a fundamental in any democracy—but join up the dots. If you are defending democracy in your own society, why are you denying democracy and denying human rights in the occupied territories such a very short distance away? That is not to say there are not many very brave people in Israel. B’Tselem and other groups have done a great deal to speak up for the human rights of Palestinians, and recognise that the brutality of the occupation inflicts a brutality on the occupier as well. The brutality with which they have dealt with the protests in Israel is an indication of the desperation of Netanyahu and his ilk.
Surely to goodness, the Palestinian people have suffered enough. The least we can do as a country is recognise the state of Palestine—no qualifications—to show that we are serious in speaking up against the abuse of human rights and for an end to the siege of Gaza. Sieges and occupation bring about horrors. They affect people’s minds. They affect the way people behave and they affect the country that is doing the occupying. In this debate today, let us just make the call. We are there supporting the human rights of everybody in the region; we are there calling for an end to the occupation and the settlements, and for the recognition of Palestine.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Tom, you can take an extra minute in your contribution, as we go into the wind-ups.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Since we are having this debate at a time of escalating tension and violence in the middle east, I want to start by putting on record what I did not have time to do in the statement, which is to add my condemnation to any assault on, or murder of, civilians, no matter from what quarter. My sympathy is with the families of those who have lost loved ones in recent weeks and months.
However, as violence increases, I caution against slipping into what we used to call the politics of the last atrocity, whereby we try to understand and explain an event by seeing it as a reaction to the event that happened before. We need a wider, longer-term view that looks at the context and the factors behind what is happening in Israel-Palestine, if we are to have any prospect of beginning to rejuvenate moves towards peace. When we do that, the obvious and glaring thing in front of us is that within 20 years of the state of Israel coming into existence, it began a military occupation of territories outwith its borders that belong to other countries or that were designated by the United Nations as a future homeland of Palestine.
Fifty-six years later, that military occupation continues. That has the biggest bearing on human rights for the people who live in the occupied area, not just because—obviously—by occupying it militarily, basic human rights such as the right to exist and to be, the right to self-determination and the right to for someone to come back to the land from which they were displaced cannot happen, but because it is in the essence of occupation that the population in the occupied area has to be controlled, constrained and subjugated. That is what an occupation has to do to work. Therefore, across every aspect—education, health, travel and everywhere—the human rights of Palestinians have to be suppressed. Until we commit to ending that military occupation, it will be impossible to properly establish human rights for Palestinians.
I am unashamedly an advocate for the human rights of Palestinians, but I also want to see a future where Israel exists in harmony with its neighbours and at peace with itself, as a partner for progress in humanity. That can properly happen only once the occupation ends. It is distressing that we never hear talk of ending the occupation or even pathways towards it—certainly not from the Israeli Government and, most importantly, not from the UK Government. I ask the Minister to comment on how the UK, as a matter of policy, will work towards ending the military occupation.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend speaks with passion and knowledge on this issue. I hear regularly from constituents in Glasgow North who express solidarity with Palestinians and want to ensure that their human rights are fully recognised. He is right about how the UK Government respond to all that. One of the ways to get us on the road to an end to the occupation and the achievement of a two-state solution—still the global consensus of the best way to achieve a long-lasting peace—would be to recognise the state of Palestine, as many Members have said in the debate. Should the Government not follow this Parliament’s lead by making that recognition?
Tommy Sheppard
They should, and I will come to that in a moment. I want to say first that there are two major factors in the recent past that ought to dictate a change and a review of UK Government policy. The first is the stated policy of the Israeli Government. People have commented throughout the debate that they are the most extreme right-wing Government in the history of the state of Israel, and that is true. People have commented on Ben-Gvir and Smotrich and some of the vile statements they have made, but it is not just them. As was quoted by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), Prime Minister Netanyahu himself made clear in the mission statement of the new coalition Government that the Jewish people have the right to claim all of Israel. By all of Israel, he means all the land that Israel occupies, from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea. There is no room in that perspective for a two-state solution and an independent state of Palestine.
Why do we not stop pretending that the current Israeli Government are a good actor and believe in a long-term two-state solution, when they have clearly stated that they do not? Everything they are doing on the ground is designed to remove the building blocks that would be needed to ever move talk forwards to a two-state solution.
The other factor that needs to be addressed is the escalating and widespread problem of settler violence. Among the settler communities that have been established in the occupied areas, there are now effectively armed militias operating a campaign of violence and intimidation against the local Palestinian population, often with the connivance of, or certainly with the turning of a blind eye by, the official Israeli authorities.
We saw that in Huwara, in what people described as a pogrom, with settlers on the rampage, attacking any Palestinian they could come across in that village. The IDF went in, and as a result of the IDF action, more than 400 Palestinians needed treatment because of tear gas and other injuries. That is an unprecedented situation that ought to require the British Government to change their mind.
I also want to mention the word apartheid. I expect in his notes the Minister has something that says that the British Government do not consider that to be a relevant word in the context of Israel and Palestine, because it is about South Africa, and that they do not agree with the description. Let us be clear: the word apartheid is not an adjective, but a noun. It has a precise legal definition. Respected international and Israeli organisations have spent a lot of time considering the matter and have come to the conclusion that the legal test for the crime of apartheid has been met in the occupied territories and that it is being practised by the Israeli authorities.
We cannot just ignore that. The British Government may wish to come to a different view, but they should do so not by pretending that this is about some sort of linguistic choice about what words people use, but by looking at the coherent and compelling evidence that has been provided and saying whether or not they want to refute that evidence and come to a different conclusion. To simply make no comment on it seems to me to be a gross dereliction of duty.
I finish by putting forward a couple of asks to the Minister. The first is about recognition. This has been said many times, so let me rephrase it: can the Minister explain how British policy in the region would be undermined or compromised in any way by deciding to recognise the state of Palestine now? If that is not to be undermined, then what is the reason for delay? The more delay happens, the more it looks as if this country is not really serious about a two-state solution, when it is prepared to recognise only one of the states in question.
Finally, I come back the road map. Can we have a commitment, as we would with other countries, to make sure that our trading relationships with Israel are centred on the protection of human rights and the rule of international law, and that we are prepared to use the development of those trading relationships to that end?
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) for securing this timely and important debate. We have had an excellent debate and covered a wide range of issues concerning human rights violations against Palestinians, ranging from the targeting of journalists, which was raised by my right hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), to checkpoints and permits.
This has been one of the deadliest years for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, with 98 Palestinians having been killed by Israeli forces, including 17 children, and 17 Israeli civilians having been killed so far, including three British-Israelis. That point has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and many other hon. Members. Each life lost is a tragedy, and every Palestinian and Israeli deserves a just solution to this conflict, but we cannot deny that the ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories has led to significant human rights violations against the Palestinian people. It is in that context that we consider the human rights protections for Palestinians.
I will focus on only three areas, because many points that I wished to raise have been covered by other hon. Members. The first area is the treatment of children in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Under the UN convention on the rights of the child, children have special protection and must be protected from violence at all times. Every action necessary must be taken to keep children safe. According to Save the Children, last year alone 34 children were killed by Israeli security forces and settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The use of violence against children can never be justified. I ask the Minister to condemn its use and to tell the House whether he supports the calls from the British consulate general in Jerusalem for thorough and transparent investigations of the deaths of children killed by the Israeli security forces.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
In November, I visited the occupied west bank with the Council for Arab-British Understanding and with Medical Aid for Palestinians; I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We heard eyewitness accounts in the south Hebron hills of the demolition of a school in Masafer Yatta. Israeli forces threw in stun grenades while children were inside. We saw videos of children and teachers trying to get out. The school was rebuilt as a temporary school; a few weeks later it was demolished again. The Israeli Government are currently threatening to demolish 58 Palestinian schools in occupied territory. I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in condemning the proposed demolitions, and I hope the Minister will comment that it is not right even to threaten to demolish schools.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I condemn any demolitions of schools, an issue that I will come to later in my speech. It is harrowing to hear her testimony and her account.
The treatment of children who are detained and held in the Israeli military detention system, often in solitary confinement and with limited access, if any, to lawyers when interrogated, is also deeply concerning. That point was made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). In its 2019 report, Save the Children found that child detainees
“face inhumane treatment such as beatings, strip searches, psychological abuse”.
Last year, three parliamentary colleagues and I visited the military courts at Ofer in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) spoke today of her experiences visiting those courts and gave a vivid description of what she saw. We attended a bail hearing of a teenage boy who had been shot and had been questioned without a parent or guardian present. Several colleagues have made the point that Israel is the only country in the world that routinely tries children in military courts, a clear breach of international law.
The next area on which I wish to focus is forcible evictions and demolitions. Paragraph 2 of article 17 of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights states:
“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”
Despite that, Israel seems to be pursuing a policy of forced evictions and demolitions. More than 1,000 Palestinians face eviction in Masafer Yatta in the south Hebron hills. Palestinians in the Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah districts of East Jerusalem and Khan al-Ahmar—which the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), visited last year—face a similar fate. So far this year, there have been 63 demolitions in East Jerusalem alone. In area C, 58 schools are under threat of demolition because it is claimed that they do not have building permits, which I understand are almost impossible to obtain for Palestinians.
After demolition, land is often used to expand or develop settlements, which is illegal because international law requires occupying powers not to move their civilian populations into occupied areas, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) mentioned. He also pointed out that settlements are a risk to a two-state solution. They make it much harder.
In 2019, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), described Israel’s settlement expansion as an “effective annexation”. It would be a very serious development in international law if it were found to be so. The Minister for the Middle East, Lord Ahmad, visited Masafer Yatta in January and tweeted:
“The UK continues to urge Israel to desist demolitions and evictions that cause unnecessary suffering and are illegal under IHL”—
international humanitarian law—
“in all but most exceptional circumstances.”
However, it seems to have had little effect on the Israeli Government’s actions, so what steps do the Government intend to take to ensure that demolitions and evictions do not carry on at pace, as they have since the start of this year?
The final area on which I wish to focus is the imposition of restrictions preventing Palestinians from moving freely in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The permit system operated by the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories limits the ability of Palestinians to travel freely and creates uncertainty and additional layers of bureaucracy and delays, whether people are trying to access medical care in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or to work, study or travel abroad. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who made a very passionate speech.
Similarly, there are visa restrictions on those coming from abroad to work in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, such as academics. Israel will argue that a permit system is necessary for security purposes, but the way in which the system is applied can be seen as punitive and unjust. A report published last year by Breaking the Silence, an organisation established by former soldiers in the Israel Defence Forces, described Israel’s military permit system as “bureaucratic violence” used on occasion as “collective punishment”, when an entire family’s travel permits can be revoked, which denies them access to work and to medical care in an instant.
All those human rights violations are a result of the occupation. The solution to these problems must be a two-state solution, with a thriving, prosperous Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel, but sadly we have seen little progress towards that for the past eight years. The onus should be on both sides to get around the table and start talking, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) at the start of his speech. I fear that if this does not happen there will be an escalation in the violence, given the steps already being taken by the Israeli Government, such as giving Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich control over much of the Israeli civil administration, the military body that administers the occupied west bank. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who also referred to last month’s raid on the al-Aqsa mosque.
However, the UK is resisting efforts to hold Israel to account within international institutions. The 2030 road map makes no reference to a two-state solution, and contains commitments that raise concerns about the Government’s willingness to apply diplomatic scrutiny to breaches of international law and their support for the role and independence of international legal institutions such as the ICJ and the ICC. The UK’s capacity to be an honest and consistent diplomatic interlocutor with credibility on all sides relies on a consistent approach to the application of international law. There needs to be more accountability, and the UK Government should be challenging human rights abuses wherever they occur. I therefore ask the Minister these questions. What steps are the Government taking to bring about a two-state solution? Does he support the call for thorough and transparent investigations of the deaths of children killed by Israeli security forces? What further steps will the Government take to put pressure on Israel to stop the evictions and the demolitions?
I began my speech by saying that this had been one of the deadliest years so far in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Let me end by saying that unless urgent action is taken, there is a real risk that the situation will become much worse over the months ahead. The time for action to de-escalate the violence and protect human rights is now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Minister, and ask him to leave at least two minutes for the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) to wind up the debate.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) for securing the debate, and l am also grateful for the contributions made by all Members this afternoon. I will try to respond to the points that they have raised. It has been a passionate debate, featuring many eloquent, informed and heartfelt speeches from senior and distinguished parliamentarians.
As I said in my statement earlier today, the Government condemn the horrific murder of Lucy, Maia, and Rina Dee by a terrorist—this was also mentioned at the outset of this debate—and we offer our deepest condolences to Rabbi Leo Dee. The decision of the family to donate Lucy’s organs is an act of compassion that stands in extraordinary and vivid contrast to the senseless violence that robbed a family of its mother and two sisters. The United Kingdom unequivocally condemns this and all other acts of terrorism perpetrated against Israel and her citizens.
This is, sadly, a timely debate. Last year, as has been pointed out throughout the debate, was the deadliest in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories since the second intifada, according to UN records. So far in 2023, 89 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security forces and 19 Israelis killed in acts of terrorism. The UK is actively encouraging de-escalation. We welcome the leadership shown by the Israelis and the Palestinians when they attended the meetings in Aqaba and Sharm El Sheikh to discuss ways to de-escalate the rising tensions. We are grateful to the Governments of Jordan, Egypt, and the United States for instigating those discussions. The UK is now working with both sides and international partners to support the process, and calls on both Israel and the Palestinians to honour the commitments made in those meetings. We call on the Palestinian Authority to denounce incitement to violence and to resume its security co-operation with the Israeli authorities, and we say to the Israeli Government that Israel has a legitimate right to self-defence, but its security forces must keep their obligations under international humanitarian law.
On al-Aqsa, also referred to in the debate, both Palestinians and Israelis must avoid actions that risk escalating tensions, including around the holy sites of Jerusalem. The UK calls for all parties to respect the historic status quo arrangements at Jerusalem’s holy sites, and we welcome Israel’s decision to prevent non-Muslims from visiting the al-Aqsa compound for the final days of Ramadan—an important step in support of de-escalation.
I want to address directly the four points that have been made in the debate and that were emphasised by the Opposition spokesman and the hon. Member for Dundee West. First, on demolitions and evictions, the UK is clear that the demolition of Palestinian homes and forced evictions cause unnecessary suffering to ordinary Palestinians and call into question Israel’s commitment to a viable two-state solution. In all but the most exceptional of cases, demolitions by an occupying power are contrary to international humanitarian law. Officials from the British embassy in Tel Aviv have repeatedly raised our concerns about demolitions with Israeli Ministers and senior officials, and urged them to cease the policy of demolitions and to provide a clear, transparent route to construction for Palestinians in area C. The UK Government are also focused on preventing demolitions from happening in the first place, and support Bedouin communities and Palestinians facing demolition or eviction in area C of the west bank through our legal aid programme. The programme helps residents challenge decisions inside the Israeli legal system.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) asked me about child detention in Israel and Save the Children’s 2020 report. We remain committed to working with Israel to secure improvements to the practices surrounding children in administrative detention in Israel. We have made clear our concern about the continued reports of ill treatment of Palestinian minors in Israeli administrative detention. Reports of the heavy use of painful restraints and the high number of Palestinian children who are not informed of their legal rights, in contravention of Israel’s own regulations, are particularly troubling, as is the continued transfer of Palestinian child and adult detainees to prisons inside Israel in violation of the fourth Geneva convention. We continue to make representations to the Israeli authorities on this issue and urge them to comply with their obligations under international law and either charge or release those detainees.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman raised access and movement. We continue to stress to the Israeli authorities the damage that their restrictions on movement, access and trade are doing to the living standards of ordinary Palestinians, especially in Gaza. While we welcome the steps that Israel has taken to ease some restrictions, we want to see Israel go much further. We urge access into and out of Gaza in accordance with international humanitarian law for humanitarian actors, reconstruction materials and those, including Palestinians, travelling for medical purposes. We are in close contact with UN agencies and key partners on the ground to assess the situation, and we will monitor that closely.
Fourthly, on construction permits, we have repeatedly made clear to the Israeli authorities our opposition to the demolition of Palestinian properties in area C of the west bank and in East Jerusalem, and we call on them to cease the policy of demolition and to provide a clear, transparent route to construction for Palestinians.
Munira Wilson
Will the Minister go a step further and condemn the permit system, which is separating Gazan families? On my recent visit to the neonatal unit at Makassed Hospital in East Jerusalem, I saw prematurely born babies who had been separated from their mother and their family for weeks. One baby had been waiting two weeks to be discharged because neither her mother nor another family member in Gaza could get a permit. Will he condemn that? Frankly, Gaza is an open-air prison at the moment.
Mr Mitchell
I am trying to make a constructive speech, and I hope the hon. Lady will allow me to make my points in my own way. If she reads carefully what I have said in Hansard, I think she will find much to please her.
Liam Byrne
The Minister has just set out four sets of sins that the UK Government have protested about to the Government of Benjamin Netanyahu. He must therefore accept that our words are failing to deter egregious behaviour. When will he shift from words to deeds, to deter things from getting any worse?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, underestimates the effect of today’s debate. What is said in the House of Commons will be read. He and I have focused on four particular areas, and what I am saying, and what has been said by Members on both sides of the House, speaks for itself.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) asked me to elaborate on what I said earlier, and he raised important points similar to those raised by the right hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Of course, some years ago and over a prolonged period, all four of us campaigned for the human rights of Shaker Aamer.
The Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority reaffirmed their joint readiness and commitment to work immediately to end unilateral measures for a period of three to six months. That includes an Israeli commitment to stop discussion of any new settlement units for four months, and to stop the authorisation of any outposts for six months. I hope that is a proper answer to the question.
The UK will always seek to advance the cause of Palestinian human rights in a manner that is fair and balanced, and that supports proportionate and fair international scrutiny of Israel.
I am conscious of the time, so I will draw my remarks to a close. I reiterate that the UK Government want to see the human rights of all Palestinians protected, as this is a vital step towards the creation of a sovereign, independent and viable Palestinian state, living in peace, security and side by side with a safe and secure Israel.
I was asked to give, without equivocation, our position on settlements. The UK’s position on settlements is absolutely clear: settlements are illegal. I was asked about recognition of the Palestinian state, and the UK will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when the Government believe this will best serve the objective of peace.
Chris Law
I thank my constituents, the people of Scotland, the people of the UK and the people across the world who have written to me about this very important debate, to inform and educate me.
I thank everyone in the Chamber, as they have been not only passionate but deeply evidenced and very clear about what needs to change. We have had so many debates on Palestine over the years, and things are getting increasingly worse. Words, in themselves, are not enough, although what the Minister says about the discussions is welcome.
Members on both sides of the House have spoken about values and human rights, as enshrined in international law. This means the UK Government cannot take two sides. They have to take a clear position. If they believe in human rights and international law, they should do something about it by not repeatedly blocking proposals at the UN and the International Criminal Court to judge serious crimes. That would take it out of the UK Government’s hands by allowing the courts to decide the very things for which the UK Government are calling. I did not hear the Minister say that.
Silence is complicity. By doing nothing, we are complicit in not allowing judgment to be taken on these serious crimes.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of human rights protections for Palestinians.
Special school in Biddulph
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The people of Biddulph, in my constituency, are at a disadvantage to many others because there is no specific special educational needs and disabilities provision there. They have therefore asked me to present this petition, which calls on the Government to provide dedicated resources and dedicated educational facilities for their children.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Government should take actions to construct a new special school in the town of Biddulph in the Staffordshire Moorlands so that children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities from there and the nearby surrounding areas have access to a local specialist school, notes that; this follows discussions with parents and local councillors who have formed a support group and shows that there is a legitimate need for this kind of facility at a local level; further notes that mainstream schools do not have adequate resources to provide the specialist support that these students need and require, further declares that the number of students needing specialist education is increasing; furthermore there are also issues with lack of transport should this be needed for out of area travel which can, on occasion, be both stressful and daunting for the children who are requiring specialist education.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to construct a new special school in Biddulph.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002826]
Freehold Management: Service Charges
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the House for being able to call this debate to draw attention to the problems with the current framework of legislation and regulation covering estate management and service charges that are placed on freeholders. I do so on behalf of the thousands of homeowners in my constituency who are being charged for services that ordinarily might be covered by their council taxes, who frequently are not given easy access to the scale of charges they face and who have inferior rights of legal challenge or redress when something goes wrong. I do so to support the efforts of local councillors, especially Councillor Jim Weir, from Great Denham, in my constituency, who has done so much to draw attention to these issues, and to support the efforts of those in local resident associations, such as Tom Middleton, the chair of the New Cardington residents’ association. He has doggedly pursued estate management companies to get clarity and promote accountability. I also do so on behalf of 30 other Conservative colleagues who cannot be here today but joined me in writing to the Prime Minister to urge action. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Minister for her thoughtfulness in listening to the concerns I have raised with her ahead of this debate. I look forward to her response to some of the points I wish to make.
Let me set out a bit of the background. Freehold service charges can cover the provision of a variety of services on housing estates, such as the upkeep of play areas, communal gardens, unadopted roads and communal parking areas, such as parking courts. The requirement to make a financial contribution is most usually defined in the deed of transfer when the property is first sold by the developer. Alternatively, a liability might arise as a result of an estate rent charge that forms part of a purchase contract. The developer then usually enters a contract with a management company to organise the necessary work on the estate and to recover costs from homeowners. Sometimes the developer will set up a residents’ management company to take ownership of the communal areas. Where that happens, the residents’ management company can appoint a management company to work on its behalf. That may sound a little confusing, as it did to me as I said it. I was surprised to learn that in what one might think would be a single housing development area there can be 10, 20 or 30 individual companies handling small areas, such as little parts of roads or smaller communal areas. For my constituents, that is a confusing issue if they ever want to follow up with an inquiry. I am going to talk about some of those problems in this debate.
Based on my research, what is clear to me is that after the completion of a purchase these costs to homeowners can often increase significantly; that there is no clear or effective accountability; and that these arrangements have created a mini-industry of companies providing services of varying quality and charging often high fees, many of which relate to administration rather than to the services provided themselves. For the homeowner affected by estate management charges, these raise some pertinent issues that I know the Government are considering.
First, the notification to home buyers of their future liability for charges is not made clearly. Secondly, when bills arrive, it is often unclear what the charges relate to or why they are being applied to a particular property. Thirdly, it is often difficult for residents to obtain information about the charges, to challenge their reasonableness or to effect change when the work is being completed inadequately. Fourthly, the regulation or oversight of the practices of the management companies is very weak, creating problems for homeowners and, increasingly, creating reputational damage to many of our major housing developers, which it would be wise to address now.
It is also clear to me that the voice of homeowners is absent at a crucial stage. It is right at the start, while planning approval is going on, when the developer and the local planning authority determine who is responsible for the costs to maintain shared areas in the proposed development. In the room, there is the local authority planning authority and the developer. The people not in the room are the homeowners who will subsequently have to pay those charges. That structure means that the incentives are stacked too heavily for the developer and the local authority to stick the bill to those not represented—the homeowners themselves.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an issue that affects many of my constituents. Does he agree that another issue is that, when the local authority is in the room at the start of a development, there should be some way of agreeing a time-bound point at which that local authority takes over, making certain the services or the facilities within some of these developments, otherwise a situation can arise whereby the residents can be responsible, for years sometimes, for covering the costs through service charges that should actually be taken over by the local authority?
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend, with her great expertise in these and other matters, is absolutely right. This question of the timeframes in which certain common services might be adopted can create a number of concerns. This issue was raised for me by Councillor Phillipa Martin-Moran-Bryant, who has a number of residents affected by this issue. There is also the period of time that it can take for an estate management company to be handed over to the residents themselves. There is a double source of risk of delay, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government should consider whether there is a reasonableness in terms of the time limit that could be put in place.
Fiona Bruce
There is also the situation of some homeowners buying early on in a development and then finding that they are bearing charges for the subsequent development of the site or the maintenance of the site during its development, which, realistically and fairly speaking, should be borne by the developer itself.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that. I know the Minister will be listening, because she has been listening to all the points that I have previously made on these issues.
Just to cap the concerns, at the end of it, a person might want to sell their property. What we find increasingly is that, as they are going through the sales process, they hit a snag, because the estate management company is saying, “You haven’t paid charges.” Sometimes, they are charges that the homeowner was not even aware that they were liable for. This is the reality for many homeowners living in areas with estate management charges: they have no voice, no explanations, no transparency, no redress and, potentially, no ability to move house.
Let me give a couple of specific examples to bring those points to light for the Minister—they will largely be from my constituency, but they occur in many places. I return to Councillor Jim Weir in Great Denham, who conducted a survey to which 300 residents replied, and which identified multiple instances of excessive administrative fees. A number of my local councillors have done the same.
In one scheme, the anticipated maintenance work to be carried out and the charges for electricity comprised 30% of the total charge to the residents, while 70% of the charge was fees, reserves and overheads. In a second scheme in his ward, the anticipated maintenance was 10% of the total charge, with 90% of the charge going on fees, reserves and overheads. In a third scheme, the estate manager had just one job: the management of seven lamp posts. Jim and his team compared the costs charged per lamp post with the standard cost of the local council for doing the same job and found that the management agent is charging twice the standard rate.
When residents challenged the estate management company to see the electricity bills, they were informed that the bills could not be shared electronically and someone would have to visit the offices of the agent 170 miles away if they wanted to inspect them. One good resident said, “I’m up for that,” and that he would go and have a look. He arranged an appointment, which got cancelled and cancelled and cancelled. After more pressure from residents, the company finally admitted they did not have any electricity bills to show. No individual should have to go through that level of turmoil to try to find out something so simple about why they are being charged something in their own area. It is ludicrous.
I have a couple more examples from New Cardington of other issues relating to handovers and conflict of interest. Tom Middleton, the chair of the New Cardington Residents Association, wrote to me:
“Residential management companies (RMC) are set up by developers to look after the various open spaces not placed for adoption. The directors of the RMC are usually senior directors at the developer. This means the managing agent is effectively the developer’s client until handover. This is usually prolonged. Here in New Cardington the RMC was incorporated in July 2010, 13 years later the developers are only NOW starting the handover process. This means for 13 years residents have paid a service to an agent of some description but over which they have had no control.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has a similar problem in the Silverwoods development in Kidderminster. He cannot be here today, but he wrote to tell me:
“Multiple iterations of the estate management company has resulted in absolute opaqueness in accounting and use of funds generated, whilst failure to enforce planning conditions by Wyre Forest District Council has passed on a financial burden to rectify failures onto residents. This is not good enough.”
There is a further point about conflict of interest that, on balance, I want to make. The Association of Residential Managing Agents has 10 standards in its consumer charter, the seventh of which is, “Avoid conflicts of interest”. Concerns have been raised by the New Cardington Residents Association that their estate management company, RMG, has created a conflict of interest by establishing a wholly owned subsidiary, Osterna Ltd, to conduct annual fire risk assessment processes.
I have kindly been copied in to a letter from RMG that explains its rationale, and I am in no way asserting that there is any wrongdoing here, but it clearly changes the arm’s length nature of an estate management company hiring services if some regular services, such as fire risk assessments, go untendered to related companies. Will the Minister write to companies reminding them of their obligations and calling for greater accountability and transparency?
I will canter quickly through the history of Government reviews. In July 2017, there was a consultation on tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market. In December 2017, the Government said that they would legislate to ensure that freeholders who pay charges for the maintenance of communal areas and facilities on a private or mixed-use estate can access equivalent rights as leaseholders to challenge the reasonableness of service charges. In October 2018, the Government confirmed their intention to
“replicate consultation requirements and obligations on the provider of services to provide information to the freeholder.”
In June 2019, the Government committed to equal rights for freeholders and the right to manage for freeholders. In December 2021, the then Minister told the House:
“The Government also intends to give freeholders on private and mixed tenure estates equivalent rights to leaseholders to challenge the reasonableness of estate rentcharges, as well as a right to apply to the First-tier Tribunal to appoint a new manager to manage the provision of services. In addition, we will ensure that where a freeholder pays a rentcharge, the rentcharge owner is not able to take possession or grant a lease on the property where the rentcharge remains unpaid for a short period of time. We will translate these measures into law when parliamentary time allows.”
May I ask the Minister to confirm, first, that there has been no dilution of those commitments by the Government, and secondly, that it is the Department’s desire to include this long-promised legislative change in the next session of Parliament? I say “Department” because, of course, it is the Prime Minister who has to balance the multiple claims on parliamentary time. That is why I—along with thirty of my colleagues—wrote to the Prime Minister to ask him to include the legislation in the King’s Speech.
The Prime Minister kindly wrote back and included the following comments:
“The Government believes that it should be made clear to potential purchasers what the financial arrangements and their responsibilities are for the upkeep of communal areas. It is also important that we hold these estate management companies more accountable on how they perform and how homeowners’ money is spent.”
He went on:
“These changes will be introduced when Parliamentary time allows, and I will carefully consider your call for it to form part of our legislative session for the next Parliamentary session.”
I put on the record that I am very grateful that the Prime Minister wrote back. I hope that he understands the purpose of this debate and the calls by 30 of my Conservative colleagues, including the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). It is the time for the Prime Minister to take the action that has been promised for so long. We know that the issues preceded his time, but he has a great capacity for understanding problems and finding solutions. We are close—I think the Minister will be clear that the Department is ready to move—and I hope that the Prime Minister will take further consideration and action to help my constituents and those in many other places around the country.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
It is a great pleasure and privilege to respond to my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on this vital matter.
I pay huge tribute to hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for his persistence on this particular issue and for his convening power in gathering 30 of our colleagues, which is no mean feat, regardless of the issue. He has made an incredibly compelling speech, every word of which the Government—and certainly the Department for Levelling Up—agree with, as I will set out in the time that remains. I also pay tribute to the individuals and groups he has worked with and about whom he has taken time to speak to me. He has explained to me the impact on the lives of his constituents, mentioned Tom Middleton of the residents’ association, and set out the excellent work that Councillor Jim Weir and many other councillors in the area have done. When my hon. Friend told me the story of the seven lampposts, I found it absolutely appalling and shocking that that kind of abusive practice can go on in this day and age. It has to stop, and we are absolutely committed to putting into practice the actions that will bring a stop to it.
I do not need to deliver most of my speech because my hon. Friend has done an excellent job of setting out the landscape of the problem and what needs to happen, so I will skip straight to what we will do to fix this. We know that legislation needs to be introduced. He challenged me on the timetable for that, and I will respond. We are committed to introducing legislation to plug this gap. We intend to create a new statutory regime for freehold homeowners based on the rights that leaseholders have, which would ensure that estate management charges must be reasonably incurred, that services provided are of an acceptable standard and that there is a right to challenge the reasonableness of charges at the property tribunal. We need to end this fleecehold situation where homeowners who thought they had bought a home to live in—their own piece of property, with their own front door—are subject to abuse and find these charges escalating out of all proportion to the services provided.
We will also give a right to change the provider of maintenance services by applying to the tribunal for the appointment of a manager. That can be useful if the homeowner is dissatisfied with the service they are receiving and there is significant failure by the estate management provider to meet its obligations. We will take action to tackle these unreasonable costs and the lack of performance and service delivery by these companies. We will go further in time and will consider how to introduce a right to manage for freehold home- owners once we have considered the complexities of the Law Commission’s report.
I turn to the questions that my hon. Friend asked. He asked whether I would meet him and other concerned colleagues to discuss the detail of these issues. I am aware that we only have a short time today, and he has raised many complex issues. I am happy to meet him to discuss this further. That is important, because this is a big change, and we are tackling many areas of law.
My hon. Friend rightly challenged me on the numerous commitments made by Ministers at the Dispatch Box to ensure that these measures are introduced. Clearly, it is beyond my pay grade to pre-empt what the King’s Speech will contain, but my hon. Friend rightly pointed to not only the letter from the Prime Minister but repeated assurances from myself, which I will repeat today, and from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that this issue is top of the list of priorities for our Department. We take it very seriously, and we fully intend to bring forward legislation to implement the changes as soon as parliamentary time allows. That is the plan, and we remain committed to it.
My hon. Friend asked me whether there will be any dilution of the current commitments. The straight answer is no. We remain committed to addressing all the imbalance facing freehold homeowners, and we will legislate so that freehold homeowners have the right to challenge the reasonableness of charges and to go to the tribunal to appoint a new management company.
My hon. Friend asked me when this legislation will be introduced. Of course, we always want to bring in changes that will make a difference to people when this is having an impact on their household budgets. We all share the desire to bring legislation in as soon as possible. As soon as the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament, we will strain every sinew to get these changes on to the statute book, so that people can use them—that is what we all want to see.
My hon. Friend referenced the CMA market study into house building. He will be reassured to know that this study does not in any way dilute the Government’s commitments; in fact, it complements them, and it might suggest other actions for the Government. As he said, there are many aspects of this situation and many problems that we need to fix.
My hon. Friend asked me whether we can write to companies reminding them of their obligations and calling for accountability and transparency. They need to know that change is coming, and I want to reiterate that today from the Dispatch Box. As the Minister responsible for this, I receive many pieces of correspondence from colleagues across the House and people across the country. The changes proposed by the Government are much needed. These estate management companies should be on notice, and I repeat that today. The Government have been very clear that all charges should be reasonable and clearly communicated, and we are wholly committed to strengthening freeholders’ rights on these estates.
Fiona Bruce
I am very encouraged by what the Minister is saying. Actually, some charges, rather than being reasonable, should be not there at all. Let us take play areas as an example. Will the Minister consider whether local authorities should take over a play area if, for example, it has been created as a result of an agreement with the developer? Such play areas are used not just by the residents whose properties the green area fronts but by anyone in the local area, freely. Will the Minister discuss with local authorities and the Local Government Association how to prevent situations where residents are completely unfairly burdened, and ensure that local services are taken over by local authorities where they should be?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, which is one that I am familiar with from my constituency. It is an issue that I am sure we have all faced in one form or another, and it causes considerable frustration, annoyance and anger among local residents who have bought those properties and expect to have those facilities there. They have paid good money for the houses that they have moved into.
I will certainly discuss that issue with my hon. Friend further; there are a number of legal frameworks that we may be able to use to assist with that. I will commit to writing to her with a bit more detail on that point, because I fear that I will not be able to do it justice in the Chamber, but we will introduce secondary legislation on the back of the Bill that we intend to introduce that will bring a considerable advance in the amount of clarity that already exists pertaining to these matters and many others.
To revert to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and his call for us to write to all the management companies, much as that would appear to be a sensible approach, unfortunately, it would prove rather more difficult in practice. It is very difficult to track down where all these companies are, their addresses, and who actually runs them. What I can certainly commit to do, though, is put information on gov.uk making it very clear to those companies what the obligations on them should be.
With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will bring my remarks to a close. I finish by thanking again my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for all the work he has done with his colleagues; my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for her really useful contributions; and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), my neighbour in Worcestershire, who has also contributed to the research. I reiterate that it should always be clear to potential homebuyers what the arrangements are, but we know that very often, it is not; that is the root cause of some of the problems that we have faced. We think it is pure justice that homeowners must have effective ways to get things put right when they have a problem with their housing. That is why we remain wholeheartedly committed to legislating, when parliamentary time allows, to empower those freehold homeowners so that they can better hold the estate management company to account. I thank the whole House for the time it has taken to consider these important matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Cost of living
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
BACKBENCH BUSINESS
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
Landmine Awareness
(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Before I call Wendy Morton to move the motion, I should draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered land mine awareness.
Thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Mundell. I recognise that the HALO Trust is based in your constituency. The HALO Trust is one of the leading global non-governmental organisations carrying out de-mining, and I know that you have a particular interest in this issue. In fact, we worked together on Project Umubano, an international social action project, for a number of years, so I am delighted that you are in the Chair, although had you not been you might have contributed to our debate and shared with us some of your knowledge and experience of international development.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate. Organisations such as the HALO Trust, whose headquarters are in your constituency in Scotland, Mr Mundell, do incredibly important work that truly saves lives, and I place my gratitude to them on the record. Does the right hon. Lady agree that if the Government are happy to rely on charitable organisations to carry out so much of the work, they must ensure that they are adequately funded?
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. Funding is crucial for de-mining work, and it is NGOs and charities that go and do this work. It is not the sort of work that Governments do, because it needs the neutrality of an NGO. As well as the HALO Trust, many other groups around the world, including the Mines Advisory Group, do amazing work in this field.
I place on the record my thanks to the Members who are present this afternoon. It is a Thursday afternoon, so many of our colleagues are already heading back to their constituencies for surgeries and visits, but I am pleased by the number of people who have been able to attend the debate, and by the tremendous support that I had from Back-Bench colleagues of all parties when I made my bid to the Backbench Business Committee. That shows not just how much interest there is in this topic, but how seriously our colleagues across the House take it. We know that, long after the end of war, civilians remain at risk from landmines, as do livestock and other animals, and often our environment.
Landmines are a lasting legacy of conflict. They remain capable of killing or injuring civilians, and so deny access to land and livelihoods, hindering agriculture, enterprise and often education as well. In the last few years, the Government have put a big emphasis on making sure that girls have access to 12 years of education. I can see the Minister nodding, and I know that she was a champion of this issue in her days as Secretary of State for International Development, when I was a Minister in that Department. We know that giving a girl an education provides her with an excellent start to life, and it is important that we recognise that link.
Landmines also disrupt essential services and the supply of valuable humanitarian aid. It is estimated that 60 million people are still at risk from landmines and unexploded ordnance in countries where conflict has long since ceased —for example, Angola. Many of us remember the pictures of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, wearing protective clothing and a visor in a minefield. She did so much to raise awareness, but that was a number of years ago. Other affected countries are Cambodia, Laos and Zimbabwe.
Margaret Ferrier
Landmines may seem like an problem from conflicts long past, but their use in Ukraine has brought this issue, rightly, back into the spotlight. Does the right hon. Member agree that there needs to be stronger deterrence of landmine use in conflict, and consequences for the resulting loss of civilian life?
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady must be looking ahead in my speech or else she is psychic, because I intended to touch on the subject of Ukraine. That conflict—the illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine by the Russians—is a reminder that the use of landmines is prevalent today; it still happens. I will come on to that as I do a brief tour around some of the countries where we still have challenges to handle.
According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, more people face danger today than two years ago, as a result of more recent conflicts. MAG estimates that on average 15 people every day are killed or injured by landmines or unexploded ordnance, and—shockingly—half of the civilian casualties are children. I did a bit of calculating when preparing my speech, and I reckon that that is about 5,500 people being killed or injured every single year. That is a huge number.
I called this debate as close as was possible—because Parliament has just had its Easter recess—to 4 April, recognising that that is the UN’s International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action. I wanted to use the opportunity of this debate to draw attention once again to this deadly legacy of conflict, to recognise the global role that the UK takes on this issue and to —gently—press my right hon. Friend the Minister and the UK Government to do more to support this incredibly important work.
Of course, the UK was one of the first signatories to the anti-personnel mine ban convention, or mine ban treaty, and the convention on cluster munitions. The UK is one of the world’s leading forces in ridding the world of landmines. With 164 parties to it, the mine ban treaty is one of the most widely ratified disarmament treaties, but there are notable exceptions, including Russia, the US, China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar and Syria. When the Minister sums up, will she say what more our Government can do to press these other parties to ratify the convention?
The UK provides aid for landmine clearance through GMAP—the global mine action programme—and UK funding has supported organisations such as MAG and the HALO Trust to remove more than 70,000 landmines and explosive remnants of war. I appreciate that the Minister faces budgetary pressures—as we did during my days in the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—but I am a little surprised that funding for such a crucial programme has decreased by about £53 million in the last year, at a time when civilians are facing a greater risk, with the war in Ukraine being a really good example for us to consider.
GMAP3 was launched in March 2022 and runs until March 2025, with, I believe, a budget of £89 million— I see the Minister nodding. Will she update us on that budget and where it stands, how much has been spent and how much has been allocated? Does she think that that will be enough until 2025, given the number of challenges that we face around the world? I will touch on some of those, and in particular Ukraine. In too many places, the situation remains extremely challenging. I want to take this opportunity, as we recognise landmine awareness day, to share a few of the many examples, because they act as a salient reminder of why this work matters.
I will start with Afghanistan, where the HALO Trust began clearing mines back in 1988, following decades of conflict. The country was left absolutely littered with ordnance, and today Afghanistan remains one of the deadliest places for civilians. The work done there to educate children and adults about the risks they face is a vital part of HALO’s work programme. I am sure that is something you know, Mr Mundell, from visiting HALO and perhaps the programmes or projects it has done. If we do not do that educative part of the work and build capacity in countries to deal with the existing landmines, we are almost failing those countries, because of the amount of time it takes to clear them.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Lady for making an excellent speech and bringing this vital issue to the Chamber.
I had the opportunity a few years ago to visit the War Childhood Museum in Sarajevo. The Bosnia and Herzegovina Mine Action Centre understands there are around 180,000 unexploded mines left following the war, which I remember seeing on screens when I was a child. One of the most poignant things was the aftermath of the conflict and its effect on the lives of children; that was very evident from the museum. Does the right hon. Lady agree that that is one of the things we must take into consideration? This work is for future generations as well. When landmines remain, communities continue to feel scared, young people continue to feel frightened and they still see the carnage of war in their daily experiences. That is why it is so important that we fund these services adequately.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. We both served on the International Development Committee a number of years ago, so I know that she has a great interest in international development, and in mental health and wellbeing too. That point about education and support for the next generation is really important. In doing my research for my speech today, I was reminded that there are instances where people have kept a landmine as a remnant of war. It could be sitting in their home, yet it contains live explosives. Education really matters, and there is a need for that ongoing work.
The other important issue worth noting is land contamination. We often think that landmine clearance is about going in, removing the mine and that is it. The importance of that has increased due to greater awareness of the environmental agenda, but there is a need to ensure that that land is decontaminated; without doing that, agricultural land cannot be used. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) makes a really important point, and I thank her for that.
HALO reports that in Kosovo in the western Balkans, 4,722 landmines and 5,727 cluster munitions were destroyed during its 1999-2022 programme alone, and 21 million square metres of land were released. That starts to give us a sense of the scale of the land that is contaminated with landmines. The Kosovo mine action strategy will be realised in 2024. Back in 1999, there were 18 mine clearance agencies working in Kosovo—18—and now there are only two. That shows that progress has been made, but the work continues, and the commitment remains to creating a safe future for the people in Kosovo.
Nagorno-Karabakh is a really interesting part of the world, and one where there has been recent conflict. The region remains one of the most contaminated with landmines and unexploded ordnance in the world. The UK was the first country to announce humanitarian support following the 2020 conflict—I remember that because I was the Minister at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office at the time—and £1 million was donated to the ICRC for their work. The Government then announced a second contribution of £500,000 to support landmine clearance. In this region, more people have suffered from landmine explosions after the conflict than during the conflict. I appreciate the challenges and difficulties around the world, and earlier in my speech I touched on landmines having an impact on getting support, in particular humanitarian support, to communities. This part of the world is incredibly tricky, sensitive and complex. Will the Minister provide an update on the Lachin corridor, which is critical to that part of the region?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
indicated assent.
Wendy Morton
I can see that the Minister is nodding. My point is in relation to humanitarian aid getting through to the civilians who need it.
A few years ago, we had many a debate on Syria in this House. It was good to notice on Twitter this morning that HALO has just announced that it has completed mechanical clearance training in north-west Syria—an important and exciting milestone that means that HALO is now able to start to clear minefields. That is another good example of a team going in with the skills and knowledge to clear unexploded weapons using an excavator. My understanding is that work will begin there in June.
In Syria, almost 15 million people are in need of humanitarian aid and a third of the population live in communities contaminated by unexploded ordnance. Add to that the recent earthquakes on the Syria-Turkey border and we start to understand some of the massive humanitarian challenges around the world. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, as many as 300,000 shells and bombs have failed to detonate during the conflict in Syria. It is another example of how, years after the battle has moved on, civilians are left vulnerable to death and injury. Sadly, it is estimated that 15% of the population there are living with a disability. That reinforces the need for education work to make children in particular aware of the dangers of landmines—that they are not toys to be played with and that children should not go into areas where there is sign saying not to. Alas, around the world there are cases of people assuming that no sign means the land is safe, when there could well be the remnants of war there.
This morning, I happened to catch up with an old friend who as a child lived in Lebanon. He was telling me that he could remember seeing the minefield warning signs as a child. That is a reminder that this is a problem not just of the past but of the present, and for the next generation. Decades of civil and external conflict in Lebanon—through the ’80s and ’90s and then again in 2006—have left Lebanon with an extensive legacy of landmine and cluster bomb contamination. Spillover from the conflict in Syria is evident in Lebanese territory, which has led to a new level of contamination by landmines best described as of an improvised nature.
In Lebanon and in many of the other countries that I have highlighted, agriculture is the key economic driver of livelihoods and activities for communities, yet large areas of farming land—fertile arable land—remain inaccessible or contaminated. If we are serious about tackling poverty and some of the drivers of migration flows, de-mining work has to be a priority.
Let me come to—do not worry, Mr Mundell; I will not mention every country in the world, but I will make the most of this opportunity—Georgia, where there were just five days of conflict in 2008, but those five days have led to Georgia appearing in this debate, because 30 huge aircraft bombs were found in the village of Chonto. Teams had to overcome the mountainous and highly unstable terrain in that area to destroy the bombs. A place called Shida Kartli was cleared a year later, again thanks to the work of de-mining teams, which allowed people to return home. Imagine not only going through conflict and leaving home, but being reliant on a team to de-mine before being able to return. That might be an international team, but in the longer term, the more we can do to help countries’ non-governmental organisations to develop capacity, the better; that is a much more sustainable way of de-mining, because then the capacity remains long after the conflict has ended. Abkhazia is another part of the world where unexploded items remained after decades of war, not just in homes but in ammunition stores. As long as those items exist, there is a threat to life.
I will turn to Ukraine, because it is rightly on our minds a lot in this place. The Government have a great track record of providing support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. I acknowledge the families in my constituency who have offered a home to Ukrainians. They all deserve our support, and we owe them a huge amount of gratitude. It is estimated that 300,000 sq km of Ukrainian territory is contaminated. To put that into context, that is an area larger than the UK. It is a huge amount of land. Swathes of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions were already contaminated following eight years of conflict.
Let me put the situation for Ukrainian people into context. When the Ukrainian MP Lesia Vasylenko spoke to the International Development Committee about the impact of landmines in Ukraine, she said that landmine contamination is “stopping farmers”, so stopping livelihoods, and “stopping children”—stopping them having a future and an education. She said it is
“stopping you just enjoying your leisurely walk in your local forest.”
If we ever needed proof of the impact on lives and livelihoods, we have it in the words of that Member of Parliament.
I welcome the fact that the FCDO has a £2 million agreement with the HALO Trust under GMAP, and it is providing de-mining equipment and training to the state emergency services. That is so vital. To illustrate the scale of the challenge, open-source satellite imagery indicates that there are minefields stretching for hundreds of kilometres in the east and south of the country. Shockingly, one single fortified mine line runs 90 km from the Russian border to north of the town of Lysychansk in the east. That is a long tract of land.
The World Bank has estimated the cost for clearance of explosive ordnance across the entire Ukrainian nation at $37.6 billion. That amount will only increase with every day that the conflict continues. I hope that there are many things that we can take away from this debate, but if there is only one, consider the point that one day of fighting results in roughly a month of clearance being needed. That really is quite a salient point. Funding to clear landmines and to educate the communities at risk of harm matters. It makes a difference, but so does our ability to train and build capacity in the countries concerned. The sustainable and right way of using development is to ensure that the skills, knowledge and expertise remain when an NGO has left.
However, we see from examples that de-mining takes time, commitment and funding. I have a few more questions for the Minister, which focus on that. Will her Department remain committed to this important work? How will the Government support mine action and awareness in countries no longer supported by GMAP? How will she encourage more states to accede to the anti-personnel mine ban? It is really important to stop mines being laid in the first place. Will she reassure me that, at a time of budgetary pressure, she will continue to provide Ukraine with the humanitarian and development support that it needs following the Russians’ illegal invasion?
The UK has been one of the most generous countries in the world in funding de-mining. In closing, I will share one example that shows why that really matters. Let us look at the Falkland Islands. Back in 2020, almost 40 years after the end of the conflict during which thousands of exploding devices were laid, the Falkland Islands were declared mine-free under the anti-personnel mine ban convention, also known as the Ottowa convention. Tribute was paid to the members of the British armed forces who contributed to mapping, fencing and clearing the minefields between 1982 and 2009, as well as to the civilian de-miners who, between 2009 and 2020, destroyed more than 10,000 mines and other unexploded ordnance in the UK-funded programme.
People in the Falkland Islands no longer have to teach their children about the dangers of minefields. Beaches and places of natural beauty that were once out of bounds can now be enjoyed. I was reminded just the other week of what a tremendous achievement that was, and how much we owe to the commitment of those brave and skilled men and women who worked tirelessly to achieve the mine-free declaration. Many of them were of Zimbabwean origin but have now made a permanent home in the Falkland Islands, as they have become part of the community. I thought it important to end on a positive note and show that the work of organisations to clear mines and educate civilians really can make a difference.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What a pleasure it is to follow the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). I thank her for setting the scene so incredibly well. Her interest in the subject is well known in the House, and we are pleased to see that when the responsibilities of being a Minister were no longer on her shoulders, she did not lose her interest in the subject, and she is here in Westminster Hall to portray what she knows in a detailed and helpful way.
I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place, and look forward to her response. I will also mention the shadow Minister for the SNP, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), and my friend, the Labour shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton). It is good to see him in his place. He and I are always have the same interest, compassion and understanding on these matters. We will probably have the same requests as well.
I start with a story about landmines, with which I am unfortunately well acquainted. Thirty-three years ago just passed on 9 April, a massive landmine detonated just outside Ballydugan, outside Downpatrick, killing four young Army soldiers. I tabled an early-day motion, published today, to remember the fact that 33 years ago, those four young men were murdered by the IRA. No one was ever held accountable. Every day of my life, that reminds me personally of what landmines mean. I knew three of those four young men well, and am of an age that means that I can remember when one of them was born. Those who have lived through a campaign of violence, terrorism and murder in Northern Ireland know that landmines were often the method of killing people, including soldiers, police and others who served Government. That 1,000 lb bomb left a crater in the ground; there was little for the families to bury. I remember that; it is very real in my mind, even today, 33 years later.
I have seen at first hand the devastation of landmines and terrorism. That sticks with a person, and it resonates with us in this sort of debate. The issue is how we address landmines, but they are something of which I am very aware; that is why, as I said to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, I made time to speak today. She asked me to be a co-signatory to her debate application, and I was happy to be one. Sometimes there are pressures on our time—you know this, Mr Mundell, as you will be leading the debate at 3 o’clock—as we try to fit in all the things we need to do. It can put a bit of pressure on us, but we have to ask: can we do more to prevent this devastation?
I wish to put on the record my thanks to the HALO Trust, which was mentioned by the right hon. Lady and will no doubt be mentioned by others, and the other charities for all they do. This is a poignant occasion on which we recognise the International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action; because of the recess, it was not possible to have the debate on that day—4 April—but the right hon. Lady felt that the debate was important, and I was happy to add my name to it.
As the right hon. Lady said, mine clearance does not happen overnight; I wrote that down in my speech when I prepared this morning. In the Falkland Islands, it took 40 years, but it was a priority, and an undertaking by our Government and Ministers ensured that it happened. It can happen, but it is not something that we can rush; it has to be deliberate, slow and cautious if all mines are to be cleared. It is not like a football match where players are running up and down the field; it is a long, laborious process, and we recognise that.
In the account that the Library always presents to us before debates to help us engineer and put our thoughts together, I read that the Solomon Islands, where the Battle for the Pacific took place, has only just cleared all its mines, 80 years later. That gives an indication of the timescale needed for mine clearance, but there must be a commitment to it, and a process for doing it.
Margaret Ferrier
What is probably most awful about landmines is that they are indiscriminate: they cannot tell the difference between an innocent civilian and the enemy, and they remain long after conflicts end. As we have heard, too many children have lost their lives because of that. Does the hon. Member share my concern about the significant reduction in UK Government aid for removal programmes, and agree that Ministers must reinstate the £53 million lost this year?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills called for that, and I endorse what the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) says. That is one ask of mine and of the right hon. Lady, and it will certainly be one of the asks of the two shadow spokespersons. The Minister has a bit of time to prepare an answer on how we can address that issue.
The International Campaign to Ban Landmines estimates that at least 60 countries remain contaminated by mines, and in 2021, at least 5,500 casualties were recorded. Most of those casualties were civilians, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said. What vexes me most—I suspect it vexes us all—is that, in many cases, the casualties are just children. I have six grandchildren. They are incredibly energetic. I am glad that it is my wife who looks after them most of the time; I was going to say that I would not have much hair left if it was I who did, but I have very little hair left anyway. When children go out, they want to play, run, jump and climb trees. We can imagine what happens in areas where wee children want to play and the dangers are not apparent to them. the destruction is very real.
As the right hon. Lady said, landmines affect future generations. It is so important to keep in place the money and investment that has been taken away, so that we can protect future generations and give them the opportunity to enjoy life. The highest numbers of casualties were recorded in Syria, closely followed by Afghanistan. I attend Holy Communion at St Margaret’s church when I am here; I did so on Wednesday. The Rev. Tricia Hillas from St Margaret’s always has a different speaker, and just before Christmas we heard from a guy who was involved in a charity in Syria. He told us about the number of people in Syria—adults and children—who were disabled, having lost limbs. That stuck in my mind. It is not something I would have been particularly knowledgeable about. The charity helps those people directly; they do not have prosthetic limbs, so they use crutches and wheelchairs. It indicates the issues that need to be addressed. I know that Syria has not always been a great friend of the west, but I see past those things. I do not see where Syria is in the world; I just see the people who are injured and need help. Perhaps we need to focus on that.
Wendy Morton
The point about disability is really important in the development space. That is something I learned when I was in east Africa, in countries such as Rwanda. It is difficult enough for someone in this country who becomes or is born disabled, even though there is a lot of support. In many other countries, including those we have been discussing that have been affected by conflict, that support is not there. Disabled people are often not even able to get out of the house, because they do not have the prosthetic limbs, wheelchairs or crutches that we take for granted. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that reinforces the need for not just landmine clearance, but the building of capacity and adequate education, so that civilians are aware of the dangers on their doorstep?
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Lady speaks with great knowledge and understanding, and I do not think anybody present or watching on TV would disagree with her. With compassion in our hearts, we have to see how these people are affected and how we can help them. That is part of the reason why the £53 million reduction is so disappointing.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred to Princess Diana. If I close my eyes, I can see Princess Diana there in her top and jeans with her helmet on and the cover over her face, walking through the landmines. She highlighted the issue, as she did many others; HIV is another one that I always remember. She was not afraid to take on the difficult subjects, or to take the lead and raise awareness, as the right hon. Lady said. As we probably all do, I well remember exactly what Princess Diana did on the issue of landmines.
As the Minister is aware, the UK provides aid for landmine clearance through its global mine action programme, but I have to raise recent reductions in aid spending; that is one of my questions, just as it is a question for the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who set the scene. The programme has been decreased by £53 million in the past year. The Minister knows that I always try to be respectful to Ministers, so when I ask the question, I do so only to try to highlight the issue. As the right hon. Lady said, there is more mine usage now, so it is not the time to decrease money; we should at least hold funding at that level. Some would say— I am probably among them—we should look for more. That is the real question we are all asking.
I understand—I put it on the record—that the Government have been incredibly generous. However, at a time of austerity, and when mine usage across the world has become much greater, it is time to reflect on that. My concern is that the reduction does not reflect the urgency of the situation. I sincerely ask the Minister to make it clear that the nation’s view is that we must do all we can to fulfil our international obligations and, as was agreed, dispose of these landmines.
I could not contribute to a debate that involved landmines and not include Ukraine. I do not think there has been a debate on Ukraine that I have not attended, although it may have been a case of being here in Westminster Hall while trying to be in the main Chamber —no matter how good you are, Mr Mundell, you cannot be in two places at once—
Jim Shannon
Sometimes I try—the other me must be a cardboard cut-out.
Ukraine is a country that needs help. If we look at the time that it took to clear the landmines in the Falklands and in the Solomon Islands in the Pacific ocean— 40 and 80 years—we know the job in Ukraine will be difficult. The other difference is that there is still conflict in Ukraine. I have watched the TV programmes and read the stories in the press; there was a story in the paper last week about Ukrainian mine clearing and the deliberate, slow and cautious way in which it must be done.
The issue is important if Ukraine is ever going to be able to get back to being one of the greatest agricultural producers of grain in the world. The farmers cannot go out into fields where there are mines. Some of those farmers, and their workers, have been injured and their tractors, combines and agricultural machinery have been damaged. Clearing landmines is important if Ukraine is to move into some sort of normality, and in a direction where peace can be restored—that is my hope and the hope of us all.
I respect, and am grateful for, the fact that we have a Government and a Minister who understand the issues. They understand the key role that we play. I say “we” because we are this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; as I always say, with great respect to the SNP spokesperson, we are always better together. I believe that we have a very significant role to play. We can lead, we can show the way and we can invest. I respectfully ask the Minister to ensure that the £23 million is restored.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) says—he was doing so well. If anyone in this place could find a way of being in two places at once, it probably would be him. I thank, commend and congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for bringing the debate forward. It is very timely, and it is important that we pay attention to the issue and do not allow it to fall off the radar. We must continue the pressure. There has been broad agreement among everyone who has spoken and, with that in mind, I will do everything I can to try and be as constructive as possible, even where I think things could be done better or in a slightly different way.
It is clear that landmines sow a lasting legacy of danger, destruction, and death long after the conflicts are over. According to the United Nations, nearly 70 countries and territories remain contaminated by 110 million landmines. The cost of producing landmines ranges from $3 to $75, but the cost of clearing them is somewhere from $300 to $1,000 per mine. Landmines kill and maim between 1,000 and 2,000 people every month around the world; in 2021, 5,544 people were killed or maimed by landmines globally. Most were civilians, and half were children. We have already heard the reasons for that: children are less aware of the dangers. It would take 1,100 years to clear all the world’s active landmines even if no new mines were laid.
Countless countries and territories are suffering the lasting, large-scale scars of landmines. The destruction caused is all the more acute due to their indiscriminate and disproportionate effect on civilians. Along with my SNP colleagues, I stand firmly by the United Nation’s International Mine Awareness Day, and its message this year that mine action cannot wait. This year, the United Nations Mine Action Service not only highlighted decades of contamination in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, but drew attention to the recent explosive ordnance contamination in Myanmar, Ukraine and Yemen. Its goal is to bring attention to areas of the world that remain contaminated after many years, and where generations have changed their lives to avoid the threat.
There is no disputing that the UK Government have taken action, and I welcome that, but there are concrete steps that the international community could take to address the global danger of landmines, such as enforcing the inhumane weapons convention treaty and the mine ban—or Ottawa convention—treaty. The mine ban treaty is one of the most widely ratified disarmament treaties, with 164 state parties, but it is deeply unfortunate that there are still some notable exceptions, including Russia, the US, China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar and Syria. The United Nations continues to call for its universalisation, and 33 state parties are yet to complete their obligations under protocol V of the inhumane weapons convention, which requires the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in their areas. I join the calls to urge the Government to exert what diplomatic pressure they can to incentivise other states to sign up to and ratify the mine ban treaty, to ensure ratified parties fulfil their disarmament obligations, and to continue to engage bilaterally and multilaterally to ensure states fulfil their obligations under protocol V of the 1997 inhumane weapons convention.
It is deeply unfortunate—I have toned down my language to try to be as constructive as possible—that despite the renewed war in the European continent, funding for mine clearance programmes has been cut by £53 million in the past year. Despite a long-standing and urgent need for global mine clearance efforts, the UK Government are not fully playing their part. I am aware that they provide aid for landmine clearance through the global mine action programme, but, as part of the wider cuts to the overseas development aid health and wellbeing programme funding, it has been slashed. In October 2021, the Mines Advisory Group reported that FCDO aid funding for mine clearance projects had been cut by 80% from a three-year cycle of nearly £125 million to just £25 million. It has since reported that those funding cuts particularly affected mine clearance projects in the middle east, and funding for programmes in Lebanon has been cut completely.
In April 2021, due to aid cuts, the HALO Trust had to cease de-mining projects in Syria—one of the countries most affected by land mines. The war in Ukraine clearly highlights yet again the ever-present threat of landmines, so it is inconceivable that the Government are content with cutting de-mining funding for the coming financial years. I again urge the Minister, in the most constructive, positive way I can, to please do whatever possible to reconsider that.
Across Ukraine, there is thought to be 174,000 sq km of land contaminated by landmines. That is an area larger than England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined. Despite a pressing need for a global collective response on landmines, the Government are not quite yet doing enough. Again, I encourage the Minister to reinstate the aid budget of 0.7% of GNI as an urgent priority, and ensure aid spending on de-mining programmes around the world is at the very least increased to pre-covid levels. Now that the FCDO has merged the conflict, stability and security fund into the new UK integrated security fund, it must detail how much money will be earmarked for de-mining projects.
As you well know, Mr Mundell, as the local Member for the trust, the Scottish Government are fully committed to playing their part in the global removal of landmines and the safeguarding of communities in conflict. In September 2022, the Scottish Government pledged £300,000 to the HALO Trust to clear mines and other explosives in Ukraine. As part of that, my SNP colleagues in Westminster and I will continue to push the UK Government to adopt an international development and conflict prevention framework akin to the good global citizen policy proposed by the Scottish Government’s global affairs framework. As a good global citizen, Scotland will amplify marginalised voices on global issues such as migration, human rights, biodiversity and the climate crisis. We commit to listen and act in response to often unheard voices, especially those of women and young people and those in the global south, and to use the networks and platforms available to us to engage and to encourage more action and commitments from Governments at all levels.
I welcome the debate and am trying to be as constructive as I can, even though I see the shortcomings in the Government’s position. It has been an excellent debate that has raised the issues and revealed the level of agreement. Having a united agreement on the need for action on landmines is something that I can very much agree with.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—I hope she will permit me to call her my right hon. Friend—on securing such an important debate as near as we could get to 4 April. I was pleased to work with her when she was Minister of State at the FCDO, and I am very happy that she has continued to raise issues such as those we are debating today. Indeed, let me quote from one of the speeches that she made when she was a Minister, because it is very pertinent to what we are discussing this afternoon. She said:
“Our commitment to ridding the world of fatal landmines does not end with our territories being mine-free”,
and she committed £36 million to promote de-mining in countries such as Afghanistan, Lebanon, Vietnam and Yemen. Even though she is no longer a Foreign Office Minister, she is still pursuing the strong commitment that she has always had to ridding the world of these appalling weapons.
As we know, landmines have plagued communities across the world for decades. As we have heard, they are often left in areas that were once populated, thereby forcing those populations to move out, ruining livelihoods and destroying the infrastructure that is so vital to communities. However, as has already been pointed out by the right hon. Lady, it was not until 1997 that the landmine issue shot to international prominence, spearheaded by Diana, Princess of Wales, who walked through a minefield in Angola that had been cleared by the HALO Trust. Shortly after her visit, and following a commitment from the then Labour Government, the Ottawa mine ban treaty was signed, calling for all countries to unite and rid the world of these vile and inhumane weapons, which target innocent civilians. I was in the Chamber on the Friday in 1997—I think it was in November —when the treaty was debated and ratified, and I am very proud that I was there and voted for it.
I am pleased that the United Kingdom has played such a historic role in tackling landmines since the Ottawa treaty was signed. We have rightly supported some of the world’s most vulnerable countries to clear landmines after conflict, building up considerable knowledge and experience in the mine action sector. It is a source of great pride for this country that the two largest landmine NGOs in the world are British: the HALO Trust, of which I am proud to be an ambassador, and the Mines Advisory Group, with which I work regularly on these issues.
The fact is, though, that the potential of many countries is still being held back by the terror of landmines from long-ended conflicts, as every contributor to the debate has underlined. As we know, they restrict the movement of people and humanitarian aid. They deny people access to water and often delay peace processes. The proliferation of landmines means that land for productive use is often lost, and it hinders further development initiatives for the people who need it most. Indeed, over $590 million was made available for de-mining activities globally in 2021, but that was, unfortunately, a 7% decrease from the previous year.
As we know, the vast majority of the funding comes from just a handful of rich countries, including the United Kingdom. The UK supports de-mining through its global mine action programme—MAP—via the FCDO. Sadly, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) pointed out, there has been a steady decrease in how much the UK funds that programme by. Indeed, as he pointed out, it was reduced by £53 million last year, to £89 million. I join him in urging the Minister and the Government to restore that funding. It is absolutely critical.
As of October 2022, 56 countries were contaminated with anti-personnel landmines. The most affected regions are Asia and the middle east, with 23 mine-contaminated states. There are still significant clusters in Africa, and in 2021 there were over 100 casualties in Colombia, a country I visited last year.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Gentleman speaks about landmine contamination and how long it can take to de-mine an area of land, and gives further examples of countries with landmines. It is estimated that explosives can take between 10 and 90 years to leach because of the casings and corrosion. Therefore, land is at risk for a long period of time. Now we have much better ways of decontaminating land, but does he agree that the urgency to go and tackle landmines becomes even more important? The longer they are in the land, the more contamination can occur. That must surely impact the ability to restore the land for agricultural use, for instance.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the right hon. Lady for her extremely important points. Indeed, when I was in Colombia last year I went to see the HALO Trust headquarters in Bogota. I was told that vast areas of land were contaminated with perhaps half a dozen mines, but of course nobody knew where they were. That meant that the whole area was out of bounds and could not be put into productive use.
As many right hon. and hon. Members will know, Colombia, like much of Latin America, is incredibly fertile. Drop a seed and it will grow into a plant or food or whatever is needed. The release of that land through decontamination is vital. I was impressed at the way that HALO had gone about decontaminating that land. There were very few landmines, but a huge amount of land was released for agricultural and development purposes. As we have heard, over 5,500 people were casualties of landmines in 2021, with just under half of them dying from their injuries. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, about half of the victims were children. That should bring great shame to every human being on the planet.
I would like to turn now to the war in Ukraine, as many colleagues already have. It is shocking to realise that it will take a minimum of 365 months, at this point in time, to de-mine Ukraine as a result of Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion. That is about 30 years. If that does not summarise the true cost of these appalling weapons, nothing ever will. Based on a calculation that the war ends today, the cost of the reconstruction of Ukraine would be more than $500 billion. Each day of fighting results in at least a month’s worth of landmine clearance. It has to stop and I hope the world will work harder to make sure that it does.
Even more shockingly, the Ukraine Government estimate that around 40% of Ukraine—about 250,000 sq km—may now need to be searched and cleared of mines and unexploded ordnance. That equates to an area larger than the United Kingdom. More than 120 minefields have so far been identified in northern Ukraine alone. In addition to the anti-personnel and anti-tank mines, tens of thousands of artillery rounds are being fired every single day, with thousands failing to explode. I would like to ask the Minister what message it sends to the world that the UK still has not ratified protocol V of the convention on certain conventional weapons, which requires the clearance of unexploded ordnance from conflict zones.
In 2021, the then FCDO Minister of State, now the Foreign Secretary, told me that the Government were
“undertaking a comprehensive cross-Government review of Protocol V ratification”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the Government’s progress on protocol V of that treaty, if she is able to. If not, could she kindly write to me about it?
I pay tribute to the work that the HALO Trust is continuing to do in Ukraine and across the world. It has vital projects in Afghanistan, where this Government’s botched evacuation certainly did not help the situation, and in Somaliland, Somalia and Ethiopia, where landmines are still a leading cause of civilian casualties. Indeed, we heard recently from General James Cowan, the chief executive of the HALO Trust, that he has been in talks with the Taliban authorities in Afghanistan to try to continue to employ women to clear those mines. It is vital to HALO that men and women from the local communities are part of the landmine clearance teams. They need to own it, as he always says, and be part of it, because it will benefit them. I praise HALO for that.
As I said, the HALO Trust employs local people and empowers populations with its work to keep their communities safe. The work does not stop at de-mining. In Somaliland, for example, HALO’s environmental projects include the employment of local people to dig soil bunds to capture rainwater and prevent topsoil erosion, reseed grazing land, establish tree nurseries and plant saplings. I hope later this year to see some of those programmes for myself in El Salvador and Guatemala —part of the region I cover in my FCDO brief. That vital work is so important to the prosperity of our international partners and allies, as well as to ending conflict, so how are the Government working with NGOs such as the HALO Trust to further projects of that type?
Innocent civilians should never have to live in fear alongside landmines that could still detonate and kill or maim them in an instant. On the Opposition side of the House, as I am sure throughout the whole House, we are committed to empowering everyone who wants to help to rid the world of landmines. We look forward to working with them in Government to make the world a safer, more secure place. I am absolutely sure that the current Government share that full commitment.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this timely and always important debate and to colleagues for sharing their concerns and experience and, indeed, the passion they feel for this issue and for how we can continue to be a real leader in this area.
Our colleague the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I think I can say with confidence that he is a friend to us all—reminded us that the topic of the debate is not only about far-flung, war-torn countries that we see on our television screens. It can be very close to home, and indeed has been for him, and we all need to remember that landmines have killed and maimed our own neighbours and our own citizens. That is a sobering thought in a debate that often takes us to faraway countries.
I put on record, because I think he is about to stand up in the main Chamber, that the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), would have been pleased to respond to this debate, because the topic is at the heart of his brief, but he is currently occupied on those other Benches. It is my pleasure to be able to respond on behalf of the Government today.
Earlier this month, the world marked the International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action, when we celebrate progress towards a mine-free world, despite the setbacks we continue to see. Of course, there is much more to be done, because these indiscriminate weapons continue to cost lives, rob people, young and old, of their limbs, destroy their livelihoods and hinder development opportunity.
The debate provides a good opportunity to reflect on the UK’s world-leading work to rid the world of this menace, and I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions from all our colleagues today. I will do my best to respond to all the points raised but, as ever, where I do not have a proper, full answer to hand, I will ensure that the Development Minister and his officials respond in a timely manner.
The UK was among the first to sign the 1997 anti-personnel mine ban convention and the 2008 convention on cluster munitions, which have catalysed progress. The first, the Ottawa convention, now has 164 member states and 30 of them have met their obligations to clear territory contaminated by landmines. That includes the UK, with its responsibilities, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills knows well, as she announced the conclusion of our work in the Falklands back in 2020. I thank her for her work. I know her commitment in that space, and she will continue to champion other countries that have yet to be able to look up and breathe a sigh of relief that they are clear of mines after a war that their country endured.
In the Falklands, nearly four decades were spent clearing more than 10,000 landmines and other unexploded remnants of war. That eventually allowed them to be free of that deadly legacy, but four decades gives us an idea of the time involved, even for what we know to be a relatively small area of land. We are very proud of the completion of that project, which underlined and demonstrated the UK’s commitment and real leadership on mine action. We continue to be a strong advocate for such work globally, including through our recent presidency of the convention on cluster munitions.
The hon. Member for Strangford educated me—I was not expecting to learn something today about my actual brief as the Minister with responsibility for the Pacific—about how the Solomon Islands only recently freed its citizens from the fear of landmines. It is safe to say that we learn something new every day. That is something I will be able to take with me as I travel around the Pacific islands. I will also consider how else the voice of the UK might be able to support such areas.
We are a generous donor, as well as a centre of expertise, including through the HALO Trust. I am sure, Mr Mundell, you are frustrated by not being able to champion one of your constituency’s great charities and organisations today, but we all know you to be a doughty champion of it, so we all speak on your behalf in thanking the trust and the Mines Advisory Group, our other real leader in this field. They are world-renowned, mine action NGOs—I speak with great honesty, as I have worked closely with both. We are grateful for their brave and tireless work to rid the world of this scourge.
I have had the privilege of seeing both organisations at their training bases, meeting some of their experts and indeed being taught by those experts how to go about work on an area of contaminated land. They also do powerful work to educate young people who have to live in mined agricultural areas while demining continues. One can only imagine what is in such children’s backyards. I found that even doing the simulated training and imagining being in that sort of situation was nerve-racking. The people who teach and support locals to develop those skills are genuinely extraordinary people: I record my thanks and that of all Members for their incredible work.
The sad fact remains, however, that 56 countries around the world remain contaminated by landmines and the explosive remnants of war. The number of people killed or injured each year is profoundly troubling: there were at least 5,500 casualties in 2021 alone, of whom more than 1,600 were children. That is not just historical; in the past year, new mines have been laid in Myanmar, and in Ukraine as a result of Russia’s barbaric and illegal invasion.
New wars bring new horrors, with this long tail of threat to civilians who have to continue their daily lives among the minefields, even after the wars eventually run out of steam. That is incredibly difficult. We need to continue to find ways of dealing with that because, beyond people losing their lives and suffering live-changing injuries, the contamination harms the whole economy of a country, and society has a sense of unease, because it is unable to step away after its war. That hinders development and prevents people from being able to live freely and safely, which we all want to see.
We see that from farmers in Laos who are unable to use contaminated fields, to children missing school in Zimbabwe because they cannot get there safely. As colleagues have mentioned, people in Afghanistan are blocked from accessing basic services such as water supplies and healthcare by the deadly legacy of mines, including improvised devices. Now, on our screens, we see Ukrainians unable to return safely to their homes.
In my work as the Minister with responsibility for Myanmar I have worked closely with our teams who are presently based in Thailand because they cannot be in-country. They work with schools and in internally displaced people camps to teach children how to live among dangerous and continually newly laid minefields.
Wendy Morton
It is good to understand the Minister’s perspectives from her time as Minister of State with responsibility for the Indo-Pacific. On education, does she agree that women have an important part to play? We often talk in this place about the role of women in development and the peace and security agenda, and they can often go into communities that perhaps a man cannot. They can have a role to play in breaking down barriers and boundaries and doing that really important education piece.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, female officers in the British Army have shared stories with me about serving with their male counterparts in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were often the only people able to go and talk to women in their homes to try and understand what the challenges were. They were able to work with those women to find solutions. Those women simply could not engage with our male soldiers, even though they, of course, offered a similar relationship. We underestimate what can be done.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), has highlighted how, in many cases, HALO and others recruit and train women to be the expert de-miners themselves. In a practical sense, it is a motivating skill to develop, but it is an incredibly high-risk one. However, women are stepping up and taking on that protective responsibility to ensure that their children can get to school and go and collect water, and that people can use their agricultural land again to help their livelihoods.
My right hon. Friend is right. We need to champion women and consider not only how much strain they often carry in their communities through the ravages of war, but the skills they have to develop afterwards to help their families get back into an environment that will be safe for their children’s futures.
That is why we will continue to support mine action projects across the world. As colleagues have highlighted, the global mine action programme—GMAP, as it is known—is our main vehicle for that. Over the four years from 2018 we invested £146 million across 14 countries. That helped to clear and confirm safe nearly 500 million square metres—Members should try to get their heads round that; it is a lot of land to check inch by inch—and saw more than 4 million people taught about how to stay safe around contaminated land.
We have explored options to attract new funding and led discussions at last summer’s meeting of parties to the anti-personnel mine ban convention. We have also assisted countries in Africa and Asia to develop strategies and priorities for mine action and helped to build the capacity of their national implementing organisations.
There is no escaping the fact—colleagues have raised this—that our development budget has come under real pressure in recent years, and the pandemic and Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine have taken resources in particular directions. Despite that, we launched the third iteration of our GMAP last spring, working with HALO and the Mines Advisory Group across eight countries. This included £2 million for an immediate response to tackle new contamination in Ukraine.
We will continue to build on our work this year. I can confirm a budget of £12.3 million to deliver de-mining, risk education and national capacity building globally, alongside additional funding for Afghanistan. In the short term, we are continuing to fund mine action work in Angola, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, Ukraine and Zimbabwe. Through GMAP3 those countries have NGO-funded expertise continuing to quietly clear the mines and teaching local people how to do so for themselves.
We have signed a two-year £5.5 million contract for mine action work in Afghanistan, which encourages safer behaviours and increases access to basic services. Afghanistan consistently records the highest annual numbers of civilian casualties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will be pleased to hear that we are making preparations for further, longer-term contracts covering multiple countries, including Ukraine, to replace the current short-term arrangements.
We are continuing to innovate. In Cambodia, we are using a development impact bond model, creating partnerships between the public, private and voluntary sectors to solve challenges. We have signed an agreement with APOPO—do not ask me to tell you what it stands for; it is a Belgian acronym. It is an international non-profit mine action organisation that clears mines using specially trained detection southern giant rats—these are known as “hero rats”, obviously. Training can take nine months, and the rats will work for up to five years before retirement, developing skills to be able to identify and pinpoint where mines are. Agricultural experts will then be able to help local farmers to be able to grow organic rice in these newly and safely created land spaces, and then sell it. We hope they will be able to use their land once again to create an income for their families and communities.
I will highlight again that I am conscious of a number of questions that I am unable to provide answers to today, but I will ensure that those are provided to Members. We will continue our action to rid the world of landmines and deliver a safer, more prosperous future for those living under the shadow of these deadly weapons and other unexploded remnants of war. The UK Government’s commitment to funding expert NGOs that are teaching and clearing will remain for as long as it is, sadly, needed. We will also continue to advocate for the conventions, working with our international partners and funding our global mine action programme, including the innovative projects I have mentioned—and others that may come forward—to provide the chance of a safer life and the opportunity for a livelihood for all those left behind after wars end.
Wendy Morton
We have had an excellent debate this afternoon. I am grateful to hon. Members for coming to Westminster Hall today and for the interventions from the hon. Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), and also from my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—it would not be a Westminster Hall debate without him, and he made, as ever, a really important and valuable contribution.
In her summing up, the Minister reflected that the issue of landmines is truly global, from almost on our doorstep to right around the world. We have demonstrated our commitment to and interest in the topic, and it was really interesting to hear from the Minister. We will keep pushing and gently nudging her on funding and commitments—I am sure she would expect that—but we will do it in a polite way, as she would also expect, because there is huge support for this topic across the House.
The Minister set out some of the things we can continue to push and look for in what the Government will be doing. She said she had learned something today about the Solomon Islands; well, I must admit, I had never heard of hero rats before, so I look forward to hearing a bit more about those. However, I will not necessarily end on a light point: this has been a serious debate, but it has been a very timely and good debate.
Finally, I am really pleased that you were able to be in the Chair today, Mr Mundell, because we know of your commitment to and passion for this topic. You are very fortunate to have HALO in your constituency. Thank you for chairing us and keeping us all in order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered land mine awareness.
Medicinal Cannabis: Economic Contribution
(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the economic contribution of medicinal cannabis.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating this debate. This slot on a Thursday afternoon is a challenge for many Members to attend because they have constituency commitments on a Thursday afternoon, but I am confident that we will have a good-quality debate and, importantly, that the issues I want to raise will be put on the record.
I am conscious that a number of these issues relate to the Department for Business and Trade and that my hon. Friend the Minister will obviously respond in his capacity as a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care. I hope that if any issues are not within my hon. Friend’s remit and he does not feel able to respond, he will undertake to take them forward with ministerial colleagues.
Many Members will have been introduced to the issue of medical cannabis by constituents getting in contact to tell them, as their MP, about the real difference that this form of cannabis has made or could make to their own or their families’ lives. Such testimonies, along with scientific study after scientific study, led to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), when he was Home Secretary, legalising medical cannabis in 2018, and thereby ending the potential criminalisation of those living with or just trying to manage multiple sclerosis, cancer or epilepsy. That was a significant step forward for patients.
Some 17,000 UK patients are estimated to have been prescribed Sativex, nabilone and Epidyolex in the UK last year. I am sure that many Members of Parliament could tell a story from their constituents about what a difference such prescriptions have made to the quality of users’ lives by easing agonising muscle stiffness, by reducing chemotherapy-induced sickness, or as a therapy for seizures, especially for children.
The 2018 legal changes were also a significant step for the medical cannabis industry in the UK. We should be clear that medical cannabis is just that. This is a legitimate industry, and an industry of the future. Its products do not come from humid, tinfoil-draped sheds or sunlamp-lit lofts; they come from laboratories and facilities that are as controlled an environment as those that synthesise a vaccine, for example. I know that to be the case, having seen at first hand such facilities being developed in my own constituency. The medical cannabis industry is one of legal and professional standards, rigorous regulators, approvals, licensing, inspections and almost endless specialist equipment—be it quantum sensors, microscopes or leaf barometers—not to mention stringent safety and security protocols.
Of note is not just the standards to which the cannabis is produced but the volumes produced. In the UK in 2021, some 59 hectares were harvested, producing 329 tonnes of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes. Of that, 213 tonnes were exported—more than half the reported world total. Beneath those impressive headline figures, though, is the impact that the industry can have on local economies and local communities. That is why I have been and remain very supportive of the development of a facility in my constituency by Hilltop Leaf.
Too often, investment in new industries is funnelled into enormous singular developments captured by large corporate interests, or it goes straight into cities. Rural and agricultural communities such as those I represent often get overlooked, with seemingly only wind farms and tourism receiving investment. The medical cannabis industry is an antidote to that.
In many ways, I feel the growing of medical herbs is a form of farm diversification—an evolution of horticulture that builds on local strengths and skills. I hope that the investment by Hilltop Leaf, with one of the largest greenhouses in the UK, will demonstrate that medical cannabis can have a transformational impact on local communities. It will bring a variety of good horticultural, administrative, managerial and logistical jobs that I hope will anchor young people, who often feel the gravitational pull of large cities for the want of opportunities in a rural area such as the one I represent, which has seen the demise of traditional industries such as textiles. It could also meet nearly 10% of the UK’s 2019 domestic need.
For all the successes of the UK cannabis sector to date, it could be so much more. Bureaucratic, legal, administrative, regulatory, medical, licensing and planning issues all inhibit the industry’s potential and hinder vital investment in rural Britain. Indeed, the over-onerous process for being licensed in the first instance has given me cause to worry about the development in my constituency stalling. I am afraid the UK’s approach to the industry is incoherent and insufficiently consistent.
Yes, medical cannabis can be prescribed, but only by specialists, and that is predominantly being done outside the NHS, particularly in Scotland. Although I said earlier that in 2021 some 17,000 people received legal prescriptions for medical cannabis, it is conservatively estimated that next year there will be approximately 337,000 potential patients. That could be many times larger should new conditions be covered. This state of legality but inaccessibility is grossly unfair, and is contrary to the principles of our health service that those who can pay can get private prescriptions—or source their requirements from drug dealers—while those who cannot pay go without. All the while, there are almost 24 million prescriptions for opioids in the UK. Those figures, in differential terms, are staggering.
The potential savings for the NHS in the prescribing of medical cannabis have been detailed, with one US study showing a potential provider saving of 29% because of reductions in opioid dosage. As I said, by confirming the efficiency of medical cannabis in helping with certain conditions while stopping it being readily available, we are pointing those who are desperate to illegal markets. Do we really think that patient safety is best served by criminal suppliers, who provide a product of poor quality that is likely to contain contaminants because of the fashion in which it was grown? I certainly do not. Do we need to see the benefits for British growers, supply chains, jobs and tax revenues bypassed and go instead to criminals and smugglers, both here and overseas? Clearly not, especially when the medical cannabis sector has a potential value to the UK economy of more than £1 billion.
Our incoherence also extends to cannabidiol, or CBD. We allow its purchase—indeed, the UK’s CBD market is the second largest globally and was worth £300 million in 2019—but our hemp licensing measures mean that the flowers and leaves, where CBD is found, must be destroyed. As such, the CBD market fulfils its needs through overseas imports, and British supply chains do not benefit. Growers are necessarily forsaking the opportunity to yield a crop of £10,000 per acre, compared with £400 for wheat, because of this approach. Such yields would be a real boon for rural Britain.
If the UK’s regulatory, legal and medical frameworks were in line with those elsewhere, it is estimated that up to 100,000 jobs of the future could be created, and they would be good-quality jobs, as I have already set out. It is an opportunity that should be within our grasp, but unfortunately we currently do not seem able to take it forward. On 14 November last year, I was disappointed when a fellow Member asked the Business Department about its willingness to take forward the approach to the medical cannabis industry as part of its medical sciences strategy and commitment for the UK to be a world leader in such fields; unfortunately, the then Minister gave what I regarded as a lukewarm and non-committal answer.
As I am sure the Minister and all present will agree, nascent industries need nurturing, and the medical cannabis sector is no different. Much like the plants that the sector grows, the industry is seeking the conditions to grow. I hope the Government will be minded to support the sector and the economic benefits it could bring, particularly to rural Britain. This should not be considered an ask for wholesale legalisation, which is a completely different debate; it is an ask for consistency and coherence for the industry, and for access to medical cannabis for NHS patients.
We need the various strands in Government to be stitched together to provide support, rather than maintaining a strange patchwork of overlapping and clashing components. The UK Government and, where appropriate, the devolved Administrations should therefore accept the need to review the prescribing process, medical guidelines, acceptable tetrahydrocannabinol levels, and the overlapping legal and regulatory components. My specific ask of the UK Government is that they appoint a senior official to do so holistically, and that individual should be mandated to engage directly with the industry.
With coherent and consistent oversight, and by bringing the UK into line internationally, the medical cannabis sector could help to get rural Britain, and particularly constituencies such as mine, growing economically. In doing so, we could supply our domestic market with homegrown supplies and, even more importantly, relieve the pain and suffering of hundreds of thousands of our constituents, if they could access the prescriptions they need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for leading the debate and for setting the scene so well and in such a balanced way. In his introduction, he said that we all have constituents who have benefited from medicinal cannabis. I have one such constituent, and I want to speak about that young girl and her family, because I have seen at first hand exactly what medicinal cannabis can do to improve health, to lift the fortunes of a family and to give them the encouragement that they need.
As the DUP spokesperson for health, these issues are very important to me. I have seen at first hand the impacts that medicinal cannabis can have on people who are ill. It is sad that it does not work for everyone, but it has certainly worked in cases that I am aware of. There are success stories, but also a large proportion of people for whom it does not work. However, for those who are fortunate enough to see results, it is a crucial treatment that can ultimately save lives. I am here today to celebrate that.
By their very nature, issues such as this can sometimes be contentious. The right hon. Gentleman set the scene well and got the balance right. I congratulate him on that because he presented the issue well. This subject sometimes sparks debate, but we would try anything if it gave someone a better chance at life.
There is never a debate on this topic in which I do not highlight the benefit of regulated medicinal cannabis prescription by talking about lovely Sophia Gibson. She is a young girl who, at about six or seven years old, was having epileptic fits every day of her life. In my office, I have a photograph of her from when she was smaller. She is the daughter of Danielle and Darren and has Dravet syndrome, which is incurable, and she will continue to have seizures until her wee body can no longer cope.
Medicinal cannabis is not the cure for Sophia—there is no cure—but that young girl’s quality of life has changed dramatically. I can remember when the epileptic fits were of such ferocity and in such numbers that it was impossible for that young girl to have a normal life, but today her life has changed. The prescription from the health board changed not only her life but the lives of her distraught parents. She was in hospital every month and was missing months of schooling at a time, but Sophia’s THC prescription has enabled her to attend school, because the intensity and number of her epileptic seizures has drastically reduced.
I recall the meeting that I had in this House with the then Minister, Mark Field, and Sophia’s mother, Danielle. I have said it before in this House and I will say it again: the Minister was such a help to Danielle, young Sophia and the whole family in moving forward. Ultimately, through Mark Field’s help, the assistance of the health board back home and the Department here, Sophia was able to receive medicinal cannabis and her life changed. That is what I see: I see a real difference in a young girl who was potentially looking at a life that was going to get worse and worse.
I have a wee nephew. I often say this, and I say it with regret because medicinal cannabis was neither available at that time nor did I have knowledge of it. My sister, Joy, has one child. He has epileptic fits. I often wonder whether, if he had had access to medicinal cannabis, it would have been possible to have changed his life. I am not saying that would have been the case, but now it is too late, because he has had so many years with the condition that it is impossible to put his life back.
Sophia still needs 24-hour care, but she can also live a life with her family. It did my heart glad to see her travel, as she did just last year with her family to Disneyland Paris. The family always bring their pictures in to encourage me; it is good to see her progress through the pictures. I saw a picture of Princess Belle dancing with Sophia. That would not have been possible without the blood, sweat and tears, the dedication and commitment, of her mum and dad, who did not cease until their daughter got the medication—they would do anything for their child, as parents do; and how right they are—or without the Health Minister at the time, Mark Field. Nor would it have been possible without the will of this House to take steps to provide for the safe classification of this drug for medicinal purposes.
While I celebrate Sophia’s victory, I also support my colleagues in trying to secure access for more children like her. That is why I am here today. When I saw the title of the debate, I automatically said to Naomi, my speechwriter, “I’ve got to be here for this debate—it’s important to me.” I have seen first hand the improvement to Sophia’s quality of life, and I want more people to be able to access this treatment for that purpose. I want to clarify: I am not looking for a free-for-all—and I do not think the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale is either, by the way. I want a process that allocates the drug in specific circumstances, as directed by the Health Department. I do not think we are currently there.
There are so many companies that are investing in cannabis plant products for healthcare, because the benefits for those it works for are incredible. We know that the UK is the world’s biggest producer and exporter of legal cannabis for medical and scientific purposes. Globally, there is a rising trend in the legal production and use of cannabis for medicinal and scientific purposes. Jazz Pharmaceuticals has offices in Oxford, Cambridge and London, and manufactures the products Epidyolex and Sativex, and Target Healthcare makes certain bedrocan cannabis oils in the UK. In 2019, a major US cannabis company set up its European headquarters in—guess where?—Belfast. Colorado-based Mile High Labs, which is the largest extractor of cannabidiol isolate in the world, established its base on the Boucher Road in Belfast, so we have moved forward.
The benefit of medicinal cannabis to individuals and their families, as well as the economic benefit that is starting to arise from it, is reason enough to review the approach. That is what the right hon. Member is asking for, and I support his request. We are talking about allowing wider production and delivery within—ever mindful of what I said earlier—the strictest of frameworks. I will be clear again: I am not in favour of legalised cannabis in any other capacity than GP or consultant-led, and within the strictest medical protocols. But I believe that we can and should provide a safe and effective product to help those who need it for specific reasons within the pro forma.
I again thank the right hon. Member for introducing the debate. Sophia is my example of a young girl who has progressed to the point where she can attend school regularly. I met her at one of the fun days down on the West Winds estate in Newtownards last year. What a difference I can see in that wee girl. The wee girl in the photograph in my office was, at the time, having fits every half an hour or 45 minutes. Today, her and her parents’ lives have changed. In Sophia’s case, medical cannabis gave her a chance to live her best life with a debilitating condition. That is vitally important. I know each one of us in the Chamber wholeheartedly supports that. Can we make someone’s life better? I think we can. Sometimes when we do so, it is such a magnificent occurrence that it leaves a lasting effect on us.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this debate and on the way he opened it. It is of course a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I agree entirely that if this were a debate about the wider use of cannabis, about encouraging its use or, worse yet, about its legalisation for recreational use, neither he nor I would be speaking in favour—we would be speaking strongly against. But that is not the debate we are having today. We are talking about the prescription of medical cannabis by doctors for use by patients such as Sophia, the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. I will come on to my own constituent whose involvement in this process leads me to be here.
It is worth recognising that the debate about whether we should prescribe medicinal cannabis medicines to patients who can benefit from them has been resolved. We have had that discussion and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) made that necessary change to the law in November 2018 so that such medicines can be prescribed within the law, and medicinal cannabis was rescheduled under the law to ensure that that was a legitimate process. That was, in my view, entirely the right change to make. I argued for it at the time, and I was involved in that process.
The credit must more substantially go to the family of my constituent Alfie Dingley. Alfie is a young boy whose circumstances are very similar to those of the constituent of the hon. Member for Strangford. He used to have a number of seizures a day of very great severity, and cannabis-based medicine has had a transformational effect on him. As a result, his family campaigned effectively and robustly for the change we have seen, and they deserve huge credit for it. I am delighted that they are here in the Public Gallery today. Alfie’s mother, Hannah Deacon, has been campaigning not just for Alfie’s benefit, but for the benefit of others who can also derive considerable beneficial change from these medicines.
We have already had a change to the law to allow medicinal cannabis to be prescribed and to deliver benefits to patients who can have it, but all of us who thought that that was a good change to make had rather expected that considerably more progress would have been made by now in ensuring that medicinal cannabis products are made available to patients who can benefit from them. It is a matter of profound sadness and regret, and it should be of concern, that only three NHS prescriptions have so far been made for these types of medicines. That cannot be right. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that the logic of the legal change made in November 2018 was that we would make these medicines available to those who need them, and we are nowhere near that objective.
As I say, we have crossed the Rubicon. We have made the decision that medicinal cannabis should be made available to those who need it, and it seems to me that we need to follow through on the logic of that decision. The logic of that decision is not just that, in a medical context, we should make these medicines available to those who need them, but that we should also support their provision domestically. Therefore, the debate that we are having this afternoon, at the instigation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, is about ensuring that the logic of our decisions is followed through, and that the UK economy can derive the necessary benefit from those sensible decisions.
We know that medicinal cannabis will be produced somewhere, and of course we must want it to be in order to have those products available for prescription within the NHS and the broader healthcare architecture. Why, then, would we not encourage the production of medicinal cannabis in this country, so that there can be a direct domestic financial benefit from it? It simply makes no sense to create a demand and then refuse to allow our domestic producers to meet it, and instead to import all the products.
Doing that is not just a wasted economic opportunity, but has a direct healthcare effect. That is why it is of benefit that my hon. Friend the Minister is answering this debate. If we were talking to a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we could talk about the benefits that these crops bring in an sense. If we were talking to a Business Minister, we could talk more about the direct financial benefits that have been mentioned. However, since a Health Minister is here, we can also talk about the direct benefits of a more secure supply chain to those receiving these medicines.
This is not just a theoretical concern. Alfie Dingley and his family had periods of intense worry during the Brexit process. They were concerned about the security of supply of what Alfie needed, which at that point was coming from the Netherlands. The potential disruption of that supply was evident. I put on record my thanks to the Minister’s predecessors, who were able to intervene and ensure some security of supply. However, that took up a good deal of ministerial time, because we were seeking to secure supply from overseas, when we could have so much more easily had that supply domestically. This is not just an economic argument, although I support the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale about the economic benefits. There is a direct healthcare benefit to ensuring that we have a domestic supply of these products.
I support the arguments made by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Strangford. It is sensible to follow through on the logic of the decisions that we have—in my view, rightly—already made. We must therefore support domestic supply and address the bureaucratic obstacles in the way of securing that supply, which my right hon. Friend rightly described. I hope the Minister will reassure us that he and colleagues in other Departments will be able to work together to achieve that security of supply and those financial and economic benefits. Most importantly, patients who benefit from these medicines should not just receive them by prescription, but be reassured that their future and their supply is secure because we have developed a sustainable domestic industry in the production of medicinal cannabis.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on bringing forward this debate. I put on record that I am a trustee of the charity Intractable Epilepsy, whose aim is to raise money to fund the purchase of medical cannabis for children with intractable epilepsy. Details are contained in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is appropriate that this debate is being held on 20 April. I wish a happy 4/20 to everyone—some people know what I am talking about. In March 2019, the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), reassured parents of children living with life-threatening epilepsy when he said that medical cannabis would be made available on the NHS. Of course, that never happened. Instead, he threw the problem over the wall and left the health professionals to deal with it, and they have not.
I think I have raised the issue of the provision of medical cannabis 36 times in this place. Every time, the UK Government have ignored my plea and reverted to their default position of “cannabis is bad”. Their lack of knowledge is evident in the way that they confuse synthetics such as Spice and Mamba with marijuana. That is the background against which parents and guardians have constantly lobbied the UK Government to provide medical cannabis on the NHS. I have tried to support them as best I can.
Clearly, we were wrong in our approach, and I apologise to those children and their parents for my shortcomings. I appealed to the moral or ethical need. I appealed to the compassion that this Government repeatedly tell us they have. I have found today that what I should have done is make the economic argument instead, as the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale has done. The UK Government have ignored the parents struggling to raise the thousands of pounds required just to keep their kids alive, but once we start highlighting the potential for making money, their ears prick up. I am not criticising the right hon. Member; if that is what it takes to get the Government to engage, then so be it, because engage they must. People are suffering needlessly.
I went to great lengths in my Budget speech to highlight the benefits to the UK Government of supporting the hemp industry. Much of the argument about medical cannabis is the same, because it is the same plant that we are trying to grow. The UK Government’s insistence that cannabis is a class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and in schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, and that all varieties are treated the same, means that we fail to understand that cannabis is a very complex plant with over 483 compounds. Because of the UK Government’s bias and ignorance, they have turned their back on the plant’s potential and known benefits.
In fact, the hemp plant has over 50,000 uses, and medical cannabis is only one. Finding markets for hemp would not be a problem. I allow myself the indulgence of reminding us all of some of those uses. It is estimated that a medium-sized economically viable establishment would employ 120 people. When hemp was widely grown back in the 16th century, in the enlightened days of King Henry VIII, it was used to manufacture rope and canvas for the King’s Navy, but we now know that we can make clothing, shoes, biodegradable plastic, insulation panels, food, paper, biofuels and medicine. Those products will sell and be profitable, and the Government could reap the benefits.
But the benefits do not end there. Hemp absorbs 22 tonnes per hectare of atmospheric carbon during its four-month growing cycle. Hemp produces four times the biomass of the same sized area of forest, which makes it a far more sustainable source of material. Hemp does not need pesticides, insecticides or fertiliser to grow in the UK. Hemp has natural anti-microbial properties, so it passively cleans the air in buildings. Hemp has a high capacity for moisture absorption, which allows for controlled atmospheres in buildings. Hemp construction materials act as a long-term carbon sink. One £60 million investment would create a facility that is capable of growing 32,000 acres per year. That would sequester over 207,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum. That is the CO2 photosynthesised by the hemp in its four-month growth and does not include the carbon sequestered into the soil or the net effect of replacing high embodied carbon products from international supply chains and their emissions.
As a wee bonus, hemp regenerates the soil that it grows in, so it would work well in crop rotation. It increases winter wheat and spring barley yields by 16% to 18% when they follow hemp in rotation. It cleans groundwater, by which I mean that it has a deep root mass that absorbs residual pesticides and insecticides from the soil, which prevents run-off into streams and rivers, and therefore avoids costly remediation by the water companies to achieve UK drinking water standards. The barrier to this industry raising the funding it requires is licensing. This is the licensing problem that, as far as I am aware, Hilltop Leaf, the company mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, is currently banging its head against. Hilltop Leaf wants to grow and expand. It has built the facility, but it cannot get a licence from the UK Government to allow it to expand.
The problem with licensing is the categorisation of cannabis. To make the cannabis industry a success, the Government have only to open their mind to the reality of what it is and distribute the appropriate licences to the appropriate growers. That will be possible only if cannabis is re-categorised. I welcome everything and anything that encourages the provision of medical cannabis, but the UK’s Government’s knowledge has to increase if they are truly to capitalise on the hemp plant and provide the good outcomes that are available. I would prefer the UK Government to come to the table driven by a desire to provide medicine for people suffering from a range of conditions—and we will need a supply chain from private companies to do that—but if they are drawn closer by the lure of tax revenue, so be it. But we cannot wait any longer. The patients who require medical cannabis to help them towards better lives have waited far too long for this Government to recognise their needs and act accordingly.
Finally, the argument that we need more research is no longer viable. The argument that cannabis is bad and that we cannot countenance its use is misplaced. Rather than standing on the sidelines shuffling their feet, it is now time for the UK Government to be proactive in funding and promoting the growth of the feedstock, the academic research and the production of the medicines, in providing and promoting the necessary training for GPs to allow them to prescribe, and in ensuring that the legal framework exists to allow those in the medical profession to carry out their duties, while protecting them and their patients, which by my reckoning would mean the involvement of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Business, the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and—as there is no show without Punch—the Treasury. Minister, it is time to go to work.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to be present for this debate. I take what the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) said about it being in a late slot on a Thursday, but it is an important debate, and I am pleased that we have had time for contributions.
The right hon. Gentleman clearly outlined the case for a legitimate industry of the future. He asked the Government for consistency and coherence in their approach to the industry. I wish him luck on getting Government coherence on policy for many nascent industries, but the point was well made about good standards of production and the importance of jobs, particularly in rural economies such as the one he represents.
Many people present—and, on other occasions, many who could not be here this afternoon—have spoken movingly about constituents, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did. He spoke about the difference that earlier movement would have made to his nephew.
We welcome the constituents of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who were present to hear the debate, as they have been on many similar occasions over the past few years. He made the sensible point that the 2018 decision logically necessitated action from the Government, and said that the insecure supply chain is worrying for so many families across the country. Having an industry in this country would alleviate that worry.
Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who has raised the issue 36 times. I work well with him on Committees, and he is a persistent campaigner on this and many other subjects, so I suspect he will be here for a 37th and a 38th time as well. He has done a huge amount of work in the area. He took us on a trip into history, and spoke about the importance of many such plants to the wider economy, and on the need for the Government to have more knowledge when it comes to the logic of their decision making on supporting the industry.
This debate is about the economy, and points have been made well. As we have a Health Minister present, however, it is worth recapping why we have not made greater progress since 2018, in particular for those campaigners who worked so hard. Despite that 2018 decision, the trials and clinical research that would help the wider industry have moved at a glacial pace, so across the NHS, since 2018 only five people have been prescribed medical cannabis. That is ridiculously slow, and so many people have to go private.
Five years later, it is totally unacceptable that so little progress has been made. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out what steps he is taking to empower and accelerate research in this space. I hope he will not dodge the question by saying that the issue is simply one for clinicians. The Government have a responsibility—the Minister is nodding, and we await his reply with interest, but there seems to be a lack of urgency on the issue, which is concerning. People are suffering right now. We have heard again this afternoon about children who are fitting, sometimes 100 times or more. Accessing care is, in some cases, pushing families to the brink of destitution. We should do everything we can to support those people.
If research is needed before clinicians feel comfortable prescribing, then it is incumbent on the Government to support clinicians. We need more streamlined clinical trials and better engagement with clinicians. We do not want to be back here in another two years, having a rerun of this debate. In 2020-21, the then Minister said:
“It will take time to generate further evidence and see the results of clinical trials. The Health Secretary and I are committed to doing everything in our power to accelerate this work.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 1120.]
If the Minister could update us on where this work has got to, and whether the Government are any closer to finding a solution, that would be welcomed by people tuning in today, and to the families present.
Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister set out what action he has taken to support people in the system right now—those living in extreme pain who are paying thousands of pounds to access treatment. There is consensus on this issue, as we have heard. The debate has been had and a decision has been made, but we can and should do better. In that spirit of consensus, we would all like to see some progress from the Minister.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important debate, which would be considerably better attended if it was held on any other day, because I know from my inbox and from speaking to Members from across the House that there is considerable interest in this issue.
Although this is the first debate on this important topic that I have responded to as a Health Minister, I know that the House has debated medicinal cannabis at great length in the past, in good, constructive debates. I appreciate the depth of passion that hon. and right hon. Members from across the House have on this issue. I recently met members of the all-party parliamentary group for access to medical cannabis under prescription and, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I visited one of Jazz Pharmaceuticals’s sites to learn more about the industry, the applications of its products—the medicines—and the challenges that it faces. I also learned about the huge opportunities for not just UK life sciences and UK plc, but, importantly, our NHS and patients.
I note that the interest from my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale is largely a constituency one; he talked about Hilltop Leaf. He has long championed investment in Scotland, particularly in rural and remote areas, where it has sometimes been a challenge in the past to attract certain high-skilled jobs. This issue is an example of that—and here, the investment would be accompanied by research capability. My right hon. Friend has eloquently and articulately made his case. I am very much alive to the fact that this is a complex issue, and complex issues rarely have simple solutions. I will try to respond to as many of the points that he and other hon. Members have made in the available time, which is reasonably substantial—in a Westminster Hall debate, it is rare to have more than seven or eight minutes in which to respond.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, this issue crosses multiple Departments—the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Business and Trade and, vitally, the Home Office, which has been alluded to, and NHS England. There was mention of the calls to grow the UK CBD industry, and hemp farmers’ harvests. I am straying somewhat out of my health remit for a moment to polish off some of these points, in so far as I have the bandwidth to do so. I understand that the Home Office has no plans to permit cannabis cultivation without a licence—my right hon. Friend pointed to the licensing programme and the challenges thereto—or to remove the distinction between the industrial hemp regime and the standard cannabis cultivation regime. I cannot say anything more specific on that. As I hope my right hon. Friend will agree, it is well outside my area of knowledge and expertise, and my brief. However, I do understand, having done some rudimentary research and obviously from my conversations with Jazz Pharmaceuticals, that this relates to plants being grown outside versus inside, and the use of leaves and flowers specifically.
Ronnie Cowan
If the Minister is struggling to understand, I am more than happy to give him a copy of the report by the all-party parliamentary group on industrial hemp and CBD products called “A Plan for a Legal and Regulated UK Hemp and Cannabis Sector”.
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Member for that; I will gladly take a copy on the way out. I hope he will excuse the fact that I am not an expert in this field, but I will happily take that report as my weekend reading and read up on the subject. I certainly agree to take this up with my counterpart in the Home Office, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale requested, and I am sure he will, too. I will especially take away my right hon. Friend’s important points on licensing, and on how the Government can support companies that want to invest in the UK, or that are here and want to diversify their agricultural business, and want to get the licences required to grow these products.
Sir Jeremy Wright
All of us understand that the Minister does not speak for each of the Government Departments responsible for this area, and I know he will take away from this debate that nobody is arguing that there should not be licensing of this process. There are obvious concerns that need to be met by regulatory intervention. The concern is the fragmentation of the regulatory landscape that applies to those seeking to grow these products. I am sure that the Minister can assist us by helping to better co-ordinate the way in which regulation is applied, as we are not seeking a removal of licensing.
Will Quince
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. I think we are probably in violent agreement on this point. I cannot specifically speak to regulation or licensing from a Home Office perspective. We are talking about a controlled drug; that may come as a disappointment to the hon. Member for Inverclyde, but it is—and is likely to remain, I hasten to add—a controlled drug. I will turn later to regulation from the perspective of the Department of Health and Social Care, but it is really important that there be consistency and coherence, and that we treat these products as we would any other medicinal product. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale makes his point well, and I will raise it with Home Office colleagues.
More broadly on growing a UK CBD industry, I am of course aware of the growing consumer CBD wellness market. One only has to walk down any high street to see CBD products advertised in windows, and indeed in major supermarkets. DEFRA, which I did not mention, and the Food Standards Agency are taking action to regulate this side of the market. Importantly, that will protect consumers by ensuring that only safe, high-quality products are placed on the market. That is vital. Consumers will also be protected against misleading health claims. I was recently told about CBD products that come in aluminium cans, but in fact the CBD remains on the aluminium and is not contained in the product. That is just one example. This is a very complex area that I do not want to delve too much into, as it is very much a DEFRA and Food Standards Agency lead.
The Food Standards Agency is working closely with the Home Office on how CBD products are regulated, considering their composition and the possible presence of a controlled substance. This is very much a live issue, and I am told that the Home Office has sought the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. I understand that the Government intend to respond to the ACMD recommendations on this matter shortly.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) both raised a point about regulatory barriers. Not that this reminder is needed, but it is perhaps helpful if I remind the House that cannabis- based medicines are controlled drugs and are therefore regulated by the Home Office, which is responsible for all controlled drug regulation legislation. Then there is the controlled drugs licensing regime, which supports cultivation, research and, where the issue crosses over into the health sphere, clinical trials in the UK. This licensing regime enables the possession, supply, production and import and export of those controlled drugs to support industry, pharmaceutical research and healthcare. However, more and more these products are being grown in the UK, including Jazz Pharmaceuticals, for use in research.
Ronnie Cowan
This time, when the ACMD makes recommendations to the Government, will the Government acknowledge and accept them? They have knocked back its recommendations a couple of times in the past, most recently over nitrous oxide.
Will Quince
The hon. Member tempts me—it is always tempting—to respond on behalf of another Government Department and Minister. I mentioned that because it is my understanding that the Government intend to respond to the report and the recommendations. I am not the responsible Minister, so it would not be appropriate to comment, but I will gladly point the hon. Member in the direction of the Home Office Minister who will have responsibility for responding, and will ensure that he has the opportunity to have a conversation with them.
The point I was making is that the overall legislative framework on illicit drugs seeks to control harmful substances while enabling appropriate access to those drugs for legitimate medicinal research and, in exceptional cases, for industrial purposes. The example I touched on is Jazz Pharmaceuticals, which—I do not believe this is a secret—is providing a product for clinical trials here in the United Kingdom. That is something that I think we all welcome. I know that the legislation has recently been reviewed by the independent ACMD, which concluded that no legislative amendments are currently required, as there is not yet sufficient evidence that the law needs amending.
Turning to a key point of the debate—cannabis for medicinal use, which falls firmly within my sphere of influence—I am hugely moved by so many of the cases that I have heard about, and I will come back to the specific cases that right hon. and hon. Members have raised today. These are really difficult, because my overriding priority as a Health Minister must always be to ensure that patients have access to medicines that are proven to be safe and effective. That is the biggest challenge, and it is why I am committed—the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) rightly challenged me on this—to galvanising research in this area; that is key to unlocking so much of this debate.
The prospect of a future in which more licensed— I put the emphasis on “licensed”—cannabis-based products that are proven to be safe and effective can be prescribed on our NHS to help relieve suffering is genuinely exciting. That is where I desperately want us to get to as quickly as possible, but herein lies the problem. There are clinical concerns, which, having spoken to clinicians, I share, about the limited evidence on the safety and efficacy of unlicensed cannabis-based products. Only in a few cases have enough clinical trials been done to prove scientifically that the drug is safe and effective. However—I want to labour this point—progress is being made.
Let me turn to the cases of Sophia and Alfie, which were raised by the hon. Member for Strangford and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam. I have two young children and am deeply moved by these stories. The debate around medicinal cannabis often centres on children with difficult-to-treat epilepsy, for whom I think the law was changed under my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), when prescribing was made legal in November 2018. Of course, as right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, that was to enable those children to access a product that their families believed would ease the symptoms of their desperately difficult-to-treat conditions, if a prescriber deemed it clinically appropriate.
I know acutely, because I have spoken to campaigners and members of the all-party parliamentary group, that there is disappointment that the law change did not relate to routinely being able to get these products, funded, on the NHS; that is rightly governed by a range of processes and procedures, to ensure the equitable distribution of funding. The NHS prioritises medicines that have proven their safety, quality, efficacy and cost effectiveness. Coming back to the heart of the issue—the hon. Member for Bristol South is right to push me on this—that is why research is absolutely essential, and I will talk about that a bit more in a moment. The Government have done all we can to remove legislative barriers, but it is now largely up to the cannabis industry to prove that its products are safe and effective for children.
Ronnie Cowan
What you are saying is that if I can afford to pay for a private prescription, I can access medicine that you are saying is not proven to be effective, because you are not going to allow its use on the NHS; it has to pass other tests. What about bedrocan? That is manufactured in the United Kingdom, so we do not have to import cannabis from the Netherlands anymore. Hilltop Leaf wants to grow and help to produce the product. The supply chain is already there for us, but you will not allow it to be prescribed. You will not train GPs, and you will not give them the legal framework to work in so that they can actually prescribe that for children on the NHS, but if I can afford to buy it privately, I can buy it privately.
Will Quince
The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point, but he raises it as if this is something new or novel; it is not. All medicines in this country are either unlicensed or licensed. For use and prescription in the NHS, they need to be licensed. That means that they have gone through both the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency process and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence process, which proves that they are safe, effective and—through the NICE element—cost effective. That is the difference here.
The “cost effective” factor relates to NICE. That is the reason I talk about why it is important that the cannabis industry steps up and proves that its products are safe and effective. I did not talk about cost effective; I am talking about safe and effective, because that element is through the MHRA. Let us not forget that many of these cannabis-based companies are multinational; they are not telling me that they cannot afford to go through the same process that any other pharmaceutical company can go through and has done to get their products prescribed through the NHS. Part of it is research and part of it is those companies stepping up and proving that their products are safe and effective for these children, more generally, through the MHRA process.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Can the hon. Gentleman return to parliamentary language in this intervention? I am not participating in this debate at all. The hon. Gentleman referred to “you” in his last intervention, so I would be grateful if he could return to normal language.
Ronnie Cowan
The Minister is saying that he is allowing a licence for a product to be manufactured in the United Kingdom, in East Kilbride, so that is okay. We are allowing it to be manufactured here in the United Kingdom—that is all right. We are saying that people cannot get it on the NHS, but it is okay for other people to have it. Surely it has passed all the tests that we need it to.
Will Quince
I do not want to labour the point, but the point is that it has not passed those tests. It is either a licensed product or an unlicensed product. To be licensed, a product must go through the MHRA process. That is something that these products have not done to date. Yes, they can be manufactured here and prescribed privately, at the risk of the doctor—the private general practitioner—but for a product to be prescribed on the NHS, it needs MHRA and NICE approval.
There are some exceptions to that, because the law was changed in 2018, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam referred to, for a specialist doctor or for some very specific conditions. He asked why there have been only three prescriptions. I did not know that that was the exact figure, but I will check; regardless, it sounds very low. I suspect that the reason is that the decisions are taken at the doctor’s own risk, and among general practitioners there is reticence to prescribe an unlicensed product that has not gone through the MHRA and NICE process.
Sir Jeremy Wright
The Minister is probably right, but I am sure that when he looks at this again he will also want to look at the NICE guidelines that apply, which are extremely restrictive. The risk to an individual doctor from making a decision to prescribe will be perceived to be much higher if the NICE guidelines appear to deter such a prescription. The Minister is right that there are many elements to this, but one of them is how much we encourage doctors to believe that this is the right thing to do. I go back to the point that I was making: there is some logical dissonance here. We have said already that it is right to reschedule these products as far as the Home Office is concerned. We are starting to see prescriptions in the NHS, but not in the numbers that will benefit the maximum number of patients.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. We have not been short of time this afternoon, and every hon. Member has had the opportunity to speak. Interventions should be brief and to the point.
Will Quince
Thank you, Mr Stringer. My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. When we meet the members of the APPG, it is very hard not to be moved and to want to do all in our power to bring about the change that people want to see. I have considered the calls to change NICE guidelines, which have recently reviewed the basis of these products, but I am afraid the guidelines are unlikely to change until the evidence base develops, and that will happen through clinical trials and evidence. That is why I say all roads lead back to building an evidence base and a clinical trials base. That is the crux of this debate.
In January, the National Institute for Health and Care Research issued guidance recommending that the NHS prescribe cannabidiol to patients with a rare, seizure-causing genetic disorder, which is, I think, the fifth condition for which a cannabis-based treatment has been approved by regulators and offered to NHS patients in England. I understand that the treatment is also available and approved in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The NHS now funds thousands of these medicines each year.
I mentioned Jazz Pharmaceuticals earlier. I am not sponsored by it; it just happens to be the manufacturer and provider that I visited. It is a good example of the trailblazers in this space that not only create, but undertake the research, manufacturing and—the key part—licensing of cannabis-based medicines. It has shown what can be done. The key is very much in the research.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale mentioned consistency and coherence in policy, which is why it is key that we treat cannabis-based products as we would any other medicinal product that we wanted to prescribe on our NHS. There is an economic case as well, although that is not what drives the Government. My whole focus in this is what is right for our NHS and patients. I am aware that there is huge hope and patient demand for access to medicinal cannabis, and that it is claimed that it can help with an array of medical conditions from chronic pain to anxiety; I believe there is also research under way at the moment on how cannabis-based products might be able to help with psychosis. I very much hope that those trials are successful. That is the right approach.
To date, much of the evidence suggesting cannabis could be an effective medical treatment is anecdotal or observational. As I mentioned earlier, only for a handful of conditions have enough clinical trials been done to prove scientifically that the drug is safe and effective. However, I am acutely aware that there are thousands of patients who now pay to access those unlicensed products on private prescriptions. Having spoken with campaigners and members of the APPG, I also know that some patients believe that funding cannabis on the NHS will reduce overall healthcare costs by alleviating symptoms and reducing the extent of hospital visits and other treatments. I understand and hear that case, but—I apologise for labouring the point; I have to keep coming back to it—before any new medicine can be proven to be cost effective, it must be proven to be safe and clinically effective. That is why research is so essential.
The Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bristol South, asked what steps we are taking. That is a challenging question, because it is a pioneering area of research. Following collaborative work with clinicians and patient representatives, the NIHR and NHS England have confirmed support for two clinical trials into early onset and genetic generalised epilepsy. If you will permit me, Mr Stringer, I would love to use this debate to highlight a tender opportunity that will be launched by University College London in the next few weeks. UCL is seeking a supplier to assist in a world-first randomised control trial comparing cannabis-based medicines containing CBD and THC in the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsies in adults and children. I hope that that tender process is successful and that UCL finds a commercial partner to supply products for the trials so that they can commence as soon as possible.
Ronnie Cowan
I have three kids and two grandkids. If one of them was suffering from intractable epilepsy and I had them on bedrocan, and they were either seizure-free or had the condition under control, I would not want to hand them over to a random control test where they might be fed a placebo and therefore incur more damage. Would the Minister?
Will Quince
That is a difficult question to answer. We need people to take part in clinical trials, which are the answer to so many of the challenges that we face in the health sphere. That is how we build the evidence base. I do not know what the study will involve in terms of the detail and the potential for a placebo, but I will put the hon. Gentleman in touch with UCL and those who are looking to run the trial so that they can give him a measure of comfort and reassurance. On his point more generally, the biggest risk is that the industry does not engage with the tender process. Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s point, I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members here today will help me by amplifying my call for the cannabis industry to come forward and engage with this pioneering and world-first research. I have also committed to a roundtable with the all-party parliamentary group, and I invite all right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber today to attend that, too, because it is very important that we hear all of the issues.
Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale for securing this really important debate. I look forward to engaging with him and Members from all parties. To the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol South, I am absolutely committed to better determine why the cannabis industry is not, in the way that so many other pharmaceutical companies do, investing in the routine research required to prove that its products are safe and effective. I will of course explore how best to engage with industry on the issue. Until then, I implore companies to explore supplying their products to the UCL clinical trials. As I have said, they will be a world first and will give us the evidence that we need to determine whether the products should be funded in the NHS. I wish them every success. I genuinely hope that they provide that evidence base.
On the matters concerning the cultivation and licensing of cannabis and cannabis-based products, I will, as I promised my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, raise that with my counterpart, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, who I know will champion this cause, too. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this afternoon’s debate.
David Mundell
I feel that we have had a very useful debate. Like you, Mr Stringer, I chair these sittings and it is extremely good to get half an hour from a Minister rather than five minutes. Although it was not necessarily comfortable for him, we were able to cover a lot of ground. Whether deliberately or otherwise, he came back to one of the issues that I raised, which was the need for co-ordination in Government on this issue. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) read out the list of Government Departments with an interest in this matter, and I am sure there are others that were missed, such as the Cabinet Office and the former bailiwick of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the Law Officers. There is a need for co-ordination. I do not think the Minister was saying this, but we cannot push back to the industry and say, “Well, actually, it’s your job to co-ordinate all these different bits in Government.” The industry needs to have a clear “in” or conduit to Government to discuss and engage on these issues.
I fully understand, having been a Minister myself, that it is not possible to commit the Home Office—of all Departments, it is certainly not possible to commit the Home Office. We know how government operates, but we need to have a co-ordinated approach with which the industry can engage. Of course the Minister is right that this should not be economically driven in terms of the clinical decisions, but we have already made the decision, as my right hon. and learned Friend said. We are not debating whether this should be done; that decision has been made, and now we want to do it on a basis that benefits not only the patients, but the economy of the United Kingdom.
It is always poignant to hear individual examples. In any debate in which he participates, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is particularly good at bringing the discussion down to the personal level of individual examples, and I thank him for doing that today, as I do my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam. I have had the pleasure of meeting Alfie’s mother in my constituency. She is a very powerful advocate, but I do not believe, or think that anybody who has taken part in this debate believes, that the pain and suffering of anybody should be the requirement for us to do the right thing.
I was remiss in my opening remarks in not referencing the APPG, because I have engaged with it and particularly the hon. Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who are also strong advocates on these matters.
Although I did not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Inverclyde said, which is often the case, what I did admire particularly was his passion for this subject, which came across clearly. It is shared by many hon. Members across the House.
I welcome the opportunity that we have had to air the issues, and the Minister’s full and well intentioned response, but we need to see action. I reiterate that the principal ask is for co-ordination within Government to take this forward. We are not requiring those in the industry and those lobbying for patient interests to manage the process across a wide range of Departments. That is one doable ask that could flow from today’s debate, and I hope that it will.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the economic contribution of medicinal cannabis.
Written Statements
State of the Estate in 2021-22
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I have today laid before Parliament, pursuant to section 86 of the Climate Change Act 2008, the “State of the Estate in 2021-22”. This report describes the progress made on the efficiency and sustainability of the central Government estate and, where relevant, records the progress that Government have made since the previous year. The report is published on an annual basis.
[HCWS732]
Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel: National Review Phase 2
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
The child safeguarding practice review panel today published phase 2 of its national review into safeguarding children with disabilities and complex health needs in residential settings. I want to thank the panel for their vital work on this review which has focused our attention on this particularly vulnerable group of children and brings to prominence their distinct needs. I am grateful, too, that the review highlights the importance of care provision being respectful and non-discriminatory. All children with disabilities and complex health needs deserve the best support, protection and care from all those who are charged with looking after them.
I was appalled to hear of the abuse and failings in three dual-registered children’s homes and residential special schools in Doncaster, owned by the Hesley Group. Due to the ongoing live criminal investigation, I am unable to comment on the specifics of the case, but my thoughts are with the children and their families who suffered abuse and neglect in settings where they should have been safe and cared for.
I, and the Department’s officials, take the welfare of these children incredibly seriously and we have taken swift action to improve children’s safety in response to phase 1 of the review. Most importantly we have now received assurance that all local authorities have reviewed the safety and welfare of all children placed in specialist residential provision. This is an area where we all need to remain vigilant given the inherent risks in the nature of residential provision which the report identified. In January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education met with providers of residential special schools and children’s homes to consider the changes needed to ensure that disabled children with complex health needs are kept safe. We have also been working with stakeholders including the Local Authority Designated Officer Network, Ofsted, the Home Office and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services to review the role of the local authority designated officer, the officer responsible for managing allegations against adults who work with children.
Our comprehensive reform programmes to transform children’s social care and the experiences for children and young people with SEND lay the foundation for improving outcomes for this group of vulnerable children. As we consider the review’s phase 2 recommendations, we will continue to engage with providers to tackle the issues that the review highlights. We are working closely with the sector and with care experienced young people to review the current regulatory system governing the care of children who are looked after. In “Stable Homes, Built on Love” we committed to developing plans for a financial oversight regime of the largest providers of children’s homes and independent fostering agencies, and we are working with regulatory bodies to understand what more is needed to strengthen their inspection and regulatory powers to hold providers of children’s homes to account.
We agree with the panel that safe, sufficient and appropriate provision is needed for all children with disabilities and complex health needs. That is why, in the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, we have committed to introducing local SEND and alternative provision partnerships. These will bring together partners across education, health and care to set out the provision and services that should be commissioned, in line with the national SEND and alternative provision standards. We plan to publish non-statutory guidance outlining expectations for local partnerships and will seek to introduce primary legislation at the next available opportunity to put these partnerships on a statutory footing.
In addition to this, in “Stable Homes, Built on Love” we described our vision for regional care co-operatives to promote better collaboration between children’s social care and partners in the commissioning and delivery of homes for looked after children. We are investing in two pathfinders to co-design and test the model, and will work with the pathfinders to include measures to improve commissioning for children with disabilities and complex health needs, as recommended by the national panel.
We value the children’s social care workforce and we agree with the review findings that highlight the importance of a stable and skilled workforce in children’s homes and residential special schools. We have already committed in “Stable Homes, Built on Love” to develop a programme to support improvements in the quality of leadership and management in the children’s homes sector and will be exploring proposals for introducing professional registration of the residential childcare workforce. We recently launched a workforce census which included residential special schools and covers recruitment, retention, diversity and qualifications and training of the workforce. Most significantly, our reforms prioritise compassion at the heart of the care system to create stable, loving homes.
We need to ensure that children with disability and complex health needs are fulfilling their potential and have committed to track the experiences of children with a disability through the care system. We will establish pathfinders in up to 12 local areas, to start delivering our family help reforms. This will provide the right support at the right time so that children can grow up safely and thrive with their families. We will incorporate a strong focus on specific support for disabled children and their families in our pathfinder testing.
Listening to the voice of all children is important and is particularly significant for disabled children. This year we will consult on revisions to the national standards for advocacy and guidance for children and young people. These draft standards apply to children in receipt of social care services, residential settings (including residential special schools) and secure settings. The draft standards have been strengthened and will include a new standard on “non-instructed advocacy” for children and young people unable to instruct an advocate for themselves, to enable children and young people to communicate their views in ways that work for them. Additionally, we have set out in “Stable Homes, Built on Love”, our commitment to work with the sector to develop a model of opt-out advocacy for all children in care that will empower and listen to children and young people.
I am grateful for this review and the recommendations that it makes to improve the system for a cohort of children who are often overlooked. As we consider the review recommendations in more detail, we will work closely across Government and with partners to reflect on the requirements of children with disabilities and complex health needs, recognising the importance of non-discriminatory care for children and families. There is more that can be done to support and protect these children and we intend to focus our existing reform programme to ensure that they consistently receive the care and support that they need and deserve, enabling them to thrive and fulfil their potential.
[HCWS728]
Independent Office for Police Conduct Annual Report and Accounts 2021-22
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I am today publishing the annual report and accounts of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The report has been laid before the House and copies will be available in the Vote Office.
[HCWS729]
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Government Response
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
I wish to inform the House that the Government will now be publishing its response to the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in May 2023. This is a slight delay to the inquiry’s request that we respond by 20 April 2023.
The inquiry published its final report on 20 October 2022 following seven years of investigation into the failings of institutions across the country to properly safeguard and protect children in their care from this most horrific crime.
The final report heard from over 7,300 victims and survivors, and provided shocking insights into the abuse suffered by children, and draws out stark failings by institutions, leaders, and professionals to protect them from harm. I am absolutely clear that we must address the failings identified by the inquiry and continue to work right across all sectors to each play our part in doing all that we can to protect children, provide support to victims and survivors, and pursue vile offenders and bring them to justice as quickly as possible.
I appreciate that it is conventional that the Government respond to statutory inquiries within six months of their final recommendations. However, over the course of the next month, there will be local elections—in the run-up to which the Government are bound by pre-election guidance—and other events which will attract significant media interest.
I am determined that these events should not detract from the interest and attention rightly due to the inquiry’s final recommendations, hence the decision to publish in May.
I have already shown my commitment to consult on the introduction of a new mandatory reporting duty across the whole of England, a central recommendation in the inquiry’s final report. If introduced, it would mean that individuals who work with children are legally required to report child sexual abuse, or face sanctions. We need to address the under-reporting of this crime across the whole system to robustly tackle it.
I cannot thank the victims and survivors who have come forward to share their experiences with the inquiry enough: I commend your bravery and courage in sharing your experiences and calling for change. I am determined to deliver justice for victims and survivors and ensure that the failures that allowed these appalling crimes to happen can never take place again.
We are committed to continuing to work to tackle all forms of child sexual abuse regardless of whether it takes place here or overseas, and it is crucial that we seize this moment to reignite national conversation about this horrific crime and bring it out of the shadows, and to support those who have suffered or are suffering to be able to tell their stories and report what has happened.
I will keep the House updated when we publish the Government’s response in May.
[HCWS731]
Construction Product Testing: Independent Review
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
This Government are transforming the built environment through a culture of safety and high standards. The Building Safety Act 2022 brought into law far-reaching reforms that give residents and homeowners more rights, powers and protections across the country.
We recognise the historic failings in the system by which construction products were tested, assured and made available for sale. We have seen the tragic evidence of that all too clearly. To consider those failings in more detail, we commissioned an independent review of construction product testing from Paul Morrell OBE and Anneliese Day KC, which has been published today.
I would like to thank the reviewers for the comprehensive and thorough assessment of the current system and for their report and recommendations. We recognise that more needs to be done and are carefully considering the recommendations put forward by the independent reviewers.
The Government are committed to ensuring the testing regime for construction products is effective and inspires public and market confidence. It must be based on high standards and complete transparency. People must be assured that products used on their homes and other buildings are safe, and have been proved to be so; that they are used correctly and appropriately at every stage from design, installation, use, and even to disposal; and that those who manufacture and work with them are competent professionals. Those who try to misrepresent or misuse their products or mislead their customers must be sure that they will be found out and held to account.
I will also consider how our regulatory regime can ensure that only responsible businesses can make and sell construction products. It is unacceptable that cladding and insulation manufacturers have neither acknowledged their part in the legacy of unsafe buildings in the United Kingdom, nor contributed to the cost of remediating buildings.
To deliver the change we need, I will set out our proposals for reform of the UK’s construction product regime in due course, building on the work of this review. Nothing is off the table as we consider this new regime, and I welcome contributions from all who share our goal of a safer built environment.
A copy of the independent review will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS730]
Grand Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Thursday 20th April 2023
(1 year 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-III(a) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (20 Apr 2023)
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Overseas companies: international co-operation
Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on what arrangements with foreign states and international organisations have been agreed to verify information about overseas companies within the scope of this Act, and the identity of their directors.”Member’s explanatory statement
Verification of information about companies and directors based overseas will require co-operation with foreign governments and with organisations responsible for monitoring cross-border finance, trade and crime. This amendment seeks to probe that the government is putting such arrangements in place, and will report them to Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this amendment is to ask for much more information from the Government on the international implications of the Bill, which is a way of asking whether the Bill is serious in terms of enforcement. Most serious economic crime—indeed, all serious economic crime nowadays—is cross-border: the money is taken out of your bank account and rapidly moved to another jurisdiction. One of the huge problems we all face in a globalised economy is that policing is bounded by sovereign borders and criminals are not. Therefore, Governments are forced to co-operate across them.
One of the questions I hope we will pursue on these amendments and the ones that follow on the overseas territories is how Whitehall ensures that the various parts of it that deal with the various parts of our international efforts to combat different forms of crime—terrorist financing, drug smuggling, people smuggling, et cetera—co-ordinate, and which are the lead departments for what. Reference has already been made to HMRC and the Treasury. I note that, in Washington, the US State Department has now established a State Department-led but cross-department anti-corruption board to deal with these necessarily cross-border problems. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us—if not now then perhaps, as I asked at Second Reading, in a briefing in the context of the Bill—how Whitehall will make the necessary changes to ensure that different departments work together coherently in coping with these very complex problems.
It might help if I remark briefly on how I became involved in some of these problems of international crime. In 1989 I was director of research at Chatham House, the international affairs think tank. I was approached by a chief inspector who was then head of the strategy unit at the Metropolitan Police to ask if we could run a seminar on the international dimensions of policing, now that it seemed likely that the Berlin Wall might come down. As it happened, I was then attached briefly to an institute in Germany, in Bavaria, and when I asked it whether I could get any briefing on the subject, which I knew nothing about, I found myself very rapidly being taken to the Bundesnachrichtendienst headquarters and given a very thorough intelligence briefing on how the German Government were approaching the likely explosion of cross-border crime that would accompany the end of that very hard border that had kept a lot of crime away from western Europe.
Since then, we have had 30 years of globalisation, the communications revolution, digitisation and international banking deregulation, which have made cross-border economic crime far easier, far faster and far harder to keep up with. It is no accident that the Financial Action Task Force, one of the main mechanisms for international intergovernmental co-operation in combating money laundering, was also founded in 1989 by the G7; it saw what was coming. Perhaps the Minister can consider whether we could have a briefing on this to be told more about how effective the Financial Action Task Force is.
When I looked rapidly for an update on the FATF, I was a little worried to find that there is rather more up-to-date information on Wikipedia than there is in statements from GOV.UK, which tend to be from 2015, 2018 or 2019. The Wikipedia comments say that the FATF is now pretty good at setting standards and maintaining a blacklist and a grey list of countries that do not observe basic international standards. Some of your Lordships will have seen the article in the Financial Times yesterday about the Government of Panama hoping that it may finally be about to be taken off the grey list, which has clearly damaged its position as an international financial centre. But apart from reporting and setting standards, the FATF does very little in terms of enforcement. The question of enforcement, verification and the exchange of information is extremely relevant to whether the Bill is really going to make a difference to our pursuit of economic crime.
I followed the development of international police co-operation in the 1990s, partly because, when I came here, I became chair of the sub-committee of the European Union Committee that dealt with justice and home affairs, and thus followed quite closely the development of Europol, the Schengen Information System and those other forms of European police co-operation. I was struck by the extent to which progress was driven not by any commitment to some fantasy of a European superstate but by the demands of police forces and intelligence agencies in different countries. They needed to share information—in good, constant time if possible—and share activities and operations, as they now do. Of course, we have now left Europol and the Schengen Information System, which has denied the British authorities access to one of the closest ways in which we used to share information on transborder economic crime. I am not very well informed about the other mechanisms, apart from the OECD’s various activities on beneficial ownership and the FATF, which we find useful.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, may remind us, David Lammy, the shadow Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, proposed some weeks ago that there should be a transatlantic anti-corruption council to bring together more closely the various agencies, authorities and law enforcement bodies concerned with these areas. I am not aware that the British Government are actively engaged in all this, so my amendment asks the Government to tell us what the current situation is, what their strategy is and how this intrinsic element of any serious approach to economic crime will be treated. If they are unable to do that, they cannot be very serious about the enforcement of action against economic crime, which is not, after all, primarily a domestic matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I will respond to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in moving his Amendment 68. I was very struck, looking back at the comments from Second Reading. He very forcibly talked about the international dimension and how important it is, and the fact that the international dimension in the Bill generally is thin; I think those were the words he used. I think we all knew that we would require amendments to look at this area. I am keen to understand from the Minister what actually is being proposed.
We talk a great deal about collecting data, but one of the rules of thumb I have always worked with is that data is of use only if it is open and transparent, there is a responsibility for the data to be analysed and, where things are held up as being untoward, appropriate action is taken.
I do not want to draw out the debate, but this could be an opportunity for the Minister to give us an update about the progress made since the Government launched the register of overseas entities on 1 August. What is the Government’s assessment of the success of the register and of the beneficial ownership registration being set at 25%? Do we know whether many companies are avoiding this by spreading out shares throughout a family? We know that there were significant concerns about nominee arrangements being used to disguise true beneficial owners. What is the Government’s assessment of this, now that the register has been introduced, and will they use the regulation-making powers in the existing economic crime Act to address this?
I anticipate a full response to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I would like to understand and am seeking reassurance that the Government are putting arrangements in place. As we have heard, the scale of the co-operation is quite significant. It needs constant review, and it needs to relate to finance, trade and crime. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
I thank noble Lords very much. It is a great pleasure to be here again to continue this valuable and important inquiry into how to make our company structures more transparent, fairer and more effective for our long-term business needs.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for this amendment. Over the next few hours, I hope to cover many of the points raised and clarify further points from our discussions earlier this week. Specifically on this amendment, I hope it will be of some reassurance to noble Lords that Companies House already has excellent relationships with overseas counterparts—it is important to emphasise that. It works closely with authorities in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories on the implementation of the register of overseas entities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, asked about the progress of the register of overseas entities in relation to UK companies and, specifically, property ownership. We have come a long way: I think we are now 75% to 80% registered. Some overseas entities have not fulfilled our requirements, and I am happy to send a note to Peers about that. This changes regularly but it is a minority, which is important. I am pleased about that, and we are grateful for the collaboration of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories.
As a government Minister it is important that I say that, if you listened only to this debate and did not have any experience of the outside world, you may be forgiven for thinking that every single authorised corporate service provider, Crown dependency and overseas entity was somehow engaged in and designed for criminal undertakings, which we all know is not the case. It is important that I state that many of these measures and the discussions we are having are about a very small minority of bad actors and that the overall industry is worth while and valuable. The principles around high-quality corporate service provision, Crown dependencies managing their own affairs and how companies are structured are very much to be celebrated and embedded. What we are doing here is making sure that there is transparency and legitimacy. I want to make sure that is on the record.
Earlier today I met a former regulator from one of our Crown dependencies, who was surprised at the tone that some noble Lords are taking in the debate, given what he had done with his own regulator in his Crown dependency. He felt that it had set the standard—a higher standard, maybe, than some other Crown dependencies. He felt that they had lessons to teach us in the United Kingdom. We ought to be aware of this. I do not want to belabour the point, but it is important to get the tone right and make sure that the messages are clear.
Lord Fox (LD)
I took it as an implicit, or rather an explicit, criticism of His Majesty’s Opposition, us and others who have spoken to amendments to the Bill that we somehow regard the whole industry as corrupt. I would take the Minister to task and suggest that he reads Hansard for the previous session, where I made it clear that that is not our view—and I know it is not the view of His Majesty’s Opposition. The fact is that we are speaking about bad actors because the whole purpose of the Bill is to deal with them. It can be taken on faith, but perhaps we have to say it every time, that we consider bad actors to be a minority of players in this sector, but they are the purpose for which the Bill has been brought forward.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly appreciate the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Fox; I am so glad that he said that. I do not mind if some friction is sometimes required in order to make sure that the messages are heard loud and clear. I am glad that the noble Lord has reaffirmed his position, that of his party and that of the main opposition party. We all agree on this, but it is important because I was picked up on it today. It sounds as if we are at war with a legitimate sector and the legitimate concept of how to structure companies, which are at the very core of our capitalist system and have created so much wealth for us. I am glad that we are united on this point.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, about the number of entities that have registered with the register of overseas entities. I have a figure of 27,000, which represents a high level of compliance. I hope that figure satisfies her request, but I would be happy to publish further figures or to answer her in writing on that.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will just reinforce the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made. To be honest, I do not think the Minister was implying that we were condemning the whole of business, but the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made an important point. The Committee is trying to say that, overall, we all support the Bill but we want to ensure that it is effective, understandable and enforced. In challenging the Government, we seek not to undermine business but to improve what most of us regard as a reasonable Bill.
The only other point I make to the Minister is that—I think we all accept this—public opinion is frustrated about what it sees as a lack of action in respect of certain bad business practices, such as the laundering of money. Lots of fraud and economic crime takes place but is not seen as a priority by the state—irrespective of whether you mean Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, the Scottish nationalists or whoever—which does not take this seriously. I suggest to the Government that, if I were a government Minister, I would parade much more powerfully than the Government have done that we are trying to ensure that public anger is assuaged by the fact that we are no longer prepared to see Russian money used in the way it has been nor to see bad practice, which means, frankly, that good business is undermined.
This is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Good businesses, which represent the majority of the country, want something done about bad business because it undermines them. This is a really important point; I think it is the point that the Minister was trying to make. This is a good Bill but it needs to be improved. From what he has said to us, I think the Minister will take on board many of the comments that have been—and will be—made and change the Bill. But it is also about saying, “Of course the majority of business is good, but there is bad practice out there and it needs sorting out”. Good business wants that to happen as much as members of this Committee do.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, as I said in moving this amendment, our concern is around the Bill, when it becomes an Act, having the resources and the international co-operation structure to make it effective.
The Minister talked about exchanging information, but there is also the question of enforcement. If we are trying to enforce on someone who is based in the UAE, Panama or Singapore—let alone Hong Kong—these things are not easy. We all recognise that since 1989 a number of mistakes have been made. This Government—and this country under different parties in government—made a succession of mistakes in our handling of Russian money as it came into the country. Many of those mistakes have now been corrected, but we have to admit that we did not handle this very well and we now find ourselves in a situation in which other financial centres are extremely difficult to investigate. One looks at the Wirecard scandal, for example. One of the world’s major accounting firms failed to discover that a substantial chunk of the assets that Wirecard was declaring, which were alleged to be in Singapore and Malaysia, did not exist.
Clearly, the need for active exchanges between Governments, central banks and others is vital in this situation. That is what we are trying to ensure happens. Yes, it is a small number of companies, but it is not a small amount of money. That, therefore, has to concern us if the Bill is to be a useful reform and a worthwhile Act.
I remind the Minister that that the FATF grey list at the moment includes the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar, as well as the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and a number of other countries with which we have close ties. I am conscious that 100,000 British citizens now live in the United Arab Emirates, many of whom are actively engaged in the international financial industry. That has to be a matter of concern to us. Not very long ago, some in the House were talking about the activities of UAE intelligence services with regard to UAE nationals on British soil. There are a great many difficult issues that we have to cope with here. We also understand that this situation is not static. The communications revolution has already made the transfer of money around the world much faster than it was 10 to 20 years ago, and we need to keep up with that.
I should have mentioned another OECD initiative that is related to economic crime, on base erosion and profit shifting. It is concerned with tax evasion, which I include as part of economic crime. That is another area in which Governments are beginning to co-operate. It is very difficult to gain co-operation. The entire British Government are not always as keen on co-operation as some parts are, because some departments naturally have different interests from those of others. I raised the question of Whitehall co-ordination and where its leadership sits, and it probably needs to change, as it just has in America, because the nature of the problems we face is also changing.
I withdraw my amendment, but I hope that these conversations will continue. I express our shared concern that legitimate international finance will prosper and that aspects of international finance that are illegitimate will be carefully monitored and prevented.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
“Publication of information about trustees
In section 22(1) of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (material unavailable for inspection), omit paragraph (c).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable Companies House to publish the names of parties to trusts which own Overseas entities in the Register of Overseas Entities. Currently Companies House collects this information but does not publish it.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I probably ought to start by checking with my noble friend the Minister and his officials that his own amendment, Amendment 76H, does not solve the problem that I am seeking to solve. That will be a very quick answer from my noble friend if it does. It is Amendment 76H—I am slightly flummoxed by section numbers, clauses and subsections.
I will explain to the Committee why the amendment is important. Companies House now collects the information that I am keen for us to have more visibility of, but it does not publish it. I am asking simply that we allow for the information being collected to be published. The register of overseas entities that has just been created is working. I agree with all the comments made a few moments ago about most people involved in business being honest, but this Bill focuses on bad people.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the amendment. I have benefited, as I dare say have a number of other noble Lords, from the briefing from Transparency International explaining why the amendment is so important and very much consistent with the theme and title of the Bill.
I too will probe a little what the Minister said about the register of overseas entities. I think he said there were 27,000 on it at the last count—I am sure the figure changes regularly—and that is encouraging. The move for a register of overseas entities was, I fear, prompted mostly by the fact that on large wastes of central London and other parts of the United Kingdom were properties whose ownership was very unclear. In reality, they were often owned by what we now seem to be calling “bad actors”—at least, we did not know who they were, whether they were bad or good actors. That information should now be much more available than it was.
I think the Committee would be most interested to know whether, with the information that is now obtained, there has been any follow-up. In the evidence we were given about the register of overseas entities, it was explained, for example, that it should enable some link-up with pursuing people under the unexplained wealth order provisions, because there would be more information—you could identify who owned a property and why, if they were a fairly low-grade official in a Russian company, for example, they now owned a property in Belgravia worth several million pounds. Similarly, how is the information assisting in sanctions and the like, and with anti-money laundering?
Generally, there is a lot of information that should be available to the various agencies as a result of the register, rather than simply ticking a box. There may be a theme in the debate that we have been having. Yes, we are enthusiastic about the increased information that is in Companies House and the increased information that will flow from the identity of those on the register, but what we really want to know is whether it will be translated into valuable information that will fulfil the aim behind this legislation.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. To follow up on what has just been said, at the date of Second Reading, approximately half of the expected 32,000 companies that were going to register had done so. I gather that this figure is now 27,000, which is a good step forward. At that time, when it was a rather smaller number, I think 4,000 of those companies suggested that they were owned by trusts, which shows the scale of this issue.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, on the first day in Committee, who was sceptical about whether my amendments identified the ultimate beneficial owners of trusts. He was right to be sceptical; I do not think they did. But that ultimate beneficial ownership and control is what we are trying to get to with this process. Trusts are probably the most common method used for hiding the ultimate true ownership. As I say, 4,000 out of the 16,000 companies that had filed at the time of Second Reading—a quarter—were owned by trusts, and we could no longer see where they went.
It seems very perverse that this information is hidden. I am keen to hear from the Minister a convincing explanation of why the Government feel that it should be hidden. Like the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, I see that the Minister has tabled Amendment 76H, which will extend the information required on trusts. That is very much to be welcomed. I am not at all clear—I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is either—on whether that information is intended to be transparent or hidden. Clearly, it should be public.
To be honest, there seem to be a lot of areas where information is hidden. We have had a number of discussions already in Committee about that. We need to step back and apply a simple principle that there should be maximum transparency, and that we should hide information only where there is genuinely a strong privacy issue. At the moment, it feels very much as if the balance is tipped too far towards privacy and too far away from transparency.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has just said. Trusts are and have been frequently discussed in this Bill and its predecessors as one of the most effective ways of hiding information that ought to be made public. Clearly, some matters are properly to be kept confidential, but much of the material covered by the law of trusts ought, in the public interest, to be disclosed.
I happily support the amendment that my noble friend Lord Agnew moved a moment ago. Like him, I want to know whether the Government’s Amendment 76H renders his amendment redundant. I do not think it does, because it seems to me that there is a difference between the publication of information about trustees, which is what my noble friend talks about, and the registration of information about trusts in the Government’s proposed new clause. We can register as much as we like, but if you cannot open the box and see what is inside and has been registered, it is a pretty futile exercise. Public opinion, public policy and an assessment of the public interest suggest to me—for the reasons already given by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend Lord Faulks—that the Government, if they want to maintain the difference between registration and publication, are behind the curve.
We learned a lot in my noble friend’s committee in 2019 about the huge amounts of real estate, particularly within London and a couple of its boroughs, which are owned by people, companies and trusts of which we know nothing. Many of these houses and properties were unoccupied; they were merely the physical dumping grounds for money. Obviously, they had to be paid for.
The committee on which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and I served was not able to discover, but sought to encourage the then Government to expose, the route by which criminal funds were laundered into London by money launderers. Any number of blocks of flats and very expensive houses, all year round, 24 hours a day, never have a single light on. You can go down smart squares in Kensington or Westminster and see places that look utterly unoccupied—because they are. They are dumps for dosh. We need to make sure that this new law is effective at exposing and, if not exposing, inhibiting before it gets here, the translation of laundered money from dodgy jurisdictions into ours. It is as simple as that. I hope the Minister is able to persuade the Committee that my noble friend’s amendment is redundant, because the Government’s amendment comprehensively and effectively does what we would like.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I will just add to this. As it happens, the other week my wife and I were going around the Nine Elms development, Battersea Power Station, et cetera, with an eye to when we downsize. We were told that, until then, over 40% of the apartments had been sold to people living abroad. That partly explained why it was so very quiet there; not many people were present in the complex. That raises all sorts of large questions about housing practices in London, which we need not touch on at the moment.
I want to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, about how one establishes the ultimate beneficiary when one company is owned by another company, which is owned by a trust in another jurisdiction. That is part of what my amendment was trying to get at, as a key element before one can even begin to enforce is accurate information from regulators in other jurisdictions and territories, and how we do our best to ensure that the information we are receiving is accurate. That requires active diplomacy and co-operation between the financial parts of different Governments. We are looking for some assurance from the Minister that that is part of what is intended when the Bill becomes an Act and that we will know which parts of Whitehall will be pursuing it.
On the first day in Committee, there were some references to the role of HMRC. We have been told that Companies House will not be concerned with regulation or enforcement, but we need to know a little more about which parts of our government machine will take the lead on ensuring that we begin to unpick the cascade of trusts and companies referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and will tell us who, in effect, the beneficial owners are.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will speak very briefly in this interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred to a theme. I agree and would characterise that theme as what Companies House knows and what is published. That publishing process turns information into actionable information, rather than just stuff in a box. We have had some useful meetings with the department and I thank them for that, but on a number of occasions the department talked about what Companies House knows; here, however, we are talking about the balance between what it knows and what is published. We are pushing much harder for more to be published. This is not prurient; it is about the point at which information becomes actionable and useful in order to do the things that your Lordships have spoken about.
I am sure that there will be issues around privacy and all sorts of things, but those can be dealt with by special process. We should not use the fact that some can legitimately require privacy to prevent all the rest of the data being published. We are asking the Minister to reassure us that his amendment does this. My sense is that it probably does not, and therefore it would be as well if he could acknowledge and address this difference between what Companies House knows and what is published, particularly in this case but there are other areas too.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
To follow on from those comments, my comment will be very much in the same vein. We need to bring this part of the conversation into the general understanding that if we are to be successful, there has to be a root and branch reform of Companies House and the way in which it works. We need a massive cultural shift. Moving away from being a passive receiver of information to a dynamic analyser of data will be quite a step. It speaks to the need for resource to make sure that everything we are doing can be delivered. I emphasise the comments that have been made: of course we want this to succeed, but I am sure that everyone will understand our calling for more information and calling out opportunities to improve what is before us. Significant improvements can be made as we move forward.
Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, said, we need to make sure that we do not follow the law of unintended consequences by introducing new measures and then creating new loopholes which will let bad actors fall through the net. We need to triple-check everything proposed through these measures to ensure that that cannot happen. As we have all said throughout this debate, the best way is to make sure that the data is transparent and can be viewed and seen. There have to be ways to introduce safeguards so that sensitive matters can be protected as and when they occur. It cannot be outside the bounds of possibility to make these improvements and move forward in a way that gives greater protection to all those involved.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for those well-expressed sentiments. I hope the Committee knows my passion for these important reforms. I apologise for not declaring my interests at the beginning of this debate, as I should have. We have had so many different meetings it is easy to forget. It is important that I declare them because I do own companies, I have set companies up and I have been a participant in LLP structures and so on—although I do not believe I am now; please refer to my entry in the register. There is no conflict in my mind; if anything, I hope that gives me quite a good perspective on how these structures can be used for good but also by bad actors.
On the importance of eradicating corruption in our economy, there is, potentially, no greater value that a person can engage in than allocating capital to the highest point of return. That may sound a bit cynical and clear-cut but the point is that the effective functioning of our economy is what gives us the goods, services and quality of life that allow us to exist in harmony and happiness. Corruption, which we are trying to eradicate, is extremely invidious in allowing us to have successful economic growth and, in many cases, it is invisible. It is also assumed to be victimless, which is not the case: it is highly corrosive to our economy and every crime has a victim, even if they are not immediate or apparent.
Our determination to eradicate corruption and economic crime is at the core of our agenda to make our economy work better to provide better lives for our citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised a good point when he said that the public demand this. That is absolutely right. If one believes, as I do, in business and capitalism, and the power of capitalism to do good, if it is being distorted, that destroys our foundation and means that we do not have the true legitimacy to carry on effectively legitimate affairs, because they are conflated with illegitimate affairs.
I am completely dedicated to this mission and am grateful to all noble Peers. I am very glad that we have put on record our group support, if I can call it that, for an industry that, as we have discussed, is incredibly valuable and performs enormously important functions for companies that work in it. It is important; I am happy to state that.
Given this opportunity, I will go back over some of the statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised the issue of compliance. This has been well flagged; there was an assumption, perhaps, that the compliance rate is low. It has taken time for these overseas entities to register themselves. The population of entities in scope is around 32,000 but it is assumed that some of them—perhaps as much as 10%; let us say around 2,500—are dormant, defunct, in the process of being wound up or just part of the general churn of overseas entities. We now have 28,000 entities that have complied with our requirements; that is a high level if one assumes that, as I said, 2,500 or so are probably part of natural churn. So we are already looking at a non-compliance rate of maybe 1,500 to 2,000 companies out of 30,000—I know that I am making estimates; I would be happy to write to the Committee with specific numbers.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The Minister might be coming on to this but, when he says “compliance”, that means an entity has made a filing; it does not necessarily mean that the filing itself is compliant. The statistics that would be interesting for us are those on what the beneficial holdings behind these entities look like. Are they trusts? Are they opaque companies? It would be helpful to know that. Also, what has Companies House done—and what is it doing—to follow up on those that seem to be unduly opaque?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate that intervention. As I said, I would be happy to write with specific information as I do not have details on all 28,000 registered businesses.
The point I want to make, which is important, is that a very large number of overseas entities have registered and, we assume, sent in information that can be confirmed and will lead to them being compliant. That is quite a high number; it allows us to focus. That is the point. The question was about what happens to the 1,500 to 2,000 or so companies that have not registered. Well, they cannot transact; they cannot participate in transactions in this country. Their assets are untransactable, which, in my view, negates the value of those assets to a significant degree. In effect, they are compelled to register and comply if they want to get their money out; that is important. Clearly, the next phase is to do the work on the companies that have registered to ensure that the information we have is accurate. We then have to make sure of why those companies that have not registered have not done so. Sometimes, there are perfectly legitimate reasons why that would be the case but, on the whole, we have made significant process.
Following our discussion earlier in Committee and the sensible points from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—I have been glad to discuss them with my colleagues—let me say that compliance and law enforcement are at the crux of this issue. There is no point in bringing in any of this legislation—not even a single line of it—if it will not be enforced and overseen properly. My view has often been that sometimes we may not need new legislation but we need to enforce properly the legislation that we have, where a great deal of our effort will be far more effective.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification about the level of compliance. If will press him on one point. Last week we were provided with a useful series of notes that made this point, among others:
“Public registers allow multiple eyes to interrogate data, including the absence of data, to inform a risk-based approach to investigation and enforcement”.
I think that what the Committee would like to know is this: now that there is this compliance, who are those “multiple eyes” and what are they doing with the information that was thought necessary to eradicate some of the kleptocracy that has clearly been identified?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, flagging so well the sentence that I was about to deliver. I would like to investigate further, personally as a Minister and for the benefit of this Committee, a more detailed assessment of the crime-fighting efforts that we will employ around this.
I have some good information to impart to the Committee, which to some extent answers the questions. I have particularly looked into the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the UAE and so on. We have signed an anti-corruption pledge or framework with the UAE in the last few years. We have in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
Can I just finish this particular flow of information, because I will cease to remember it if I do not get it out? I believe we have 12 Foreign Office crime experts located around the world. One of them is in the UAE, for example, and we work very hard with those countries that sit on the so-called grey list. It is important to note this. I am aware, as a Minister and a consumer, that the value and brand of a jurisdiction are extremely important. It is not effective for companies to operate easily in jurisdictions that have been classified as at risk or on the grey list.
There is clearly a hierarchy of regulatory power or brand, with the UK at the very top. When dealing with international companies, I personally always look at where a company is registered. If it is registered in the UK, we hope that the brand will grow to be even more enhanced; if it is registered in a jurisdiction about which you have doubts or that has been highlighted as at risk, it makes a significant difference to how you treat that information and the brand of that business.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
Given my noble friend the Minister’s commitment to give us some data on the whole disclosure exercise that has happened following the first economic crime Act, he mentioned that there has been a high level of compliance. We are all delighted with that, but my worry—to the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux—is what that actually means.
Transparency International estimates that there are at least 7,000 entities on which no light at all will be shed. In my example, JTC (Suisse) SA is a registered overseas entity. We now have that information but it means absolutely nothing, because beneath it is a cascade of other entities that we seem to have no visibility on. When the Minister puts together his reporting suite, can he let us know how many are essentially just a number or a name on a piece of paper?
Perhaps I should have raised this earlier, but in our very useful briefing with officials on Monday they explained that the ROE was set up specifically for property, and therefore a lot of the enforcement was around property assets. Property—real estate—is of course a much easier concept to deal with than the rest of the things we are talking about in commerce. A piece of paper or digital ownership of a share is much harder. I am interested to know what enforcement will happen for those much more invisible assets.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am constantly grateful to my noble friend Lord Agnew for his interventions and thoughtful input. I am pleased to say that we have to look forward—unfortunately not today, but maybe next week—to the section on crypto assets and similar assets. I believe that we have made great headway; this is technical and complex, and we welcome interventions and input from this Committee and anyone else that will allow us to more effectively police that area. I am very much on my noble friend’s side on this. It was certainly worth him mentioning that the register of overseas entities relates to property, which is true. I cannot comment on the specific case that he raises, but the assumption is that the data will be checked and verified. The whole point is that a registered overseas entity has to conform to our people with significant control regime and so on. That will allow us to make that assessment. I will confirm to the Committee what we are going to do in terms of reporting against that data.
As I say, there was a discussion earlier in the week about the budgetary allocations for economic crime fighting. It is very important that we show this House, and the nation at large, how much money the Government are putting into this area and how seriously we take it. I am proud of our record and want to put together a strong case to show your Lordships what we are doing. Can more resources be allocated to anything? All of us here have experience, if we have been in government, and of course it is possible. But the fact is that if I look magnitudinously over the last few years at the attention placed on this subject and the money put into it, it is a completely different story from, say, 2010—and for good reasons. It has become crucially apparent that the world has changed, and we need to react to that.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The noble Lord is right that it is sometimes necessary to protect the privacy of individuals. I do not think anyone in the Room would argue otherwise, but it is true that trusts can be and are used to hide real beneficial ownership. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—I apologise for not having the Act in front of me—but I recall that a process within the Act allows entities to apply for their information not to be on the public register. That should cover the privacy issue. The default should be that the information is on the register. If the entity has applied for the information not to be and Companies House has accepted its reason as valid, that is fine, but the default should surely be that the information is public.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord making that comment, which I will come on to but, if the Committee does not mind, I would like to correct some of my statistics. Slightly fewer than 28,000 of our overseas entities have registered, although it is very nearly that. My officials want me to be accurate, so that I never mislead this august Committee. I should also be specific about the PSC regime relating to registered overseas entities. As noble Lords know, but were kind enough not to pick me up on, they have a separate regulatory regime, which is similar to it but not actually called that. I apologise and hope that has been corrected.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
It would be helpful if we were regularly updated on the number of overseas entities that have registered, with a running total. Otherwise, we keep having to come back and it is not clear where we are in the process.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I would also be grateful if the Minister could answer the question about whether there is a process for privacy.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am just coming on to that. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, is right to ask for there to be a running total, because a further 717 overseas entities have complied in the recent period since my own figures were updated—so it would be quite useful to see how that is going. I would also like to separate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, about the ability to keep some information private from the presumption of this Bill, which is the presumption for privacy for trusts rather than it being the exception.
This matter was well debated in the other place during the passage of the Bill—I am sure that some of your Lordships have had the opportunity to read that debate—but the question was what level of information should be published. Let us remember that all this information is collected by Companies House, so it is on record. In terms of crime fighting, it will be fully available to Companies House for the processes that all companies are obliged to undergo. It is perfectly reasonable to have a debate about what level of transparency there should be when it comes to publishing information. As I said before an intervention, it may also be appropriate for there to be a presumption of privacy for small, micro-entity information, given that some of those very small businesses are in effect people’s private wealth.
We should not conflate the work that we are trying to do here on Companies House, corporate transparency and reducing crime with some of the powerful principles around privacy, investment, family and protection, which are not irrelevant. It is important that we have a debate about this. The Government have committed actively to explore levels of information that should be published. The Treasury is very specific on my mandate in this discussion. I am not mandated to commit to any level of transparency above and beyond what we are already doing, which is a significant change, yet, at the same time, I can, and am keen to, commit to further debate about the level of transparency.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My noble friend’s own Amendment 76H is in a different group to this one, but it is likely that we will debate it later today. By then, he may not have had time to take further advice about the default position that we would like to see; that is, everything should be made open unless there is a good reason for it not to be. I was struck by the expression that he used a moment ago, particularly when dealing with micro-companies, that the default position should be one of confidentiality—“secrecy” is an emotive word—in favour of the micro-company and its owners as opposed to the other way around.
We are looking for a general rule, a general default position, that there should be openness unless there is a very good reason for there not to be—and, as my noble friend pointed out, there will be occasions when there is a very good reason not to have an open-source register. Is my noble friend in a position, even if he is not able to do so later this afternoon when government Amendment 76H comes to be debated, to amend or clarify the Government’s position? Can he assure us that Report will be the occasion when this further debate will be held? To say that there will be opportunities for a debate about the default position does not pin it down to a particular date or time. My noble friend will know, and the usual channels will know, that time is precious and Governments can often find an excuse, based on inconvenience, not to allow a debate that is required to take place.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble and learned friend for that point. Going back to the comment the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, made about the statistics on registered entities, I understand that there is a website that tracks this, which the Committee can log on to each day to see progress. We will send that link around to encourage your Lordships to look at it, but at the same time we will make sure that we provide more information about the statistics.
I cannot commit to a debate on trust transparency at this stage, but what I can commit to is that the Government are exploring this topic, which I think is separate to some of the discussions we are having. I would like to clarify my own point, which the noble Lord raised, about micro-entities and the assumption of publishing. I believe that the assumption is that the information would be published. My point was that I think it is perfectly reasonable to have differing views over this on account of areas such as privacy, if I can have a personal view as a Minister. I am very happy to have a debate about whether there is a discussion to be had around privacy for micro-entities publishing all their information, given how personal that can be. I think it is perfectly legitimate for trusts, in many instances, to be considered private affairs, so long as the authorities themselves have the transparency of information that they need.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
To pick up on the noble and learned Lord’s point about consultation, I am sure we have all welcomed the multiple times that the Minister has referred to further discussion and further consultation about topics raised today and on the previous day of debate. I think we would welcome the chance to get our diaries out fairly soon and see when those discussions could actually take place.
The other separate and more pedantic point I wanted to make is that I think the Minister said—I agree with him largely on privacy, by the way—that the trusts are repositories of assets and do not transact business, although I am ready to be corrected. I am not sure that that is a fair representation. I think that many trusts own companies and the trustees run the companies and businesses that are held, as it were, in a holding group.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am not surprised that the noble Lord and a Member of this Committee has corrected me on that specific point; my tone may have been misunderstood. However, I hope he understood what I was trying to get at when I differentiated trusts from corporate entities or corporations themselves. They do business, and they must be regulated. If I could differentiate my language again, between a debate and a discussion, I am very keen to have a discussion with Members of this Committee about this matter, so we can certainly get diaries out and find a time over the coming weeks to look into this in more detail. It is a very important debate to have, and I would welcome as many participants in the industry as possible to join us in that discussion.
Given what I have said and the fact that this is being actively explored by the Government, please do not think that this discussion is somehow being shut down. As I say, this policy area is controlled by the Treasury, and it is very specific about that. I am comfortable that we will have the powers in this Bill to have the flexibility to ensure that we can, when the decision is taken, provide the right amount of transparency around trusts. As a result, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, with very deep reluctance, I will withdraw it, but I want to leave on the record that the self-proclaimed “very good” Amendment 76H could be truly excellent if the Government added the simple two-line sentence that I have offered in my amendment. I suggest that there are rarely times in legislation where so much can be achieved with so little and so quickly.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
“Beneficial owners in overseas territories
In section 51 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (public registers of beneficial ownership of companies registered in British Overseas Territories), after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that an Order in Council of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) comes into force on a date no later than 30 June 2023.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would amend the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to ensure that an Order in Council requiring open registers of beneficial ownership in the British Overseas Territories, for the purposes of the detection, investigation or prevention of money laundering, comes into force no later than 30 June 2023.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, included in this group is Amendment 108, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will refer to. Amendment 73A is straightforward. It seeks to amend provisions in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to require the introduction of open registers of beneficial ownership in each of the British Overseas Territories for the purposes of detection, investigation or prevention of money laundering, and for those to come into force no later than 30 June 2023.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I will speak to my Amendment 108, and first make a couple of preliminary observations.
The Minister referred to “eradicating” corruption—a wonderful aim. I do not recall any economy or political system that has entirely eradicated corruption, but minimising corruption is a necessary part of any market economy. I grew up within Barclays Bank. They moved us every five years; they moved their local staff because it was a way of minimising corruption—stopping my parents getting too close to their clients. That was the sort of petty corruption that unavoidably crept into the British financial system.
Now that we have an entirely different financial system the opportunities for corruption are very different. What we are trying to do here is minimise levels of corruption in a globalised economy and financial system. I say to the Minister: even if we were to succeed in eradicating corruption entirely in this country, which would require some quite astonishing changes in our culture, we would still import corruption from abroad, as we have painfully discovered in the past 30 years. The best that we can do is to hope to mitigate and minimise.
On trusts, secrecy is often an aid to tax avoidance or tax evasion. We all know that the boundary between avoidance and evasion is very delicate, managed by large numbers of well-paid accountants and lawyers based in London, the Crown dependencies and elsewhere, and that tax evasion is an economic crime.
I have been concerned by extent clauses in a number of Bills since I entered this House. I have been increasingly puzzled by the way in which such clauses are used, partly because they normally come at the end of a Bill by which time everyone is exhausted and does not want to discuss them. I note that, in the National Security Bill—the last Bill that I dealt with—Jersey and Guernsey were included in the extent clause, but the Isle of Man was not. Moreover, the sovereign base areas of Cyprus were included in the extent of the Bill but not most of the other overseas territories; I was unable to discover why the other overseas territories in which we have military bases, such as the Falklands, Tristan da Cunha and Ascension Island, were not included. The Minister then was unable to answer that question.
This is an area of quite astonishing ambiguity—deliberate ambiguity, in a sense. The Crown dependencies and the overseas territories are not part of the United Kingdom, but they are not foreign. They are governed under British law, but they do not immediately implement all changes in British law, as my noble friend remarked. That is very convenient but, occasionally, it leaves room for ambiguity, which can be exploited.
I remind the Minister that there have been substantial problems in some overseas territories; for example, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the BVI. There are, of course, enormous temptations in territories with a small population and a huge amount of money going through. We have seen that in the past in the Channel Islands—we very much hope that things are much better there now—and more recently in some of the Caribbean territories. So we must be careful and well aware that, if this Bill is to become a successful Act with enforcement, our close financial connections with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies must form part of what we address and part of what we make sure they follow.
In one of our briefings, we were told:
“We are comfortable with the journey that the overseas territories are on, but they are not yet there.”
We are concerned that they should get there, and in good time. We are all conscious that the overwhelming majority of properties owned by overseas entities are registered in the overseas territories, primarily the BVI. So why are they not in the extent clause, given that some Crown dependencies and overseas territories have been included in the extent clauses of other Bills passed in this Parliament? How are the Government going to ensure that the commitments made that the territories will follow changes in British legislation are carried through? How will we ensure that we follow up on that? I say that with a degree of embittered experience: I recall several occasions over the past 15 years on which Ministers from different Governments promised that changes in British law would be followed within a limited period by the overseas territories, only for us to discover three or four years later that those changes had not been implemented by some of them.
This is an important area; I know that the Minister will recognise how important an area it is. The personal, financial, accountancy and legal links between Britain, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories are extremely close, intricate and fairly opaque. We therefore need, again, some reassurance that this Bill, when it becomes an Act with the hope that it will be enforced effectively, will be enforced throughout those British territories that are not part of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and to speak chiefly to Amendment 108, to which I attached my name. I entirely agree with everything he said, and indeed with the introduction to the group. I will just add a couple of points.
My first point is about the cost. A few years ago, Transparency International calculated that the economic damage resulting from corporate secrecy in the UK’s overseas territories alone significantly exceeded the UK aid budget. These are crimes that have real victims and real costs. We must not forget that. The fact is that one hand is operating one way and the other another way, unless we take some action.
The Atlantic Council is not necessarily an organisation with which I am always 100% in agreement, but it produced an article in January entitled “Authoritarian kleptocrats are thriving on the West’s failures. Can they be stopped?” It recommended that the UK should
“address the close connections between the City of London and British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies”.
A further recommendation was that the UK should:
“Reduce regulatory mismatches between the primary UK jurisdictions and the Crown Dependencies.”
There is a real hole here. We can drive a cart and horses through the gaps between what is happening here and what is happening in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. To extend the metaphor a little, for which I apologise, we might be slamming the stable door, but we are leaving the barn door open unless we address this issue.
In thinking about how these two amendments are connected, and to join them up, let us be really charitable about the capacities of these overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The population of the 14 overseas territories is 270,000 people; that of the Crown dependencies is rather less. Let us be charitable when we think of the size of their Administrations and their capacities, and think about the extreme inequality of arms between the kleptocrats and their enablers and those organisations. Even if those territories and dependencies want to do something, with the best will in the world, how can they conceivably have the capacity to do it? We have a responsibility, given the UK Government’s role, for this economic crime Bill to include this coverage. This is protection, support and assistance, as well as something that protects the whole world.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have great sympathy for these amendments. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on his tenacity on this issue, which I have noticed on a number of different Bills. He is quite right that this issue tends to come up at the fag end of debates, so it can be overlooked. It is very important.
I have one point to make about this. There is, of course, a distinction between the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories. I speak as a former Minister with responsibility for the Crown dependencies. Their position is such that, before legislation that includes them is brought forward—certainly before it is passed—there is a well-established convention whereby the Government consult the Crown dependencies before including them in legislation, certainly by way of an amendment. I ask the Minister whether any such consultations have taken place. If not, why not? This is clearly important, and it is a long-standing issue that the Crown dependencies will no doubt have strong views about, but we need to know them before legislating.
My second point is slightly different—the Minister is quite understandably looking elsewhere at this point. I was rather disappointed by his response on the question of trusts that we would not have a debate on them now. I gently remind him that the Joint Committee on the Draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, which I had the privilege of chairing, reported in 2019. It emphasised the importance of trusts as a potential vehicle for fraud. The committee’s report set that out between paragraphs 76 and 79 and said that the matter needed looking at as a matter of urgency. The committee was given assurances that it would be; it was not. It took the invasion of Ukraine before the register came in. Here we have the second and final chance to look at economic crime, which would include the use of trusts as a vehicle for fraud. In those circumstances, it is very disappointing to hear from the Minister that we will not have a debate on that now.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments and want to make a couple of points. First, it is not a very ambitious request that we are making of these territories: simply that they have proper anti-money laundering processes in place. If we link it to my own amendment, which I have withdrawn, we are now in a position where we have no knowledge of the ultimate owner of many of those assets and no reassurance that there is any anti-money laundering going on.
Secondly, we need to remember that it is our reputation being damaged by these territories which are not stepping up to the plate, because they are using the principles of English law and that is how they are making a very good living out of it. I again ask my noble friend the Minister what is happening to move this along. It has been sitting around for a long time and it is damaging the reputation of this country.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I have an interest to declare in that I am presently instructed by the Government of the Isle of Man in a legal matter. Under the new rules of the House, that is declared specifically in my entry in the register—I have just been checking. It is not a very exciting piece of work: I am required to report to the Isle of Man Government on the state of their legal services sector—I know that many of you will be very jealous of that exciting piece of work. One thing that the Isle of Man is particularly keen to have recognised is that it is an independent jurisdiction. Yes, the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man share through the Lord of Mann—namely, the sovereign—a head of state. Yes, it shares many of the legal traditions and concepts that we recognise in this jurisdiction, but it is a separate jurisdiction. It has its own parliament; indeed, its parliament is probably older than this one: the Tynwald. I have received instructions, not recently but in the past, from states within the Channel Islands and from British Overseas Territories. They are all fiercely proud of their independence as separate jurisdictions. I fully understand the points and the thrust of the arguments made by noble Lords who have spoken ahead of me, but we need to be careful about how we approach extending the ambit of this legislation.
To look as though we are retaining some sort of colonial mastership over those fiercely proud and independent jurisdictions is not a good look. It does not matter whether you are in the BVI, the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Jersey or the Isle of Man; we just need to tread politely, quietly and with consensus. I accept that noble Lords have said that this has been going on for far too long and it is time that the UK Government got their act together and started to do something about it. Of course, that would be the ideal, but, often, the best is the enemy of the good. I want the Minister to know that although this is a forum in which he might seem, from time to time, on his own, he is not. No matter of which party we are or whether we do not belong to any party at all, we are trying to achieve workable legislation which is not only comprehensive and comprehensible but carries the respect of the people against whom it might bite, because law which is not respected is law which does not have any value or purpose.
If my noble friend the Minister sometimes thinks that he is the only man standing at the gate as the barbarian hordes—the noble barbarian hordes—assail him, would he please accept from me that he has our personal friendship and our professional respect? I am sure that this sentiment covers the whole of the Committee. We know the difficult job that he is doing so please, when we come to discuss this amendment, will he accept from me that I understand it is not easy to tell the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the British Overseas Territories that they must do what this Parliament says?
There will therefore be many discussions, it seems to me, between his department, the FCDO and the Treasury with their counterparts in these various jurisdictions. If we can bring them with us, as opposed to clobbering them with unilateral legislation, we will achieve a much longer lasting result—albeit that I entirely accept the purpose of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Here at least, going with and coming alongside, as opposed to hitting head-on, is the way to go forward.
Lord Fox (LD)
I was going to take the benefit of what I hope will be some free consultancy, when it would otherwise be highly expensive, to ask a genuine question. Were His Majesty’s Government not to take the noble and learned Lord’s advice but wished to exert their will over these territories, is the means by which that is done through an order of the Privy Council or are there other ways of doing it? If the answer is yes—I see another noble Lord nodding—what are the precedents for that in recent times?
Lord Garnier (Con)
The noble Lord saw my noble friend Lord Faulks nodding. The fact that we went to the same school, the same college at Oxford and the same Inn of Court has absolutely no bearing on this, save to say that he will answer that question in a moment. I am sure he would wish to catch the Committee’s eye. That having been said, I want to finish on this rather wishy-washy point. I sympathise with what has been said in support of these amendments, but we need to take a step back and have a reality check to see how this would be received by the people against whom it will bite.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I will, then, as I usually accept that invitation. As I understand the position, an Order in Council is the mechanism. The convention and the arrangement with the Crown dependencies that I spoke of is not the same with the overseas territories, although the points made about consulting them very much apply.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
If I may respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, since I have been involved in discussion on this on a number of previous Bills, we are normally assured by the Government as a Bill goes past that there are ongoing consultations with the CDs and the OTs, and that they have been assured that the key proposals will be incorporated into their domestic law within a limited period. As I said, there have been a number of occasions when that has not happened in some territories. It has often been the weakest territories concerned and, after all, this Government have spent a good deal of money on taking over the government of the Turks and Caicos—having to intervene where things have failed. This is rather like saying, “On most occasions, we do not expect most banks or overseas territories to be involved in any form of corruption, but sometimes some will be tempted”. Some may be overcome and that is what we are trying to guard against.
Lord Garnier (Con)
The noble Lord is right, and it has not been an easy history, but these small jurisdictions have a choice. I am well aware of the criminal cases currently going on in the Turks and Caicos, and the need for direct rule there. But I have seen too many occasions—not a vast number, but too many none the less—when these small jurisdictions are prepared to be seduced by China rather than maintain their relationship with the United Kingdom. We need to be careful that we do not force these smaller jurisdictions into the arms of the Chinese, when it would be much better for their well-being and ours if we were to maintain them within our own family. I will leave it there.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
With apologies, as I am not sure whether this is an appropriate time to raise this, but given that our amendment refers to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act, perhaps the Minister can explain what sensitive negotiations and discussions, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, mentioned, have taken place and the reasons for the disappointing progress. It would be helpful to have a better understanding of why we have not been able to progress.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly appreciate the noble Baroness’s comment. I would be delighted to go through this in as much detail as I can. I am very aware, as a Minister in the department and someone guiding this legislation through, as a Peer in this House and as a member of the public, of the issues the Crown dependencies and overseas territories have when it comes to reputational issues surrounding financial probity. It has been well reported and widely discussed. I am very happy to comment on that and to come back to the Committee with more information on the specific work we are doing.
If noble Lords allow me to go through my notes, I should be able to answer some of the questions. I am very grateful to the Committee for the complimentary clerking advice we received from my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, although, since they both seem to have been educated in exactly the same way, I am not quite sure why they did not both have the same answer. That might be something to revisit.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Wallace, who I have named in my brief, for their amendments; of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, spoke to her part. Before I respond to the amendments, it will be useful for me to set out the long-standing constitutional relationship that exists between the UK Government and the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, although I do not want to repeat the very helpful comments made by noble Lords, particularly my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier.
The Crown dependencies and overseas territories are not part of the UK. It may seem obvious to state that, but it is very important. They are separate jurisdictions with their own democratically elected Governments responsible for their domestic affairs, including in these areas. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised the National Security Bill, which I am advised would be more relevant since we are responsible for the national security of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, or at least many of them—I am receiving reassuring nods. It would have been appropriate, in that instance, for there to have been some mention of them in the legislation. I will explain why there is no mention of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories in this Bill.
I make very clear my sympathy with the principles expressed in this debate. I cannot remember the exact phrase that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, used because the metaphor was very mixed, but it was something about there being no point shutting the stable door if we leave the barn door open. I very much agree with that principle; it would seem peculiar to go to all these lengths to make our system right if there were a backdoor through a Crown dependency or overseas territory, but I do not believe that will be the case. I assure the Committee that anything that happens in the UK has to have the additional level in terms of the equivalent regulatory framework to the PSC register, whatever the framework is so called, and so on.
We have a great deal of protection around us, but we should be aware of the fact that the Crown dependencies and dependent territories make their own laws in these areas. There is a well-established constitutional convention that the UK does not legislate for the Crown dependencies on domestic matters or otherwise intervene without their consent, except in very limited circumstances. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, would be comfortable talking to this, but it really is in very limited circumstances. We should be aware of that and very respectful of it, since we do far better collaborating in a more powerful way to ensure that our frameworks are meshed together so that we learn from and support each other rather than being heavy-handed, even in this specific and practical sense. Furthermore, the UK Government also recognise the long-established practice that the UK does not legislate on domestic responsibilities for the overseas territories without first consulting them, other than in exceptional circumstances.
I am grateful for the thrust of these amendments. On Amendment 73A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I am aware that beneficial ownership registers in British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies have long attracted significant interest from across the House, as I said earlier, and in general from the public. But it is worth mentioning that, when these types of amendment were tabled to Bills several years ago, we were in a very different place. The point is that all inhabited overseas territories and the Crown dependencies have now committed to introduce publicly accessible registers of company beneficial ownership.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I will simply comment on the capacity question, which the Minister raised. There is a clear distinction between our Crown dependencies and some of our smaller overseas territories. The Crown dependencies have a lot of qualified people, and I am well aware that, in recent years, they have increased their staff capacity to cope with the rising amount of international financial business they have been dealing with. One regrets that, in some of the smaller and, I have to say, weaker overseas territories, there is not enough capacity and trained staff. They are further away from the United Kingdom. There are reputational questions and costs if and when a major scandal breaks out, as in the Turks and Caicos Islands, to the UK’s standing in the world because they are under our protection, they follow UK law and they have the reputation of having UK law.
I am conscious that this is part of a wider problem in the global financial system. The argument has been made to me in the past by people from these territories: “After all, if people do not come here as their offshore financial centre, they’ll go to somewhere dodgier and smaller, perhaps in the Pacific rather than the Caribbean.” We are all conscious of there always being that set of issues, but the UK and its associated territories need to ensure that, in managing a complicated global financial system, our overall contribution is one of which we continue to be proud and that all those territories for which we are responsible maintain higher standards. That is what this is really about.
We recognise how much has been done and how well Crown dependencies have improved the quality of their oversight in recent years, but some territories will simply not have enough people who are prepared to live there for 12 months a year to deal with the quantity and complexity of the financial movements through them. That has to be a matter for our long-term concern. I would love to hear more about the Open Ownership charity that is involved in helping them with this, because we clearly have to assist them to develop their capacity to cope with an increasingly complicated, and often dodgy, set of offerings from countries with which we have to deal but which do not have the same standards as us.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this group of amendments. We have uncovered some important areas, but the overarching consideration, as we know and as has been mentioned, is the damage to our reputation if this matter is not addressed.
I take some comfort from the Minister’s offer to meet us to talk this through in more detail, but I remain concerned about the very real question of progress. If the necessary progress has not been made across the piece by the end of the year, I would like to know exactly what the Government are intending.
Given the sensitivity about relationships and the different stages that places are at, which has been highlighted so well, it would be useful to know whether there is an established framework around support and approach to make sure there is consistency in achieving this. This is not a terribly ambitious request; it should be straightforward. I look forward to our further discussions and, with those comments, beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
“Requirement to notify registrar of change of auditor
(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section 485 (appointment of auditors of private company), at the end insert— “(6) Following the appointment of a new auditor or auditors of the company, the company must give notice to the registrar within 10 working days of the date of change, along with the name and address of the auditor or auditors.”(3) In section 489 (appointment of auditors of public company), at the end insert—“(6) Following the appointment of a new auditor or auditors of the company, the company must give notice to the registrar within 10 working days of the date of change, along with the name and address of the auditor or auditors.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause introduces a requirement for private and public companies to notify Companies House within 10 working days of the appointment of a new auditor or auditors, and provide the registrar with associated details.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, for this amendment, I will add to my previous disclosures that I am a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. By qualification, 40 years ago, I rummaged around companies Acts hoping never again to see them. Sadly, here I am again, but hey ho. In fact, I rummaged around Sections 516 and 517 of the Companies Act 2006, as amended by the Deregulation Act 2015. This imposes an obligation on a company to tell Companies House if there has been a change of auditor, but not an obligation about the details of that change.
Lord Fox (LD)
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, can confirm this at the end of the debate, but it is not clear to me whether losing your auditor before you appoint another would be reportable within the subject of his amendment. That is a key diagnostic, which he did not mention, of trouble afoot within an organisation. One of the benefits that we would have seen if the fourth member of the Vaux/Fox/Faulks/Foulkes group—the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—had been here is that he would have emphasised very fully that had we seen the loss of an auditor in a particular case, we would have known that there was trouble. So, there is another element to the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, that, in a sense, this is a very good diagnostic.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said. I too was going to allude to the case of the SNP and to make the point about auditors resigning before they are replaced. That is obviously a warning sign. I am intrigued to hear the Minister’s response. It seems such a practical suggestion. I will leave it at that, because the ball is in his court.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend and guru Lord Leigh for his Amendment 73AA, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Ponsonby, for their contributions. I assure my noble friend that this amendment is not necessary. The Government hear his comments loud and clear but, as with all outings at this Dispatch Box as a Minister, I am unable to give the purity of the answer that we might all prefer to hear.
However, I will say that the Government are taking forward reforms to audit and corporate governance regulation separately following the publication last year of our response to the White Paper consultation on restoring trust in audit and corporate governance. The White Paper considered the information that must be provided to Companies House when an auditor leaves office, so this covers the point about the auditor leaving office rather than necessarily the appointment of a new one; that is a core point that has been raised and heard. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—many noble Lords in this Room have declared an interest as being a member of that august body so they will know this already, although I am not—has raised with my officials the lack of up-to-date information on the Companies House register about the appointment of new auditors.
The Government are therefore already considering how the public record might be improved in respect of appointments of auditors, including possibly via a combination of notifying the appointment when it is made, as well as updating the register if needed as part of the annual confirmation statement. We covered the point about the auditor stepping down or leaving office. This could work in much the same way that it does for the identities of company directors, which I believe will satisfy this Committee. There are already secondary legislative powers in the Companies Act 2006 on the content of the confirmation statement, and amendments to this framework are already being considered as part of the implementation of the Government’s White Paper proposals on restoring trust in audit and corporate governance.
I hope that satisfies the Committee and I therefore ask my noble friend kindly to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I thank my noble friend. I am not surprised by his response, although one would have thought that a Bill on corporate transparency might stretch itself this far. In answer to what we might call the Vaux-Fox syndicate, when an auditor resigns, the company has to notify the Registrar of Companies of that within 14 days. I think it is a criminal offence not to do so, for both the company and the officer. That is pretty tight; it is just what is in the notice and making sure we are aware of what is going on thereafter. However, given the reassurances from my noble friend that the Government are beavering away day and night on the audit reform, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
(b) in subsection (8), at the appropriate place insert—““disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation”—(a) in relation to a statement about a person delivered to the registrar for England and Wales or Scotland, means that the person falls within any of the entries in the first column of Part 1 of the table in section 159A of the Companies Act 2006;(b) in relation to a statement about a person delivered to the registrar for Northern Ireland, means that the person falls within any of the entries in the first column of Part 2 of that table.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a requirement to make a statement in circumstances that can in fact never exist and is otherwise consequential on the amendments to page 94 and page 96, line 20, which are tabled in the Minister’s name.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I will speak first to government Amendments 73B to 73E, 73G to 73J, 73N, 74A and 74B—I hope I have read them out in the correct order—on the application of disqualification provisions to general partners and registered officers. I believe these amendments are very uncontentious but stand ready to be corrected by noble Lords in this Committee.
These amendments clarify certain parts of the Bill concerning disqualified officers in limited partnerships. They ensure that the restrictions introduced by the Bill on disqualified persons in relation to companies, which noble Lords will recall were debated and agreed on the first day in Committee, will apply correctly and coherently in the context of limited partnerships.
Specifically, Amendments 73B, 73C and 73G adapt the definition of a disqualified person, as inserted by the Bill under the Companies Act 2006, to general partners and registered officers. This will determine how a disqualification under the directors disqualification legislation affects the ability to be a general partner, or a registered officer of a corporate general partner in a limited partnership, and prevents disqualified persons being registered as such by the registrar. If I can summarise them correctly, they basically mean that if you are disqualified as a company director you cannot be a general partner of a limited company, and vice versa—which obviously makes great sense, because for some reason that was not necessarily the case.
Amendments 73B, 73D to 73F, 73N, 74A and 74B remove triggers or references concerning situations that cannot, in fact, exist and replace them with clearer text. This is because the Bill currently provides for general partners and registered officers to retain their management role if they are disqualified but have a court’s permission to act. However, unlike the position for companies, the law does not currently allow the courts to disqualify a person from acting in the capacity of a general partner or registered officer. Consequently, no court is allowed to grant permissions to act in such a capacity despite disqualification. If you cannot be disqualified, you cannot be permitted to act if disqualified, if that is the correct summary.
We do, however, intend to make changes related to this in secondary legislation so that people can be disqualified from acting as a general partner of a limited partnership and so that a court can grant permissions for disqualified general partners to act in limited partnerships where appropriate. We have discussed this and, historically, there are cases in which permissions for disqualified general partners and persons are required to facilitate necessary corporate transactions.
Section 7A of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 and the powers in Clauses 149 and 150 allow regulations to be made to apply provisions concerning companies, including the director disqualification legislation, to limited partnerships. This includes allowing disqualified individuals to be disqualified from acting as a general partner and be given permission to act in a limited partnership. However, until these regulations are made, it is essential that the primary legislation reflects the current state of the law and is clear. These amendments, I hope the Committee will agree, achieve that. They are needed as they will remove provisions relating to court permissions, which, as I stated earlier, cannot be applied. Amendments 73B, 73E, 73H and 73J will also ensure that this change is reflected in the statements that must be delivered to the registrar in relation to the status of a general partner and a registered officer.
Finally, Amendments 73H and 73J ensure that the meaning of “disqualified” is properly applied in respect to the general partners’ ongoing duty to take any steps necessary to ensure that a disqualified general partner is removed from the partnership. This group of amendments is therefore necessary to ensure clarity regarding the definition of disqualified, and the obligations on individuals in relation to disqualified general partners and registered officers. They will make the legislation clearer and stop bad actors partaking in the management of limited partnerships.
Amendments 76A to 76G concern extending the application of the company director disqualification legislation to other entities in Northern Ireland. Currently, Clause 150 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 in relation to relevant entities in Northern Ireland. On reflection, because this power will be used to amend a piece of Northern Irish legislation in a devolved area, these amendments extend the power to amend the order to the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. They also require the Secretary of State to obtain consent from the department before making any amendments. The amendments tabled will not result in a change in policy or in the intended use of these regulations.
I therefore believe that these are reasonable amendments. They will enable the continuation of collaborative working across the devolved nations while upholding the balance of devolved law. I believe that they are uncontentious; I have had the opportunity to discuss them broadly with noble Lords here. I very much hope that we can move on this and that noble Lords will support the various amendments I have proposed so that we can continue in our work debating other issues.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I have just a couple of questions for the Minister. First, can he confirm that, in seeking to define a disqualification more clearly and explicitly—I think that is what he said—the intention is not to change that definition but merely to codify it? Secondly, in what circumstances does the Minister envisage a disqualified director being allowed, in essence, to be reinstated? In what circumstances do the Government think that might be necessary, so to speak?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
The concept of disqualification does not change. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, these amendments simply bring historical legislation in line and tidy up some points in the Bill that apply to the provision on directors acting as qualified directors when they have been disqualified but cannot actually be disqualified under the original legislation. There is not enough coherence in what happens between limited partnerships and companies. If an individual, whatever you wish to call them—a general partner, a director or so on—is disqualified, they should not be able to be a corporate person in another corporate entity, however you wish to describe it; I think we all agree with that. These amendments clearly bring consistency here. There are no changes to any expectations; this is just good practice and, as I say, tidies up important areas of consistency.
On when a director or limited general partner would be enabled to continue in operation, this would relate specifically to discharging vital duties to ensure that a company could be wound up or, if necessary, some form of share sale or transfer could be authorised. This measure is necessary to ensure that. As I understand it, the Secretary of State directs exceptions to disqualification; I will correct that if I am mistaken. It happens in exceptional circumstances; the cause is normally that specific things need to be done to release assets, make payments, et cetera. A good example is that, if a board was disqualified for good reason but there were suppliers that needed to be paid, it would not be unreasonable for one of the disqualified directors to be able to pay the suppliers. It is specific, the idea being that, once you have disqualified a director, they are disqualified although, according to this amendment, they may be enabled to perform specific functions. That is logical and common sense.
I believe that concludes my proposal.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“(3) A general partner in a limited partnership is “disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation” if— (a) where the limited partnership is registered in England and Wales or Scotland, the general partner falls within any of the entries in the first column of Part 1 of the table in section 159A of the Companies Act 2006;(b) where the limited partnership is registered in Northern Ireland, the general partner falls within any of the entries in the first column of Part 2 of that table.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that only the first column of the table in section 159A of the Companies Act 2006 is relevant to determining whether a general partner is disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation. This is because a disqualified general partner cannot be given permission to act.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“(a) who is one of the general partner’s managing officers,(b) who is not disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation (see subsection (8)), and(c) whose identity is verified (within the meaning of section 1110A of the Companies Act 2006).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to page 93, line 36, which is tabled in the Minister’s name. That amendment introduces a new definition of “disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation” that applies for the purpose of section 8A of the LPA 1907.
(b) be accompanied by a statement by the individual who is the proposed registered officer confirming that the individual—(i) is one of the general partner’s managing officers,(ii) is not disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation (see subsection (8)), and(iii) is an individual whose identity is verified (within the meaning of section 1110A of the Companies Act 2006).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a requirement to make a statement in circumstances that can in fact never exist and is otherwise consequential on the amendment to page 93, line 36, which is tabled in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to page 96, line 20, which is tabled in the Minister’s name.
“(1A) The registered officer of a general partner in a limited partnership is “disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation” if—(a) where the limited partnership is registered in England and Wales or Scotland, the registered officer falls within any of the entries in the first column of Part 1 of the table in section 159A of the Companies Act 2006;(b) where the limited partnership is registered in Northern Ireland, the registered officer falls within any of the entries in the first column of Part 2 of that table.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that only the first column of the table in section 159A of the Companies Act 2006 is relevant to determining whether a registered officer is disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation. This is because a disqualified registered officer cannot be given permission to act.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a requirement to make a statement in circumstances that can in fact never exist.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a requirement to make a statement in circumstances that can in fact never exist.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Power to make provision about winding up
After section 29 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 (inserted by section 130 of this Act) insert—
“29A Power to make provision about winding up(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in relation to the winding up of a limited partnership under section 28 or 29 that corresponds or is similar to any provision of the Insolvency Act 1986 or the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (including any provision of that Act or Order that relates to the allocation of jurisdiction or distribution of business between courts in any part of the United Kingdom).(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must—(a) obtain the consent of the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, so far as the regulations relate to limited partnerships registered in Northern Ireland; (b) obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers, so far as the regulations relate to limited partnerships registered in Scotland.(3) The provision that may be made by regulations under subsection (1) by virtue of section 35(1) includes provision amending, repealing or revoking provision made by or under either of the following, whenever passed or made—(a) an Act;(b) Northern Ireland legislation.(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State can make provision corresponding or similar to any provision of the Insolvency Act 1986 or the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to govern the winding up of limited partnerships under new section 28 or 29 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907.
“Winding up of limited partnerships: concurrent proceedings
(1) The Limited Partnerships Act 1907 is amended as follows.(2) In section 6 (modifications of general law in case of limited partnerships), for subsection (3D) substitute—“(3D) Subsections (3A) and (3B) have effect subject to any order of a court as to the winding up of the affairs of the partnership and any award of sequestration of the partnership’s estate under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016.”(3) After section 29A (inserted by section (Power to make provision about winding up) of this Act) insert—“29B Winding up of limited partnerships: concurrent proceedings(1) Where a petition under section 28 in respect of a limited partnership is pending, a general partner of the limited partnership who is or becomes aware of any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) must notify the court to which the petition was presented.(2) Where an application under section 29 in respect of a limited partnership is pending—(a) a general partner of the limited partnership who is or becomes aware any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) must notify the court to which the application was made, and(b) if the application was made by a person other than the Secretary of State, the applicant must notify the court to which the application was made if the applicant is or becomes aware of any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3).(3) The circumstances are that—(a) a petition for sequestration of the limited partnership’s estate under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 is before a sheriff,(b) an application to the Accountant in Bankruptcy for sequestration of the limited partnership’s estate under that Act is pending,(c) sequestration has been awarded by virtue of any such petition or application and the limited partnership’s estate is being sequestrated,(d) a trust deed in respect of the limited partnership’s estate has been sent to the Accountant in Bankruptcy for registration under that Act and the registration has not been refused,(e) a protected trust deed (within the meaning of that Act) is in force in respect of the limited partnership’s estate, (f) an application by the limited partnership for approval of a debt payment programme under the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Act 2002 is pending, or(g) such a programme has been approved under that Act and has not been completed.(4) A person is not required to notify the court of circumstances under subsection (1) or (2) if another person has notified the court of those circumstances.(5) If a person fails to comply with subsection (1) or (2) an offence is committed by—(a) the person, and(b) if the person is a legal entity, any of its managing officers who is in default.(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—(a) in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 5 on the standard scale.(6) A managing officer is “in default” for the purposes of this section if they authorise or permit, participate in, or fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent, the contravention.(8) But a corporate managing officer does not commit an offence as a managing officer in default unless one of its managing officers is in default.(9) Where any such offence is committed by a corporate managing officer the managing officer in question also commits the offence (subject to subsection (8)).(10) For the purposes of this section a petition or application is “pending” if it has been presented or made and it has not fallen, been withdrawn or been determined.29C Power to amend circumstances for notification under section 29B(1) The Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers may by regulations amend the list in section 29B (3).(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers.(3) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.(4) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure (see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that if a petition has been presented under new section 28, or a person has made an application under new section 29, a general partner or person who made the application under new section 29 must notify the relevant court about other concurrent proceedings.
“Sequestration of limited partnerships: concurrent winding up proceedings
(1) The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 is amended as follows.(2) In section 17 (concurrent proceedings for sequestration or analogous remedy)—(a) in subsection (2)(b), after “awarded” insert “and the debtor’s estate is being sequestrated”;(b) in subsection (2)(c)— (i) omit “has been made”;(ii) after “estate” insert “is pending”;(c) in subsection (2)(d), after “application” insert “and the debtor’s estate is being sequestrated”;(d) in subsection (2)(g), after “under” insert “section 27 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907,”;(e) after subsection (2)(g) insert—“(ga) such a petition has been granted,(gb) an application in respect of the debtor is before a court under section 28 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907,(gc) such an application has been granted,”;(f) after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), a debtor application is “pending” if it has been made and has not fallen, been withdrawn or been determined.”(3) In section 18 (powers in relation to concurrent proceedings)—(a) in subsection (1), for “(g)” substitute “(gc)”;(b) in subsection (2), for “or (g)” substitute “, (g), (ga), (gb) or (gc)”;(c) in subsection (8), for “(g)” substitute “(gc)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that, if a limited partnership is in the course of sequestration proceedings, the petitioner, debtor or creditor must notify the sheriff court or AiB if they become aware of winding up proceedings under new section 28 or 29 LPA 1907 in relation to the limited partnership.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to page 95, line 23 and page 95, line 39, which are both tabled in the Minister’s name.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
“Limited partnerships: registration of persons of significant control
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the registration of persons of significant control in relation to limited partnerships. (2) For the purposes of regulations under this section, “persons of significant control” may include persons with a right to—(a) 25% or more of the surplus assets on winding up,(b) a voting share of 25% or more,(c) appoint or remove the majority of managers,(d) exercise significant influence or control over the business, or(e) exercise significant influence or control over a firm which would be a person of significant control if it were an individual.(3) No regulations to which this section applies may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations (whether or not together with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates an obligation on the Secretary of State to make new provisions for Limited Partnerships to be brought into the PSC register. This is intended to improve transparency in relation to Limited Partnerships in line with companies.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I will treat Amendments 74 to 76 together because they all try to achieve the same thing: to ensure a similar level of transparency for limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships and Scottish limited partnerships as we are trying to achieve for companies.
I had a brief discussion with my noble friend the Minister before we started, and he felt that I was flawed in my approach. I absolutely recognise that he has a more formidable intellect than I have and has at his disposal a very accomplished drafting team. I may not have the amendments exactly right, so I would rather consider them more as probing amendments to understand why we cannot not have the same level of transparency for these entities as we have for companies.
One of the points my noble friend made was that you should not have to have a natural person as one of the partners. My answer is that, if you do not, you are back to my original Amendment 73, because you just cascade off into another miasma of entities where there is no transparency. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how we will sort out this problem if my amendments are not adequate.
I have an example of an LLP, Atlas Integrate Services LLP, that was incorporated in September 2018, where the person of significant control was two months old. My noble friend said he wished his own children were showing such entrepreneurial flair so early in their careers. This person was also married at two months but, more importantly, the incorporation document stated:
“This person holds the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint or remove a majority of the persons who are entitled to take part in the management of the LLP”.
Will the Bill get rid of that sort of behaviour? That is my concern at the moment. There are apparently some 4,000 beneficial owners across the database who are aged two or less. This is an issue, and perhaps the brave new world of the Bill will eliminate it. I would be grateful for reassurance that that will happen or to hear what the plan is.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know whether the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, are flawed but, if I followed them correctly, Amendments 75 and 76 in particular seek to put a human face on limited partnerships, so that at list one partner is a natural person and they are not all corporate entities.
Before I make a couple of general comments about that, can I ask the Minister a question? I could not make out from the various debates I have read about this whether the Government are saying that they will look at it in secondary legislation or that they are not going to do it. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I thought I had read that the Government are intending to require this, but by secondary legislation.
I do not think it is adequate to require this by secondary legislation. What the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, alighted on goes to the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which has run through all the Committee—namely, who is the ultimate beneficiary? Who, in the end, gains from these various business practices? The most obvious way around that is to require a human face or somebody who is actually real.
The Minister, who is a businessman himself as well as a government Minister, said that he understands the importance of keeping public opinion on side. The public have lost trust in business from the many ways in which bad business is conducted. We had debates earlier about trusts and about privacy, and I think the Minister disappointed the Committee by saying that this was not the place for a debate about privacy and that that would be for a further debate.
The Minister is saying that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is flawed because this will be dealt with through secondary legislation. My view is that it is of such symbolic importance that, somewhere along the line, the Bill requires a human face. I know that this is in respect to limited partnerships, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, has alighted on quite an important point. We continually go back to this: how do we get transparency, restore public confidence and hold bad businesses to account? How do we overcome the fact that large numbers of people, including me, think that trusts, corporate entities, limited partnerships, et cetera, are in some instances set up to hide what is actually going on? That is something that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is trying to do. Ultimately, it makes a human face, somebody who is a Mr, Ms, Mrs or whatever, responsible for this aspect of business. They will be held to account.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, that there is nothing flawed about making at least one partner in a limited partnership a natural person. It is a really important statement about how business ought to operate, which should be required not through secondary legislation but in the Bill, to show how the Government intend to ensure that we have proper business practice that is consistent with the will of Parliament. One of the ways of doing that is to ensure that, instead of some faceless bureaucracy somewhere, however it is dressed up legally, we actually have an individual who can be held to account.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will be very brief. I think that your Lordships need once again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for his ability to get around the issues. This is a genuine issue around seeking to obfuscate the ownership of particular assets. The noble Lord seemed to have some confidence that the Minister will help us on this. The point here is that this is a genuine issue about which the Government should genuinely be concerned.
This extends beyond fraud. We were talking about trusts. One of the issues that came up after the Grenfell Tower disaster was that people found they could not know who owned the accommodation they were living in because of the protections that we have been discussing today. So they could not have a realistic conversation about whether their landlord would make their residence safe again. That is another issue, which is separate from this Bill, but it gives lie to the point that this is used to hide ownership for a variety of different reasons.
I look forward to the Minister achieving the optimism that the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, just expressed. I also thank the noble Lord for introducing the phrase “natural person”, which I have not come across before. Is that a legal definition of a human? That would be an interesting and useful thing to know for the future. With that, we on these Benches fully support these amendments.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
As always, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I have been reassured that, for the purposes of this debate, a “natural person” is a human. There was nodding behind me in the Box, which is reassuring.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
Do we have some artificial intelligence in the Civil Service Box? I think that we have natural persons’ intelligence. While I have this opportunity—I am sure that I say this on behalf of the Committee—I would like to say that the officials behind this Bill are extremely hard-working and focused; they have done everything they can to deliver a very complex piece of legislation. They have been very helpful to me and my colleagues personally and to the Ministers taking the Bill through the other place. I hope noble Lords feel that they have interacted with them appropriately. I know that they continue to stand ready to support us as we craft what I think is a magnitudinous piece of legislation that will have significant positive ramifications in the decades ahead.
I turn to the amendments presented by my noble friend Lord Agnew. I have taken advice on elements of them and their technical relevance to the Bill so, when the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, suggested that they were somehow not relevant, that was a private, legal and specific statement; it was not a philosophical one. They are very relevant to the Bill and at the core of much of what we are trying to establish: who is behind the companies and corporate entities?
The comment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the ownership of property following the Grenfell Tower tragedy is a very good example. We hope that the reforms that we are making will ensure that we know who is behind corporate activity and ownership of property in this country. We have made huge strides in doing so and the Bill is very important. That is not to say that it cannot be improved but, where we feel we are including these principles, we do not suggest that noble Lords unnecessarily improve it further or confuse it. I rely to some extent on the draftsmen who advised me on this; I hope that the Committee sees this as well intentioned, in the way it is being presented.
I will first speak to Amendment 74. I commend my noble friend’s intention to increase the transparency of limited partnerships. I stress again that there is a difference between a limited partnership in Scotland, a limited partnership in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a limited liability partnership across the United Kingdom and a limited company. They all operate slightly differently in the different jurisdictions. Please bear this in mind, as we have drafted this legislation to ensure that we have transparency across all the different concepts and principles in the right way.
I know that my noble friend Lord Agnew shares the same concerns that Dame Margaret Hodge has expressed previously. I have had the privilege of meeting her personally, as well as hearing her views, which have been extremely helpful in informing my knowledge base around this debate.
The proposed new clause would duplicate the Scottish Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2017. Scottish limited partnerships have legal personality, as noble Lords will know, which means that, among other things, they are able to own assets, enter into contracts and hold bank accounts. This results in a greater degree of opacity around Scottish limited partnerships, which is one of the features that the Bill is specifically designed to tackle.
However, as noble Lords will know, English, Welsh and Northern Irish limited partnerships are required to register with Companies House. While they are, they do not possess a legal personality separate from that of their partners. This means that it is the general partners themselves who transact on behalf of the partners. One of our senior officials likened it to a marriage, if that helps to clarify that point, in the sense that, if you are married and you own a home, the marriage does not own the home, nor does the couple; the partners—the husband and wife—own the property. I hope that that makes it clearer to some extent; it certainly did for me, although I will not go into my own home ownership percentages during this debate.
I stress that this Government completely agree with the principle that we should have greater transparency over who is managing and controlling a limited partnership. There is much in the Bill that will achieve exactly that. This is very important. I know that my noble friend Lord Agnew and the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Fox—indeed, all noble Lords in the Committee—take this extremely seriously. In fact, it is the core principle of the Bill, which includes, to go back to the specific moment, a range of measures that will make it mandatory for limited partnerships to submit a much greater range of information about their partners, including their current and former names, addresses and dates of birth.
The general partners of limited partnerships who have management responsibility—there is, of course, a difference—will be required to have their identities verified. Where a general partner is a corporate entity, it must name a managing officer with a verified identity who can be contacted about the limited partnership. That is very important as well and goes significantly further.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
Can my noble friend confirm that all the information he has just listed will be available for public inspection so that we do not get back into this cul-de-sac of my earlier concerns?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I believe that I can confirm that but I will ensure that those facts are properly presented. It is clearly helpful for us to be specific on that.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
If somebody fails to comply properly with registering their PSC, that is a criminal offence, as I understand it. Can the Minister confirm that failing to register the PSC properly is a criminal offence? Secondly, what are the penalties for that offence?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am going through a slightly different point in this amendment, if the noble Lord will forgive me. I can confirm that it is a criminal offence. There is a published tariff that varies according to jurisdiction. If noble Lords do not mind, we will present that. I believe that there might be sections of the criminal tariffs in the Bill, but it is important as this is criminality. Perhaps one of the noble Lords in the Committee will be able to extract the tariff from the Bill but I will certainly write to noble Lords. They are significant penalties and fines; it is more than six months in prison in some jurisdictions. It depends on whether it is tried in Scotland and so on. I do not have all those details to hand but we will clarify that.
This is very serious. Criminality in the corporate world is an important element of what we are trying to prevent. As noble Lords know, we will discuss the “failure to prevent” principles in the next day of Committee. It changes significantly, as has been seen to be successful, in jurisdictions such as the United States of America. As the noble Lord has raised before in terms of public participation in our belief in a liberal, democratic, property-owning capitalist system, it is felt that, if we do not punish the perpetrators of financial crimes and it is felt that they are getting away with it, through either their being unable to easily prosecuted or their not being punished severely, it brings the system into disrepute and causes significant long-term philosophical and societal damage.
We look across the Atlantic at the United States and feel that it takes a different view. Financial crime is treated there as serious and significant crime, and commensurate penalties go with it. The case of Madoff was raised, where the initial tariff was a pretty significant landmark sentence—many hundreds of years, if I am not mistaken. It was certainly over 100 years or close to it, which obviously shows the principles by which that country approaches this point. While we are not operating under similar tariffs, it is important that we see criminal acts in financial crimes as significant. The tariffs around that need to reflect it, but I am happy to provide further information.
Perhaps I may finish this piece, because I hope it is relatively straightforward and that Committee members will be reassured by what we are doing. We will not support this amendment and I will ask the noble Lord to withdraw it, but the principles around making sure that we have transparency and identifiable actors in corporate structures are clearly made.
On the case of the two month-old married individual who was registered as a beneficial owner of the entity that my noble friend Lord Agnew cited, the point actually raised is that it has been recorded. It will certainly now be possible, if not essential—to some extent, with a situation as significant as that, it should have been possible—that Companies House now investigates that type of registered entry. I raise that in the sense that we are trying to ensure that the information is provided, which will set off alarm bells and allow for inquiry. We cannot prevent people from false entry. What we can do is to ensure that the penalties are there to discourage it, the investigative powers and data-scraping are sufficient to enable us to pursue it, and the data we have is clean and clear.
I do not have too long to go on these two amendments, if noble Lords will indulge me. I wish to stress to my noble friend Lord Agnew that this Government completely agree with the principle that we should have greater transparency over who is managing and controlling a limited partnership. There is much in this Bill which will achieve exactly that. The Bill includes a range of measures that will make it mandatory—I restate this—for limited partnerships to submit a much greater range of information about their partners, including their current and former names, addresses and dates of birth.
The general partners of limited partnerships will be required to have their identities verified. The PSC regulations apply to certain legal entities, including incorporated bodies such as companies and LLPs, and are about exposing who controls them. This can be otherwise unclear, given the corporate structure of those entities. While companies and partnerships share many similar characteristics, they are nevertheless fundamentally different. A limited partner, for example, does not have voting rights in the way that a shareholder does and, unlike an LLP, there is nothing in law which would force a limited partnership to have a written partnership agreement—I think this dates back to the 1880s—though many will have one.
As I have said, partnerships in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are registrable business relationships, not separate legal personalities. As such, they cannot be beneficially owned in the same way that companies and LLPs can. It would take a fundamental review of partnership legislation more broadly to apply beneficial ownership-style transparency measures to English and Welsh, and Northern Irish, limited partnerships in the way that my noble friend intends. For these reasons, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment but I am very comfortable about discussions to ensure that he and any other members of the Committee are comfortable that what we are doing achieves these ends.
Amendments 75 and 76, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Agnew, would require limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships to have at least one partner who is a natural person. The Government consulted extensively on the reforms to these corporate structures. It was clearly found that corporate partners can be a legitimate and critical part of certain UK fund structures, allowing them to operate effectively. While I understand the intent of these amendments and share the desire to tackle opaque chains of corporate partners in partnerships, as with companies, having discussed the principles of these structures, it is difficult to suggest that now would be an appropriate time to make such a change.
Clause 144 already contains powers which will enable restrictions to be placed on corporate partners, as with corporate directors of companies. However, limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships have very different corporate structures to companies. Therefore we must have careful consideration and consultation is needed before any restrictions are made.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comprehensive answer. He has been very reassuring.
I just want to re-emphasise the important points made by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Fox, about the principle of accountability. If we go back to my slightly specious example of the two month-old child, we have the identity of that child so we have transparency but where is the accountability? That is what I am worried about. However, I accept that my noble friend is committed to both transparency and accountability and believes that this Bill, accompanied by the other partnerships Bill that he mentioned, will deliver them, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to page 95, line 23, which is tabled in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to page 95, line 39, which is tabled in the Minister’s name.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new section 29C of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 which is inserted by new Clause (Winding up of limited partnerships: concurrent proceedings)(which is inserted after Clause 130 of the Bill).
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Department for the Economy to make regulations under new Article 25D of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.
“(2A) The Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Department before making regulations under this Article.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the Department for the Economy before making regulations under new Article 25D of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that regulations made by the Department for the Economy under new Article 25D of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 cannot amend an Act of Parliament.
“(6A) The provision which may be made by regulations made by the Department by virtue of paragraph (5) includes provision amending provision made by or under Northern Ireland legislation, whenever passed or made.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that regulations made by the Department for the Economy under new Article 25D of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 can amend Northern Ireland legislation.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to page 136, line 10, which is tabled in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to page 136, line 10, which is tabled in the Minister’s name.
“(9) Regulations made by the Department under this Article are subject to negative resolution.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to page 136, line 10, which is tabled in the Minister’s name.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Registration of information about trusts
(1) Paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (required information) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for paragraphs (d) to (f) substitute—“(d) the specified details of each beneficiary under the trust;(e) the specified details of each settlor or grantor and, in relation to any settlor or grantor that is a legal entity, the specified details of any person who at the time at which the trust is settled—(i) is a registrable beneficial owner in relation to that entity (if it is overseas entity), or(ii) would be a registrable beneficial owner in relation to the entity if that entity were an overseas entity;(f) the specified details of any interested person under the trust and the date on which they became an interested person.”(3) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) In sub-paragraph (1)(d) to (f)“the specified details”—(a) in relation to a person who is an individual, means—(i) name, date of birth and nationality;(ii) usual residential address;(iii) a service address;(b) in relation to a person that is a legal entity, means— (i) name;(ii) principal office;(iii) a service address;(iv) the legal form of the entity and the law by which it is governed;(v) any public register in which it is entered and, if applicable, its registration number in that register.”(4) In sub-paragraph (2), for “sub-paragraph (1)(c)” substitute “sub-paragraphs (1)(c) and (1A)(a)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause extends the information that must be provided in connection with the registration of overseas entities where a person is a beneficial owner by virtue of being a trustee.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendments 76H, 77A, 77B, 77E, 77F, 77G, 77H, 77J, 77K and 77L, on the register of overseas entities provisions in Part 3 of the Bill—I am just checking that I read out the right amendments.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank noble Lords; at this stage, I feel that we are operating as one team to make sure that we are creating good legislation, which is very important. I am grateful to all Members of the Committee for their helpful interventions and constructive collaboration as we come to the conclusion of the Companies House section of the Bill.
The register of overseas entities—“the register”—was created by the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which I will refer to as “the 2022 Act”. This was expedited through Parliament as part of the government response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as I am sure all noble Lords are aware. Overseas entities owning land in the UK must provide information about themselves and their beneficial owners to Companies House in order to retain their ability to freely transact with their land or property, which noble Lords have already discussed in some detail.
These requirements are retrospective. Overseas entities owning land in England and Wales from 1 January 1999, and in Scotland from 8 December 2014, must register with Companies House. A transitional period of six months was provided. The register went live on 1 August 2022 and the transitional period ended on 31 January 2023. At the time that the register opened, there were an estimated 32,000 overseas entities in scope, which noble Lords have discussed. Well over 27,000 entities are now registered. Given the emerging finding that a number of entities registered as proprietors may now be dissolved or struck off and the inherent challenge of contacting overseas entities, we think that this is a high compliance rate. Overseas entities seeking to acquire land or property since 5 September 2022 must provide an overseas entity ID number issued by Companies House or their application to any of the UK’s three land registries will be rejected.
I turn to the related amendments and shall speak first to government Amendments 76H, 77A, 77E, 77F, 77G, 77H, 77J and 77L, which require overseas entities that had to register on the register of overseas entities by 31 January 2023, in particular where there is a trust involved, to provide further information to the register of companies in order to counter avoidance. I believe that this amendment was raised earlier in Committee proceedings in relation to trust transparency, which, as I hope to explain, is not specifically accurate. However, noble Lords will be pleased with our efforts to ensure that we are always aware of ways in which companies can use loopholes to create avoidance and by how firm we are intending to be. As I have said, Amendment 76H is a very good amendment and I hope your Lordships share the Government’s view of that.
Overseas entities owning land in the UK are required to provide details about their beneficial owners to Companies House. Where a beneficial owner has this status because they are the trustee of a trust, the entity is required to also provide information about the trust. The kinds of arrangements that are used to hold property in the UK can be complex and difficult to penetrate, none more so than arrangements that include one or more trusts in the ownership chain.
The Government heard a lot of concern about trusts during the passage of the 2022 Act and have done so again during the passage of this Bill. The Government have listened, and this set of amendments is designed to address some of those concerns. The amendments are complex, as are the structures they seek to look through. They have been tabled to ensure that those entities that are associated with a trust cannot circumvent the requirements.
Where there have been changes to the beneficial owner of an overseas entity, to the beneficiaries of a trust, or to which trust owns the overseas entity between 28 February 2022, which is the date the Act was first published, and 31 January 2023, the end of the transitional period, these amendments require the entity to provide additional information. If changes have been made in a deliberate attempt to avoid transparency requirements, they will have been futile because under these amendments the overseas entity will be required to provide the information anyway.
Although information about trusts is not publicly available, it is a valuable and rich source of data for law enforcement agencies, including HMRC. These amendments will enhance the information held about trusts associated with overseas entities and prevent those seeking to disguise their involvement in property-owning arrangements from doing so. The amendments also make a number of consequential changes to the Act so that the new provisions can be properly inserted into the Act.
Amendment 77L provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to exclude certain registrable beneficial owners from these anti-avoidance provisions. The purpose of providing this power is to ensure that the new provisions do not impose undue burdens on businesses. For example, many overseas entities holding UK land are in turn owned by large, legitimate pension funds which are trusts. It would be disproportionate to expect large pension funds to report every change in beneficiary for the relevant period, as I am sure we are all aware. The overseas entities in question will still be required to provide information about the pension fund trust and to update that information annually. The new requirements will strengthen the regime and demonstrate our intent to leave nowhere to hide.
Amendment 77A ensures that an overseas entity cannot remove itself from the live register without providing any scheduled annual update. This will help to prevent any attempt to circumvent the disclosure requirements by selling up and applying to remove the entity—I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is nodding enthusiastically—from the register without providing the required information. This strengthens the updating requirements further and will increase the robustness of the register.
When an overseas entity is removed from the live register, the information relating to it will remain publicly visible, but there will no longer be a requirement to update it on an annual basis, as seems sensible. An entity can successfully apply for removal only if it has disposed of all its land and property assets in the United Kingdom. I hope that noble Lords will welcome and support these amendments.
Amendment 77K amends the power in Clause 166 of the Bill to provide a consent mechanism for devolved Administrations. We have included in Clause 166 a power to amend the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 in line with amendments made by Part 1 of the Bill to the Companies Act 2006, which relate to corresponding provisions in the 2022 Act. This power has been included to ensure that, as far as possible, we maintain consistency between the two Acts and in the way in which Companies House operates its registers.
When the 2022 Act was passed, it required legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly because some of its provisions engaged areas of devolved competence. We have provided for Scottish Ministers or the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland to consent to any regulations made under this power that engage areas of devolved competence in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively, as with the similar mechanisms in the amendments linked to winding-up of limited partnerships. This is a bespoke solution for this specific regulation-making power. I trust that noble Lords will support this amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the three amendments in my name in this group, Amendments 77AA, 77C and 77D. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for her support for the latter two. This group addresses flaws in the original economic crime legislation, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act, and makes improvements to it. That Act was rushed through as emergency business, so I welcome the Government making these improvements, and I hope that the noble Lord recognises that my amendments are trying to do the same thing.
The noble Lord has said several times now that his Amendment 76H is very good. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, that it is very good but could be so much better if this information was made public by default—but we have already been there.
With these amendments, I acknowledge that I am revisiting discussions that we had during the passage of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act, and I apologise to noble Lords who may feel a sense of déjà vu in that respect. Normally, I would not revisit things that we have already discussed, but I am relying on the very clear commitment from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who reassured us at the time that we would be able to use this Bill as an opportunity to revisit matters that would perhaps have been the subject of Divisions in less of an emergency situation than last time. I remind noble Lords that he specifically indicated a willingness to revisit the matter that my amendments in this group are trying to address. So, while it is unusual to come back to the same thing, that is why I feel justified in doing so.
Amendments 77C and 77D are aimed at removing an anomaly, or loophole, in the overseas entities register. Amendment 77AA, which is an amendment to the Minister’s Amendment 77A, follows on from the same issue. Currently, if the details on the overseas entities register are changed—for example, if there is a change in beneficial ownership—that needs to be updated on the register only annually. This means that a person could register an entity, filing all the necessary details, and could then change the ownership or other details the very next day, but they would not need to inform the registrar until the end of the year. In my view, that is an unacceptable length of time for a register to remain out of date and inaccurate. Properties could be bought and sold during that period, without anyone knowing who is really behind those transactions.
As a comparison, the PSC rules require an update within 14 days of the company becoming aware of a change. Amendment 77C aims to bring the overseas entities register into line with the PSC register and require an update within the same 14 days. This amendment is identical to one that I tried to put to the previous Bill.
This matters for two reasons. The whole point of the register is to ensure that we know who the beneficial owner of the property held by the overseas entity is. If the information can be up to a year out of date that means we do not know. More importantly, this could lead to the risk of an innocent party who buys a property from an overseas entity unwittingly enriching a criminal or sanctioned person. That cannot be desirable.
The argument against accepting this amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, made last time we debated it was that, if there was a 14-day updating duty, a person buying a property from an overseas entity could not know if the entity would be in breach of the updating requirement. Because of the way the Act works, that could mean that the innocent party might not be able to register ownership of the property that they acquired. That is obviously very serious and it is a valid concern, which is why I did not push the matter last time round.
However, the Act actually includes a solution, in that it is possible for an overseas entity to shorten the annual reporting period, so a purchaser of the property could make it a condition of the purchase that the entity shortens the period and files an update before the purchase goes ahead. That would solve the problem, but I acknowledge that that requires the purchaser to be well advised and puts the onus on the purchaser, which is not right.
This time round, I have tried to address that problem by tabling Amendment 77D, which would require that, before an overseas entity can enter into an agreement to buy or sell a UK property, it must update the register no more than 14 days before entering into such an agreement. That would both safeguard any innocent purchaser and, combined with Amendment 77C, ensure that the register is kept up to date in the same way as the PSC rules are. I hope that would solve the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, highlighted last time round so that we can bring the overseas entities register into line with the PSC register to ensure that it is kept up to date and is not up to 12 months out of date at any one time.
Amendment 77AA aims to close the same loophole when an overseas entity applies to be deregistered. I welcome the Minister’s Amendment 77A—he said that I was nodding enthusiastically and he was right—but although that amendment would require any outstanding updates to be made before an entity can be deregistered, the same loophole exists. If no update is pending, the information on the register could be a whole year out of date because there is no requirement to update the register for a year.
Amendment 77AA would simply add a requirement that an entity should make a statement that the information on the register is up to date and accurate before deregistration can be accepted. That seems an incredibly simple way of ensuring that the register is up to date before the deregistration can happen, which is important.
I hope the Minister will see these amendments as helpful and intended to improve the overseas entities register, to remove a loophole and to make it the same as the PSC rules. It is very hard to see why it should not be. I hope he feels able to accept them.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I strongly support these very sensible proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which really show why hereditary Peers still have such an important role in this House. It will be very interesting to hear from my noble friend the Minister why he might wish to dismiss these amendments, because they make such a lot of sense: if you are buying from one of these opaque entities, why should all the responsibility lie with the buyer, not the seller?
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I will very briefly support the proposals. It makes sense to ensure that people who think that they are buying something legitimately are adequately informed. I like the series of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, to solve the problem that was pointed out on a previous day.
The fact is that those of us involved with companies and so on regularly have to update the Companies House register very quickly indeed. Fortunately, because of modern technology, that is relatively easy to do. Similarly, we have to update our register of interests on a regular basis, so I see no reason why this should not apply in this important, specific case.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Joint Committee was certainly very concerned with the need to update when it provided its report in respect of the register of overseas entities. It particularly acknowledged that an event-driven update requirement was a much better way of securing the accuracy of the register. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord said.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for introducing his amendments. I broadly support them from these Benches. I note, not churlishly, that this again boosts what Companies House knows but not what it publishes. I make the point again that perhaps the default position should be the other way around.
I particularly welcome Amendment 77K. Consultation with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments is an important feature of what should happen.
My noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted co-signed two of the amendments and, were she here, I am sure that she would have something important to say in addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, but I do not. However, I have a memory of history which the Minister did not experience because he was not here at the time—namely, the process we went through to pass the precursor to this Bill.
The reason why many of us stayed our hands on this issue at the time was that the Government intended to put this through in two days: one day in the Commons and one day in the Lords. We went through all the processes in one day. The passing of amendments would have seriously jeopardised that process and none of us on opposition Benches, the Cross Benches or indeed the Government Benches wanted to do that. The Government made one or two changes to the Bill on their own account, but the promise was that, come this Bill, we would have the opportunity to revisit some of those issues.
To accommodate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was pretty explicit about the opportunity we would have in this Bill to have the debate. That is why we are having this debate and why we all have some expectation that the Minister should be able to help us along these lines.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will very briefly support the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Fox, and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I also broadly welcome the Minister’s amendments. I have just one question, on Amendment 77L, to which I am sure there is an easy answer. It says:
“In this Schedule ‘the relevant period’ means the period … beginning with 28 February 2022 … ending with 31 January 2023”.
How were those dates arrived at?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the input of all noble Lords in this Committee. That period comprises the implementation, when the Act came into force, and the compliance date. Effectively, the law announced that you had to be compliant by a certain date. There is a seven-month lead-in time and the Government are concerned that people used that time to avoid the date at which they have to declare. We are, in effect, backdating the transparency, which is very sensible. I hope the noble Lord supports that.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
There are two elements to my amendments. One is that, if there is a change of beneficial ownership, it should be registered within 14 days, in the same way as the PSC works, because of the way that the Act works in relation to the ownership of property, the inability to dispose of property and, therefore, the risk to a potential buyer if they did not know that the company should have given an update. The second is based on the transaction. If there is to be a transaction, the information must be updated before then, which gets around the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, quite rightly raised last time. So there are two elements: one is the 14 days—we should keep the thing up to date at all times, regardless of whether there is a transaction—and the second is that we should update it if there is a transaction.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that further clarification. As I said, I am very aware of our desire to make sure that the register is clear and transparent, and to make sure that people, corporations, individuals and beneficiaries cannot move ownership and obfuscate the intention of transparency. What I will say is that there has to be a record of activity during the year. It is not a snapshot but a story in terms of beneficial ownership, so any beneficial ownership change has to be catalogued in that period of time.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
That may be true, but Companies House is informed of it only at the end of the 12-month period. Therefore, the point remains that if you register a company on 1 January, change the beneficial ownership on 2 January and then do lots of transactions on 3 January, 4 January, 5 January or whatever, you can then tell Companies House that it has changed on 31 December. It could have changed multiple times in that period.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I was coming on to make that point. I do not disagree with the philosophy of the noble Lord’s points; my point is that it is reasonable to look at this from every angle. I think that is right. We do not want to create hasty legislation, certainly not at the Dispatch Box, so I am very reluctant—as your Lordships can imagine—to support an amendment that would put me in that position. I am not unreluctant at all to try to intellectualise further how we make sure that there is a sufficient degree of transparency of overseas entities’ beneficial ownership, without putting at risk the necessary level of confidence that transactors have to have over the compliance of the transacting party. I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord by my phraseology, but it may sound like a good idea to bring these changes to bear, but I am advised that it is more complicated than it looks and it may not give us the security or transparency that we wish.
Lord Fox (LD)
I think we welcome the tone of the Minister’s comments to some extent. I wonder whether he expects to have completed the intellectual and practical investigation of this in time for Report, so as to bring forward amendments of the Government’s own making that address the issue he has signed up to intellectually. Or do the Government feel that there would be some other vehicle to deliver this?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his question, which I am not able to answer as conclusively as he might wish. There may be alternative mechanisms to approach this if so desired, and if the Government believe it is the way forward and the House decides accordingly. I hope the Committee will forgive my language at the Dispatch Box and that they hear the tone of—
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but, given that he is now embarking on an intellectual journey on this subject and that we are not sure when that journey may conclude, I want to add a couple of nuances. First, he is right to ask what the unintended consequences are of introducing a new step. I accept that that needs to be challenged but, to give a simple example, if you are buying a property and the conveyance has dragged on a while, I think the buyer is required to carry out further searches at the last minute to ensure that a new Tube line has not suddenly been announced under the building they are buying. There is a mechanism to do it.
The other area of interest to me goes back to the point I made earlier about the great things that have been achieved with the register of overseas entities, with its high level of compliance. None the less, Transparency International thinks that there may be up to 7,000 entities and that, although we might know their names, we do not know what they really are. The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, would flush them out before the sale. I am sure that HMRC might be very interested in a lot of these organisations, so there would be a beneficial element which has not necessarily been thought about at the moment. I would like my noble friend to add to that to his contemplation.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
To add further to the intellectual challenge, and in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, said, when you transfer land quite a lot of formalities have to be gone through, in terms of conveyancing and the like. We are just talking about another formality that needs to be complied with. I do not understand that to be particularly onerous and it is consistent with what is expected. An event-driven matter was what we raised in our report; I am not sure that it should come as a great surprise that we think this is a sensible idea.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
As I hope I have illustrated, my enthusiasm for intellectualisation is paramount, even after an enjoyable light afternoon of committee debate. If I may expand further on the difference with the legislation relating to overseas entities and other types of purchase, using my noble friend Lord Agnew’s concept about the bus route or discovering moments before one buys a house that they are going to build past it some terrible thing—I was going to say a high-speed rail line, but of course we are enthusiastic here about building high-speed rail lines in this country—that is not the same thing at all.
Here, we are talking about the concept of overseas entities and the whole principle around this is to ensure that non-compliant entities are unable to transact. That is the only way to make this process workable. It is not a question of caveat emptor or something that can be corrected later, or whatever. This will prevent a transaction from happening. If a noble Lord purchases something—we were hearing earlier about the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, going to Battersea Power Station to purchase himself a downsized retirement villa, which seemed to be an upgrading, certainly for the Johnson household—is it reasonable to have a situation in which you cannot be sure whether the party you are dealing with is compliant?
I can see the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, waiting to leap up from his seat to tell me how it is possible. If it is possible to find a solution to this principle, I would be happy to have a discussion, but I am extremely reluctant to make a decision at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I do not think anyone disagrees with the Minister. I said as much when I introduced my amendments, as I am conscious that the way that the Bill works means that there is a risk to the purchaser. We need to make sure that does not happen, and I have attempted to deal with it with these amendments. If that does not work, I am open to discussions, but it would be helpful to hear the Minister confirm, as I think I understand it, that he is sympathetic to the concept of making sure that the register is updated on a timely basis. That is the core thrust of these two amendments—a way to get around that and solve the very problem that the Minister is talking about. Therefore, I am looking for confirmation that he is sympathetic to keeping the register updated, if it is possible to do that and if we can solve the property ownership problem and bring it into line with the PSC rules.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
As always, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his comments. I just repeat the point that we have been involved in markets where there has been misregulation. If it is believed that you cannot, in effect, undertake a transaction with a registered overseas entity because it is not possible to confirm compliance, whether Companies House is able—
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The Minister is just repeating what he said before. I am looking for something more. The thrust of these amendments is that the register should be updated more regularly than annually. It should be updated when the information changes. Is he sympathetic to that and will he accept something along those lines, as long as we can find a solution to the property ownership issue?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I thought myself entitled to a small preamble to my answer. Simple yes or no answers at the Dispatch Box are rather blunt instruments for creating finely tuned legislation. Noble Lords would not respect that process if that was the case.
I hope I am not repeating but clarifying the point, for me and my officials as much as for the Committee. What is worrying the Government, and should worry us all in this Room, is the chilling effect of our regulation. We must make sure that we balance our intended ambitions with the need to ensure that business functions properly. That is what this is about. If it does not do that, it will counter the effect that noble Lords want. That is the concern.
I am coming to answer the noble Lord’s question, if he will indulge me for a few more minutes. The question of non-compliance, which is at the core of this legislation, is not the same as a caveat emptor, additional, post-purchase risk. It is totally different. If the concept of these amendments makes it difficult to be assured of the compliance of a registered overseas entity, it makes it very difficult to welcome them. If it is possible, I am open to having a discussion around ensuring a timely mechanism—I do not wish to commit to anything specific—for matters of key interest, which are more than recorded data but are relevant to the intentions that we will bring to bear in our Bill and can be managed appropriately. I am always open to discussions about how we can make that process more transparent, cleaner and easier to manage. With that very clear commitment, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The Minister has not actually addressed Amendment 77AA, which is an amendment to his Amendment 77A. I apologise for amending his amendment again.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
If the noble Lord will allow me, I will turn to my notes on Amendment 77AA. I thank all noble Lords for their valued contributions during this debate, as I have done consistently. I know that the register of overseas entities remains an issue of keen interest to all of us—it is at the core of much of the well-placed description from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, of public anger at what has happened over the past decades—not least the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who I know was involved in the issues in the debate two years ago now, I believe, and others who led the pre-legislative scrutiny of the original draft legislation.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I am not sure that the Minister has done so because, as things stand, as I understand it, all his amendment requires is the information that is already required—that is, the annual statement. In other words, there are no statements that have not been made. Even if no pending statements are required, information can still be up to a year out of date. The whole point of this is to try to ensure that, at the point of deregistration, the information is fully up to date and has been completely updated before that happens. It is the same as when you sell a property. Even if there are no updates pending, that information could be up to a year out of date.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord if I have got this wrong but, as I understand it, to be given approval to be removed from the register, an entity has to provide final information. If that is not correct, I will certainly return to the noble Lord. I am looking at my officials to see whether I have misinterpreted this but I am very grateful to noble Lords in assisting us in ensuring that we have drafted our legislation properly.
Lord Fox (LD)
Further clarification on that would be very helpful because I have lost track of where we are on that. However, I have another question for the Minister. He has on a number of occasions talked about the chilling effect. Could he enlighten us, perhaps in writing, as to how that is measured or assessed? If it is by anecdote, how many anecdotes are required to know that there is a chilling effect? If it is by objective determination, I would like to know what that objective determination is. If it is by consultation—the Minister has mentioned a number of times on a number of occasions that there has been detailed consultation but I have been unable to find any evidence of that—I think your Lordships would be pleased to be told where they can find the results of that consultation. All this would help us to understand a little bit how decisions are being made on what to put into and what not to put into the Bill.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that point. It inspires and helps us to come to good conclusions. We have consulted widely on a wide range of issues to ensure that we come to the right conclusions in this legislation. We also rely on the good counsel, great knowledge and intellectual capabilities of noble Lords in this Committee to help us draft, shape and form our legislation.
On the question of how we decided whether something may have a chilling effect, clearly that is a figure of speech—perhaps it has no place in such an intellectual crucible as this Room—but I reassure the noble Lord that if someone have a significant counterparty risk they will not be able to make a transaction. There are numerous organisations, companies, corporates and individuals that simply will not transact if they feel that there is no transaction security.
Lord Fox (LD)
I think I was minded to recognise that. What I was interested to receive was the input that the Minister is using to make that point—in other words, for the results of the consultations to which the Minister has referred to be shared more widely than simply the Minister’s circle and team. As far as I can tell, they have not been published. I am quite happy to keep them confidential if they need to be, but for us to empathise properly with the point that the Minister is making we need to be singing from the same hymn sheet.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate that comment; I had not thought about that. We have not done a government impact assessment that could be published, such as the ones relating to the trade Bills that I have worked on, but if we can provide useful feedback on how we have come to some of our conclusions it would be helpful to do that. I would have thought that, in the lead-up to this, noble Lords would have made inquiries from some of the key sectors to gain good information from them, as we have.
I know for a fact that not every element, clause or amendment has been specifically consulted on because that would be impractical but, broadly speaking, we have received a great deal of information, as I understand it. My noble friend Lord Leigh’s amendment, on the publication of auditor changes, which we discussed earlier, came from our consultation with whatever august body of auditors it was that we discussed. As all noble Lords here know, I am comfortable being as open as possible. However, if I may, I will bring us to a conclusion because I would like to finish our last piece of business today, without a cost to democratic scrutiny.
I will attend to the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, about Amendment 77AA. I refute his point that this information can be a year old because that cannot be the case. The application for removal must contain information about the state of affairs at the date of the application. I do not mean to be pugnacious, but I believe that I am correct in saying that, in terms of removal from the register, the information that the noble Lord wishes to see—as we do—to prevent exactly the sorts of things that he is talking about will be there. I am very happy to double-confirm after the debate that, broadly speaking, I am right in my commitment. I would not like to give false promises, but the assumption—I have been reassured by officials during this debate—is that we are in line.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
May I just make one point about process? I think my noble friend Lord Ponsonby made this point earlier, and we have just heard it again. On quite a large number of occasions the Minister has said that he will write, provide reassurances, come back to Peers, and share letters, information, how various conclusions have been arrived at and what consultations there have been. I know that the Minister and his officials will do that but, to help move us to Report, I ask them to reflect on how to do all that in as short a period of time as possible to allow those of us who want to to consider what happened in Committee and the various conclusions. That is important so that we have a manageable Report and we deliver the sort of Bill that we want.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for those points. As I have made clear, I hope noble Lords do not think that I am kicking the can down the road.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I honestly do not think that the Minister is doing that; I was just trying to stress to him the importance of that process.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
Fair enough; I totally agree. Our officials are very much working on making sure that we have not missed anything. Please forgive us if we do, but I do not believe we will. My point about further discussion, as I say, is that I am convinced we are correct and there is no need for this amendment. I am convinced that we have the information that will be provided at the time of removal from the register—but I am always cautious to make sure that the exact specificity of my comments is backed up in facts. If that is not the case, I am very comfortable coming back to the Committee and being clear about it. With that in mind, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Applications for removal
(1) Section 10 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (processing of application for removal) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), after “land” insert “and there are no updates pending”.(3) In subsection (3), after “land” insert “or there is an update pending”.(4) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) an update is pending if—(a) an update period for the entity has ended and the entity has not yet complied with the duty under section 7 in respect of that period, or(b) the entity is required to deliver information under Schedule 6 but has not yet done so.””Member’s explanatory statement
This requires the registrar to refuse an application for the deregistration of an overseas entity if it has not yet filed an update or certain other information that is due.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Verification of registrable beneficial owners and managing officers
(1) Section 16 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (verification of registrable beneficial owners and managing officers) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2)—(a) after paragraph (a) insert— “(aa) about how the information is to be verified (including provision about the kinds or sources of evidence to be used);(ab) about the standard to which verification is to be carried out;”;(b) after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) about the records that must be kept in connection with verification;”;(c) after paragraph (d)(inserted by section 156 of this Act) insert—“(e) about the information that must be provided to the registrar to enable the registrar to monitor compliance with any requirements imposed by the regulations.”(3) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Regulations under this section may create offences in relation to failures to comply with requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (2)(ba) or (e).(2B) The regulations must provide for any such offence to be punishable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, by a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that regulations about verification can make provision about how it is carried out and the standard to which it is carried out. It also allows requirements imposed about the retention of records etc to be enforced by the creation of a summary-only offence.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on Schedule (Overseas entities: further information for transitional cases), which is inserted before Schedule 6.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on Schedule (Overseas entities: further information for transitional cases), which is inserted before Schedule 6.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on Schedule (Overseas entities: further information for transitional cases), which is inserted before Schedule 6 to the Bill.
(b) any information required by paragraph 4(2)(c) of Schedule 6 (information about beneficiaries).” Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on Schedule (Overseas entities: further information for transitional cases), which is inserted before Schedule 6 to the Bill.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Overseas entities: further information for transitional cases
Schedule (Overseas entities: further information for transitional cases) (overseas entities: further information for transitional cases) amends the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to impose further duties on overseas entities to deliver information to the registrar.”Member’s explanatory statement
This introduces Schedule (Overseas entities: further information for transitional cases).
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“(2) The Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under this section that contain provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if contained in an Act of that Parliament.(3) The Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland before making regulations under this section that contain provision that—(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(b) would not, if contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to obtain consent before making regulations under clause 166 that contain provision within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“SCHEDULE 5A OVERSEAS ENTITIES: FURTHER INFORMATION FOR TRANSITIONAL CASES1_ The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 is amended as follows.2_ In section 16 (verification of registrable beneficial owners and managing officers), in subsection (1), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) complies with the duty under Schedule 6 (duty to deliver further information about transitional period).”3_ After section 43 insert—“43A Duty to deliver further information for transitional casesSchedule 6 (duty to deliver further information for transitional cases) imposes further duties on overseas entities to deliver information.”4_ After Schedule 5 insert—“SCHEDULE 6 DUTY TO DELIVER FURTHER INFORMATION FOR TRANSITIONAL CASESApplication of this Schedule1_(1) This Schedule applies in relation to an overseas entity if—(a) the entity—(i) is registered as an overseas entity when this Schedule comes into force or has been so registered at any earlier time, and(ii) was registered as the proprietor of a relevant interest in land in England and Wales or Scotland at any time during the relevant period, or(b) the entity has committed an offence under paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 or paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 (duty to register as overseas entity in certain transitional cases).(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)—(a) an overseas entity is registered as the proprietor of a relevant interest in land in England and Wales if the entity is registered in the register of title kept under the Land Registration Act 2002 as the proprietor of a qualifying estate within the meaning of Schedule 4A to that Act;(b) an overseas entity is registered as the proprietor of a relevant interest in land in Scotland if the entity—(i) is entered, on or after 8 December 2014, as proprietor in the proprietorship section of the title sheet for a plot of land that is registered in the Land Register of Scotland,(ii) in relation to a lease that was recorded in the General Register of Sasines or registered in the Land Register of Scotland before that date is, by virtue of an assignation of the lease registered in the Land Register of Scotland on or after that date, the tenant under the lease, or(iii) is the tenant under a lease that was registered in the Land Register of Scotland on or after that date.(3) Expressions used in sub-paragraph (2)(b) are to be construed in accordance with section 9(11) and (12).(4) In this Schedule “the relevant period” means the period—(a) beginning with 28 February 2022; (b) ending with 31 January 2023.Duty to deliver statements and information2_(1) The overseas entity must deliver to the registrar—(a) any statements or information required by—paragraph 3 (changes in beneficial ownership of overseas entity),paragraph 4 (information about trusts and changes in beneficiaries under trusts),paragraph 5 (information about changes in trusts in which beneficial owners trustees),(b) a statement that the entity has complied with paragraph 8 of this Schedule (duty to take steps to obtain information), anything required by regulations under section 16 (verification of information) to be delivered to the registrar, and(d) the name and contact details of an individual who may be contacted about the statements and information.(2) If an overseas entity is registered as an overseas entity when this Schedule comes into force it must deliver the statements and information required by this Schedule—(a) at the same time as it delivers the statements and information required by section 7 on the first occasion after the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which this Schedule comes into force, or(b) if it applies under section 9 for removal before then, at the same time as it delivers the statements and information required by that section.(3) If an overseas entity is not registered as an overseas entity when this Schedule comes into force it must deliver the statements and information required by this Schedule within the period of 3 months beginning when it comes into force.Information about changes in beneficial ownership3_(1) The overseas entity must deliver to the registrar the statement in row 1 of the following table or the statement and information listed in row 2.
Statement | Information | |
1 | A statement that the entity has no reasonable cause to believe that anyone became or ceased to be a registrable beneficial owner during the relevant period. | |
2 | A statement that the entity has reasonable cause to believe that at least one person became or ceased to be a registrable beneficial owner during the relevant period. | 1. The required information about each person who became or ceased to be a registrable beneficial owner during the relevant period, or so much of that information as the entity has been able to obtain. 2. The date on which each of them became or ceased to be a registrable beneficial owner if the entity has been able to obtain that information. |
Statement | Information | |
1 | A statement that the entity has no reasonable cause to believe that anyone became or ceased to be a beneficiary under the trust during the relevant period. | |
2 | A statement that the entity has reasonable cause to believe that at least one person became or ceased to be a beneficiary under the trust during the relevant period. | 1. The information specified in paragraph 8(1)(d) of Schedule 1 about each person who became or ceased to be a beneficiary under the trust during the relevant period, or so much of that information as the entity has been able to obtain. 2. The date on which each of them became or ceased to be a beneficiary under the trust, if the entity has been able to obtain that information. |
This requires overseas entities to deliver to the registrar further information about events occurring during the period beginning on 28 February 2022 and ending with 31 January 2023.
Leave of Absence: The Lord Speaker
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I wish to inform the House that on Monday 24 and Tuesday 25 April, I will be attending the Conference of Speakers of European Union Parliaments in Prague, at which the UK has observer status. I therefore seek the leave of the House to be absent until Wednesday 26 April.
Schools: Financial Literacy
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to promote financial literacy in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we work closely with the Money and Pensions Service and the Treasury to support the effective teaching of financial education in schools. The Money and Pensions Service has published financial education guidance for primary and secondary schools and we will deliver webinars for schools in due course. Our national network of 40 maths hubs also supports schools to improve their mathematics teaching, including financial content in the mathematics curriculum, based on best practice from east Asia.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for her reply and I am glad to hear what His Majesty’s Government are doing. I do not know whether the Minister is aware, but the Church of England has been working on a project called Lifesavers, which came out of one of the Archbishops’ Commissions. It has so far delivered financial literacy training for 30,000 school pupils and trained 2,000 teaching staff. Given that only 5% of parents believe that their children are leaving school with adequate financial literacy, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of Lifesavers and other similar school projects, such as GoHenry, and how can they help these projects as we are seeking to roll them out and increase financial literacy?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are very grateful to organisations such as Lifesavers for the important work they do providing very useful support to teachers and schools. According to the Money and Pensions Service, about 6.3 million children between the ages of five and 17 received some form of financial education across just over 100 programmes, so there is a great variety on offer across the country.
Baroness Lampard (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interest as chair of GambleAware. Research shows that 96% of 11 to 24 year-olds are exposed to gambling marketing and advertising, and that exposure to gambling marketing can influence their attitudes towards gambling and the likelihood of them gambling in the future. In the light of that, what specific measures are the Government taking to ensure that schoolchildren are educated about the financial as well as other risks associated with gambling?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend makes a very important point. Risks relating to gambling are part of the RSHE curriculum and there are two main aspects of this. One is supporting pupils to manage risk and make informed decisions in relation to their mental well-being and their behaviour online. The second area relates to internet safety and harms and addresses exactly my noble friend’s point: pupils are taught about the risks relating to online gambling, including how advertising and information is targeted at them, the risks of accumulating debt and how to be a discerning consumer of information online.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister stressed the importance of mathematics in this context. Will she take the opportunity to inform the Prime Minister that it is facile to suggest improving maths in our schoolchildren without paying mathematics teachers enough money to encourage them to join and stay in the teaching workforce?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I have to say that I do not really have any intention of saying to the Prime Minister that his plans are facile. More importantly, I point the noble Lord to the pickup in recruitment of maths teachers following our interventions over the last three years.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, those children and young people who are financially literate are less likely to make poor financial decisions. Unfortunately, we see many children, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, who are not able to make those correct financial decisions. It is not just about teaching maths; it is actually about having practical opportunities and experiences. Will the Minister reflect on how we might do that in a more coherent way across all schools, particularly starting in primary schools?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government agree with the noble Lord that it is that combination of the fundamental knowledge in relation to mathematics and reading that support financial literacy and that can be taught in schools, having really high quality materials for schools to use. But, beyond that, they should have the experiences that the noble Lord refers to. That is why we are grateful to organisations such as Young Enterprise and the Money and Pensions Service for the work they do outside schools to complement what goes on inside.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, the Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee heard a lot of evidence that young people are particularly susceptible to fraud and also to being conned into becoming money laundering mules. Can the Minister assure us that the financial education will include fraud to enable young people to protect themselves from becoming either victims or unwitting criminals?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Certainly, the aspects of the curriculum that relate to how to operate safely online include fraud, which is a growing and terrible problem, as the noble Lord points out.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the United Kingdom strategy for financial well-being sets a national goal to ensure that 2 million more children and young people across the UK receive meaningful financial education by 2030. I have not found any evidence yet that the Government have dropped this goal, although I have yet to find any evidence that the Government are on track to deliver it. But I would like the Minister to wonder how that goal can be achieved, given that research from the APPG on Financial Education for Young People suggests that two in five teachers are completely unaware of the legal requirement to teach financial education.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand the direction of the noble Baroness’s question. I would say that the data from the APPG report, which is extremely valuable, is none the less from a very small sample. It was from, I think, 401 teachers across the four nations. So, I think we have to be careful about extrapolating from that. The Money and Pension Service, which is responsible for delivering the additional 2 million children receiving good financial education has a wide range of programmes, including support for teacher training, communication and support for parents as well.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my financial services interests as set out in the register. Would the Minister agree that, alongside financial literacy, we should also revolutionise the curriculum with data literacy, digital literacy and data privacy literary, to have a curriculum fit for the future and fit for now? Further, would she join with me in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans? With the financial literacy initiative from the Church of England, it is clear that the bishop and his colleagues are rightly engaged in both LifeSavers and afterlife savers.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am happy to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his and his colleagues’ contribution before, during and after life. In relation to my noble friend’s question, data and digital literacy already feature within compulsory national curriculum subjects. Data literacy is covered within mathematics, science, computing and geography and digital literacy within computing and RSHE. They also feature within the subject content of GCSEs, which are counted in the English baccalaureate.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be aware that children are particularly susceptible to advertising, especially online advertising. Could she say when the Government are going to do something about gambling advertising and the effects it has on children?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think I already, in response to my noble friend’s question, addressed, in part, the noble Lord’s question, namely in that we already teach children about the risks relating to advertising, and in particular the advertising of online gambling.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, the Minister has rightly identified that there are a variety of good programmes out there, such as LifeSavers. But in my experience in this field and other fields, sometimes within schools there is not always the greatest awareness of what is there. In light of one of the earlier questions which talked about coherence in the system, what actions are the Government taking to ensure that schools are made aware of best practice in this field to ensure they get the best possible provision for their young people?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We are doing quite a lot to support schools in teaching financial literacy. So, as I mentioned, we will be delivering webinars for schools in the next academic year, which will help teachers deliver the most practical and engaging content. The Money and Pension Service has already published financial education guidance for schools, and there is a quality mark accreditation scheme. Also, the Oak National Academy will be producing curriculum packages in this area.
UN: Individuals Displaced by Conflict
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had at the United Nations about the case for introducing an obligation on countries intervening in conflicts to accept a moral and legal responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of individuals displaced by such conflicts.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, a range of obligations exist in international humanitarian law and international refugee law concerning the safety and well-being of civilians displaced by conflict. The UK consistently uses its diplomatic influence to uphold these protective laws and hold those who violate them to account. We work tirelessly with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other relevant agencies to ensure protection and humanitarian assistance are provided to individuals displaced by conflict.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but it does not go as far as I would like. It is important that any country contemplating military action in today’s world accepts full responsibility for its action. Twenty years ago, we invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein on the pretext that he was accumulating weapons of mass destruction. His removal resulted in brutal civil war between Shia and Sunni and a mass exodus of terrified refugees, genocide against the Yazidis and the emergence of ISIS and the Islamic State, leading to further mass killings and a still continuing flight of traumatised refugees to a hostile world. Then there was the debacle of Afghanistan. My request to the Minister is that the UK take a moral lead in working through the UN to make it mandatory for any country that embarks on conflict, causing an exodus of refugees, to accept full responsibility for their care and well-being, not only for humanitarian reasons but also to deter other countries from strutting their importance through the use of force in a smaller, interdependent world.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue and for the points that he has made, but we believe there is already a robust and comprehensive ecosystem of laws and norms to protect civilians displaced by conflict. However, he is right that the UK should use our position of leadership to highlight this issue politically and raise it on the global stage—and we do so. We regularly engage in UN discussions, including at UNGA and the UN Security Council, and underline the responsibility of all states engaged in armed conflict to respect international humanitarian law and international refugee law and act in accordance with our obligations under them. The UK has been one of the most consistent and loudest voices on the subject for some time.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for—I think—being clear that His Majesty’s Government still support the refugee convention, as I think he suggested that they are promoting it on the world stage. Will he commit to promoting it with his Home Office colleagues as well?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is a key partner for the UK. It provides protection and humanitarian assistance to refugees and other displaced persons. We have provided the UNHCR with more than £70 million in 2022-23, including £25 million for the Ukraine response.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the most evil and brutal invasion or intervention in recent years is Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? Does he agree that there is now a major moral responsibility on Russia to make sure that grain exports are facilitated?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes a key point. We have repeatedly called on Russia through the United Nations to cease targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure and allow unfettered humanitarian access to civilians impacted by this illegal invasion. The lack of compliance with international humanitarian law contributes to displacement in Ukraine. As the noble Lord suggests, pressure must be mounted on Russia to take responsibility.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I declare a voluntary interest as the UK chair of the peacebuilding charity Search for Common Ground. The UK is and continues to be a world leader in the “do no harm” principle, but the Independent Commission for Aid Impact highlighted a concern in its December report that:
“The UK government’s poor donor practice weakened results and increased the risk of doing harm”.
Has the FCDO had an opportunity to reflect on the ICAI report, and how will it ensure that we improve our delivery of peacebuilding services to ensure that we do not undermine the “do no harm” principle?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the FCDO is a permanently evolving organisation. We always try to refine and improve the manner in which we make substantial annual investments. Despite the cuts to spending, which the noble Lord rightly raises on a regular basis, we remain a major partner to the UN and other multilateral organisations, while spending more bilaterally to allow us to focus on the UK’s highest priorities. We are providing £108 million in core funding to UN humanitarian agencies this year, which makes us one of the top contributors of unearmarked support. That includes £33 million to the UNHCR and £6 million to the International Organization for Migration, and we will provide a far higher figure through country-specific programmes.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the work of the United Nations General Assembly. In 2018, it affirmed the global compact on refugees, a framework for responsibility-sharing and international co-operation. Given that 83% of people who have been forcibly displaced are hosted in low and middle-income countries, can the Minister tell us how the Government will build on that compact at the Global Refugee Forum later this year?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the Integrated Review Refresh and the international development strategy, both of which were published recently, in which we reiterated our commitment to championing international humanitarian law. We are focused on protecting those most at risk, including from gender-based violence, and on barriers to accessing humanitarian assistance. We work closely with the UN humanitarian agencies, the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council to promote compliance with international law, and will continue to do so.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, given the atrocities being committed in Ukraine, can it be right that the presidency of the Security Council is held by the Russians?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important and valid point.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that I may make a valid point too, on the noble Lord’s assertion a moment ago on the amounts of money given by the Government to the UNHCR. I am off to Strasbourg on Sunday and will be debating the United Kingdom’s current immigration policy in its migration committee and in plenary. Granted the levels of support that have just been mentioned, I am interested to know why the UNHCR repeatedly, at length, in detail and according to law has set itself so fiercely against present proposals in the immigration Bill.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, there can be no doubt that there is an urgent humanitarian need to stop the small boat crossings. The UK Government have introduced legislation to prevent further loss of life by disrupting the business model of people-smuggling networks. Clearly, a system that enriches those smugglers and people traffickers is one that needs improvement. That is what we are trying to do. New approaches to these kinds of issues will raise new questions for the interpretation of international law. The UK will work openly and constructively to ensure that its new approach is fully compliant with international human rights, refugee and human trafficking protections. The legislation is about ending dangerous and unnecessary routes to the UK; it is not about denying protections to those in immediate, genuine need. We will continue to work with the UNHCR, not least through the financial contribution that I mentioned earlier, to ensure that those most in need can find sanctuary in the UK.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
Do the Government believe that sufficient has been done to support those who were displaced in Afghanistan when we left so ignominiously in August 2021?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the manner in which the situation in Afghanistan was allowed to change caused appalling humanitarian problems on a scope and scale that has rightly taken the attention of this House on many occasions. I make the broader point that, as we restrict illegal migration through the legislative pathway that I was just describing, we will do more to help people at risk of war and persecution by setting up safe and legal routes, as we have done in the cases of Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine. Since 2015, the UK has offered places and safety to nearly 480,000 people. The Government will commit to resettle a specific number of the most vulnerable refugees from around the world every year, working with local councils to understand their capacity for accommodation and support first and providing for the annual number to be agreed by both Houses.
Yemen and South Sudan: Humanitarian Crises
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress towards resolving the humanitarian crises in Yemen and South Sudan; and what assistance they have provided, along with international partners, to ensure that children and families in those countries have adequate access to food, water, and medical supplies.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by referencing the devastating events in Sanaa last night. I offer the sincere condolences of the whole House to the families of those who lost their lives. The sadness of the loss of life is heightened by being so close to Eid ul Fitr. Reportedly, more than 80 lives were lost and many more were injured during a stampede at a charity event designed to provide cash and food to those most in need at Eid ul Fitr. Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un—to God we belong, to God we will return.
Resolving the dire humanitarian crisis in Yemen and South Sudan requires peace. The South Sudanese Government should implement their peace agreement and road map, end the violence and provide more of their own resources to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. Similarly, the de facto truce in Yemen continues to hold. Long-term stability will come only with a Yemeni-led political settlement under the auspices of the UN, but the UK will continue to support millions of vulnerable people in both Yemen and South Sudan.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I join my noble friend in expressing distress at the events in Sanaa. I am grateful to him for his words. The humanitarian aid allocated by the international community to Sudan and Yemen has been essential. It is also essential to ensure that it reaches those in need there. My noble friend will be aware that, over the last six months or so, there has been a dramatic surge in the level of attacks on humanitarian aid workers and in the theft of their aid. Can he tell the House what work Ministers have been doing with our colleagues in the international community, particularly the African Union, IGAD and the troika, to ensure that the combatants eventually give way to humanitarian workers instead of, as at the moment, killing them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend speaks with great insight and experience, and I am grateful for her work in this area. I totally agree with my noble friend about the importance of humanitarian corridors. Only yesterday, during the repeat of the Statement on Sudan, we discussed the appalling and abhorrent situation where not only aid workers but also UN aid agencies and senior diplomats are being attacked in Sudan. That has a natural impact on South Sudan, in terms of humanitarian assistance, because of the routes through, and the situation remains extremely dire.
There has been some more positive development in Yemen, with this truce led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We have engaged with all relevant governments in the near neighbourhood, as well as the key UN agencies and all international organisations. We remain very committed to continuing our support for humanitarian assistance but also to opening up key corridors to allow aid to reach the most vulnerable.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, considering the level of the humanitarian crisis in both Yemen and Sudan, will the UK Government now consider reinstating the overseas aid budget, which was reduced some two years ago to 0.5% of GNI, and returning it to the original amount of 0.7%?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have often said from the Dispatch Box that we seek to return to the 0.7%, but notwithstanding the reduction in 2022-23, the UK Government have continued to provide emergency food aid for an estimated close to 200,000 people, including daily water and sanitation provision in South Sudan. We have continued our support and at the UN-led humanitarian pledging conference in March 2023 retained £88 million of aid to Yemen. We remain amongst some of the primary donors when it comes to bilateral support. The difficulty on the ground, as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Anelay, has impeded vital aid reaching the most vulnerable.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, it is important that we look at how we can intervene in many ways, and the Minister has mentioned the role of international organisations. Given that South Sudan has expressed an interest in joining the Commonwealth, has my noble friend spoken to his Commonwealth counterparts about perhaps providing assistance via the Commonwealth?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I know of my noble friend’s interest in the Commonwealth, which is an organisation that I know well. During the PSVI conference back in November, there was some hope about the situation in South Sudan. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I met with the then Defence Minister on various issues concerning how we could strengthen South Sudan, including its place in the international community. However, things have since taken a rather regressive path—indeed, the Defence Minister herself is no longer in place. First and foremost, we need unity among the different parties in South Sudan, and then I am sure we can move forward on other considerations as well.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister alluded to, humanitarian aid and co-ordination for South Sudan and Juba is through Khartoum and Khartoum Airport. I repeat my interest that I was in Khartoum over the Easter Recess, and in my March visit I met separately with Generals Burhan and Hemedti. Last night I had an opportunity to speak to the deputy head of the doctors’ union from Khartoum, who relayed to me the sheer horror of the medical crisis in Khartoum at the moment, and the problem of getting supplies into Khartoum Airport. He asked me to make a direct appeal, at Heads of Government level, to seek a monitorable cessation of hostilities in Khartoum to secure the airport open, which would allow medical assistance in and let co-ordinators for South Sudan and Juba to continue their much-needed work.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble Lord we are very seized of this. The discussions around the situation in Sudan took place at the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has engaged with key partners, including the troika who have key responsibility in Sudan. We are also engaging directly at senior level, as my right honourable friend has with Foreign Ministers in the near regions, particularly countries such as the UAE, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which have obvious influence on the ground in South Sudan.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the promising discussions and the exchange of prisoners leading to a permanent ceasefire, and the lifting of the Saudi-led blockade of Yemen, but that pathway towards peace remains incredibly shaky. The noble Lord stressed the importance of a Yemeni-led political solution. As we have a special responsibility as a Security Council penholder, can the Minister tell us what we are doing to support Special Envoy Grundberg’s mediation efforts? And can he update us on our work at the Security Council to ensure that the political process delivers the peace the people of Yemen deserve?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we all welcome what is a truce of some kind, but it is holding—that is the important thing. When I visited the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia recently, I saw quite directly the important role being played by Saudi Arabia, particularly by their ambassador Mohammed Al-Jaber who talked me through some of the reconstruction in the government-held areas. We have seen some progress through certain talks that took place directly, both with the UAE, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Yemen, which have brought progress. I have engaged directly with the Foreign Minister of Yemen, as has my right honourable friend, and we are meeting with key personnel from the United Nations to ensure that the current truce can build into something much more substantial that will stand the test of the current challenges we face. It is tragic that, as I said, where aid does get through, such events can occur very quickly—we are still getting the full details, but it appears to have been an accidental firing that then caused havoc, which shows the sense of insecurity that people, including the most vulnerable people, in Yemen feel currently.
Prepayment Meters: Code of Practice
Baroness Brinton
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they will ensure that the new Ofgem Code of Practice regarding installing pre-payment meters for vulnerable and disabled customers will be enforced.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the code of practice is a step in the right direction, with better protections for vulnerable households, increased scrutiny of supplier practices, and redress measures when prepayment meters were wrongly installed. Ofgem has now confirmed that it will put strengthened rules into energy company licences so that they can be enforced. The Government will monitor very closely the behaviour of suppliers and regulators and will not hesitate to intervene again if necessary.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, after the appalling behaviour of energy suppliers forcibly installing prepayment meters at the homes of the most vulnerable and disabled, why is Ofgem’s new voluntary scheme not compulsory? Worse, the categories “High Risk—Do not install” and “Medium Risk—Further assessment required” are confused and rely on energy supplier staff to make medical judgments. Someone awaiting a transplant is high risk but, post transplant, when they are medically still very vulnerable, they may not be. As Scope pointed out, does a customer with dementia even have the capacity to respond to chasing calls and emails? Does the Minister think that staff from energy suppliers should be making these medical decisions, and how will safe practice be enforced?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness asked a number of questions. First, Ofgem does not have the right to impose rules without consultation. It is an independent regulator accountable to Parliament, but this voluntary code is agreed by all suppliers; it will be put into their contracts by October. There were some nuances and details perhaps lost in the Ofgem announcement on Tuesday about the code of practice. The medium-risk group is always protected by the precautionary principle so, if there is any doubt that the consumer is financially vulnerable or likely to disconnect, they must not install a prepayment meter. The vulnerable group includes any family with children under five, the elderly over 65, those with many other serious medical conditions including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, and those in temporary situations such as pregnancy and bereavement. Ofgem has worked very hard to try to include everybody in the prevention of installation of prepayment meters and will continue to do so. They have all been paused for the moment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as honorary president of National Energy Action. Could my noble friend address two vital issues that the code of conduct does not cover? First, prepayment customers pay more per unit than any other customer, regrettably, and that has so far not been addressed by the Government. Will she urgently address it? Secondly, the standing charge is increasing, often every six months, by up to 20% a time. That is a charge over which customers have no control whatever at a time when there is a cost of living crisis.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My noble friend is not quite correct, in that we are doing a lot to tackle the higher costs that PPM users pay, and the Government are taking action to end the prepayment penalty. There are specific costs associated with prepayment meters, not least that the Post Office is often used as a conduit for payment and charges, and there are some regulatory and system costs. We have acted, we are continuing to take action, and we are introducing reforms to the energy bills to remove this premium paid. For the moment, that will be covered by the energy price guarantee and there will be permanent resolution to the issue in April 2024.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister think that the use of the precautionary principle by those who install the prepayment meters is rarely the kind of judgment that these people are expected to make? Are they expected to make a judgment on whether somebody is 85 or 84? Does it not need to be much more clear cut as to who can have the exemption and who cannot?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord makes a fair point but, once all the conditions of the code of practice have been met, there must be at least 10 attempts to contact the customer before a prepayment meter is installed. Then when it is installed, which is often with a bailiff, there has to be body camera footage to show that it has been done correctly. The precautionary principle is a very strong bar. If there is any doubt that the consumer is financially vulnerable, cannot pay, and is at risk of being cut off, the meter must not be installed.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister said about the precautionary principle, and following my noble friend, are the Government really satisfied that the firm ban on enforced prepayment meters will not cover high-risk groups such as lone parents of a newborn babies, people with Alzheimer’s, and those aged 80 to 84? Surely they are at high risk and should not have to rely on the exercise of the discretion—the precautionary principle—of the installers.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness mentions some temporary conditions covered by the precautionary principle, which can include pregnancy and bereavement. But if a supplier concludes, taking into account the meter type, the aftercare support, and reasonable energy-saving assumptions, that the household will frequently or for prolonged periods self-disconnect and risk causing significant consumer harm, the supplier must consider the prepayment meter not to be safe or reasonably practical and must not install it.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, there is understandably grave concern about the effect of prepayment meters on the vulnerable and disabled. Can my noble friend clarify whether the social tariffs are still an option? Additionally, what is being done to improve the energy bill support scheme voucher take-up?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My noble friend refers to a number of policies that the Government have put in place to give financial support to consumers, and social tariffs are indeed still an option. Following the Government’s Autumn Statement commitment, we are working with consumer groups and industry to consider the best approach from April 2024 when the energy price guarantee comes to an end, and this could include social tariffs. As for the energy bill support scheme voucher take-up, we have a problem in that, as of 1 March, 97% of vouchers have been delivered since the scheme launched, but only 78% of these have been redeemed. This means that at this time 2.1 million vouchers have been issued to suppliers but not redeemed by households, so we are carrying out extensive communications, including through the Help for Households, to encourage people to redeem these vouchers. We are making announcements through local radio, charities, consumer groups and the media generally to encourage people to take up this support.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, we have all heard the harrowing stories that come from forced entry into the homes of the most vulnerable people in this country. I would like some more clarification. Surely discretion from the energy companies is not the answer, as we have heard. Why do the Government not take responsibility and continue the ban on installations until a better system is in place protecting the vulnerable. Is not failure to act on this a dereliction of duty?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The Government were very quick to take action following the Citizens Advice report in mid-January. The Secretary of State responded in late January by writing to Ofgem and all suppliers, and forced installation of PPMs was then stopped within weeks—even before the take-up by the national press campaign—so I do not agree that we have not done enough, quickly enough. The energy, markets and consumer team in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is responsible for this. We will monitor Ofgem very closely to make sure that all the provisions that we have put in place to protect vulnerable customers are indeed practicable and enforced.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their scheme to help people with energy costs. That was clearly an appropriate response. But in connection with these forced prepayment meter—or smart meter—installations, will the code of practice include how the meters are installed, whether they are installed in places that are accessible, and whether those who have them are trained in how to use them? It should surely be part of the code to ensure that putting in a meter which elderly and disabled people do not know how to operate does not happen. Installing it at the top of a high cupboard which, if people are elderly and cannot reach it safely but need to stand on a stepladder to press that button and restore their energy supply, should not happen either.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness makes some very good points. The aim of the code of practice is to set out very clearly how suppliers should protect customers in vulnerable circumstances. This will include minimum steps that suppliers need to take to conclude whether it is actually safe to install a prepayment meter, with greater prescription—as we have heard—about how vulnerability is defined, and enhanced aftercare for PPM users. Additionally, the supplier will have to carry out a site welfare visit before a PPM is installed. As I have said before, all installations of prepayment meters have been paused until suppliers can prove that they are compliant and have given redress measures to those whose prepayment meters have already been installed.
Top Secret Document Leaks
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is obviously of huge concern that top secret US documents were leaked, including files purporting to be on the war in Ukraine. In assessing what damage this may have done, are the Government looking into why the Wall Street Journal reported last week that the leak was first put out in January among a small group of posters on a messaging channel that trafficked in memes, jokes and racist talk? This posting in January of top secret files went, according to the Wall Street Journal, unnoticed for weeks by the outside world. If accurate, this is a very concerning matter, so can the Minister look into what did happen and whether that report is accurate? In the light of all this, can the Minister tell us what the MoD is doing to improve security, including data breaches?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his Question. I am not privy to the content and detail of the article to which he refers, and even if I were, I would be reluctant to comment. As the noble Lord is aware, an internal United States investigation is now taking place and the broader issue is now the subject of investigation by the United States criminal justice system and is sub judice, therefore I am unable to comment further on that. On data breaches, our MoD takes information and data-handling responsibilities very seriously. Following previous investigations, we have introduced measures to prevent breaches recurring—that is a targeted campaign of re-education and retraining. It might be helpful to the noble Lord to know that, for example, when I log on to my MoD desktop I am now immediately presented with an automatic message about keeping equipment safe, and we are now unable to send an email on MoD equipment without being prompted to add a sensitivity label. I must say that that makes me think very carefully about what I am sending and to whom I am sending it.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the comments that the Minister made regarding some of the improvements. However, given the seriousness of the security breaches which have occurred within our MoD, what further improvements can she highlight today that have been made to combat this happening again?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I think the most uncomfortable security breach for the MoD was in 2021, when papers were left at a bus stop. Following that event, the Secretary of State sent a metaphorical dose of syrup of figs through the department. That involved re-education and retraining, with an online security test to be sat, in which Ministers had to participate—I shall not share the results with the Chamber but it was a very pertinent wake-up call—and random bag searches were introduced in the main building for people accessing and leaving the department. I would also say to my noble friend that a risk assessment/risk evaluation exercise, introduced before the security leak in the United States of America, is currently ongoing, and that will be an important contributor to how we can improve further.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in the other place Dan Jarvis asked the Minister whether he was able to give assurances that data on our Armed Forces held by private sector contractors was fully secured. The Minister said that he assumed so but would go away, find out and write to Mr Jarvis. Can the Minister inform this House whether there is yet an answer to the question? If such data is not securely held, what work will the MoD be doing to ensure that security is improved?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I do not have the response which my right honourable colleague promised in the other place, but I undertake to ensure that a copy is forwarded to the noble Baroness whatever that response is. Our private contractors operate under a very strict regime, not just in terms of vetting the people they have who have access to sensitive material, but also, in terms of undertakings, those individuals must comply with the Official Secrets Act and with the rules, protocols and all the security practices which we expect. There have been instances where these have been breached and prosecutions have ensued. Therefore measures are in place, but I will make the further detail promised by my right honourable friend in the other place available to the noble Baroness.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the leaks reveal the US assessment that there will be an imminent vulnerability of Ukraine to Russian aircraft. What lessons have we learned in terms of early provision of aircraft and countermeasures to Ukraine?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I indicated yesterday in responding to a question about Ukraine, we are working in lockstep with our allies through forums such as the G7 and NATO and efforts such as the UK-led International Fund for Ukraine to get Ukraine the firepower it needs to rapidly regain its territory. We are in daily contact. Tomorrow the Secretary of State for Defence will be at Ramstein, the airbase in Germany, at a meeting hosted by the United States. We are also anticipating the NATO summit in Vilnius in July, and we have constant bilateral engagement with our other partners. Everything is being done to ensure that we can respond as meaningfully as possible to what Ukraine thinks it needs.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
Media reports suggest that the individual originally responsible is an American of considerable youth who still had access to a great number of very sensitive files. Can the Minister confirm that that indeed is the case and further confirm, as regards the Ministry of Defence and our coverage, that it is not as exposed as the American one seems to have been?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I can confirm to the noble and gallant Lord that the American criminal justice system has identified an individual, who I understand has been arrested and I presume is detained. On sharing information within our own MoD, we are very careful about where that information is, where it is stored and to whom it is transmitted. As I said in response to an earlier question, very detailed procedures are now in place to ensure that the correct balance is struck. We have to be careful not to obstruct this vital sharing of information, which may be incredibly important to inform discussion and decisions, while ensuring that we balance that with the need to store and manage the transmission of material responsibly and securely.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, given the increased threat from Russia, including recently in the Moray Firth area, which the Minister may wish to comment on, as well as from China, Five Eyes co-operation is even more important. Can the Minister give us an assurance that this unfortunate incident in the United States will not undermine and reduce our Five Eyes co-operation?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. On the Moray Firth, we have been careful to ensure that our surveillance of maritime activity by Russia is extensive, and we take the security and resilience of our national infrastructure very seriously. As the noble Lord will be aware, we have increased Royal Navy presence patrols and have invested £65 million in the first of our two multi-role ocean surveillance ships. On the relationships with our important allies such as Five Eyes, other NATO partners or other security organisations, going back to the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, we are absolutely clear that our ability to protect our own sovereign states and to act in concert to protect global security depend on acquiring and sharing sensitive information. We all understand the importance of that, but equally we all understand the obligations which attach to it, and the balance to which I refer is one of which all our allies and partners are cognisant.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble and gallant Lord, my former constituent, the point he made goes to the absolute core of this crisis. The perpetrator, Jack Teixeira, was 21 years old, an airman in the Massachusetts Air National Guard, hardly a key unit at the very heart of the fight against terrorism and the war in Ukraine. He had access to top secret files and substantial Five Eyes intelligence but was a very junior official. Can the Minister make it clear that our Government will do all they can to impress upon the United States and Five Eyes partners that allowing this type of security intelligence to be dealt with by someone so junior is incredibly concerning?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I do not think anybody would disagree with my noble friend’s assessment. As he will be aware, the Secretary of State for Defence was scheduled to be in Washington—that had been prearranged—but an opportunity will be taken to speak directly about this issue. As always with cases like this, there is something which every state can learn, whether it is a state directly involved or a partner or ally of that state. The gravity of what has happened is completely understood, and certainly we are very sensitive to that within our own MoD. I have indicated some of the measures that have been taken and, following the American incident, our Permanent Secretary immediately instigated action to check that the highest standards were being observed.
Chinese Police Stations in the UK
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday in the Times newspaper there was a report into a Chinese businessman with links to an alleged Chinese secret police station in Croydon. This report raises serious questions about national security. This businessman, who has attended Chinese Communist Party political conferences, has also attended organised Conservative Party fundraising dinners and other events involving former Conservative Prime Ministers. Although we have raised this issue here before, after police stations were reportedly uncovered in Hendon, Glasgow and Croydon, we have received no update. Meanwhile, operations in New York and the Netherlands have taken action against Chinese police operations, and the Canadian and German Governments have expressed concern about operations in their countries.
Here, we have to contend with the additional dimension that one individual who has been linked to an operation here has links with the Conservative Party and has met Ministers. We know that the director-general of MI5 has warned that Chinese authorities are attempting to exert influence over our political system. Can the Minister tell us the extent of the contact this individual has had with Ministers? What action are the Government taking to look into this role within the Conservative Party and the involvement he has had with the Government? Have any other individuals connected with these operations been identified, and are their similar concerns about them seeking to influence British politics?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I share the noble Lord’s concern about this threat to our democracy, but as the Security Minister said in a previous Statement on this matter in November last year, investigations are still ongoing and it would be inappropriate for me to comment any further on operational matters, as to do so could obviously jeopardise future prosecutions.
However, I take this opportunity to reassure the House of the Government’s resolve to protect every community in this country from transnational repression. As regards the internal party aspects of this, it is my understanding—and if I am wrong, I will obviously come back to correct myself—that this individual was prominent in a particular Chinese organisation within the Cities of London and Westminster. Beyond that, I do not think he had any involvement or contact with Ministers, and, as all noble Lords around the House know, prominent politicians are featured in photographs with very many people, most of whom they will not know.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I recognise that it is difficult to comment on this immediate case. Therefore, I raise some slightly wider questions. China is not the only authoritarian state which attempts to catch up with and influence its nationals here. We all recall the occasion when a member of the royal family of one of the Gulf states was taken off the streets in Cambridge and taken back to the Gulf states. Can the Minister assure us that other states and their behaviour in Britain—including some with whom we are relatively closely allied, such as the Gulf states—are also in scope and that the Government are concerned about that?
Secondly, universities have a particularly sensitive role here—I speak as a former academic. Last year, one vice-chancellor told me that his biggest single problem in maintaining free speech in his university was keeping the peace between his Hong Kong students and his Chinese mainland students. I put that down as a marker for further discussion. The Defending Democracy Taskforce was mentioned several times in discussion in the other place yesterday. I tried to find out exactly what it is covering, how far it is intended to have some cross-party representation and what its plans are. It is very difficult to find out whether it really exists, how often it meets, what it is doing and what its strategy is. At a later stage, could the Minister’s department communicate to some of us what the Defending Democracy Taskforce’s intentions are?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord raises a couple of very good points. Obviously, any attempt to coerce, intimidate or illegally repatriate any individual will not be tolerated; it does not matter where they are from. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill and the National Security Bill both contain provisions to ensure that universities have the tools they need to deal with interference and threats to academic freedom. The noble Lord is quite right to draw the House’s attention to the Defending Democracy Taskforce, which my right honourable friend the Security Minister introduced in the other House in November last year. He has been asked for updates; I have not seen him since those were asked for, but I will make sure that the representations from this House, as well as the other place, are understood. I can also commit that higher education falls within the remit and scope of the Defending Democracy Taskforce, so there will be more to be said on that matter. Noble Lords will also appreciate that there are a number of other areas, including, as I said, the National Security Bill, where we will tighten up our ability to respond to some of these issues.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that in a democracy, it is very important that Ministers and Members of Parliament are available to the public as a whole, and it would be a great sadness if this kind of allegation, proven or unproven, becomes a way to ensure that people are unable to reach to the heart of government, as they ought? I hope the Government will continue to state that those who are malefactors should of course be prosecuted with great urgency; but it is very important that those who merely wish to get people in government to understand what is happening in the world—frankly, it is not always obvious that the Government know that—should have access.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. As I said earlier, it is very difficult for any prominent politician of any party, within or outside government, to know precisely who is appearing in a selfie with them. We should be very cognisant of that fact. I also agree that if subsequent bad behaviour, illegal behaviour, is discovered, whatever it may be, the full force of the law should be brought to bear.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I concede that the investigation is at an early stage, but is it the Government’s working assumption that this phenomenon is not confined to Croydon and there are other such so-called police stations around the country—looking particularly, I would guess, at Chinese students in the UK?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, again, it is difficult for me to comment on ongoing matters, but the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench mentioned a couple of other police stations that have been aired in the public domain in the past, so yes, it is fair to say that there is more than just one.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords the advance of autocracy in China since 2012 has been vertiginous. We have seen the creation of a panopticon state where face recognition and location technology are fused to follow and monitor every citizen, and where big online platforms such as Alibaba, Weibo and Tencent both proselytise for the regime and spy on its behalf. Although we often talk of it as Orwellian, I think a better metaphor would come from Huxley, in the sense that even when Chinese students in western universities are put in a place where they do not have censors and firewalls to worry about, they still tend not to look at “dangerous” websites. Will my noble friend confirm that one thing we can do to promote democracy in China is to support the China where democracy and freedom have advanced, especially since the 1990s, namely, Taiwan: a China on the doorstep of red China which shares its language and culture but rejects its totalitarianism?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend asks a very good question. The UK’s long-standing policy on Taiwan has not changed: we have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan but a strong unofficial relationship which is based, as my noble friend said, on deep and growing ties in a wide range of areas and is certainly underpinned by shared democratic values.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, can the Minister give more details about the situation in Glasgow? Scottish universities are taking in students from China to raise income because there are no fees from Scottish students, and some strange people from China may be getting in under the guise of being students. The Scottish Government have a very strange contract with a Chinese company that is causing grave concern among the public in Scotland. The Scottish Government have been trying to take a greater role in foreign affairs, without the kind of support that the Home Office and Foreign Office have from our intelligence agencies. Can the Minister give an undertaking that the UK Government will talk to the appropriate Scottish Ministers about this issue and make sure that they are dealing with it efficiently and safely?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord will appreciate, as I said before, that I am unable to comment on ongoing operational matters and investigations. I listened carefully to what he said, and rather than make that commitment regarding the devolved Administration myself, I will certainly ensure that my noble friend Lord Offord is aware of his concerns and suggest that he looks into them.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Thursday 20th April 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-XI Eleventh marshalled list for Committee - (20 Apr 2023)
Lord Berkeley
“Cycling, walking and rights of way plans: incorporation in development plans(1) A local planning authority must ensure that the development plan incorporates, so far as relevant to the use or development of land in the local planning authority’s area, the policies and proposals set out in— (a) any local cycling and walking infrastructure plan or plans prepared by a local transport authority;(b) any rights of way improvement plan.(2) In dealing with an application for planning permission or permission in principle the local planning authority shall also have regard to any policies or proposals contained within a local cycling and walking infrastructure plan or plans and any rights of way improvement plan which have not been included as part of the development plan, so far as is material to the application.(3) In this section—(a) “local planning authority” has the same meaning as in section 15LF of PCPA 2004;(b) “local transport authority” has the same meaning as in section 108 of the Transport Act 2000;(c) a “rights of way improvement plan” is a plan published by a local highway authority under section 60 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would require development plans to incorporate policies and proposals for cycling and walking infrastructure plans and rights of way improvement plans. Local planning authorities would be required to have regard to any such policies and proposals where they have not been incorporated in a development plan.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to start this day in Committee by moving Amendment 240. I shall also speak to the other amendments in this grouping.
I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who apologises for not being here today. This amendment has the support of the Bicycle Association, Bikeability Trust, British Cycling, Cycling UK, Living Streets, Ramblers and Sustrans. I think you can say that that support basically includes the Better Planning Coalition. Its purpose is to ensure that the various walking and cycling network plans and rights of way drawn up by county councils or combined authorities are incorporated into local planning authorities’ development plans and are reflected in their planning decisions. This would help to safeguard land for new walking and cycling routes or rights of way, including disused railway lines, improve existing routes, and ensure that developments connected with existing or new walking, wheeling or cycling networks with secure development contributions are introduced. This came to a head within the last six months, when National Highways was caught filling in disused railway bridges with concrete to prevent them from being used in the future as footpaths or cycleways, for example. I am grateful that there has been a pause put on that. I hope that it stays a pause, because it was a very stupid decision with no benefit whatever.
This amendment addresses the problems of local planning authorities that sometimes, wittingly or unwittingly, frustrate a higher tier authority’s aspirations for walking, cycling and rights of way by not recording these network aspirations in their development plans. That means that they are not safeguarding the land for these networks or to connect new developments with existing networks for secure developer contributions to implement or upgrade specific routes. There is much discussion going on about all these issues, but it is very important that this covers what is happening now and what might happen in future. The biggest problem is when we have two-tier authorities—county councils or combined authorities, and district councils. In one case, one part of a unitary authority commissioned Sustrans to assesses the feasibility of reopening a disused railway line as a walking and cycling route, while another part of the same authority gave permission for a housing development which blocked the route. There is no point in doing this; it wastes a lot of time and seriously affects the people who want to develop cycling or walking routes.
Local transport authorities have a duty to prepare a statutory local transport plan. They are also responsible for drawing up one or more non-statutory local cycling and walking infrastructure plans. That is all a bit of a mouthful, but really important. Usually it is the same body, but for each one it is required to draw up a statutory rights-of-way improvement plan for its area. We probably all have examples in our own areas of rights of way not being taken very seriously—and we will talk about that later—but all these things need co-ordination.
The Government have argued that our concerns about this lack of co-ordination would best be addressed through the NPPFs, rather than through legislation. My worry is that the current NPPFs, which are still in proposed revisions, mention these local cycling, walking and infrastructure plans only in passing, leaving out the right-of-way plans altogether. This results in developments being granted permission without taking into account the need for walking and cycling or improving these links. I call it active travel—it is a bit shorter. I am sure that the Minister will take this amendment seriously, and I hope that she gives me a nice positive response to it and says that perhaps we can have further discussions and see what happens.
My Amendment 470, on electric vehicle charging, is quite a short amendment. It requires a change to the Electricity Act, for the Government to facilitate or accelerate the rollout of electric vehicle charging points for domestic and commercial customers. We have discussed this in your Lordship’s House quite a few times. A few statistics really worry me, frankly. First, the Government have a target of 300,000 public charging points by 2030, and there is a long way to go before we get there. Interestingly, a Written Answer from the Minister on 29 March to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, stated that the number of installations were 8,600 public charging, 71,000 electric vehicle home charge schemes, and very few electric charge point sockets and grants, while workplace had 15,000.
Another telling Written Answer, to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on 21 March, stated that
“the majority (around 75%) of electric car charging happens at home, as it is often cheaper and more convenient for drivers.”
I am sure that the Minister is right, but the problem is: how many people have home charging? I expect many noble Lords here have home charging, if they want it, but there are an awful lot of people in this country who park on the road and, if they want to charge their cars, they will have to get it off a lamppost.
Another Written Answer from the Minister said that there was no national data on how many lamppost chargers were available. If we do not know how many are available, we do not know who wants them, and we do not know where the public ones are, where do you charge your heavy goods vehicle or coach? Who will fund them? Most important of all, what about the regulation of chargers? There is a lot for the Government to do to meet their target of 300,000 charging points by 2030.
Finally, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the same subject. I am sure that she will tell us a great deal more of it. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, in this debate on transport, it is a pleasure to follow in the slipstream of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and add some footnotes to his speech on Amendment 240.
Before I turn to the amendment, I will say a word about the target of 300,000 EV chargers. Some chargers are fast chargers and some are slow chargers. At some point, we need to define more accurately the division of those 300,000. If they are all slow chargers, that will not do the trick. If they are fast chargers, we may not need quite so many. So a bit of granularity on that target at some point would be welcome.
Researching for this debate, I came across a government document stating that
“continuing growth in road transport and consequential environmental impacts present a major challenge to the objective of sustainable development. Traffic growth on the scale projected could threaten our ability to meet objectives for greenhouse gas emissions … and for the protection of landscapes and habitats”.
I should have recognised it instantly, as it was in a document that I published nearly 30 years ago when I was Planning Minister. It was PPG13, which offered advice to local authorities on integrating land-use planning and transport. Its object was to reduce reliance on the car by promoting alternative means of travel and improving the quality of life.
I note in passing that I referred to the then Government’s policy of increasing the real level of fuel duty by an average of at least 5% a year—a policy now very much in the rear-view mirror—and also my commitment to introducing electronic tolling on motorways. Back in 1993, I was clearly a little bit ahead of the game.
Amendment 240 could almost have been lifted from PPG13. It promoted development within urban areas at locations highly accessible by means other than the car, and it supported policies to improve choice for people to walk, cycle or catch public transport, rather than drive between homes and facilities that they need to visit regularly.
I also came across an article in the Independent from 10 July 1995, when I became Transport Secretary and continued my campaign. In an open letter to me, Christian Wolmar wrote:
“When your appointment as Transport Secretary was announced, the whoops of joy from cycling campaigners could be heard across the nation. The notion of having a Transport Secretary who is not only an active member of Friends of the Earth but also an active cyclist and tandem rider was beyond their wildest dreams”.
So, the Minister will not be surprised that, as middle age taps me on the shoulder, my commitment to environmental means of transport is undimmed.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, set out the case for the amendment, which I believe is even stronger than it was in the 1990s. I will not repeat it. I understand from the Government’s response to a similar amendment in another place that, instead of an amendment to primary legislation, the objectives to the amendment should be incorporated in a revised NPPF, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said. My response is that I tried that and it did not work. We need to be more assertive.
Paragraph 1.10 of PPG13 said:
“If land-use policies permit continued dispersal of development and a high reliance on the car, other policies to reduce the environmental impact of transport may be less effective or come at a higher cost”.
That is exactly what has been happening, as the Government’s own publication, Gear Change: A Bold Vision for Cycling and Walking, published in 2020, recognised. Despite the exhortation in that PPG and, I suspect, many other PPGs since, we have not seen the transformation in planning for transport that is required. We continue to build housing with little or no public transport provision, or where it is impractical to get to school, the shops or work without jumping into a car. We must up our game and cease relying on guidance.
The amendment also addresses the problem touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that has arisen in two-tier authorities, where, typically, the county council is the transport authority but the district council is the planning authority: if you do not have the commitment to walking or cycling networks recorded in the district plan, this can then frustrate the county’s ambition to promote cycling and walking networks—clearly an undesirable outcome.
The challenge to my noble friend, who I am delighted to see is replying to this debate, is to convince me that we should continue to rely on guidance, as I suspect my officials advised me to do in 1993, despite the evidence that it has not brought about the transformation that I aspire to. I wish her every success.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to a number of amendments in this group, to which my name is attached. This is, of course, a group of transport-related amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Young, I am very pleased to see that we have the Transport Minister here to respond in detail to us, because all the warm words on levelling up are meaningless without decisive action to improve transport infrastructure and services. Poor transport facilities almost exactly mirror the overall picture of the social divide in our country: poorer areas have poor public transport and poor transport infrastructure generally.
There is a reason why London and the south-east are the richest parts of the UK: they have the transport links to service the areas well, and one reinforces the other. I say that while recognising of course at the same time that there is poverty and disadvantage amongst the most privileged.
I start with Amendment 240, to which I have added my name. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Young, have spoken in some detail, and with greater information than is necessary for me to repeat here today. But I want to endorse the fact that this has to be about broadening access to the activities of cycling and walking and safeguarding our rights of way: for many decades, we have been accustomed to the gradual erosion of the practicality of safe walking and cycling, and the erosion of our rights of way on footpaths. The car has been king for a very long time. If we are going to truly improve the quality of our lives and the lives of the generations to come, we need a much broader and more informed approach. In my own local area, I notice the cycleways that disappear into nothing at key junctions and so on. It is a skilled business to provide really good cycling and walking facilities.
Turning to Amendment 468, the intention here is to prioritise the requirements for disability access at rail stations. Progress on this has been painfully slow—way too slow. I use this opportunity to praise the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, who raise these issues time and again in the media and in this House. We live in an ageing society, and we should be much more encouraging to those people who are less mobile but who want to travel by rail or bus. So this amendment goes way beyond the simple issues of wheelchair access, access for those with sight impairment and so on. It is about access for people who are less agile.
However, treatment is far from being on an equal basis for those people in wheelchairs. As a regular rail traveller myself, I watch this week after week. Despite huge efforts by the staff, there is still so much further to go. We have to ensure that people do not have to book way ahead in order to be able to make a simple journey.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Could the noble Baroness explain whether rapid or fast is the faster of the two?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Rapid is faster than far, but that would not be obvious to the average local public sector employee whose job it is to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure for EVs.
My Amendment 486 requires the Government to update us regularly on their strategy to improve the charging network. It particularly refers to the discrepancies across the country. The discussion often relates to the pure numbers of charge points, but just as important are two different factors. The first is the adequacy of the numbers available in public places. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has made that point. Currently, EV ownership is concentrated among more affluent people—those with drives and who can therefore have chargers attached to their homes. We cannot have an EV revolution that is only for the rich. People who live in terraced houses and in flats must also be able to own EVs. As the revolution plays out and a second-hand market develops for electric vehicles, this becomes an ever more pertinent point. The second factor is that the Government have emphasised time and again that they believe that the market will adequately take care of the provision of charge points, but the figures do not bear that out. London and the south-east have a far more generous ratio of electric vehicles to public charge points than any other part of the UK.
My conclusions are that particular problems need to be addressed. The first is the disparity in cost between home charging and public charge points. If you charge at home, you pay 5% VAT; if you charge in a public car park, a public place or from a lamppost, you pay 20% VAT. That reinforces the unfairness. I urge the Government to deal with the issue soon as otherwise it will hamper any of their best intentions on this issue.
The second conclusion is that the Government must work much harder to increase support and funding in areas that have large gaps in their electric vehicle infrastructure. They are often towns in poorer areas and, of course, almost every rural area. Local authorities have a key role in this but often need greater advice because officials do not know the difference between fast and rapid and so on. They need not just money but support and advice to help them, otherwise EVs will remain vehicles for rich areas and poorer areas will remain subject to suffering from poor air quality.
My final point on this is that the Government simply must address the delays in national grid connection. They are hampering the whole thing which is totally inadequate to service the revolution that needs to take place.
In relation to Amendment 48 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I live in Wales. This week, 20 miles per hour became the default speed limit throughout the country. I live in Cardiff, where it has been the default speed limit for some time, and we have all—more or less—got used to it. The traffic flows more smoothly.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I guess I should rise at this point to follow with pleasure the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who made a point that I was going to make. I note that in Scotland, they are going for 2025. This is a case where England urgently needs to catch up. I will primarily speak to Amendment 482. It is very simple:
“for “30” substitute “20”.
This is a “20 is plenty” amendment. I am going chiefly to speak to that, but I note that this is a very neat and fit group of amendments.
We express Green support for Amendment 240. We obviously need to get active transport joined up to make preparation to make sure that it happens. Also, we support Amendment 486 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Randerson, on disability access in railway stations. Of course, we broadly agree with electric vehicle charging points. However, on the interaction between these two issues, we have to make sure that where vehicle charging points are installed on roads, they do not make the pavements less accessible, particularly for people with disabilities, with strollers and other issues. The space should be taken from the road and cars and not from pedestrians.
Returning to my Amendment 482, this would make the default general speed limit for restricted roads 20 miles per hour. Among the many organisations recommending this is TRL, formerly the Government’s Transport Research Laboratory. Going from the local to the international, there was of course the Stockholm Declaration, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2020, which recommends 20 miles per hour speed limits where people walk, live and play. That is the global standard that the world is heading towards, and we really need to catch up on this. I can see much nodding around your Lordships’ House. I am sure many noble Lords know that pedestrians are seven times more likely to die if they are hit by a vehicle travelling at 30 miles per hour compared with 20 miles per hour. If they are aged 60 or over, they are 10 times more likely to die when hit by a vehicle at 30 rather than 20.
Noble Lords might say this is the levelling-up Bill rather than general provision, but to draw on just one of many reports that reflect on this issue, Fair Society, Healthy Lives: the Marmot Review says that targeting 20 miles per hour zones
“in deprived residential areas would … lead to reductions in health inequalities”.
However, there is, of course a problem. The Marmot report was looking within the current legal framework for travel, but it is extremely expensive to bring in local areas of 20 miles per hour speed limits. There needs to be local signage and individual traffic regulation orders, and then presumably, if there is to be some hope of compliance, there needs to be an education campaign. All of those things cost money, and councils in some of the poorest areas of the country will find it most difficult to find those funds.
If we think about some of the other impacts, as well as road safety, 20 miles per hour speed limits where people live, work and shop reduce air pollution and noise pollution. These are things that particularly tend to be problems in the most deprived areas. The wonderful 20’s Plenty for Us campaign that has been working on this for so long, and increasingly effectively, notes that there is a 30% reduction in fuel use with “20’s plenty”, so it saves people money as well—something of particular interest to the most deprived areas of the country.
This is a very simple measure, by which we could catch up with other nations on these islands and really make an improvement to people’s lives, health and well-being. I have focused on the practical health impacts, but the reason this group of amendments fits together so well is that, if you want to encourage walking and cycling, then ensuring that the vehicles on the road travel more slowly is a great way to open up the entire road network to cyclists and walkers. Of course, it could also build communities: the reduction in noise pollution gives neighbours more of a chance to chat over the garden fence and build those communities that we desperately need.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 470 in this group, and it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on this. I would like to say a few words about the question of footpath access that he addressed initially. It seems to me—and it was amply spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—that this is part of the essential infrastructure that enables people to have what used to be, and I hope still is, known as multi-modal travel opportunities. In other words, one has at least some sort of menu of options, and one is not just obliged to be in a motor vehicle. This goes to the heart of what we do about making sure that developments are both related to existing settlements, where these facilities are available, and do not become detached from that unless there is some particular reason—and then only when this infrastructure is put in. So I am very much in favour of that.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I was reflecting that we have barely mentioned levelling up in the last two Committee days. Yet my noble friend has helpfully raised the importance of relating everything we do to the levelling-up missions, which include references to accessible public transport in order to enable accessibility to employment. That was timely.
My name is on Amendment 468, which is about accessible railway stations. I will not repeat what my noble friend said because I cannot add anything, except that I endorse her praise of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, and their consistent determination to keep accessible public transport at the forefront of our thinking. If public transport is accessible to the least mobile, it is much better for everyone else, those who are mobile; it makes it better for everyone.
I will briefly speak to Amendment 240, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, because some planning issues are related to it. Everything he said is quite right. The NPPF, which we have mentioned several times, already has a policy on retaining public rights of way, cycle networks, bridleways and so on. Therefore, many local plans will incorporate them, including that of my own council, which
“will support development proposals that can be served by alternative modes of transport such as public transport, cycling and walking”.
The council says:
“The core walking and cycling network as shown on the Policies Map will provide an integrated system of cycle routes, public footpaths and bridleways that provide opportunity for alternative sustainable means of travel throughout the district and provide efficient links to urban centres and sites allocated for development in the Local Plan”.
I thought that all local plans would incorporate such policies, although, from what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, this is clearly not the case. He pointed to the division of responsibilities for highways between the counties and districts, for planning purposes. Therefore, when plan-making, I hope the Government will have a requirement—they may already have one, but if so, it needs to be underlined—to incorporate the highways policies of the responsible council concerned. That would solve at least one of the problems raised.
The fundamental problem with a lot of our planning development policies—I raised this in a different context on the last Committee day—is implementing them. As with my council, we can have grand and worthy policies on retaining the public rights of way network, cycleways, bridleways and all the rest of it, but when that comes up against commercial development interests, I can tell noble Lords now that those interests always win. We have to find a way of balancing that better.
Of course, if a public right of way goes through a commercial developer’s site, it will want to adjust it, but this always has to be in the best interest of the public right of way as well; however, that often does not happen. For example, a development site in my locality abuts the M62, and a historic public right of way went through the middle of it. Of course, the developer did not want to retain it, and the proposal was to divert it so that it ran along the M62. Who would use that? Some of us managed to get it put elsewhere on the site—but that is what we are up against. This is my plea to the Minister, and it is a big challenge for all the wonderful policies we have discussed: how can we ensure that they can be implemented when they are up against commercial interests? That is the key because currently, commercial interests have the upper hand in the end, and in my experience they always win.
Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me that all new planning applications are required to have an electric vehicle charging point, because that would make sense. My council requires this. This could go into the NPPF, and, if it is not possible—because flats are being considered—there could be a requirement for public provision in the locality of the development.
My noble friend Lady Randerson raised a big challenge about the differential VAT charges. This is outrageous: I had not realised that public charging points have higher VAT attached to them than domestic ones. If we are really going to encourage electric vehicle use, which we must, surely a tax incentive is one of the ways to do so. With those words I look forward to what the Minister says.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 240 in the names of my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Hunt, the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. Before I turn to the specific amendments in this group, I will mention the very helpful discussion which took place in Grand Committee on Monday on the Built Environment Select Committee’s report on public transport in towns and cities. The committee’s recommendations were very helpful to our consideration of this Bill. I thank the chair of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the members of that committee and all those who gave evidence.
The Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Vere—was part of that discussion so there is no need for me to go through all the points relevant to the Bill, which I am sure she will pass on to her colleagues in the Transport team and the DLUHC team. However, it was the overwhelming view of the committee and all noble Lords who took part on Monday that a formal link should be introduced between local plans and local transport plans. In view of the amendments in this group, it is important to record that strongly held view today.
Can I say how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the importance of transport to the levelling-up agenda? Like the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I too am very pleased to see the Minister responsible for transport here today to respond to the debate. As the fortunate resident of a town designed with 45 kilometres of cycleway built into it, it is unthinkable to me that planning for cycling and walking, and considering at local plan stage the infrastructure needed to support that, would not be in the Bill and intrinsic to the planning for our communities. If this amendment is accepted—I really hope it will be—then the subsequent NPPF or whatever is going to succeed that will need to take account of the anomalies that occur in these aspects of planning in two-tier authorities. My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to that earlier.
Generally these can be resolved through good liaison between authorities, but consideration should be given, as responsibility for both transport and rights of way sit with county councils, as we have heard, whereas the local plan is the responsibility of the district council. It will also need to be clear in terms of rights of way improvement plans that the responsibilities for maintenance—should it be necessary—ransom strip land purchase and so on remain the responsibility of those authorities which currently hold them. To be clear, the fact that a planning authority includes them in its local plan does not necessarily incur any additional financial or legal responsibility for these matters than existed previously. Concerns about lack of co-ordination through the National Planning Policy Framework were referred to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and including this provision in the Bill might encourage authorities to work together where that is not the case already.
In relation to Amendment 468 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Randerson, I echo comments about the tireless work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson. It is very important to clarify that this should apply to all railway stations, including retrospectively. I know that is a difficult issue and how it works together with other disability legislation, such as the Disability Discrimination Act, should be clearly identified. There are already some provisions in there but I do not think it goes as far as we would want it to and the proof of that is what we see in our local railway stations. We heard many of examples of that during the debate.
It is, of course, crucial that we do all we can to make our rail system accessible, safe and user-friendly for all passengers. Indeed, we will never make the quantum leap in switching from private car travel to public transport that we need to reach zero carbon without such measures. I come back to the Built Environment Select Committee’s inquiry into public transport, which has very clear recommendations on this subject. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, progress has been painfully slow on this to date and we need a bit of a rocket under it to get it going again. The very helpful introduction of things such as senior railcards is of far less use if you need to navigate several flights of stairs to cross even from one platform to another.
Amendment 470 in the names of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, requires the Secretary of State to facilitate the accelerated rollout of EV charging points for domestic and commercial customers. I strongly support this very laudable aim but there are still unresolved issues. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, have both identified, we are already seeing inequalities develop in EV charging provision and we need to watch out for that very carefully, particularly in the context of the Bill.
Then there is the issue of technology and whether it is settled enough yet to encourage the considerable cost of a UK-wide rollout. Many of us in this Chamber will remember the issues around VHS and Betamax. That is the classic example of when, if you jump early to the wrong technology, it can be very expensive indeed. Many noble Lords referred to improvements in very fast charging facilities and the way that picture is developing so rapidly. It is difficult to know when that will settle. The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the difference between fast and slow chargers, and we need to make sure that we get the most up-to-date provision wherever it is possible.
Secondly, in terms of domestic provision, the complex issues referred to by noble Lords by this afternoon of on-street charging must be resolved. For those fortunate enough to have a drive or land at the side of their property where charging points can be installed, it is not such an issue, but if you live in a terraced street and in housing where that is not so easy to do, it is. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly made the point that this should not interrupt easy walking access for residents. For properties with no adjacent parking, installation of EV charging points can prove expensive and very disruptive in terms of cable laying and so on. My noble friend Lord Berkeley raised this issue too; we have to be concerned about it. Lastly, I have a slight concern that giving this responsibility in legislation to the Secretary of State will simply result in it and potentially the resultant cost and headaches being transferred to local authorities. That is something we need to think carefully about.
I also agree with noble Lords who have said that National Grid really has to get its act together on this issue. Even in developments I have been engaged with in my own borough, it is very often National Grid that really holds things up on many of the measures that we want in levelling up and regeneration. We need to work on how National Grid can respond more quickly to these developments.
No doubt, all those issues could be considered and resolved and there is clearly an urgent need to accelerate the provision of EV charging. My noble friend Lord Berkeley mentioned 8,000 public charging points. This is woeful. The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned that this has been flagged up for over 30 years now. We can all remember talking about this many decades ago, so surely it is time now that we made urgent progress.
I turn now to Amendment 482 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. At the moment, some local authorities do a very good job of making the case to residents in their communities for reducing speed limits, and I pay tribute to campaign organisations such as 20’s Plenty for Us that are producing fantastic support on that. In addition to the points that have been made about it, I also mention that the reduction in pollutants at lower speed is a key issue here as well as the other benefits in noise pollution, safety for other road users and so on.
We believe that this is an area where decisions are far better taken locally so that benefits can be explained fully as the change is implemented. I pay tribute to Hertfordshire County Council, which has worked very closely across the county with local councillors and their communities to develop an evidence base, introduce consultation with members and the communities that they represent and then put appropriate funding allocation in place, first on a pilot basis and then more widely across the county. That is a very good example, and it was lovely to hear another example of how the Welsh Labour Government are leading the way in this respect.
Amendment 486 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, refers to the need for the Government to update Parliament on progress against their EV infrastructure strategy, which was published in March 2022. Irrespective of the comments I made earlier about the complexities of introducing EV charging, at the very least the Government should be delivering against the strategy they have set for themselves. The disparity in provision from place to place is as important as the sheer number of charging points available, so we certainly support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to make my debut on the LURB. I am sorry that it has taken so long, but I may be back again in due course, should there be more transport amendments. Today, it is my job to address this group of amendments, which relate to transport; there are four, and I shall address each in turn.
I start with Amendment 240, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which relates to cycling and walking and to the role of active travel in local development. I think that all noble Lords agree that the Government recognise the importance of walking and cycling and the role that the planning system plays in enabling development in sustainable locations, supported by active travel infrastructure. It is already the case that national planning policies must be considered by local authorities when preparing a local plan and are a material consideration in all planning decisions. The Bill does not alter this principle and will strengthen the importance of those national policies which relate to decision-making.
The existing National Planning Policy Framework is clear that transport issues, including opportunities to promote walking and cycling, should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and when considering development proposals. The NPPF also states that policies in local plans should provide for attractive and well-designed walking and cycling networks with supporting facilities, such as secure cycle parking, drawing on local cycling and walking infrastructure plans. The NPPF also places environmental objectives at the heart of the planning system, making it clear that planning should protect and enhance our natural environment, mitigate and adapt to climate change, and support the transition to a low-carbon future. The Government have recently concluded a consultation on changes to the NPPF to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible.
I always react with some trepidation when my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham shares his thoughts with your Lordships’ House. He has an enormous amount of experience in this area—and, it would seem, in most areas of government. He challenged me to explain why we think the guidance will achieve our aims. I believe that it is more than just guidance; the NPPF and the new national development management policy set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they should be applied. These are material considerations in planning decisions. The power in securing positive change for communities is substantial and should not be referred to as just “guidance”.
There is another step forward—perhaps slightly towards where my noble friend would like us to be—with Active Travel England. Many noble Lords will know that Active Travel England was set up relatively recently, and its role will expand over time. It will become a statutory consultee on certain major planning applications from June this year. That means that local planning authorities will be required to consult ATE on planning applications, where developments meet one of the following minimum thresholds: where it has 150 residential units; where it is 7,500 square metres of commercial area; or where it is a site with an area of 5 hectares or more. Furthermore, ATE will also take an active role in supporting the preparation of local plans and design codes.
It is also worth reflecting that local plans must be put in place quickly, and so we must avoid imposing a plethora of additional statutory requirements which local authorities must have regard to, especially when clear expectations are already set through national policy. There is one other—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I apologise to the Minister, but could she explain to the House where the balance lies between commercial interests and their development, and the policies that she has rightly described as very positive and as needing to be put into place? In my experience, the balance is currently in the hands of the commercial interests.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I had better write with more details on that subject. As noble Lords will know, I have not been involved in the Bill for very long but, reflecting on some of the contributions to the Built Environment Committee, I sometimes question whether noble Lords have any confidence in local authorities at all. If the noble Baroness is asking what the balance is between commercial interests and other local interests, I ask: do we not want the local authority to be making those decisions for its local communities and therefore granting planning permission on that basis? In terms of how we would provide the overarching vision for that, I am very happy to set that out in more detail in a letter.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My apologies for also interrupting the Minister. I know that she has not been part of previous discussions on the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to the Bill, or the sequence of events as to when we will see the finalised version of the NPPF, but noble Lords have expressed concern that we are being told that some things are going into one, while other things are going into the other. Because we will not see the finalised version of the National Planning Policy Framework before the end of Committee—unless the Bill goes on even longer than it already has—we have concerns that we will not understand what is going into one and what is going into the other. I repeat that point again, because it is very important to some of the previous points under discussion in earlier days in Committee about how the two fit together.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Indeed, I am aware that those conversations have been happening and, as a Transport Minister, perhaps I had better not add anything further. However, it is worth highlighting that the Government are taking forward other policies for cycling and walking, which I believe will be helpful to local authorities in thinking about how cycling, walking and active travel are taken into account when it comes to local development. The Manual for the Streets guidance is incredibly important and is being updated. We are also planning to refresh the guidance supporting the development of the local transport plan.
It is also worth noting the tens of millions of pounds that the Government have awarded to local transport authorities to upskill the capacity and capabilities of their staff to ensure that things happen. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned her council in Kirklees, where things all seem to be tickety-boo. Therefore, I would expect other local authorities to look at that council to try to emulate that because, essentially, we want local decisions to be taken locally—that is at the heart of this matter.
I turn now to the amendment on railway accessibility in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I appreciate the contributions made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, providing details of specific areas where we need to make improvement. Improved access to the railway is a key priority for the Government. The Transport Secretary is committed to funding transport infrastructure improvements, including improvements to stations to make them more accessible for disabled passengers. The Department for Transport has already invested £383 million under the Access for All programme between 2019 and 2024, and there is more to come.
The Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations, published in 2015, set out the standards that must be met when new railway infrastructure or facilities are installed, renewed or replaced. Noble Lords may question the date of 2015 and say that it is a little while ago, but I reassure them that the process is being set out at the moment as to how the standards will be refreshed.
Noble Lords will also be aware that the Government have now completed an audit of all stations across the network. That data will be shared with Great British Railways; it will be made public; and that will be very helpful for ensuring that as many people as possible who are less mobile can travel. I accept, however, that some stations remain less accessible. Can we fix them all at once? I am afraid we cannot, but I would like to reassure the Committee that all stations, regardless of size and location, are eligible for funding under the Access for All programme.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I am very pleased to hear about the Government’s commitment and that we will soon get details that will help us on this. We all acknowledge that you cannot do it all at once. What we want to see is progress, so I was very disappointed to read about the Network Rail briefing this week, which became public. It said that the amount of money available was not enough to maintain existing standards of reliability on the railways, let alone make progress with improving accessibility. The noble Baroness might like to make a comment on that.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness would probably decline to make a comment on that at this moment, as that would take us far away from the area of accessibility, which is under consideration today. However, the noble Baroness asked whether progress had been made. So far, step-free accessible routes have been delivered at 200 stations, and smaller-scale access improvements have been made at 1,500 stations. We have made progress; there is much more progress to come; and we are absolutely committed to making it.
Amendments 470 and 486 relate to the charging of electric vehicles, I share all noble Lords’ concerns about electric vehicle charge points and how important they are as we decarbonise our transport system. The first of the two amendments seeks to amend the Electricity Act 1989 to add an explicit reference to electric vehicle charge point provision in addition to the need to
“secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are met”.
The Electricity Act 1989 already requires the Secretary of State to give regard to securing that all reasonable demands for electricity are met. This requirement already includes the charging of electric vehicles. We therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary, and indeed that it might be unhelpful to other equally critical areas of the decarbonisation effort such as, for example, heat pumps. In carrying out this duty under the Electricity Act, the Secretary of State works closely with Ofgem, as the independent energy regulator is responsible for regulating network companies to ensure that sufficient grid capacity is built and operated to meet consumer demand. Of course, we work very closely with Ofgem as price controls are developed, so that our work aligns to meet the needs of customers, including electric vehicle users.
We are investing £3.1 billion for network upgrades to support the uptake of electric vehicles and heat pumps. This is significant upfront funding and, combined with an agile price control system for net zero-related expenditure, it will enable the investment in the network infrastructure needed to facilitate heat and transport electrification.
There were a number of questions around the provision of charge points themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about new homes. We laid legislation that came into force in June last year requiring most new homes and those undergoing major renovation with associated parking in England to have a charge point or a cable route for charge points installed from the outset. We estimate that this will lead to the installation of up to 145,000 new charge points across England every year.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about home and business charge points. The Government have supported the installation of about 400,000 of these charge points. Of course, there will be many, many more out there that have been installed without government support—and, to my mind, long may that continue.
I turn now to the second of the two amendments on charge points, which relates to reporting. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, because I am pleased to confirm that the Government routinely publish monthly and quarterly EV public charging device statistics. These are broken down by device speed category, region and local authority area. The latest report outlined that, as of 1 April, there are more than 40,000 available public charging devices, of which more than 7,600 are rapid or above charging devices—a 33% increase. We also routinely publish the number of devices funded through government grant schemes. As I pointed out, many more will be installed that are not funded by the Government, and we would not necessarily be able to find out where they are. If there is further information that the noble Baroness would like about public charging points that we might reasonably be able to gather, I would be very happy to discuss this with her further. I have noted the other comments on EV charge points and will reflect on them further.
Finally, I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about a blanket reduction on restricted roads from 30 to 20 miles per hour. I noted some of the comments from the noble Baroness, and I agreed with some of them. None the less, I am not convinced that a blanket application of this lower speed limit is appropriate because, again, it would undermine local decision-makers’ ability to set the most appropriate speed for the roads in their area, based on local knowledge and the views of the local community. Actually, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, agrees with me. Indeed, she seems to agree with me for England but not for Wales, where it is not something that a local authority can decide.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I believe there was widespread consultation from the Welsh Government with Welsh local government in terms of doing this. I have that in my notes, but my notes are a bit scribbly and I missed it out. May I just make the point that the Welsh Government, as they always do, have consulted very widely with Welsh local government on this?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
That is fantastic to hear, and I am sure that all local authorities 100% agreed with the Welsh Government in that regard.
The second element to this is that a blanket approach would be—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Would the Minister acknowledge that 30 miles per hour was, of course, the blanket applied by Westminster? That is what has been set by Westminster, and it is of considerable cost for councils to apply a reduction. We are discussing the levelling-up Bill, and it is councils in the poorest areas of the country that would see the greatest benefits but may well not have the money to be able to bring in that improvement for their residents.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I was about to come on to the fact that changing the speed limit on a blanket basis would be incredibly costly and complex to introduce. I go back to the first point, which I believe is the stronger of the two arguments, because you can throw money at anything and make it work. Local authorities quite rightly have the power to set speed limits on the roads in their areas. Many local authorities have decided to do 20 miles per hour zones in all or parts of their area, and that is entirely up to them. We endorse that approach in Department for Transport guidance and, particularly, we think that that is something that should be considered where pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles are all in close proximity. However, they are not always in close proximity. There will be roads which the local community and their local elected leaders will decide should stay at 30.
If one were to apply this blanket change to 20 miles per hour, what would happen is that all of the repeater signs for 20 miles per hour that already exist for those areas that are 20 miles an hour would have to be removed, or there would have to be repeater signs for 30 miles an hour put in. This would, of course, be after the local authority had gone through its entire road network to figure out which roads should be at which speed. So I believe that where we are at the moment provides the balance between ensuring that local people are taking responsibility and decisions for matters that affect their local communities, based on their local knowledge. The corollary to that is that if one applies a blanket approach now, it would be very costly, as the noble Baroness has already pointed out herself.
With the assurance that I have given in relation to each of the amendments in this group, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will feel able to withdraw his Amendment 240 and that the other amendments in this group are not moved when they are reached.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this excellent debate. Many of them are probably the usual suspects on these things, but it has been a useful debate, reinforcing many of the views that we have all held for a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, mentioned PPG13; I remember it when I was in the commercial side, which is a very long time. Christian Wolmar is still chair of the Labour transport group and we are both patrons of the All-Party Group for Cycling and Walking. The group held an event in Portcullis House yesterday and Mr Wolmar was there promoting this. It is working very hard, which is good to know.
I will not respond to all the other comments on other amendments; it is not my place to do that. I just point out to the Minister, who mentioned the NPPF and the question in relation to my Amendment 240 on whether we should rely on the new NPPFs, that I said in my opening remarks that the current one mentions local cycling and walking infrastructure plans only very briefly and does not mention right of way improvement plans at all. We will need to look very carefully at what the Minister said in her helpful response and decide whether we bring back something different on Report.
I cannot resist one last comment on the speed limit issues. Once we all have electronic self-driving cars, it can all be changed anywhere at the click of a mouse—if we believe that will ever happen.
On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Meaning of “affordable housing”: affordable rent(1) In Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (glossary), in paragraph (a) of the definition of “affordable housing” (affordable housing for rent) omit “or Affordable Rent, or is at least 20% below local market rents (including service charges where applicable)”.(2) As soon as reasonably practicable and within two months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework, replacing the Affordable Housing for Rent definition with one based on incomes not market rates.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 241A, I shall speak also to my Amendment 500 and comment on other amendments in this group.
I should declare from the outset that social housing is a topic very close to my heart. As a new-town child, when I was growing up, more than 30,000 of the 38,000 homes in my town were built and managed by the development corporation and later taken over by the council. Almost everyone I knew lived in a council home. They had been built in self-contained neighbourhoods with large amounts of green space, schools, health facilities, shops and so on all within a 10-minute walk. They were mostly two, three and four-bedroom family houses with gardens. Sadly, as land values have increased, that type of development is all too scarce.
As noble Lords will be aware, the introduction of right to buy not only took a scythe to housing stocks but, particularly in the new towns, disrupted the community cohesion brought about by shared housing tenure. Those 30,000 homes that I mentioned earlier have reduced to just over 8,000 now. The figure for the UK is that there are around 1.5 million fewer council homes now than in 1980. Councillors’ inboxes are full—permanently—of housing cases. Surely the generations who benefited from right to buy cannot just pull up the ladder behind them. From the experience of my councillor surgeries, they had not anticipated the impact on their children and grandchildren, never mind all the other young people for whom private renting, let along buying homes, is fast disappearing over their financial horizon.
Just yesterday, we had a shocking report from the National Housing Federation, setting out the impact of overcrowding, particularly on the life opportunities of young people. The findings of its report say that more than 300,000 children in England have to share beds with other family members. Some 2 million children live in cramped conditions with little or no personal space. Ethnic minority households are three times more likely to be overcrowded than white households. More than one-quarter of the parents living in overcrowded homes who were questioned by researchers said that they regularly had to sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen.
The family featured in the National Housing Federation press release, Joanna and her daughter Deni, were forced to seek council help when private rented accommodation became too expensive. Joanna had never been able to afford a two-bedroom property but, with rents soaring, now struggles to afford a one-bedroom flat. Deni, a talented musical student who is on the Royal Opera House programme for promising singers, has shared a bed with her mother for the whole of her 10 years and spends school holidays sitting on that bed while her mother works from home.
My own casework contains hundreds of housing cases a year, around 70% of which relate to homelessness, overcrowding or affordability. Shelter, which does such magnificent work in this area, held an independent commission which pointed out that we have lost 1.5 million social homes since 1980 and recommended that government rediscover publicly built housing as a key pillar of our national infrastructure by building 3.1 million new social homes over the next 20 years. That is a very ambitious target, especially when we note that only 6,463 more social homes were built last year, and 500 of those were by my local authority. After the Second World War, local authorities built more than 126,000 social homes a year. The biggest barriers are land and funding. Shelter, IPPR, CPRE, National Housing Federation, Onward and Create Streets all call for reform of the Land Compensation Act 1961, so that landowners are paid a fair price for their land without hope value. We will discuss this when we come to future amendments. Local government has also argued for many years that we should retain 100% of our right-to-buy receipts. We welcome recent developments on that front but, had it happened decades ago, we would not have seen the catastrophic impact on housing stock levels.
The Resolution Foundation’s Housing Outlook report for the first quarter of 2023 stated that, although mortgagors had been affected by rising interest rates,
“private and social renters are much more likely to report falling behind or struggling with their housing costs”.
It also said that,
“worryingly high numbers of … renters report signs of material deprivation and are resorting to sometimes unsustainable strategies to manage their housing costs”.
They include borrowing money, using savings or not heating their homes. The ONS deems rental properties affordable if a household does not spend more than 30% of its income on rent. In this country, only the east Midlands and the north-west had rent prices affordable to those in the lower quartile of household income.
There are also key financial drivers to the provision of social rented homes. First, the rent paid by social renters is recirculated to improve stock, build new homes, develop specialist housing and so on. This is sometimes the case with good private landlords, but not always. Secondly, it makes no sense to subsidise higher private rents through the benefits systems. A rapid increase in social housing stock would generate savings, as there are stark contrasts in rent levels. The figures for my area are indeed stark, with social rent for a two-bedroom property at £110 a week and private rent at £235. The local housing allowance is just £195. The amount that councils spend on temporary accommodation has increased by 71% in the past five years and now costs more than £1 billion a year.
I hope that I have set out clearly the issues and the impact that housing supply is having on the affordability of housing. My Amendment 241A is included to remove from the NPPF the spurious term “affordable housing” from rented properties that are 20% below market rent. In many areas, that would be far from affordable. For many families on low incomes, the only affordable housing is social rented housing.
Amendment 242, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and Amendment 242ZA, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, attempt a comprehensive redefinition of the term “affordable home” to ensure that there is a link between median incomes and the definition of affordable homes, with that definition then enshrined in regulations. We support this proposal in principle and would want to work with the sector to ensure that there is a much more meaningful definition included in legislation and in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Amendment 262 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, highlights the specific issues of affordable housing in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The issues around these were clearly elucidated by my noble friend Lady Hayman yesterday—I am sorry, on Tuesday. The weeks go by with this Bill, I am afraid. She quoted the former chair of National Parks England, Carl Lis, who warned that young people and national park staff are being forced out of their communities, in part by the high prices driven by exclusive holiday homes. She also referred to a statement by the Secretary of State in the other place on 21 March in which he pledged planning changes to the Bill to ensure that restrictions would be put in place on conversions of homes to Airbnbs. Failure to act on this important issue will see the continued decimation of communities in our most precious landscapes, as increasing numbers of homes are bought for second homes and converted to Airbnb use. Local councils must be able to use the planning system in the best interests of their communities. I hope that this amendment and that submitted by my noble friend on Tuesday, or a version of them, will be accepted to achieve the Secretary of State’s aim.
Amendment 286 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, suggests bringing forward the requirements of the future homes standard to June 2023. In view of the protracted progress on the Bill through your Lordships’ House, this may prove a tad ambitious, although, of course, we hope that these can be implemented as quickly as possible. The second part of this amendment would grant powers to local authorities to determine for themselves what percentage of affordable homes is needed. We absolutely accept this in terms of devolution principles, but I just echo my noble friend Lady Hayman’s comments on Tuesday that, although we must be serious about meeting the affordable housing need, we also need to consider that communities need mixed tenures in housing.
We support Amendment 438 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Shipley. I remember the absolute horror with which the original announcement of this measure was greeted by my colleagues in local government in 2012. Some London boroughs rightly pointed out that every property in their housing stock would exceed the threshold. We welcome the fact that the Government have already committed that they will scrap this policy, so perhaps incorporating this amendment is a quick and easy way to do so.
Lastly, I turn to my Amendment 500. Mission 10 in the White Paper is the key mission relating to housing. While its ambition in terms of improving the quality of rented property is admirable, in other ways it looks at housing through the wrong end of the lens: it sees levelling up only through the point of view of property ownership. For millions of people on housing waiting lists, in temporary accommodation, sleeping on their friends’ sofas or, as in a case I dealt with yesterday, having to conduct access visits with their children in their car because they have nowhere to live, the prospect of a safe, sustainable home with a secure social housing tenancy would meet their immediate aspirations of levelling up. That is why we hope the Government will recognise the absolute importance and value of social housing and use the opportunity of the Bill to commit to building the numbers we need. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendment 242 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I do so having consulted the Bishop of Chelmsford, who leads for the Church of England on housing but is unable to be here today. It is clear, I think, that we need to rethink what genuinely affordable housing is and how an adequate supply can be delivered. In London, the south-east and many other areas across the country, the current affordable housing for rent definition of 20% below market rates makes little difference to those on a median income, let alone those in most need. Without redefinition, we will continue to work under the illusion that homes classed as affordable are helping to solve the housing affordability crisis, when for the most part they are not.
Of course, we need a multifaceted approach to solve the lack of affordable homes. I was interested to learn from the Bishop of Chelmsford that Vicky Ford MP has been addressing this in relation to Chelmsford. During her 10-minute rule Bill debate on 22 February, she spoke to the shortage of affordable housing we face locally and nationally. Her Affordable Housing (Conversion of Commercial Property) Bill would apply affordable housing obligations to conversions of commercial property to residential occupancy. The Bill is due its Second Reading in the Commons on 26 May, and we certainly hope that it will make some progress.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased that I chose to give way to the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Leeds, because he has done a superb job in introducing the amendment in my name, and I thank him very much for that. Perhaps I can just step back and look at the group that we are debating as a whole. There are five different approaches from the different amendments, which are all tackling the same problem. They approach it in different ways, but they are all aiming at a common destination. I will say to the Minister that it would be a mistake for her to simply play off the five different amendments and assume that there is no consensus and that this can simply be dismissed. They are all aimed at correcting the same fundamental policy mistake, which is to assume that the current formulation of the words “affordable homes” actually means affordable homes. It does not. It does not mean that, either in the private rented sector or the private ownership sector.
The highly desirable provision of affordable homes is supposed to be delivered through the planning obligations placed on developers when planning permission is granted. The calculation of that affordability is currently based on 80% of the market sale price of that property on that site or, alternatively, 80% of the market rent which is applicable in that general locality. Now the reality is that in many parts of England, especially but not only in London, taking 20% off either the market price or the rental price, while it does make it cheaper, does not make it affordable to those in the most local housing need.
My noble friend Lord Foster provided me with a typical case that illustrates this rather dramatically. It relates to Southwold in east Suffolk, where there are significant housing problems—for instance, last month, 31 homeless families applied to occupy one vacant rental property. So, there is absolutely no shortage of demand; it is a rural area 100 miles away from London. There is a terrible shortage of supply, despite the availability of so-called “affordable homes” achieved as a result of a planning agreement. One such so-called affordable shared ownership property in Southwold has been on the market for two years, during which time there have been no eligible local people able to afford to take it on. Local incomes are simply not high enough. That unaffordable home is on a redeveloped former hospital site where more than £1 million of public money has been contributed to “prioritise housing for local people”. Now, because there has been no eligible buyer, that home is going on the open market. That is a tragic lost opportunity to provide a home to meet local need; and, of course, it is a pitiful waste of public money.
In most London boroughs, affordable homes are not in reach unless you have two professional incomes at the household’s disposal. If Ministers doubt that, I suggest that they might like to ask the civil servants sitting in the Box behind them about their housing circumstances. Young professionals in London are squeezed out of the purchasing market and in grave difficulty even in the renting market. Those two London professionals who put their incomes together will perhaps be able to buy a house at a discounted price. That is good, but it is not a solution to London’s housing crisis. In Southwold and many other areas of the country, neither professional employment nor the bank of mum and dad can bridge the gap between real life and the policy intentions of “affordable homes”.
The five amendments in this group on this topic all start from the premise that affordability has real meaning only if it is based on income levels and not on the market or capital value of the home. Amendment 242 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Thornhill was the first to appear on the Order Paper, but I concede that it is not necessarily the best option for the Minister, because it sets out a simple way of calculating affordability and might perhaps be best described as a statutory instrument rather than an approach to go in a Bill. But what we have is a formula that is based on existing databases for homes for sale, rent and shared ownership. That calculation is focused on local housing allowance figures for renters and for purchasers of median household income. We do not need a royal commission to consider these matters, nor indeed does the ONS need to devise a new way of measuring things. Everything is there, so the Minister could just get on with it.
I very much welcome the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, with whom I had discussions beforehand, and now of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, for my Amendment 242, but I recognise that such a specific amendment might in itself be controversial. Therefore, my noble friend Lady Pinnock and I also tabled Amendment 242ZA, which puts the same proposition in the court of the Minister or the Secretary of State to write the regulations rather than us doing it for him. I do not need to spend too much time advocating for either of these or commenting on the other options in the group. All are aimed at a complete reset of the affordability policy as it stands in the NPPF, so that homes set aside under that policy in future are affordable for those in housing need.
However, I need to spend a short time underlining that there are at least two parallel affordability bottlenecks. The first, which my Southwold example highlights, is the bottleneck—almost the deceit—caused by the assumption that a home sold at 80% of its market price is likely to be affordable to those in most housing need. It is true that such homes bring a new slice of first-time buyers into the market, but in many places they will be people with substantial incomes, a long way above those referred to by the right reverend Prelate and so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage.
Providing them through the planning system as affordable homes misleadingly implies—sometimes it is explicitly said—that it is a significant move towards tackling and reducing housing need for those in most hardship. That is simply not true. The recalibration we seek in my two amendments is to put that right and bring all such homes within reach of any household at or above the median income for that area. My noble friend Lord Foster tells me that, in Southwold, the affordability ratio is currently 17:1. That is outrageous. What happens to the affordability ratio if you take 20% off the price? It becomes 13:1. That does not make it affordable. Affordability defined like that is simply a poor joke.
The second bottleneck is the provision of an affordable home for households whose income is below the median and for whom a house purchase is completely out of sight. Such a household will by default be in the formal or, increasingly, the informal rented sector, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, powerfully illustrated. There is sloppy talk about affordable homes being provided for rent within schemes of development which are far removed from the reality of people’s lives and their ability to pay. As a side note, half of the council homes sold are now back in the private rented sector—it is officially known that half of all the sold social homes have been transferred to the private rented sector, where the average rent is approximately double what it would be. You have terraces with a mixture of former council homes and those that remain social homes where the rent paid can be different by a factor of two, depending on whether it is a sold home or not.
My two amendments offer a solution by setting out clearly what is to be regarded as affordable rent when evaluating developments that purport to provide such accommodation. If adopted, the claims by some developers about their provision of “affordable” units would be weeded out and more genuinely affordable homes for rent would enter the market. For the third category of shared ownership, we recognise that a hybrid calculation of affordability will be required, and we have outlined how it might be done.
However, this is not about the minutiae of particular schemes; it is about recognising and then doing something about turning the hollow words of affordability calculated on house prices into a meaningful policy based on households’ ability to pay. If Ministers accept that basic principle and reshape the existing schemes to make affordable homes affordable, based on income, I am sure that all noble Lords with amendments down would be only too ready to work with them to get the small print right and dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s. Pending that important step, I will keep my Amendment 242.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, before the noble Lord takes his seat, may I apologise for jumping the gun? Before he had been able to speak to his own amendment, there was a silence and, like nature, I abhorred a vacuum, but I do apologise.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I think the spirit moved. It is good the right reverend Prelate spoke first in this case.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak particularly to my Amendment 438, but I will preface my remarks by saying how much I have appreciated this debate and the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. We have explored this issue in a comprehensive and useful way, and I greatly appreciate that.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the Affordable Housing Commission report, which came out in the middle of Covid and was therefore buried and forgotten by everybody. The AHC report, which noble Lords can find via Google or their favourite search engine, was a pretty big effort, thankfully funded fully by the Nationwide Foundation—the Nationwide Building Society’s foundation—with a secretariat from the Smith Institute; I had the honour of chairing this. The report is a pretty meaty document and worth those who are interested in this subject following through, but that was a great debate on those amendments, and I support the essence of all of them.
My amendment 438, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has kindly added his name, seeks to remove from the statute book an obnoxious, offensive legislative measure which has hung over local authorities since the passing of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I reiterate my declaration of interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Back in 2016, I was the LGA president and along with allies from all parts of the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Porter, with his local government expertise, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, we fought—unsuccessfully—to remove these awful sections from the 2016 Act.
What does this part of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 say, and why is it so troublesome? The key section imposes obligations on local authorities to sell their most valuable council housing when tenants move out, rather than reletting the property. It does so by requiring local authorities to pay a levy to the Secretary of State equivalent to the market value of the best council housing when it becomes vacant, multiplied by the estimated number of vacancies for the next year. To raise the money to pay this levy, local authorities would obviously have no option but to sell their most valuable homes. Most of the proceeds from these compulsory sales go straight to the Secretary of State, who, in a convoluted twist, would use the money to compensate housing associations for selling properties at large discounts to their tenants under an extension of the right to buy.
The effect of this extraordinary measure, had it ever been implemented, would have been highly damaging both for local authorities trying to meet the acute need for social housing in their areas and for the families desperately waiting for a home. Council housing would be further stigmatised and labelled as only for those with no hope of anything better, and with fewer re-lets, pressure on the remaining council stock would be even more intense than it already is.
Buyers of the housing which councils would be forced to sell would very often be private landlords who would let to similar occupiers but would charge market rents, thereby imposing twice the burden on the Exchequer for tenants in receipt of benefits. I was glad to catch up with the latest statistic from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell: that 50% of properties sold under the right to buy have been moved into the hands of private landlords and, obviously, let at rents that are twice as much, if not more.
To add insult to injury, the 2016 Act also empowered the Secretary of State to top up this raid on council resources by requiring local authorities to raise the rents to market levels for any tenant foolish enough to increase their income above a fixed level. The extra rent would not go towards management and maintenance of council housing but instead would be remitted to the Secretary of State as a windfall for the Government.
I moved an amendment opposing the measure and it was carried by a huge majority in this House. I even featured on the BBC documentary on the work of the House of Lords. Although it remains in law, it is another ingredient in the 2016 Act that thankfully has not seen the light of day.
Returning to the compulsory sales of higher-value council housing, as is addressed by the amendment, we can now see what a disaster this would have been—but the offending measure remains on the statute book. In reality, this sword of Damocles hanging over councils is no longer a major threat since Government Ministers have made it clear that they have no intention of using these draconian asset-stripping powers. Indeed, I am confident that Ministers understand the imperative for more, not less, social housing provision.
It was, no doubt, the work of an enthusiastic but naive special adviser coming up with a cunning wheeze to extract the cost from local authorities of securing new right-to-buy sales by housing associations. Today there would be little appetite for such shenanigans which would reduce the stock of available social housing, following the right to buy’s removal of 2.8 million council homes and the subsequent higher costs of using the private rented sector instead. Indeed, the right to buy has now been abolished in Scotland, and Wales is following suit.
Councils have welcomed the Government’s recent move enabling them to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts for 2022-23 and 2023-24. With long waiting lists for social housing and the private sector becoming more and more unfeasible for many households, that announcement should support councils trying to replace the homes sold through right to buy. It would be helpful if the Government completed this change and made it permanent rather than just for two years. On this theme, I hope that the Government will finally agree to councils having the ability to set right-to-buy discounts locally as part of the Bill’s emphasis on devolution.
The time has surely come to be rid of this 2016 misguided measure to strip local authorities of their best housing assets. The LGA and others have been waiting for a legislative opportunity for the Government to enact their clear intention to have nothing to do with this defunct legislative device. The Bill provides that opportunity, and I think everyone in local government and in the world of social housing will breathe a sigh of relief to see this expunged from the statute book. I commend this amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I wish to intervene briefly to put this debate in an important context. Before I do so, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Best, on eventually achieving the victory which he sought when the 2016 Act was going through; it was not the best piece of legislation on housing that Parliament has seen. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate said—that we should unfreeze the local housing allowance or, if we cannot, increase the discretionary housing grant, to enable those who find that they cannot meet the rent to have more support.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that “affordable” is a misnomer, but there is a fundamental choice that we have to make, which is: the higher the rents, the more social houses you can build; and the lower the rents, the fewer social houses you can build. That is simply because of the way that social landlords are funded. A Government decide to have a capital fund available for new builds. A Government of a different persuasion may have a higher figure than the current one but, whatever that figure, the number of houses that can be built is dependent on the rent levels which the social landlords can charge.
A Housing Minister has a choice: you can have lower rents, social rents or genuinely affordable rents, but you will get less output. When I had responsibility and was faced with this spectrum, I went for slightly more output but slightly higher rents, to meet the demand for new houses and to build more houses that would last 60 years. I recognise that others may choose to go the other way on the spectrum, but you cannot get away from the fact that this is the choice. If you want to have affordable rents reduced to social rents, the consequence is that you will have fewer houses. I make this intervention at the end of this debate just to put it in a slightly broader context.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have two amendments in my name that I wish to speak to briefly. However, prior to that, I say that my noble friend Lord Stunell made an important point about how all the amendments here are trying to resolve the issue of what is affordable. So-called affordable homes are those built by the commercial sector as part of a development—a planning obligation—yet the challenge for us all is to provide homes at a social rent, which is roughly estimated as 50% of the market rent.
It is a tragedy for this country that successive Governments seem to have abandoned provision of homes for social rent in any large numbers. Local authorities have been severely constrained in building their own social housing, and the provision of homes for social rent has largely been left to housing associations. We then come to the conundrum which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just rightly pointed to—that the capital that housing associations receive from government depends on their flow of rental income. Therefore, do you have more or less? Either way, everybody agrees that there are insufficient homes for social rent.
About 30 years ago, my authority had 42,000 council houses at social rent—it now has 21,000. That is the scale of what has happened. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Stunell is absolutely right that about half of them are now back in the market as private rented properties at a higher rent for folk but without any of the support packages provided for homes for social housing rent within either a local authority or a housing association. That is a huge challenge that this country needs to tackle. One of the key factors in levelling up is a decent home—it is in the levelling-up missions. Millions of people in our country do not live in an adequate, safe home appropriate for their family, and we need to address that scandal.
On affordability, my noble friend Lord Stunell expertly laid out the issues, and I do not wish to say anything, except that obviously I totally support him. I wish to raise one issue about affordability that is a bit of a side issue. It seems that any property built as part of a commercial development which is deemed affordable should be affordable in perpetuity. My own council adopted that policy—I have to say as a result of pressure from my own party there—so that, when the house is bought, the 80% factor remains. The least the Government could do is to include that as part of a definition of affordability.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, before we conclude this group, I start by saying that I do not know how any Government with a social conscience could listen to our debate for the last couple of hours without feeling an urgent desire to scrap the right to buy.
I support Amendment 438 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, concerning the sale of higher-value council residential properties. We must not forget that a lot of them are very old, they may have a lot of bedrooms, and they may be under-occupied, as we understand it, and very expensive to maintain—all good reasons for selling them. But we have a chronic shortage of housing. We all know that; we have heard it repeatedly today. If you geometrically increase that to the chronic shortage of social housing, or affordable housing, it is a crisis. The proceeds of all council residential property sales should be reinvested into social housing and affordable housing. They are not, as we have heard again and again. The failure to replace the units lost by the right to buy—the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to it very eloquently—is a disgrace.
The private developers, who build large numbers of residential units for private sale are under an obligation to provide an allocation under the Section 106 agreements for affordable housing, but this is abused by developers—everyone in the industry knows that. The affordable housing obligation is subject to something called a financial viability appraisal. The bigger developers are frequently huge, multi-million-pound public companies; they have the resources, expertise and firepower to employ legal advisers at the highest and most expensive level to provide the financial viability assessment that suits their purposes. There is no possibility of local authorities being able to take on this challenge, partly because they would have to do it so frequently, and partly because they are short of funds in the first place and hardly able to challenge planning applications even on a private level from time to time. I am afraid that there is very little likelihood of the numbers of social or affordable housing being increased in the short-term. I conclude that—
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that a compounding factor is that the calculations of viability studies are kept secret and that, if they were more transparently available, some of the abuse that he quite rightly refers to would be reduced?
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for his comment. I agree entirely with what he says. Without being able to challenge line-by-line a financial viability appraisal, it becomes an impossible task. A lot of the elements of financial appraisals are subjective, and value is therefore very much in the eye of the beholder. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord’s comment. However, until developers are required to provide sufficient social housing, together with the contribution from government sources, I unconditionally support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levellin Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for his explanation of the difficult decisions that social landlords must navigate through with the competing requirements on their rental amounts. That is really important; it is not just about building other properties—there are many other pressures that we continue to put upon them.
Amendment 241A, and Amendments 242 and 242ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, relate to the definition of affordable housing. It is right to raise the importance of ensuring that affordable housing meets the needs of those who require it. Before addressing the amendments specifically, I assure noble Lords that the Government recognise the need to increase the supply of the most affordable type of affordable housing—that is to say, let at social rent. That is reflected in our commitment in the levelling-up White Paper to increasing the amount of social housing available over time to provide the most affordable housing for those who need it. A large number of new houses to be delivered through our £11.5 billion affordable homes programme will be for social rent.
The consultation that we published before Christmas on the NPPF also recognised the need for more social rent homes. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, we are proposing to make changes to the NPPF to make it clear that local planning authorities should give greater importance in planning to social rent homes when addressing their overall housing requirements in their development plans and making planning decisions. However, we also recognise that local authorities need flexibility to deliver exactly what is needed in their area, and this may vary depending on local circumstances. We want to ensure that, when there is innovation in models for the delivery of much-needed housing to meet the needs of those who require it, we can flex the system to incorporate such innovation.
So, we are aiming for a “Goldilocks zone”. If we define affordable housing too strictly either within the Bill or the NPPF, we risk stripping local authorities of their flexibility to decide what is appropriate in their area. But, if we leave the definition of affordable housing entirely to local authorities, we risk losing the levers to drive important government ambitions, including those relating to the increased delivery of social rent. That is why we are keen to maintain the existing approach, in which the Government set the direction through policy and regulation, while also allowing space for local authorities to shape this approach to best meet local need.
It is for that reason that I am concerned that Amendments 241A, 242 and 242ZA, which are all concerned with linking the definition of affordable housing to a specific measure of income, would be too restrictive. In the National Planning Policy Framework, affordable housing is described as housing for sale or rent to those whose needs are not met by the market and which complies with one or more specific definitions. Those specific definitions encompass several different types of accommodation, to meet the housing needs of a range of people in different circumstances and housing markets.
This includes affordable rent as well as social rent homes. Affordable rent was introduced in 2011 to make it possible to deliver a larger number of affordable homes for a given amount of public investment. This has helped to support the delivery of over 632,600 affordable homes since 2010. Of that total, more than 440,000 were homes for rent and, of these, more than 162,000 were for social rent.
The definition in the National Planning Policy Framework, to be read alongside relevant Written Ministerial Statements and guidance, also encompasses a range of options, including shared ownership and First Homes, that offer routes into home ownership for households whose needs are not met by the market. These options are typically available at a price below market value. Eligibility can also be assessed in relation to overall household income, or in reference to local incomes and house prices.
In relation to shared ownership specifically, the Government understand the need to maximise the scheme’s affordability both at the initial point of purchase and over the longer term. That is why shared ownership is specifically designed to enable prospective buyers to purchase the right percentage share of their home for them, based on an affordability assessment conducted by an independent financial adviser. By linking shared ownership status as a form of affordable housing to a specific measure of income, we would be removing this much-needed flexibility to tailor the scheme to the individual circumstances of prospective buyers.
In relation to compulsory purchase orders and the community infrastructure levy—and its replacement, the infrastructure levy—the definition of affordable housing is linked to the definition of social housing in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. This definition encompasses both “low-cost rental accommodation” and “low-cost home ownership accommodation”. There is flexibility to add other descriptions of housing via regulations.
This ensures that regulations can then be amended so that definitions for the purposes of the community infrastructure fund can also be updated. This approach has been maintained in the Bill for those areas which touch on developer contributions: the infrastructure levy, street votes and community land auctions.
It is right to preserve this flexibility, alongside our proposal that national planning policy should place much greater value on homes for social rent. I therefore hope that the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, will not press their amendments.
I turn next to Amendments 262 and 500 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Taylor of Stevenage. These amendments seek to enable local authorities to mandate that new housing under their jurisdiction be affordable; to define “affordable” for that purpose; and to enable Ministers to set legally binding targets for the construction of social housing.
Lord Stunell (LD)
The Minister is being extremely thorough. She has emphasised very much that she does not want to constrain local authorities exercising their decisions as is appropriate for their area. Can she give us some assurance that when the NDMPs and the revised NPPF are published that we will not find that they are being constrained via a different route?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I cannot give that assurance because we have not yet published them, but from everything I know of where the Bill is going with planning, we are encouraging local authorities to make those local decisions within the national framework, and I do not expect any further constraints on local authorities in that regard.
This is probably the right time to also bring up the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, raised about transparency and viability. We agree with many of the criticisms of the misuse of viability assessments. That is why we are introducing the infrastructure levy, which removes the need for viability assessments as part of the planning permission process. If we take it out of the process, I hope we will not have this argument in the beginning. I have had many arguments over viability in the past. If we take it out of the system, I hope that will stop in future.
Moving to Amendment 438, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, I understand why he has put forward his amendments. While I appreciate totally the sentiment behind them, we do not believe this would be the correct legislative vehicle for this policy. The Government have provided public assurances that they will not require local authorities to make a payment in respect of their vacant higher value council homes in the social housing Green Paper and stand by that commitment. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill does not address the topic of social housing, and the Government do not wish further to complicate such a complex set of legislative measures. However, the Government remain committed to legislating on this issue at an appropriate time in the future. I can provide assurances at the Dispatch Box to the noble Lord that the provisions laid out in Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have not been brought into effect and this Government have no intention of doing so. The provisions lack a regulatory framework to underpin the policy, and therefore there is no risk of local authorities being subject to them before we are able to legislate in the future. I hope this reassures the noble Lord that the Government remain committed to the decisions set out in the social housing Green Paper and that provisions will be made in future for this revocation to be issued. I hope the noble Lord will feel able not to move the amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for such an interesting debate on a crucial topic central to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. As a result of the discussions we have had, the National Housing Federation’s figure for people in need of social housing is now 3.8 million—that is 1.6 million households. That is around 500,000 more households than the 1.16 million that are on official waiting lists. We all know the reasons for that: not everybody who is in need of housing will necessarily want to spend the next 20 years on a housing waiting list. In so many areas it is impossible to see people ever being housed as a result of those housing lists.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for his important comments, particularly about us needing to understand what genuinely affordable housing means. It certainly does not mean the definition that is used in planning at the moment. I agree with his comment that we are under an illusion that housing built under the “affordable homes” category will resolve the housing crisis—it will not. I totally support his comments about unfreezing local housing allowance levels, which would be an important step. Over many decades, we have seen sticking-plaster approaches to tackling the housing situation in this country, which consequently continues to deteriorate.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, rightly said that all of the amendments in this group are aimed at the same destination. Neither in renting nor in homes for sale does “affordability” mean what it says on the tin. We are all trying to make sure that we do what we can in the Bill to change that to some extent.
It is misleading to say that the Help to Buy schemes, which the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, mentioned, will tackle the issue for those most in need of housing. Taking a little risk, I will mention a conversation I had with a former Conservative Minister, who said, “I don’t know why you keep banging on about social housing, Sharon. Everyone can afford to buy a house under our Help to Buy scheme”. That is clearly not the case. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, quoted his noble friend who said that, in Southwold, the affordability ratio is 17:1, and 13:1 after a 20% discount. That is the case in quite a lot of the country, although not everywhere.
More than 50% of social homes have been transferred into the private rented sector, which is a great grievance to those of us who deal with the impact of that. Where that rent is paid by universal credit or other benefits, instead of DWP paying—I shall use the figures I quoted earlier—£110 a week rent for those properties, the public purse now pays £235 a week for them. That does not make any sense at all, so we need to do all we can to address this situation.
As ever, I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Best, about his amendment. I thank him for reminding us about the Affordable Housing Commission report, which is very good and we all need to take account of it. I am afraid I found the Minister’s comments on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, a bit disappointing. None of us, including the Government, want this measure. The noble Lord, Lord Best, called it an “obnoxious” and “offensive” legislative provision, which it is. He pointed out that it has hung over local government since 2016. We could use this legislation to get rid of it. Why do we not do that? Under that legislation, local authorities were expected to raise the rent to market levels where tenants improved their financial situation. When that happened, it greatly concerned me that this would not benefit local communities or our housing stock but would tip into the bottomless bucket in the Treasury. It is time that that provision was scrapped. I absolutely support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about local decisions being taken on right-to-buy discounts. That measure is way past time, and we should absolutely have it.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke about unfreezing local housing allowance, which I agree with. He also mentioned discretionary housing payments. In many local authorities, the allocated amount of discretionary housing payment runs out in Quarter 1, and then various bodies, including government advisory bodies and Citizens Advice, often send tenants to their councils to request discretionary housing payment, when in fact it has run out in the first three months of the year. That is simply because of the cost of living crisis and the level of rents that are putting so much pressure on those discretionary housing payments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Local Government Act 1972
A1 In section 138C of the Local Government Act 1972 (application of sections 138A and 138B to other authorities), in subsections (1)(s) and (2)(c), for “an order under section 29” substitute “regulations made under section 15J”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts an amendment to the Local Government Act 1972 which is consequential upon Schedule 7 to the Bill.
“1A In section 2A (the Mayor of London: applications of potential strategic importance), in subsection (6)(aa), for “development plan document” substitute “local plan, document which is or forms part of a minerals and waste plan or supplementary plan”.1B In section 59A (development orders: permission in principle)—(a) in paragraph (b) of subsection (3)—(i) for “development plan document” substitute “local plan or supplementary plan”;(ii) for “section 37” substitute “section 15LH”;(b) after that paragraph insert—“(ba) a document which is, or forms part of, a minerals and waste plan within the meaning of Part 2 of the 2004 Act (“a minerals and waste plan document”);”(c) in subsection (5)(b), for “development plan document” substitute “local plan, minerals and waste plan document or supplementary plan”.1C In section 70(4) (determination of applications: definitions), in paragraph (l) of the definition of “relevant authority”, for “section 29” substitute “section 15J”. 1D In section 74 (directions etc as to method of dealing with applications), in subsection (1BB) for “development plan document” substitute “local plan, document which is or forms part of a minerals and waste plan or supplementary plan”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which are consequential upon Schedule 7 to the Bill.
“2A In section 306 (contributions by local authorities and statutory undertakers), in subsection (2)(ab)—(a) after “by a” insert “minerals and waste planning authority or”;(b) after “duty of” insert “minerals and waste planning authority or”.2B In section 324 (rights of entry), in subsection (1)(a), for “local development document” substitute “local plan, document which is or forms part of a minerals and waste plan or supplementary plan”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which are consequential upon Schedule 7 to the Bill.
“3A “(1) Schedule 1 (local planning authorities: distribution of functions) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 7, for sub-paragraph (10) substitute—“(10) A relevant county policy is a policy contained in a relevant document, plan or revision which—(a) has been submitted for independent examination under Part 2 of the 2004 Act and has not been withdrawn, or(b) has been adopted, approved or made for the purposes of that Part.(10A) In sub-paragraph (10)—(a) a “relevant document, plan or revision” means—(i) a document prepared to be, or to form part of, the county planning authority’s minerals and waste plan for the purposes of Part 2 of the 2004 Act,(ii) a revision of a document which is, or forms part of, the county planning authority’s minerals and waste plan for the purposes of that Part,(iii) a supplementary plan prepared by the county planning authority acting as a minerals and waste planning authority under that Part, or(iv) a revision of a such a supplementary plan;(b) the reference to submission of a relevant document, plan or revision for independent examination under Part 2 of the 2004 Act is to be taken to include any case where an independent examination is held under that Part.”(3) In paragraph 8(3E), in paragraph (b) of the definition of “relevant neighbourhood development plan”, for “(3)” substitute “(2A)”.(4) In paragraph 8A(2), in paragraph (b) of the definition of “relevant neighbourhood development plan”, for “(3)” substitute “(2A)”.3B In Schedule 13 (blighted land), in paragraph 1A—(a) for “development plan document”, in the first place it appears, substitute “local plan, minerals and waste plan or supplementary plan”;(b) for Note (2) substitute—“(2) For the purposes of this paragraph a local plan is a local plan, or revision of such a plan, which— (a) has been submitted for independent examination under Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (in this paragraph, “the 2004 Act”) and has not been withdrawn, or(b) has been adopted, approved or made for the purposes of that Part.(2ZA) For the purposes of this paragraph a minerals and waste plan is a document prepared to be or to form part of a minerals and waste plan, or a revision of such a document, which—(a) has been submitted for independent examination under Part 2 of the 2004 Act and has not been withdrawn, or(b) has been adopted, approved or made for the purposes of that Part.(2ZB) For the purposes of this paragraph a supplementary plan is a supplementary plan, or a revision of such a plan, which—(a) has been submitted for independent examination under Part 2 of the 2004 Act and has not been withdrawn, or(b) has been adopted, approved or made for the purposes of that Part.”;(c) omit Note (3);(d) for Note (4) substitute—“(4) In Notes (2) to (2ZB) the references to submission of a local plan, a supplementary plan, a document or a revision for independent examination under Part 2 of the 2004 Act are to be taken to include any case where an independent examination is held under that Part.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which are consequential upon Schedule 7 to the Bill.
“3A GLAA 1999 is amended as follows.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the sixth amendment in the Minister’s name to Schedule 8 to the Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the seventh amendment in the Minister’s name to Schedule 8 to the Bill.
“4A In section 346 (monitoring and data collection), in paragraph (b), for “local development documents” substitute “local plan, any document which is or forms part of a minerals and waste plan and any supplementary plans”.4B In section 347 (functional bodies to have regard to strategy)—(a) for “section 24” substitute “sections 15CA(2) and 15CC(7)”;(b) for “requires certain of a Mayoral development corporation’s documents” substitute “require local plans, minerals and waste plans and supplementary plans”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts amendments to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 which are consequential upon Schedule 7 to the Bill.
“Commons Act 2006
15 In Schedule 1A to the Commons Act 2006 (exclusion of right under section 15 of that Act (registration of greens): England), in the Table—(a) in paragraph 3 of the first column—(i) for “development plan document” substitute “local plan, a document which is to be or to form part of a minerals and waste plan or a supplementary plan”;(ii) for “section 17(7)” substitute “section 15LE(2)(g)”;(b) in paragraph (a) of the entry in the second column corresponding to paragraph 3—(i) after “The” insert “plan or”;(ii) for “under section 22(1) of the 2004 Act” substitute “under—(i) in the case of a local plan, section 15E of the 2004 Act;(ii) in the case of a document which is to be or to form part of a minerals and waste plan, section 15E of that Act (as applied by section 15CB(7) of that Act);(iii) in the case of a supplementary plan, regulations made under section 15CC(11) of that Act.”(c) for paragraph (b) of the entry in the second column corresponding to paragraph 3 substitute—“(b) The plan or document is adopted or approved under Part 2 of that Act (but see paragraph 4 of this Table).”;(d) in paragraph (c) of the entry in the second column corresponding to paragraph 3, after “which the” insert “plan or”;(e) for paragraph 4 of the first column substitute—“4 A local plan, a document which is or forms part of a minerals and waste plan or a supplementary plan, which identifies the land for potential development, is adopted or approved under Part 2 of the 2004 Act.”;(f) in paragraph (a) of the entry in the second column corresponding to paragraph 4—(i) after “The” insert “plan or”;(ii) for “section 25 of the 2004 Act” substitute “section 15G of the 2004 Act (including as applied by section 15CB(7) of that Act, in the case of a minerals and waste plan)”;(g) in paragraph (b) of the entry in the second column corresponding to paragraph 4, after “in the” insert “plan or”.Planning and Energy Act 2008
16 The Planning and Energy Act 2008 is amended as follows.17 (1) Section 1 (energy policies) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), for “development plan documents,” substitute “local plan and any supplementary plan, a minerals and waste planning authority may in their minerals and waste plan and any supplementary plan,”.(3) After that subsection insert—“(1ZA) In relation to the minerals and waste plan or supplementary plan of a minerals and waste planning authority, references in subsection (1) to development in their area are to minerals and waste development in the relevant area.”(4) In subsection (4)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “section 19” substitute “sections 15C, 15CA and 15CC”;(b) after that paragraph insert—“(aza) sections 15CB and 15CC of that Act, in the case of a minerals and waste planning authority;” (5) In subsection (5), for “development plan documents” substitute “a local plan, a minerals and waste plan or a supplementary plan”.18 In section 2 (interpretation), for the definition of “development plan document” substitute—““local plan” , “minerals and waste development”, “minerals and waste plan”, “minerals and waste planning authority”, “relevant area” and “supplementary plan” have the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (see, in particular, section 15LH of that Act);”Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009
19 (1) Schedule 6 to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (marine plans: preparation and adoption) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 1—(a) in sub-paragraph (2), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) any minerals and waste planning authority whose relevant area adjoins or is adjacent to the marine plan area;”;(b) in sub-paragraph (3)—(i) in paragraph (a) of the definition of “local planning authority”, for “section 37” substitute “section 15LF”;(ii) after that definition insert—““minerals and waste planning authority” means an authority which is a minerals and waste planning authority for the purposes of Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (see section 15LG of that Act) and “relevant area” has the meaning given by that section.”(3) In paragraph 3(6), in paragraph (a) of the definition of “development plan”, for “section 38(2) to (4)” substitute “section 38(2A) to (4)”.Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (S.I. 2011/988)
20 In regulation 16(3) of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (general interpretation: meaning of planning authority), for sub-paragraph (b) substitute—“(ba) a local planning authority or minerals and waste planning authority for the purposes of Part 2 of the 2004 Act;”.Housing and Planning Act 2016
21 The Housing and Planning Act 2016 is amended as follows.22 In section 6 (starter homes: monitoring), in subsection (2), omit paragraph (c).23 In section 7 (starter homes: compliance directions), in subsection (1)(b) for “local development document” substitute “local plan, document which is or forms part of a minerals and waste plan or supplementary plan”.24 In section 8 (starter homes: interpretation), for the definition of “local development document” substitute—““local plan” , “minerals and waste plan” and “supplementary plan” have the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (see, in particular, section 15LH of that Act);”Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012)
25 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 are amended as follows.26 (1) Regulation 41 (nature conservation policy in planning contexts) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (1), after “of land” insert “or minerals and waste development”. (3) In paragraph (2)(a)(i)—(a) for “section 17(3)” substitute “sections 15C(3) and (4) and 15CC(3)”;(b) for “local development documents” substitute “local plans and supplementary plans made by local planning authorities”.(4) Omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (2)(a)(ii).(5) After paragraph (2)(a) insert—“(aa) in relation to minerals and waste development, sections 15CB(2) and (3) and 15CC(5) of that Act; and”27 (1) Regulation 108 (co-ordination for land use plan prepared by more than one authority) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (1), for the words from “prepare” to the end substitute “prepare a relevant joint plan”.(3) In paragraph (2), for “joint local development document or plan” substitute “relevant joint plan”.(4) In paragraph (3), for “joint local planning document or plan” substitute “relevant joint plan”.(5) In paragraph (5), for “joint local development document or plan” substitute “relevant joint plan”.(6) After that paragraph insert—“(6) In this regulation “relevant joint plan” means—(a) a joint spatial development strategy, joint local plan or joint supplementary plan (within the meaning of Part 2 of the 2004 Planning Act),(b) a document which is or forms part of a joint minerals and waste plan under sections 15I and 15IA of that Act (as applied by section 15CB(7) of that Act), or(c) a joint local development plan under section 72 of that Act.”28 (1) Regulation 111 (interpretation of Chapter 8 of Part 6) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (1)—(a) in paragraph (b) of the definition of “land use plan”—(i) for “local development document as provided for in” substitute “joint spatial development strategy, local plan, document which is or forms part of a minerals and waste plan, supplementary plan or any revision of such a plan or document under”;(ii) omit the words from “other” to the end;(b) in paragraph (a) of the definition of “plan-making authority”, after “replacement)” insert “or section 15CC of the 2004 Planning Act (supplementary plans)”;(c) in paragraph (b) of the definition of “plan-making authority” omit “or an order under section 29(2) of the 2004 Planning Act (joint committees)”;(d) after that paragraph insert—“(ba) a local planning authority or minerals and waste planning authority for the purposes of Part 2 of the 2004 Planning Act;”;(e) in paragraph (c) of the definition of “plan-making authority”, omit sub-paragraph (i);(f) after that paragraph insert—“(ca) anyone exercising powers under section 15H, 15HA or 15HB of, or Schedule A1 to, the 2004 Planning Act;”(3) In paragraph (2)—(a) for sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute— “(aa) the adoption of a joint spatial development strategy under section 15AD of the 2004 Planning Act or of an alteration of such a strategy under section 15AF of that Act;(ab) the adoption or approval of a local plan, document which is or forms part of a minerals and waste plan, supplementary plan or a revision of any such document or plan under Part 2 of the 2004 Planning Act;”;(b) in sub-paragraph (c) for “publication” substitute “adoption”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts amendments to various enactments which are consequential upon Schedule 7 to the Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(5) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the day on which this section comes into force, publish a report of a review of the efficacy of Local Heritage Lists and the resources local authorities have to produce them.(6) The Secretary of State must, on the day on which this section comes into force, publish the results of the 2018 review of the non-statutory guidance on Assets of Community Value.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that the Secretary of State must publish a report of a review of Local Heritage Lists and the results of the 2018 review of the non-statutory guidance on Assets of Community Value.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 243 is in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Amendments 244 and 246 in this group are both also in her name. I shall briefly speak to them and make some comments on some of the other amendments in this group.
My noble friend’s Amendment 243 asks the Secretary of State to
“publish a report of a review of Local Heritage Lists and the results of the 2018 review of the non-statutory guidance on Assets of Community Value”.
Amendment 246 also refers to assets of community value—ACVs—asking for draft legislation to be published to reform the processes.
Amendment 244, which is on a slightly separate issue, is about decision-making on temporary stop notices. The amendment says that, when making a decision on the correct recipient of a temporary stop notice, the authority should have regard to the tenancy status of the occupier and their level of responsibility for any works on the property. It is pretty straightforward as to why we have laid this amendment, so I shall be brief. We believe it is really important to guard against a situation where the wrong person may be held accountable for works on a property for which they actually have no responsibility whatever. The Local Government Association was very clear that we should make this point during the debate on the Bill. We believe that other factors should be taken into account before any notice is issued, because we really need to make sure that the correct person—the person liable—is the person that has been identified. It would be very helpful if the Minister could provide some information on how the Government can ensure, in future, that this is what happens, so that we do not end up with people with no responsibility suddenly having a lot of problems with sorting out works on the property in which they are living but for which they do not have responsibility.
We have laid the amendments on the assets of community value because they are very important. We believe that communities should play a key role in both the preservation and the delivery of local assets that sit outside of local authority control. We know that the Localism Act 2011 contains important powers for local communities to be able to do just this, but the problem is that there are issues around how it works. Under current rules, buildings or pieces of land which are, or have been, used to
“further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community and could do so in the future”
can be nominated to be classified as an ACV by community groups or councils. But if an ACV goes up for sale, a local group that can make a decision as to whether it wants to bid for this is given only six months to gauge whether it is able to bid for it—and it is only during that six-month period that the owner is unable to sell it. After that six-month grace period elapses, they can sell assets of community value to anybody they want to. A report compiled by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in Parliament suggested that the six-month grace period was too short and that it would sideline groups in more disadvantaged communities from being able to make bids. We believe that this needs to be changed.
The Labour Party has proposed extending the time frame to 12 months. We believe that local people from every community—not just those who are wealthy and have the resources to put their bids together very quickly—should have the opportunity to take control of, possibly, pubs, historic buildings or, perhaps, football clubs that come up for sale and would otherwise just fall into disrepair. We also believe that they should have first refusal on valuable assets when they come up for sale, including the right to buy them without competition. They should also have the right to force a sale of land or buildings that have been left to fall into a state of significant disrepair. If these processes were reformed to allow and encourage every community to take advantage of it, it would do so much more for the large number of communities that are currently threatened with losing community assets but do not have the ability to put together bids to take them under community control. I urge the Minister to look carefully at how this could be improved for the benefit of all communities.
I would like to make a few comments on Amendment 245, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the results of the Historic England pilot on compensation rights. This comes under Clause 98 of the Bill, which seeks to remove compensation when a local authority has wrongly served a building preservation notice which, when it was served, prevented any additional work from progressing. We have been talking to the CLA about this, and it disagrees that this is the right way forward, as not only are there significant property rights implications but it also removes an important check on local authorities that wrongly serve building preservation notices. This can cause huge disruption and costs for the owners. We believe that compensation is key to the protection of individuals’ rights. Moreover, the many compensation provisions across the planning system are a vital part of its fairness. If mistakes happen and people suffer loss then, surely, they should be compensated. I shall not talk any further on this because I am sure that the noble Earl will go into great detail, but we appreciate his amendment. It is an important area that needs to be looked at.
My noble friend Lady Andrews has also put down some important amendments on the demolition of buildings, development rights, reduction of carbon emissions and the importance of local communities’ abilities to shape local places. Currently, most buildings can be demolished without planning permission if they are not listed and not in a conservation area. These permitted development rights for demolition have already been removed for buildings such as pubs and theatres, but there is no requirement for the buildings to be run down or beyond repair for this right to apply. We have had some very helpful briefings from the Victorian Society about its concerns on these issues, and we consider that my noble friend’s amendments are very important. I hope that the Minister can support them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 245—a probing amendment—in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Devon. Unfortunately, my noble friend cannot be here today due to other pressing matters. I must first declare my ownership of two listed buildings and the occupation of a third. I have also acted professionally as a chartered surveyor who has surveyed many listed and unlisted buildings and structures where works were proposed. I am very grateful for the support and input of the CLA, of which I am a member, and of Historic Houses and the Listed Property Owners Club. I am particularly grateful for, as it were, an introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. It was rather unexpected, because I did not think that it would necessarily be a matter that her party would relate to in those terms.
I acknowledge the importance to the nation of protecting its heritage. When the listing of buildings first came about in, I think, the 1950s, it carried with it an obligation to seek consent for works that affected the character of a listed building. It was not originally the case that effects on character meant that every alteration required consent. However, over the years, because the citations for listing and the descriptions of the matters of importance were, to put it bluntly, minimalist, that is how it has come to be operated. It has now almost become the norm for common periodic maintenance and repair to be caught by a demand for formal consent—things which, for any other unlisted building or structure, can be done without any formality.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, and I have great pleasure in supporting them all. I have two amendments in my name, which reflect a particular interest that the Victorian Society has in the demolition of non-listed buildings. I am very grateful to the Victorian Society for marshalling support for these amendments. I would also say that these are amendments that sit the heart of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill, and they follow present practice, to which I will draw attention. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Carrington, for their stamina in being here to support these amendments. I will try to be brief.
My amendments address a serial, long-standing failure to protect the historic built environment that gives the ordinary places we live character, memory and beauty through familiar structures. Nationally protected buildings are, as we know, protected if they are listed. They are secured by law, but the demolition of most buildings is permitted without planning permission if they are not listed or in a conservation area, even if they are in good condition and have potential new uses. This has been happening, as recorded by the Victorian Society, across the country, and the problem is that because of the historic underlisting of important buildings that Historic England identifies through the Saunders report. Buildings that are potentially listable and not on the list can be demolished.
Permitted development is exactly what it says: the ability to demolish or change a structure with none of the protections or local involvement that the planning system provides. It has been an unwelcome flood that has been extended in recent years, which brings unpredictability and perverse consequences. It is well overdue for a review, and I ask the Minister to consider very seriously whether he and his colleagues can put that into practice now.
The changes that PDR promotes, together with what the noble Lord previously implied—the hollowing out of planning departments and the loss of conservation specialists—means that our villages, small towns and cities are at greater risk than they have been for some time. The risk is from cumulative change as well as casual change, and it is irreversible. Locally listed buildings—a very small number in relation to the whole—are now particularly vulnerable. My two amendments focus on these groups.
Amendment 312G would remove permitted development rights for all demolition. It would allow for public consultation and would protect all non-designated heritage assets. Amendment 312H focuses on the local listing of buildings. It removes permitted demolition rights for locally listed assets and protects non-designated heritage assets that are on a local planning authority’s local list. This is long overdue. We also suggest that the Secretary of State could provide further clarity by setting out a definition of what qualifies as a local list following consultation.
These amendments are timely and would re-engage local communities. They would be extremely welcome, and I offer them as a gift to the Government, who are now in an election year. They are timely. Is it not better to save our historic assets that are still safe, habitable and useful than to pull them down? Increasingly, this is how people feel. In recent years, when so much in the country has shifted around us, we have come increasingly to value the quality and resonance of our local environment. This intensified during the pandemic.
When I was heavily involved with the Heritage Lottery Fund, we funded a great deal of locally inspired small projects within 15 minutes of the places where people live. We had a tremendous response. It drew out of local communities the things that they felt were really important to them. It is clear that keeping and repurposing historic buildings—schools, surgeries, churches, cinemas, factories, mills—is seen as an infinitely better alternative and one within reach. They retain character and diversity and inspire unique pride across the generations. We have lost so much, and we will lose more unless we stop and pause.
Once something is gone, whether it is the Euston Arch or a local cinema, we cannot recover it. At a time of so much instability in the high street and excessive office building, surely the time has come to rethink and repurpose for what people need today, whether that is childcare centres or marketplaces.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments that were so ably addressed and presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. These are important amendments because the demolition of historic building is a very long-standing problem. I do not want to go through all the arguments that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, ably set out in her speech; I want to consider some slightly different issues which these amendments would help to address.
Part of the long-standing problem is that historic buildings are not properly protected by either our planning or listing systems. This is partly because fashions change, partly because of prejudice and partly purely because the legislation does not keep up with the need to protect buildings as they become old and more vulnerable. It is an old problem. Those of us who go back a few years—I ought to say that I have been a member of the Victorian Society since I was a teenager, which some of you will be surprised to hear was one or two years ago—will remember the Firestone factory, which was expected to be listed as a great Art Deco building. It was knocked down overnight—indeed, it was severely damaged to ensure that it could not be repaired—to stop it being listed. The Firestone building was not alone. Those of you who remember the last 20 or 25 years will recall Kensington Town Hall in Kensington High Street. Outrageously, the local council, whose politics I strongly agree with, knocked down the façade of the old town hall overnight to stop it being listed. Neither of these buildings would necessarily have been a great priority for listing, but they were certainly well worth protecting.
Another problem is that the listing regime has a bias, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has said, against buildings which are post-1850. This means that if a building is prior to 1850, it is very likely to be listed; if it is after 1850, it is less likely to be listed. I just have to tell you the names of some of the architects whose careers were entirely after 1850: think of the very great Richard Norman Shaw, Charles Voysey, Edwin Lutyens and Giles Gilbert Scott, who rebuilt the new Chamber of the other place down the corridor. These days, all their buildings would probably be listed.
Of course, architecture was not only great architects. Often, the great architect would put up a design, maybe even publish the design, and other architects would then take on that design and build buildings which perhaps did not have the genius of a Richard Norman Shaw but possibly had the style of one. These days, English Heritage would almost certainly consider them to be derivative and therefore not worthy of protection. It is a very serious problem.
Having slightly defined one bit of the problem, I want to come on to why developers use the permitted development rights to knock down buildings. If a developer is buying a building, he is buying it almost in every case to build another building on the site, unless he is trying to extend his garden. If a developer rushes in to knock down what was there before, before getting planning permission to build what they are going to replace it with, there is a reason for doing that. One reason may be, as with the Kensington Town Hall and the Firestone tyre factory, that they thought it might be listed. The other reason is that it is much more difficult for a planning committee of a local authority to refuse planning permission to an empty site than it is to a site that already has a perfectly usable building on it, so they will knock it down. There is a third reason, the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, concerning VAT—they may feel that there is an incentive to get on with the work because of the VAT and the cash elements in it, but, frankly, that is minor compared with the other two.
So there is an issue here which needs to be addressed. There is no reason why developers should not be required, at the time they put in their planning application to rebuild on a site, to put in a similar, parallel application to demolish. I am not saying that every building should be protected; that would be nonsense—there are a lot of buildings which, quite frankly, could easily be replaced with better buildings. What I am saying, and I believe this is also what the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, was saying, is that we need to think about it. We need to look at the building that is there and say, “Is this a building that could better be used by being refurbished and keeping the character of the town or street preserved?”.
Those of us who have travelled, as I am sure all of us have, around Europe will be well aware of the beauty of towns in France, Germany or wherever, where the character of the town has been preserved to look as though it evolved gently over time to reflect the character of the people. Too often, our towns and high streets are a higgledy-piggledy collection of some fine buildings, some meritorious buildings, some rather dull buildings and some buildings that look as though they were designed and built purely with the idea of keeping the costs down but with no real element of design. We need to bring this to an end: we need to stop developers’ profits determining what it is that our towns, villages and high streets look like—we need to ensure that more thought goes into it.
I think these amendments go a long way to achieving that. The problem I have with them is that some of the worst offenders in knocking down buildings are local authorities themselves. Sadly, local authorities will police their own planning committees, and consequently if they want to do something for whatever reason and there is a building in the way, they will give themselves planning permission to knock it down and rebuild when they probably should not. I do not know how we get round that, but it is a problem and has been a problem in London for some time, where civic buildings in particular have been knocked down outrageously because the town hall decided that what it really wanted to do was build a monument to the current councillors. That is something which we need to address and these amendments do not address it, but they are a movement along the way.
It has also been suggested that it would be sensible for these amendments to have timelines in them. The suggestion has been twofold. One is that the time should be 1948, so we would not remove permitted development rights from buildings built after 1948. I would oppose that. As much as I like Victorian and early 20th-century buildings, some very fine buildings built after 1948 are vulnerable too. The other suggestion is that the timeline should be based on 1850, which, frankly, is a nonsense for the reasons I have already given. Therefore I strongly support these amendments.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, just said about Amendments 312G and 312H, as well as with what the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said about them. This is a particularly serious matter and I hope that the Government will pay due attention. A range of issues has been raised in this group, the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on timelines might be a possible way forward for discussion and prove productive.
I have had concerns for some time about permitted development rights, feeling that in some cases they are simply too loose. My previous concerns have related, for example, to conversions of offices to residential flats for sale, which often reduces the total number of places where people can go to work and increases the distances to where their place of work may then have to be. Very often, permitted development rights are used for short-term development reasons but where those reasons may not be in the long-term interests of a local area, and we need to remember that long term.
I have put my name to Amendments 312G and 312H alongside those of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, because there is another aspect of permitted development rights that I believe needs reform in the interests of maintaining our heritage. According to the Royal Institute of British Architects, approximately 50,000 buildings are demolished each year. Many of them may well be unfit or unsuitable for the modern age, and demolition is understandable in those cases where they are going to be replaced with something better.
However, that is not always the case, as we have heard from previous speakers. The Victorian Society has produced evidence that high-quality historic buildings are being demolished when they still have a useful purpose. Many buildings are not listed when they could be. I have concluded that there is a gap in our regulations, which should require that older buildings, at least, that are not listed, should have to undergo a further test. That test is, I suggest, the planning system, which could consider demolition as part of a redevelopment application. If there is no redevelopment application, there is no obvious reason to demolish the building, where it is safe. That could end up with an empty site for a long time, or a later application for a worse development than the building demolished.
These arguments relate to Amendment 312G, but Amendment 312H is also critical. It requires planning permission to demolish locally listed buildings. These lists exist for a reason, and demolition should not be treated lightly. Strangely, not all local councils have local lists anyway, which is another concern.
It should not be possible for buildings on a local list to be demolished without planning permission if they are outside a conservation area—rules currently apply if they are inside a conservation area. I ask the Minister: what is the point of a local list otherwise? Local lists need protection from poor, short-term decisions on demolition which are contrary to our long-term heritage interests. This is about buildings that matter to local people and future-proofing our heritage, and I very much hope the Minister will concur.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, first, I simply put right a matter of record. I failed to declare my interests in our debate before lunch. I have two buy-to-let properties, as marked on the register.
I now briefly reference Amendment 247B from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham. I refer to our heritage assets in the context of properties, as well as statues and artwork. In the UK, a disproportionately small minority can cause heritage assets to be removed from public view, whether they are in public or private ownership or locations.
Furthermore, the world we live in of modern development seldom includes a requirement on developers to contribute to what I think is referred to as the public realm. Most larger developments, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, are built to minimum cost. We must not forget that good architecture and good design—itself expensive—is a great contribution to the public realm. The presence of statues and monuments, and good building design is a really important contribution to society. Planning applications should have a public realm box, simply to ask whether they are making any contribution to the public realm and heritage assets. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, should also refer to heritage assets which are stored out of sight and yet are in public ownership.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to heritage, assets of community value and permitted development rights for demolition of buildings. I am pleased to be responding as Minister for Heritage, and I am very happy to discuss these matters with individual noble Lords, as I speak for the first time on this Bill.
Amendment 243, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to publish a review of local heritage lists and the results of the 2018 review of the non-statutory guidance on assets of community value. That review was undertaken to shape the future direction of the policy in the levelling-up White Paper that His Majesty’s Government committed to and explore how the existing community asset transfer and asset of community value schemes can be enhanced. We will continue to make funds available to groups through the community ownership fund.
Regarding the review of local heritage lists, the Government recognise the importance of identifying and managing those parts of the historic environment which are valued by their community. We have given £1.5 million to 22 places across England to support local planning authorities and their residents to develop new and update local heritage lists. Our intention is that the lessons learned from that work will be shared with other local authorities so that they too can benefit from the good practice that is building up in this area. As part of the development of the new national planning policy framework, we will also develop new proposals for statutory national development management policies, including policies to protect local heritage assets. Such proposals will be subject to future consultation; we would not want to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation by taking steps such as those envisaged in this amendment right now.
Amendment 246, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, would require draft legislation to reform assets of community value to be published within 90 days of Royal Assent of this Bill. Community assets play a vital role in creating thriving neighbourhoods. The assets of community value scheme enables communities and parish councils with the right to register a building or piece of land as an asset of community value if the principal use of the asset furthers their community’s well-being or social interests and is likely to do so in future. The scheme has been successful in helping community groups to identify important local assets at risk of loss. As I have mentioned, the levelling-up White Paper committed us to consider how the existing assets of community value framework can be enhanced. We must ensure that any changes to the legislation are workable in practice. To do this in a meaningful way needs consultation with all the parties that it will affect, including community groups, local authorities which are responsible for listing assets, and businesses and private individuals who are property owners. An amendment such as this risks creating legislation which does not work in practice. The framework must balance community power and the ability to safeguard community assets in a way that is fair, targeted and proportionate. We are committed to exporting the scope for improvements which can maintain this important balance, but it is important that we do so in a way which gives time with those with an interest to reflect on their experience and any proposals for change.
Amendment 244, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, would mean that when deciding on the correct recipient of a temporary stop notice, the authority should have regard to the tenancy status of the occupier and their level of responsibility for any works on the property. Clause 96 addresses a gap in the enforcement powers available to local authorities in relation to listed buildings, which will help to protect these irreplaceable assets for generations to come. While under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 local authorities have the power to serve temporary stop notices, there is currently no equivalent power in relation to listed buildings. Clause 96 amends the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to give local planning authorities the power to issue temporary stop notices in relation to unauthorised works to a listed building in England.
The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to add a requirement for local planning authorities to have regard to the tenancy status of the occupier and their level of responsibility. Temporary stop notices are an existing enforcement tool which local planning authorities are accustomed to issuing. Those planning authorities have experience of considering matters such as tenancy status and the level of responsibility for works carried out when they serve such notices, which would also apply in this context. The Government believe that the local planning authorities do not require the additional guidance that this amendment would provide, so they do not feel that it is necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked me how local authorities can identify the owner of the properties when sending out a temporary stop notice. They can use a variety of sources: for instance, council tax records, planning application registers, and the Land Registry are some of the open sources of information that they are already able to consult. Usually, they would do everything they can to identify to whom it should best be served, and it can indeed be to a variety of people.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
Could the Minister explain why he considers it appropriate for authorities to have this power but, to visit direct—and it must be direct—loss in order to be compensable, he thinks it is not appropriate that the exercise of powers should be accompanied by compensation? What other areas where the compensation code might be deemed to apply does he think are in some way disposable? I remind him of the principles that I referred to right at the end of discussing human rights, on the questions of the reasonable enjoyment of one’s property, not being dispossessed of it by the state other than for an overriding reason, and then only on the provision of proper compensation, determined by an independent adjudicator if necessary. Does he depart from those particular principles?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his questions. If it is helpful, I am very happy to speak to him in advance of my meeting with Ben Cowell next week, so that I can have a fruitful discussion with him and with Historic Houses on this point.
He asked about the Secretary of State’s declaration on the Bill. That is self-evident: the Secretary of State has found it compatible with human rights laws. But I will leave it to colleagues at the Secretary of State’s department to speak further on that. With the offer to meet the noble Earl ahead of my meeting, I hope that he will be happy with the point that I have outlined about wanting to remove what we see as a hindrance to these notices being served.
Amendments 312G and 312H, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, would require the Secretary of State to remove permitted development rights for the demolition of buildings. These amendments aim to reduce demolition and consequently carbon emissions, to increase communities’ ability to shape local places and to protect non-designated heritage assets. I completely agree with the remarks she made about the value of historic buildings and our historic environment to communities and the importance of preserving them for generations to come. I pay tribute to the work she has done over many years on this at English Heritage, the National Lottery Heritage Fund and in many other ways.
Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission that allow certain building works and changes of use to take place. There is a long-standing permitted development right which permits the demolition of buildings, subject to certain limitations and conditions, as she outlined in her speech. Her Amendment 312G seeks to remove this permitted development right for all but the smallest buildings. Her Amendment 312H seeks to remove the right for locally listed heritage assets only. These amendments would mean that works to demolish affected buildings would require the submission of a planning application.
I want to make it clear to noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that planning permission contributes to our work to mitigate and adapt to climate change. National planning policy is clear that the planning system should support our transition to a low-carbon future, including helping to encourage the reuse of existing resources and the conversion of existing buildings where appropriate. The National Model Design Code encourages sustainable construction focused on reducing embodied energy, embedding circular economy principles to reduce waste, designing for disassembly and exploring the remodelling and reusing of buildings where possible rather than rebuilding. I know that our heritage bodies—not just our arm’s-length bodies such as Historic England but right across the sector—are doing sincere and fruitful work to make sure that we have the skills, not just now but in generations to come, to carry out the works to effect that.
I also want to stress that the Government recognise the need to protect historic buildings and other assets valued by their local communities. The heritage designation regime in England protects buildings of special architectural and historic interest, but we understand there are many other buildings and assets that local people cherish. Planning practice guidance encourages local planning authorities to prepare local lists of non-designated heritage assets. I mentioned earlier the £1.5 million we have given to support local planning authorities and their residents to develop new and updated local heritage lists, with the intention that the lessons learned from that work will be shared later this year.
Local planning authorities have the power, where they consider it necessary, to remove specific permitted development rights to protect a local amenity or the well-being of an area by making an article for direction. Powers to amend permitted development rights already exist in primary legislation. There are also tools within the existing planning system that can be used to manage demolition more responsively, such as the National Planning Policy Framework and local design codes. So, while we appreciate the importance of reducing carbon emissions, supporting local democracy and of course protecting heritage assets, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary to achieve those aims. I want to assure the noble Baroness that we will of course continue to keep permitted development rights under review and look at them with a heritage lens as well.
I understand the point raised by my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham about the protections available to more recent buildings. While the tastes of individual Ministers are rightly irrelevant in the process, I share his admiration for the work of Giles Gilbert Scott. I live close to what was King’s College Hospital in Denmark Hill and is now the home of the Salvation Army. I had the pleasure of speaking on 8 September last year—a date which sadly sticks in the mind—to a conference organised by the think tank Create Streets on diverse modernities, where I was able to talk about his other buildings, such as the university library and the memorial court at Clare College in Cambridge.
I said on that occasion that the Government recognise that the eligible age for protection by statutory listing needs to continue rolling forward. In the past, recent buildings have not been a focus for listing, but I am glad to say that that is no longer the case. One-third of the buildings listed by recent Secretaries of State have been 20th century buildings. I think one of the most recent examples is the headquarters of Channel 4 on Horseferry Road, which dates from the 1990s.
The listing regime is not prejudiced. As per the Secretary State’s principles for selection, planning and development are not taken into account when listing a building—it is done purely on historic and architectural merit. The older a building is and the fewer surviving examples there are of its kind, the more likely it is to have special interest. From 1850 to 1945, because of the greatly increased number of building erected and the much larger number of buildings that were constructed and have survived, progressively greater selection is therefore necessary. Careful selection is of course required for buildings from the period after the Second World War.
I am very grateful to my noble friend for speaking to Amendment 247B tabled by our noble friend Lord Cormack. As my noble friend Lord Carrington said, the noble Lord sends his apologies for not being able to be here in your Lordships’ House today. Noble Lords will know he is the last person who would wish to express discourtesy to your Lordships’ House. He has given me permission to share that it is only because he is collecting his wife from hospital following an operation that he is unable to be here today. I am sure noble Lords will understand and want to join me in wishing Lady Cormack a swift recuperation.
I am grateful to him for his amendment, which highlights the importance of lists of locally important heritage assets. I have been able to speak to my noble friend about his amendment and some of the points that lie behind it. As Minister for Heritage, I am, on behalf of the Secretary of State, responsible for the statutory designation system that lists buildings of architectural and historic importance, and protects monuments of national importance. Local listing is a non-statutory means by which local planning authorities can, if they wish, identify heritage assets that are of local importance but do not meet the criteria for national designation and statutory protection as a listed building or a scheduled monument, and then take account of these assets during the planning process. In recent years, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has provided financial support to selected local planning authorities wishing to develop a local list with the assistance of Historic England.
Local lists are discretionary; some local planning authorities compile local lists and some do not. Under the terms of local listing, it is up to those authorities which heritage assets they include in local lists. I am not, at present, convinced that, given this discretionary nature, we should be legislating for local lists to include all statues and monuments in an area. While many statues and monuments are very clearly cherished by the local community and should be included on local lists, there will be instances where it would be inappropriate to include certain statues and monuments—for instance, a sculpture in somebody’s private garden. Local planning authorities, following consultation with their communities, are best placed to decide what should be included on a local list.
Our national designation system already ensures statutory protection of our most significant heritage assets, including statues and monuments. The national listing process already protects those that meet the criteria of special architectural or historic interest. We have recently increased the protections for non-designated statues and monuments in public places that are more than 10 years old, whether they are locally listed or not. Their removal now needs explicit planning permission, and we have made it clear in national planning policy that decisions on statues and monuments should have regard to our policy of retaining and explaining these important historical assets.
My noble friend raised the question of the definition of “alteration”, pointing to some examples, including the statue of the Earl of Beaconsfield, Benjamin Disraeli. As it is the day after Primrose Day, and the birthday of my noble friend Lord Lexden—the Conservative Party’s official historian—I must echo my noble friend’s comments about Disraeli and the amusement he might find in some of the treatment of statues of him today. But the point my noble friend makes is an interesting one, which I am happy to discuss with him and my noble friend Lord Cormack. As he is not here for me to ask him not to move his amendment, I offer, on the record, to discuss this with him and any other noble Lords. I beg all noble Lords whose amendments I have addressed not to move their amendments and beg the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment at this juncture.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the Minister for his thorough response to these amendments. On my noble friend’s Amendment 243, I was pleased that the Minister said that the Government will continue to provide funds for assets of community value, but just providing funds does not address the problem that many communities do not have the capacity to put the bids together in the first place. That is our main concern here. It looks like we are again waiting to hear the detail—this time about what will be in the NDMPs. I guess we will be updated on this later on in the Bill, but I am sure we will return to it when we get to those particular clauses.
On Amendment 246, it is good that the Minister talked about the Government’s improvements in this area but, again, this comes back to the fact that more needs to be done to support all communities’ abilities to put together suitable bids and plans. Some communities are not able to; they do not have that ability. So it is not about the amount available—it is making sure that all communities have proper access and are able to put together suitable bids.
On the local heritage lists in Amendment 243, one of our concerns is that they do not have any standing in planning law, so there is a big gap between what has listed status and what is available to go on to local heritage lists. We think that local authorities should be able to determine that degree of protection, which they currently cannot, for buildings on their heritage lists. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that many local authorities do not even know about them, so there is an issue there that the Government could perhaps take a look at.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made some good points—he is always extremely clear about his concerns—and I am sure he will want to come back to discuss them further. My noble friend Lady Andrews made some really important points, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, when he supported her. She said that there had been a long-standing failure to protect our historic environment. Our amendments work with hers quite well to try to look at the bigger picture and strengthen protections. The noble Baroness made the important point that planning departments are really strapped, so they need more help to protect buildings from demolition. Developers have a lot of money and often a lot of resources available to them, but local authorities do not have those resources or the people. If the Minister is able to look at my noble friend’s second amendment again, that would be extremely helpful—there could potentially be some way forward. He seemed to agree with much of what she said, so perhaps he could suggest a similar amendment on Report, which would be helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, made a good point about certain iconic buildings that have disappeared. I am sure that all of us can think of similar buildings in our own communities that have gone, and it has really shocked people when they have been demolished unexpectedly, even when there was already an agreement that they would not be demolished.
So this is a good group of amendments, and I hope that the Minister will consider some of the arguments further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
The Earl of Lytton
“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall only take effect following an order made by the Secretary of State.(4) The Secretary of State may only make the order in subsection (3) once a public consultation on the case for the change, drawing on the results of the Historic England indemnity pilot, has been completed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the results of the Historic England pilot are taken into account and that there is public debate and scrutiny before compensation rights are removed.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I will not move this amendment, but I look forward to meeting with the Minister about this, and I may well return to it at a later stage in the Bill.
Lord Lexden
“Permitted development: replacement windows in conservation areasIn the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596), Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.3(a), after “materials” insert “(and, in respect of a replacement window in a conservation area, style and colour)”.”
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I move Amendment 247, brought forward by my noble friend Lord Northbrook, who sadly cannot be here today. I will also speak to Amendments 247A and 285 in this group and in his name. I speak on his behalf.
The most important amendment in this group is Amendment 247A, and I shall deal with it first. It provides a solution to a significant problem. Local planning authorities—LPAs—in deciding on an application for development in a conservation area are currently required under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to determine whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance
“the character or appearance of that area”.
LPAs have a wide degree of discretion in deciding whether this statutory test is passed. In a number of conservation areas—and I am thinking particularly of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—planning officers, for understandable reasons, do not normally live in or near the relevant conservation area, but they routinely substitute their own opinions for the opinions of those who do, frequently in disregard of the relevant conservation area appraisal document and advice from important third parties such as Historic England. This problem is particularly acute in the royal borough, where harmful decisions have been made in the past and then used as a precedent to justify approving further harm of a similar nature.
This line of reasoning has been criticised frequently by the Planning Inspectorate and runs contrary to the advice of Historic England in its Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 2 called Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment, which was published in March 2015. Paragraph 28 of this document states:
“The cumulative impact of incremental small-scale changes may have as great an effect on the significance of a heritage asset as a larger scale change. Where the significance of a heritage asset”—
and this, of course, includes the entirety of the conservation area—
has been compromised in the past by unsympathetic development to the asset itself or its setting, consideration still needs to be given to whether additional change will further detract from, or can enhance, the significance of the asset”.
Regrettably, such consideration is all too often not given by planning officers in their decision reports in the exercise of delegated powers or in their advisory reports to planning committees. Surely the people best qualified to assess whether a proposed development will preserve or enhance the character or appearance of a conservation area are those who live in it. Under this amendment, LPAs would be required to pay special attention to the views, if any, expressed by those who live in the area.
The Government might perhaps take the view that LPAs are already obliged to consider all comments made during the course of a consultation on a planning application, rendering the amendment unnecessary. However, the obligation in this amendment to pay special attention is stronger than the obligation merely to have regard to comments made and the amendment is specifically tied to comments made by those who live in the area. If planning officers wish to substitute their own opinions on what is good for a conservation area, they should explain clearly and convincingly why they seek to do so and why the views of local residents should not be respected. This amendment would introduce the necessary arrangements.
I turn now to Amendment 247, which concerns permitted development rights to install replacement windows in conservation areas. Currently, permitted development rights to improve or alter a dwelling house are subject to a condition that
“the materials used in any exterior work must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse”.
The amendment would require that replacement windows in a conservation area must be of similar style and colour to the windows they are replacing, not just that the materials be of similar appearance, if the right to install the new windows is to be permitted development. This would not require replacement windows to be of similar style and colour, but simply bring them within the scope of planning control if they are not.
As we all know, many conservation areas in England have attractive streets of 19th-century terraced houses, in which the windows fronting the street are white-painted wooden sliding sash windows with traditional Georgian-style glazing bars enclosing relatively small panes of glass. Many LPAs routinely include as a standard condition of planning approvals in conservation areas that any replacement of sliding sash windows fronting the street should be like-for-like sliding sash windows, but this can be challenged successfully. For example, there was a remarkable case in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where the owner of a house installed an ugly, non-sliding sash window in breach of a planning condition. A complaint was made to the council and a request was made to planning enforcement to have the window removed. One of the local ward councillors, who happened also to be the cabinet member for planning at the time, said that it was clearly inappropriate and would need to be replaced as soon as possible. The enforcement officer agreed with the complaint, and an enforcement notice was duly served. The owner then told the council that his new window was in fact a permitted development; the result was that the enforcement notice was cancelled, and the enforcement officer accepted that the council had no control over its style. The window remains. I note, in passing, that it was very surprising that neither the owner, his planning consultants, the cabinet member for planning nor the enforcement officer were aware, at the time of the application, that the installation of the replacement window was a permitted development. That was a reflection of the confused state of the general permitted development order at the time, on which I shall say a few words when I turn to Amendment 285.
Is it not odd that the current applicable condition for the permitted development right to install replacement windows is merely that similar material must be used? That is to say that, if the window being replaced is made of wood and glass, the replacement window should also be made of wood and glass. The purpose of permitted development rights is to facilitate obvious improvements without the need for planning permission, but how can this entitlement to install ugly new windows be considered an improvement?
I hope that the Government will be inclined to consider the amendment sympathetically. If not, perhaps my noble friend will explain the logic of requiring similar materials but not similar style and colour. Replacement windows fronting attractive streets in conservation areas should be like-for-like; if not, they should need planning permission, and the GPDO should be amended to reflect that.
Finally, I turn briefly to Amendment 285. Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order sets out permitted development rights—namely, rights to develop for which planning permission is not required. It gets amended several times a year. Unfortunately, on the legislation.gov.uk website, there is often no up-to-date, consolidated text, so anyone wishing to see what rights exist, or which existed at the time of a specific application, has to spend many hours on the internet searching for all the amendments made to it since it came into force on 15 April 2015, and this research needs to be conducted separately on each occasion. I have mentioned already one example of where failure to provide a consolidated text confused even experts and professionals in the planning world. Most other legislation is available to read on the internet in up-to-date, consolidated form, so why not the GPDO?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, about conservation areas and permitted development rights. For residents who are fortunate enough to live in a conservation area, it is both a privilege and a responsibility. When the noble Lord was trying balance homeowners wanting to make appropriate changes—and sometimes inappropriate changes—and local planning conservation officers seeming to rule the roost over what is and is not appropriate, I asked myself, “Where were the local councillors in this mix?”. Where I am a councillor, I have conservation areas in my ward, and where there is a disagreement about what is appropriate, I ask for it to go to the planning committee. Then, it has a public airing, which is precisely what should happen. The planning conservation officer states one view and residents another, and a decision is made. One of the great purposes of planning committees is to air views, balance them out and come to a conclusion.
I also have concerns about always expecting to maintain the standards of a building that was created 100 or 200 years ago in wood and glass, when the rest of us are trying very hard to increase insulation, particularly of windows and doors. A couple of years ago, I visited a window manufacturer not too far from here which makes heritage windows from plastic. I could not tell the difference, even though I have an interest in conservation and heritage. In our regulations, we need to enable that to happen so that buildings remain appropriate for the time, while conserving the best features and personality of a townscape, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, wants to retain for people to love and enjoy in the future.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for introducing the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook.
I just make a very brief comment about the issue of replacement windows. My concern comes from a property that I know; it is in a conservation area and the windows are basically falling to pieces. It is owned by a young couple who applied for planning permission to replace the windows with something very similar, but not like for like—they could not afford like for like. Of course, they were turned down because it did not fit under the planning regulations as they are currently set up. A couple of years on, the outcome is that the windows are falling to pieces and nothing is happening. The couple are stuck, and the windows look dreadful. That is not their fault; they cannot afford to do what the planning inspectors tell them that they have to do.
I am very pleased that these amendments have been brought forward, because they enable us to talk about these anomalies in the way that the planning legislation is currently set up. It tries to protect the look of a place, but if that means that something does not happen because the owners of the property do not have the resources or finances to be able to do it, the property starts to decline. We have the example of windows, but it can be so much more. These are quite specific planning issues, but this is something that needs to be looked at.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Northbrook for tabling these amendments and my noble friend Lord Lexden for so ably introducing them.
Amendment 247 would require amendments to permitted development rights. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allow certain building works and changes of use to take place. Rights in relation to England are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (2015/596). As we heard in the debate immediately preceding this group, heritage assets, including conservation areas, are an irreplaceable resource and it is important that we ensure that they are protected. Local authorities are required by law, in carrying out their functions, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.
We are committed to quality and design regardless of whether homes are delivered through a permitted development right or a planning application. We intend to consult on introducing secondary legislation so that existing permitted development rights with design or external appearance prior approvals will take into account design codes where they are in place locally. Local authorities can remove specific permitted development rights to protect local amenity or the well-being of the area by making an Article 4 direction.
As committed to in the Government’s British Energy Security Strategy, we are currently undertaking a review of the practical planning barriers that households can face when installing energy-efficiency measures. This will include replacement windows with improved glazing, including in conservation areas. While this review is under way, it would be premature to accept this amendment, as it would curtail the scope of any legislative recommendations that the review might set out in due course.
To go further on that, because I know that this area was of concern to both noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock, the Government are fully committed to encouraging home owners to incorporate energy-efficiency measures in their properties. As part of this, we recognise the need to ensure that more historic buildings have the right energy-efficiency measures to support our zero-carbon objectives. The review of heritage and energy efficiency committed to in the British Energy Security Strategy and currently under way will enable the Government to respond to the issue in an informed and joined-up way. In addition, powers to amend permitted development rights already exist in primary legislation. For these reasons, the Government are unable to support this amendment; however, we will continue to keep permitted development rights under review.
I turn to Amendment 247A, which proposes a new clause amending Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to require, in exercise of planning functions, special attention to be paid to the views of residents in conservation areas. I understand my noble friend’s concerns. However, the purpose of Section 72 is to ensure that local planning authorities are required, when making planning decisions, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. It is an important, long-standing duty that protects conservation areas.
Engagement with the sector during policy development for the Bill acknowledged that the framework for protecting the historic environment works well, although there are opportunities, we acknowledge, for targeted improvements. The package of heritage reforms focuses on maintaining the strong protections for the historic environment within the new planning system and, where possible, building on the existing framework. The proposed reforms will build on the existing protections without introducing any additional restrictions on development. It would be inappropriate to extend it so that local planning authorities have to pay special attention to the views of those living in conservation areas too. It would mean the views of conservation area residents would have greater weight than those living outside the area, which we think would be unfair.
In addition, in determining planning applications, decision-makers are already required to consult with local residents, and their views are taken into account. This will not change in our reformed system, and we are also taking powers in the Bill to improve the consultation process, making it more accessible by complementing more traditional forms of engagement with digital tools. It is not considered necessary, therefore, to duplicate these arrangements by extending the Section 72 special attention duty.
Turning to Amendment 285, we agree that it is important that the most up-to-date consolidated version of the general permitted development order, which sets out all the national permitted development rights, is publicly available online. Amendments to the order are often made, as we introduce new permitted development rights or make changes to the existing rights, through amending orders. The latest consolidated version of the general permitted development order is already available on the Government’s legislation website, alongside the original version.
I hope that I have provided the noble Lord with adequate reassurances, but we are unable to support these amendments at this time.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I thank the two noble Baronesses on the Opposition Front Benches for their valuable points, particularly relating to replacement windows. I am grateful, above all, to my noble friend on the Government Front Bench for her full and carefully considered comments. My noble friend Lord Northbrook and those who are associated with him in giving further consideration to these matters will look very carefully at what my noble friend has said, and then they will be able to decide what further action they may wish to take. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
“(3) If there is conflict between street voting on development and the development plan, a determination must be made in favour of the development plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
The outcome of a street vote may conflict with the development plan. The amendment provides guidance on how to resolve this conflict.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, we come now to the clause in the Bill dealing with street votes, which has generated a substantial number of amendments, of which mine is the lead amendment. It seeks to ensure that a street vote cannot conflict with a local plan. This clause was not in the Bill when it was introduced in another place: it was introduced on the second day of Report. The Government have said that Clause 99
“is intended to encourage residents to consider the potential for additional development on their streets, and support a gentle increase in densities, in particular, in areas where additional new homes are needed”.
I expect the Minister will describe the provisions of the clause in more detail, so I will not spell them out.
We have heard the expression “gentle densification” several times from the Secretary of State; it is something he clearly approves of. I will need some clarification before I lend it my approval, for this reason. Michael Gove was in another place, as I was, when the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, then John Prescott, the Secretary of State, came up with a similar policy of promoting suburban development and the development of back gardens. Those with long memories will remember that all hell broke loose. On 7 March 2007, the Daily Mail thundered:
“Thirty thousand gardens every year ‘torn up’ due to Prescott's policies”.
My party was whipped to vote on a Friday for a Private Member’s Bill to block the policy. Greg Clark, the then shadow Minister, wanted gardens to be reclassified as greenfield sites, and he took up the cause because local authorities were powerless to stop gardens being built on. When my party won the 2010 general election, Greg Clark, then the Minister, ordered changes to planning rules that meant gardens will no longer be seen as brownfield land, ripe for development. Crucially, it meant that stronger powers were available to local authorities to block “gentle densification”.
I just mention that to put this proposal in a broad historic and political perspective and to suggest some caution before we endorse it. Normally, and indeed given the controversial background to this proposal, innovation such as this, in the planning world, would be preceded if not by a Green Paper then at least by some form of consultation to gauge its practicality and effectiveness. This would involve the LGA, the Royal Town Planning Institute and, of course, the public. Nothing of the sort ever took place. This policy emerged from a think tank and was fast-tracked into primary legislation, overtaking on the way some well thought-out and badly needed policies on housing reform, in sharp contrast to the normal process of policy formation. I believe that the Government are adopting a high-risk strategy and, rather than going straight into primary legislation, they should test the proposal in the usual way and then consider how best to proceed. There is nothing particularly urgent about this, and we need to get it right.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young. I will speak to our Amendments 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256 and 257 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman. A number of those amendments echo the concerns of the noble Lord. It is important to place on record that the clause to which amendments in this group refer was not in the Bill when it was debated in the other place, so it has not had the kind of scrutiny you would expect for a proposal of this kind. Therefore, it is right that your Lordships’ House gives this clause and the amendments submitted very careful consideration.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, that the progress of this proposal straight into primary legislation is unusual to say the least—I would call it inexplicable. I have much sympathy with his comments that, were the street votes part of a consideration that the planning and development committees took into account, that might be a different issue. However, from the proposal in the Bill it seems that they are intended to sit outside that.
In recent decades, changes to the planning system have meant that local people and, on occasion, local councillors have felt that they have little say or control over what happens in their area due to a combination of permitted development, changes to use classes—meaning, for example, that there is little to stop your high street being dominated by betting shops and vape stores—the prevalence of conversions to houses of multiple occupation, which puts particular pressure on infrastructure and parking and can change the character of neighbourhoods, and the hollowing out of so many coastal and rural areas as family homes become holiday and Airbnb lets. We have heard powerful advocacy for the role of neighbourhood forums and town and parish councils in previous debates on the Bill. There is undoubtedly something of a community engagement vacuum in the delivery of new homes which the advocates of street votes believe they can help fill.
As a member of the Co-operative Party, a sister party to the Labour Party, and a former chair of the Co-operative Councils’ Innovation Network, I have spent more than 10 years promoting and supporting greater engagement of residents and communities in the decisions taken on their behalf, so we absolutely support the principle sitting behind the street votes proposition. I am very grateful to Samuel Hughes from Create Streets, who took a great deal of time to brief me and my noble friend Lady Hayman and kindly provided us with a background briefing on street votes.
The problem with the clause as drafted is that it is very thin on detail, not least any detailed definition of “gentle densification”, which we have heard so much about during the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that it will be in the regulations or the National Planning Policy Framework, but in this case it is particularly important to understand how the system of street votes will work. Even their most passionate advocates feel that there is room for more clarity in the Bill.
Our amendments in this group attempt to understand how this detail and some of the potential complications will be resolved. As an example, although greenbelt, areas of outstanding national beauty and historic buildings are expressly excluded, there is no mention of conservation areas.
In his article, which is generally very positive about street votes, the designer Alastair Parvin points out that, when you start thinking about the detail of how they might work, it is not hard to see how it could all go very wrong. Those of us who have been involved in planning will feel the same trepidation that what seems, on the face of it, like a move towards community engagement, development and an ultimate expression of street democracy, may also need to be particularly well thought through in advance to avoid the obvious potential pitfalls.
The system of local authority planning may seem bureaucratic, complex and too slow, but you could argue that it is developed that way to ensure, for example, that experts in planning, law and finance are involved, that there is transparency in the process, that decisions are properly debated and recorded, and that there are proper voting procedures, appeals processes and declarations of interest. As Alastair Parvin notes, to even think about the idea of every street in the UK emulating this way of working, appointing an urban designer, holding consultations, drawing up a valid design code, having it checked against local policies, revising it, holding committees, leafleting, then organising a referendum, is utterly exhausting and could be expensive in time and money. It could also add a significant potential burden on to local planning departments that are already feeling overstretched. He also points out that community politics can be, at best, dominated by those with the loudest voices and, at worst, pretty toxic, with the potential for style wars or tribalism to develop, or those who are fixated about parking to take over—in my experience, there are plenty of them. I loved his line,
“we’re talking about doing design-by-committee with Alan Partridge on the committee”.
How do we ensure that those participating are not being coerced or receiving financial inducements, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable? Street votes will also have to take into account that, while many places in the UK may have well-defined streets, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, some do not. There have a variety of layouts, types and styles, with perhaps less well-defined groupings or boundaries. Some of you may be familiar with Radburn layouts that are common in first-generation new towns, where houses that appear to be on one street are actually in three different streets.
It is important that we note the comments of the Local Government Association, which were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Young. It says that it wants to work with government to enhance opportunities for engagement and reach a wider audience within the process of developing local plans, and that is the key to the answer here. Amendment 248, in the names of noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is welcome and very straightforward, and we would certainly support that amendment to bring clarity to the precedence of the local plan, should the outcome of a street vote conflict with that.
My noble friend Baroness Hayman’s first amendment ensures that residents who have a recent connection with the area are included in street votes. We are very grateful to Generation Rent for its proposals in this respect. It makes the valid point that street votes must work for renters as well as owner-occupiers. Part of the answer, which is included in the Bill, is to enfranchise residents, not owners, so that tenants have as much democratic say as owner-occupiers, and absentee landlords are not further empowered over tenants’ homes. However, we agree with Generation Rent that this is not enough in itself so, before any homeowner or landlord can redevelop with permissions issuing from a street vote, any tenant resident in the building over the past two years must have consented. The alternative could be that landlords could refund 12-months’ rent or give their tenants 12 months’ notice. The Bill is very light on issues affecting tenants in this way, which is why we hope that our amendment will redress that balance.
Amendment 250, in the name of my noble friend Baroness Hayman, relates to the important issue of voting thresholds. We believe that it is important that it is a very high proportion; we would suggest two-thirds of total residents should support the proposals, not just a majority of those who turn out to vote. This ensures that developers cannot try to game the process and proposals can pass only if they have the overwhelming support of local people.
Create Streets, working with London forums and the Community Planning Alliance, also suggests two further safeguards—first, requiring that a resident in at least half of eligible households vote in favour, and second, that at least half of those registered to vote at the addresses on the street for at least three years must vote in favour. We would like to see this detail in the Bill but, if not, perhaps it could be considered for any subsequent statutory instrument.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, in this debate. My contribution is quite modest compared to their overarching and sweeping criticism of Clause 99 but, just by way of flanking fire, perhaps I can say that it covers eight pages of the Bill, which is more than the whole of Part 1, which sets up the mission statements. That seems to me to be a wholly disproportionate application of drafting time, when we consider the level of detail not present in Part 1 and the level of detail here. That is perhaps the only point at which I would wish to challenge the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, in her request for yet more detail. I honestly do not think this Bill needs any more detail on street votes.
Nevertheless, I have tabled Amendment 253A, which aims to ensure that where approved neighbourhood plans are in place, they cannot be overturned by a street vote. It is, to that extent, rather in the same vein as Amendment 248, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young. He set out that there should be a clear hierarchy between street votes and development plans so that local development plans trump street votes. My amendment takes a different approach to neighbourhood plans. It simply adds to the list of places where street votes cannot be held—which exists in the Bill—those areas that have valid neighbourhood plans in force. In other words, within areas where there is an approved neighbourhood plan, street votes are not to be an available mechanism.
Like the two previous speakers, I do not really get what value there might be in street votes as a concept. I see some places where they may create or might enable some worthwhile flexibility at a micro level below the reach of borough-wide development plans. However, I admit that I am struggling to imagine what a good example of that might exactly be. It has been suggested, by the Minister, apart from anybody else, that it provides the opportunity for low-level densification of homes in a street. I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, commented to some extent on that, but I will just pick up a point made by the noble Baroness about biodiversity.
One of the things that recent planning changes have brought into view is that gardens should not be paved because of the need to maintain natural drainage. The more the footprint of buildings is increased, the bigger the run-off and the bigger the risk of local flooding at the least. Therefore, that connection will sometimes be a consideration which needs to be taken into account.
It is easy to imagine some less benign examples of street votes, such as perhaps a west London street agreeing that sub-basements with cinemas and car parks would be perfectly fine there. If that was done on the basis of a referendum, the result of which—just to pick two figures out of the air—was 52% to 48%, there would not just be some discontented people living in neighbouring streets but perhaps substantial levels of discontentment in that street.
That brings me to ask a question about who gets to vote. Presumably they are people registered on the electoral roll. That is just as well, because in that west London street the big houses probably also have five or six servants—chauffeurs, cooks and chefs—and, of course, the let-out as far as the voting goes is that they are probably not UK subjects. The noble Baroness made a good point on behalf of renters: in a community, particularly an inner urban area where a transient population is normal, who votes, when they vote and what the qualification is to vote is important.
One of the many pluses of a neighbourhood plan, particularly the process leading up to its adoption, is that all those nook-and-cranny micro details can be considered and a consensus built as part of that plan. That is itself subject to a public endorsement and a referendum. It seems to me fundamentally wrong to have a situation in which such an endorsed, publicly recognised and approved plan, with a level of local public participation that far exceeds the adoption of a local development plan by a planning authority, could be overruled or subverted by random revocation of bits of it in the street votes.
My argument is straightforward. Essentially, where a valid neighbourhood plan is in force, all the work on microsites and flexibilities will have taken place already in drawing up that plan. Whatever the merits of the principle of street votes, they would be an unnecessary duplication of effort and expense within a neighbourhood plan area. My amendment avoids that overlap and the inevitable confusion it would cause in the local community if its democratically prepared neighbourhood plan was set aside, even if only in one part. I hope to hear that the Minister agrees with that and will accept my amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I think we can say that there has been a less than enthusiastic response to the proposals in Clause 99, and I endorse everything said by the three previous speakers. Rather than laying out any other reasons in great detail, which other noble Lords have done, my questions for the Minister are these. First, what is the problem to which this is the solution? Secondly, what is a street? I know there is a clause defining a street, but I should really like to know whether Manchester Road in Huddersfield, which stretches for seven miles, counts as a street, or Halifax Road, which goes from Halifax to Dewsbury. Is 10 miles a street? I need to understand what a street is.
That leads to my third question. We have discussed at length in the past few days the purpose of planning and what is required of our planning system to enable development, but also to enable communities that work and to protect our environment. Currently, any planning application for more than one house needs a construction management plan but there is no reference to that in Clause 99. In any development of the sort that I think is being considered—back gardens or whatever—there is also the question of linking to the existing utilities, particularly water and wastewater removal in some areas. We need to know how sustainable that will be or whether there will have to be sustainable urban drainage to achieve it. Where I am now, nearly all the developments must have attenuation tanks built into them to do what they say: hold back the water to reduce the risk of flooding. All that would need to be thought about, as well as the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, raised about biodiversity.
The Government, in their wisdom, changed permitted development rights of change of use from offices to residential areas. Because that could be done without proper process, one of the big issues that ensued concerned parking—or the lack of it—because there was no provision and no consideration had to be given to it, so none was applied for and there was a big problem.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, a range of questions have been asked on this group of amendments. It might be helpful if I begin with the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and set out why the Government are bringing forward this measure in the Bill.
Local people can, quite understandably, be resistant to new development in their area if they have little say over what gets built and it does not reflect their preferences. However, many of us know that residents are often more supportive when they can play a direct role in shaping that development, including what it looks like. The Government are looking to deliver more good quality homes in the right places. To help achieve that, we want to encourage some intensification of development in existing residential areas, particularly areas of low density in towns and cities where this has the support of residents.
Clause 99 introduces street vote development orders, which will provide residents with a new opportunity to take a proactive role in the planning process and bring forward the development that they want to see on their streets. This new route to planning permission will support wider local efforts in bringing forward developments of new or more spacious homes in places where they are needed most. Amendments 248, 251, 253A, 254 and 257 all deal with how street votes will fit with the wider planning system and related requirements, and I propose to address them as a group.
In moving Amendment 248, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham emphasised the desirability of achieving maximum certainty in the planning system. The first thing for me to say is that we want to create a predictable system where residents have a high degree of certainty on what development is likely to be permissible before they prepare a street vote development order proposal and that we want to make the system accessible and easy to use. To achieve that, we propose to do things a bit differently with this new tool. We want to depart from existing practice, which relies heavily on the interpretation of local policies to determine whether a development is appropriate, and move to an approach where proposals are assessed against more precise requirements which will be prescribed in regulations. These prescribed regulations will include what type of development and what type of uses are allowed, as well as detailed design requirements such as floor limits, ceiling heights and the extent to which a plot can be used.
We want to test this through consultation ahead of drafting the secondary legislation. These requirements will provide residents with that certainty and ease of use and be designed to ensure that street votes development is high quality and that any local impacts are managed. While I understand the intentions behind my noble friend’s amendment, it would, if agreed, prevent us applying this new approach and therefore I am unable to support it. I emphasise that this is an issue that we intend to consult on as part of a wider consultation on the detail of the measure to ensure that a wide spectrum of views is considered and that the policy delivers for communities.
I turn next to Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. Where there is a street vote development order, we of course wish to see the resultant impacts of construction on residents and the local environment minimised. The powers we are seeking would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations the documents that must accompany a street vote proposal. They could potentially include a code of construction practice. We intend to consult on what these requirements should be as part of the wider consultation on the detail of the measure. Setting out the documentary requirements in the Bill would prevent us considering this, alongside other detailed matters, through consultation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that as part of that consultation we should speak to the Local Government Association or other representatives of local government? The drawing up of such codes and so on would almost certainly involve professionals in the planning departments of local authorities. They are at breaking point already—they are greatly stretched—and these street votes can presumably pop up at any time. They will not necessarily be part of a planned workload for local authorities. One of our concerns is that if some of these codes and other things that might be needed to support street votes are not very clear in secondary legislation or the SI that brings it in, it will put an incredible burden on those hard-pressed local authority planning departments. That is probably why the LGA has spoken out so strongly against this proposal, or one of the reasons. If we are going to do some extensive consultation on this before we see secondary legislation on it—which begs the question of why it could not have come in secondary legislation in the first place—that issue needs to be considered.
Earl Howe (Con)
We want to engage in extensive consultation. I have every confidence that the Government will want to garner opinion from sources that have expertise of the kind that the noble Baroness mentions, and I see no reason why the LGA will not be included in that. If I can provide her with greater certainty, I will certainly do so by letter. I will be talking more about the broader consultation process in a minute or two.
The effect of Amendment 253A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, would be to exclude development in any area with a designated neighbourhood forum from the scope of street vote development orders. This would mean that, as he explained, street vote development orders could not be used in areas where, I suggest, they would be of most benefit, for example, where local people want more homes, or where greenfield land is under particular pressure from housing development. I reassure the noble Lord that neighbourhood planning will continue to play an important role in the planning system. Indeed, other measures in the Bill reinforce this. Where street vote development orders operate, communities will continue to be able to participate in neighbourhood planning. Indeed, our intended consultation will give neighbourhood planning forums and other interested parties an opportunity to shape the policy and ensure that it delivers for communities.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the noble Earl for giving way. He has perhaps got the cart in front of the horse there. My amendment refers to neighbourhood plans which are in force. It seeks to make sure the decisions the public take on all the issues that he has just outlined as being highly desirable—those which have completed and formed a neighbourhood plan—are not then subject to a further random challenge from a particular street vote. It is not a question of the preparation of a neighbourhood plan; my amendment would not apply in that situation.
Earl Howe (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point. This highlights again how important it will be to ensure that the results of the consultation reflect issues such as those the noble Lord has raised. It may be that the general feeling is to go along the road the noble Lord has suggested. I do not want to pre-empt the consultation result in that sense, but let me reflect further on what he has said. Again, I will be happy to write to him if I have further wisdom to impart at this stage.
I can understand the reasons for tabling Amendment 254, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, spoke. I do not, however, agree that it is necessary. As a general point, biodiversity net gain will be an important point of the planning system going forward. It will ensure biodiversity must be enhanced when new development occurs and habitats will be impacted. Having said that, my colleagues at Defra have recently published the Government’s response to their consultation on the implementation of biodiversity net gain—BNG. This response makes clear that certain types of development will be exempt from BNG requirements.
The powers in the Bill require regulations to specify the development which can be consented to through a street vote development order. We are likely to use those powers to specify a range of development, from more minor developments such as roof extensions to more extensive development. In line with the wider policy approach, it is therefore likely to be appropriate to exempt some forms of street vote development from BNG requirements. That is why we are seeking the power in the Bill to both modify and exclude BNG provisions under Schedule 7A.
The noble Baroness asked in particular about conservation areas, and I will touch on that. I recognise the important role that conservation areas play in protecting local heritage. Proposals for street vote development orders will be independently examined against a set of prescribed requirements. The importance of local heritage will be taken into account in the design of these requirements. In addition, street vote development orders cannot be used to consent to the development of listed buildings and scheduled monuments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about infrastructure and perhaps I could reply to her in this particular context. We recognise that improvements to local infrastructure may be needed to support street vote development. Where street vote development takes place, local authorities will be able to secure value from the new development by charging a specific community infrastructure levy rate targeted at street vote development. This will ensure that value generated by the street vote development can be captured and used to secure infrastructure and affordable housing that will support the local area.
I turn briefly to the issue of whether it is appropriate to seek a delegated power in this case. As Defra’s recently published implementation plans make clear, much of the detailed implementation for biodiversity net gain will be set out in secondary legislation. It is therefore also appropriate to set out the biodiversity net gain arrangements for street vote development orders in secondary legislation to ensure that the systems work in harmony.
I can understand the reasons for tabling Amendment 257 in the name of the noble Baroness; however, I do not agree it is required. Clause 100(3) of the Bill allows for local authorities to expedite the procedure for setting community infrastructure levy rates for street vote development where local authorities do not have immediate plans to update or introduce CIL rates within their authority.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Earl has mentioned, a couple of times now, independent examination of street voting. Does that mean the idea is that we will have a whole new round of public inquiry processes for every street vote that is introduced?
Earl Howe (Con)
No, it most certainly does not. Our intention is to appoint the Planning Inspectorate to examine proposals and make the street vote development orders on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I wonder if I could help the noble Earl. For neighbourhood plans, there is an independent examiner who is not actually drawn from the inspectorate but obviously has to be a qualified professional person of independent standing according to an agreed register. I would have thought that, bearing in mind that is a task that is bringing forward a significant number of neighbourhood plans each year and the Government intend to bring forward more, there would be a substantial multiplier effect if street votes go ahead. So the pool of independent examiners may have to be deepened and widened somewhat beyond the Planning Inspectorate if he intends to proceed.
Earl Howe (Con)
That is a helpful suggestion, which I am happy to feed in.
On Amendments 252 and 253, in the name of the noble Baroness, the Government recognise that leaseholders will often have an interest in proposals for street vote development. Leaseholders will be able to be part of a group that can bring forward a proposal for a street vote development order if they are registered to vote in a local council election at an address in the street area on a prescribed date. If a proposal passes examination, a referendum will be held on it. Subject to the outcome of consultation, the Government envisage making a provision so that individuals, including leaseholders, who are registered to vote in the local council election at an address in the street area, as well as commercial rate payers there, will be eligible to vote. Again, we intend to consult on this proposal and on our proposals for referendum approval thresholds as part of a wider consultation on the detail of the measure.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I apologise. The noble Earl said that commercial developments in an area would have a vote, but how would they be on the electoral roll? Clause 99 says they would be.
Earl Howe (Con)
It is not that businesses would be on the electoral roll. If I misspoke, what I meant to say was that residents who are registered to vote in a local council election at an address in the street area on a prescribed date will be eligible to vote as part of this arrangement, as well as commercial rate payers in the area.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
So could Tesco, for instance, have a vote, if there was a little Tesco Express on the street?
Earl Howe (Con)
The intention is that, if there is a commercial business paying commercial business rates, it should be allowed a voice in this process.
Earl Howe (Con)
Yes, and consultation.
Before I speak to the government amendments, I will turn to Amendments 255 and 256, also in the name of the noble Baroness, which deal broadly with issues of propriety. I recognise the valuable expertise that organisations like the Association of Electoral Administrators can bring, but I do not agree with the noble Baroness that it is necessary to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to engage with them. As part of our work to develop the detail of the street votes policy for regulations, we will seek a wide range of views, as I mentioned earlier, from organisations such as the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives to help us to get the secondary legislation right and to ensure that the policy operates effectively. However, it is right that the Secretary of State will be required to consult the Electoral Commission, given its important statutory role to ensure free and fair elections and polls.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hear what the noble Earl is saying. In that respect, our amendment was more to seek the views of the Association of Electoral Administrators about the level of pressure that might be put on those groups—I made this point on planning teams earlier—if they were involved in a number of different referenda in their areas at the same time, for example. These can come out of the blue—we would not know when—so there are issues around how they are resourced to deal with that kind of uncertainty in their workloads.
Two big questions have come out what the noble Earl has said. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said, it seems that we are going to have a whole new inspectorate. We had a light-hearted suggestion that it might be called “Ofstreet”, but that is for later determination. Who is going to pay for that inspectorate? Secondly, there is the issue of referendums. Referendums can be quite expensive—we have done them on parking issues in my borough. It costs quite a lot of money because you have to be very careful about how they are done to make sure they are fair. Who pays for those?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, if I may say so, that is a very helpful intervention from the noble Baroness. She raises a number of key points, some of which will no doubt be covered in the consultation, but if I can expand on that I will be happy to write to her.
On Amendment 256, I would like to make it clear that the Government take the potential for conflicts of interest seriously. I am however confident that local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, both of which we envisage having an important role in the street vote process, have appropriate safeguards in place to minimise conflicts of interest. It is a matter for local authorities to determine their own conflict of interest policies. I have every confidence that all local authorities treat conflicts of interest seriously and have robust procedures in place for both their members and officers. It would not be proportionate to legislate that local authorities publish guidance on managing conflicts of interest specifically on street votes, although no local authority would be prohibited from doing so if they so wished.
Our intention is to appoint the Planning Inspectorate to examine proposals and make street vote development orders on behalf of the Secretary of State. As the independent examiner, the Planning Inspectorate has its own conflicts of interest policy to support the proper and efficient allocation of work. In addition, chartered town planners, who may support residents in preparing proposals, are bound by the Royal Town Planning Institute’s code of professional conduct. This includes provisions to declare and avoid conflicts of interest.
I turn briefly to the government amendments in this group. The Government are committed to ensuring that street vote development is subject to the same principles in relation to environmental impact assessment as development enabled by other routes to planning permission. This is consistent with the Government’s commitment on non-regression of environmental protections. Without amending the Bill, it would be unclear for qualifying groups and relevant bodies how the EIA requirements would apply to street vote development. Amendments 257A, 504H, 504I, 504J and 509A allow for the Secretary of State to make regulations modifying the existing process under the EIA regulations so they operate effectively for street vote development orders. Where development that is consented under a street vote development order is EIA development, it will continue to be prohibited unless an assessment has been carried out and the environmental impacts are considered when making the order. Amendments 248A, 256A and 258A make technical and consequential provision to the Town and Country Planning Act, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Elections Act 2022. These minor changes to these Acts—
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the noble Earl for giving way—I realise he has a mammoth task this afternoon. Amendment 258A introduces a new schedule to the Bill. It appears to be five pages long, which raises the total text to some 15 pages. I wonder whether he could say a little bit more about that schedule and what it is attempting to achieve. I am looking at paragraph 1(7), which is obviously difficult to interpret because it inserts bits into other legislation. Maybe he would like to write to me about this. Really quite important stuff is being parachuted into the Bill, on top of all the uncertainty we have been discussing. I wonder whether he would like to sketch in how the new schedule, which I suppose is going to renumbered as Schedule 8, fits into the general structure of this clause.
Earl Howe (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s question and his interest in that amendment; I understand why he felt he should have asked the question. My advice is that, despite its size, this additional schedule represents a minor and technical change, which is necessary to ensure the effective operation of the street votes process and to ensure that it is integrated into the wider planning system. However, I am happy to write to him with further and better particulars.
I hope that the Committee will feel more comfortable with the provisions as I have explained them, and that the government amendments will be accepted when they are reached.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Near the beginning of my speech, I asked the Minister if he would be able to define a street. Could he do so now?
Earl Howe (Con)
I am so sorry I omitted to reply to the noble Baroness; I will write to her. It is a question I ask officials myself. It is an issue which will be decided in the consultation because, as she rightly said, there will be instances where a street, as such, does not exist. For example, you might have a small community of houses where the owners or residents may wish to apply under this procedure. In short, this is an issue to be determined under the consultation.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late, and we are less than half way through the targeted groups for the day, so I will be as brief as I can in winding up this fairly lengthy debate. I note that all those who spoke to their amendments had at some point held elective office, either as councillors or in other place—and, in some cases, both. That may explain the lukewarm—I think that is the best adjective I can use—reception for this proposal. The conclusion I draw from this is that the role of a think tank is to think and to come up with radical policies; the role of government is not to fast-track those into primary legislation but to subject them to critical scrutiny and consultation, and then progress to the next stage. The more I listened to the debate, and the more I heard my noble friend the Minister use the word “consultation”, the more I have come to the conclusion that, while I said in my opening speech that this was a policy in the process of gestation, it is in fact the size of a pinhead, as far as I can see, when it comes to movement towards delivery.
I will now pick up some of the points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, struck a note of caution about the policy and agreed with me that it was okay to have street votes as a process of feeding into the formulation of a district plan, but she wanted more clarity and asked for assurances about conservation areas for which an assurance was not given. She asked relevant questions about the role of tenants, voting thresholds and declaration of interests. As I understand it, a short-term tenant will have a vote, but the owner, who is not in the property at the moment, will not. There are a lot of issues behind entitlement to vote, which I will come to a moment.
I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, was a Minister in the DCLG in 2010, when the Prescott policy of not-so-gentle densification was overturned—his head is stationary, so I do not know whether he was or not; now it has moved vertically, indicating that he was indeed in the department then. He made the point—I will come to it in a moment—about the priority of the neighbourhood plan. One of the worrying things that my noble friend the Minister said in his reply was that, where a neighbourhood has gone through the whole process of consultation, and has developed and had approved a neighbourhood plan, and then within that neighbourhood a street comes up with a proposal which is in conflict with it, the street vote has priority because my noble friend was unable to accept the amendment.
The same applies to my amendment. When one has gone through the whole process of formulating a district plan, residents throughout the district feel confident in the outcome. They then find that it can be overturned by a street vote. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, again highlighted the potential for neighbourhood conflict, which is one of the things that really worries me about this. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, whose patience and tolerance have been extended to the extreme over the past hour and a half. I note that he did not reply to the points that I made about the DPRR report, which made some scathing criticisms and suggested that whole sections of this Bill should be removed. Nor did he indicate when the Government might reply to that report.
My noble friend said that the street vote could go ahead with the support of residents, but we do not know what is meant by “support” or “residents”. As I read it, there will have to be an assessor; it will have to go through a process. My understanding is that an inspector—probably from the Planning Inspectorate—would be appointed to assess it. We did not get an answer to the question of who pays for the PINS inspector who is going to assess the proposal. The ratepayers will have a vote, but it is not quite clear who will exercise that vote on behalf of the business. If there is one very small business and one huge business, do they both have one vote? Who exercises it?
The conclusion that I draw from this is that the best thing for the Government to do is to drop this clause. Frankly, the Bill is far too long; this is not urgent; there is no great demand for it. That was quite clear from what my noble friend said whenever he was asked a question: “This is subject to consultation”. We should have had the consultation before we had the legislation. Although I will withdraw my amendment, I suspect that if I did not, I would win the vote quite comfortably on the basis of the exchanges that we have had so far. In the meantime, however, I thank all noble Lords, and particularly my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(i) an Authority election, where any part of the street area to which the street vote development order would relate is within the City of London, or(ii) an election of councillors of any relevant council (other than the City of London) any part of whose area is within the street area to which the street vote development order would relate,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends the conditions for an individual to be part of a “qualifying group” for the purposes of new section 61QB of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by clause 99), to remove the overlap in cases where any part of the street area to which the street vote development order would relate is within the City of London (which is also a “relevant council” for the purposes of the 1990 Act).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(3) Schedule (Street votes: minor and consequential amendments) contains minor and consequential amendments in connection with this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a new Schedule which makes minor and consequential amendments in connection with Clause 99 (street votes).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Street votes: modifications of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision modifying the application of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/517) in relation to the grant of planning permission by a street vote development order.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides a power to modify the application of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 in relation to the grant of planning permission by a street vote development order.
Baroness Pinnock
“(aa) residents of the local area who may be affected by the application, and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local residents before determining an application under this section.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 257B is to Clause 101, by which the Government will centralise to the Secretary of State some of the most important planning decisions that will be taken in any locality. The example that I will use is that of the proposed use of former airfield accommodation for housing asylum seekers. I do not want to debate the principle of that today—it is a proposal by the Government. What I am interested in, and concerned about, is the proposal from the Government as to how such a decision will be made. This relates to some of the most important planning applications that will ever occur in a locality. As we have heard over the last few meetings of this Committee, there is a well-thought-through, well-laid-out and well-understood—on the whole—planning process to determine applications either for a new development or a change-of-use development. The proposal here is to try to bypass that, because it would be difficult.
We live in a democracy, and the whole purpose of a democracy is for the voice of the people to be heard and for decisions to be made, having heard the voice of the people—of residents. I feel really strongly about this. In my experience, the worst thing that happens in a locality is when somebody in authority tries to impose a solution. It never works—and the experience of the Government so far shows that this will not work. The proposal for Linton-on-Ouse airfield in North Yorkshire to be used for accommodation for asylum seekers had to be fairly rapidly rescinded because of local objections. There is a way of doing things—and, yes, it takes time, but time is a healer. It gives a way of hearing voices that are, at first, perhaps angry, but can then be made less angry, or perhaps even ameliorated, through discussion and hearing both sides of a proposal.
Currently what happens with any planning application, but particularly big planning applications is that, first, it is notified in a formal way and word gets round in informal ways. A timetable is laid out for how the planning application will be considered, including a period in which objections can be made by local people. Then there is an opportunity at a meeting of the planning committee to hear the proposal and any objections. I think that most planning committees now allow, and encourage, members of the public to speak to the committee so that their voices and concerns can be heard. If planning officers are involved, one of their skills is to try to find a way through a difficult proposal by hearing the voices of those who live in the locality and of the planning proposal applicant. They try to find a way through so that, while nobody will be totally satisfied, there is less dissatisfaction. The decision is made in an open way—it is webcast, these days, well reported and understood—and a list of planning conditions are laid out so that all the issues that local people are concerned about can be addressed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for introducing her amendment. We agree with everything she has just said. I am also objecting to Clause 101 standing part of the Bill, because we are very concerned about the implications of this clause. We have also put down an amendment to probe whether guidance will be published on Clause 101, but our major concern is with the clause itself.
As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Clause 101 inserts new sections into the Town and Country Planning Act to provide for two new routes to apply for planning permission for the development of Crown land in England. In other words, we are talking about land where there is a Crown or Duchy interest. In the case of either route, the provisions in the clause will allow the appropriate authorities to apply for planning permission direct to the Secretary of State, rather than being subject to the same requirements and application processes as anyone else wishing to undertake development. In such circumstances, the Secretary of State must notify the local planning authority whether they intend to decide the application. If they decide to determine it themselves, they can approve it either conditionally, or unconditionally, or refuse it. They will also have to consult the local planning authority, to which the application would otherwise have been made, but the authority will have no right to veto it.
What does the policy paper that sits alongside the Bill say? It says that it is a means to
“provide a faster and more effective route for urgent and nationally important Crown development”.
That sounds all well and good, but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we are also concerned about the implications of introducing such an open-ended measure. This is regarding both removing appropriate and necessary limits on the exercise of executive power and denying communities a chance to express their views about development in their area and their ability to indicate either consent or opposition.
We fully appreciate that there will be emergency situations where it is necessary to speed up the planning application process for essential development. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Nightingale hospitals during the Covid pandemic. However, the broad scope of the provisions in the clause, which do not provide for any limit on the type of development that can be approved directly by the Secretary of State, or in what circumstances, means that they could be used for a much wider range of proposals.
This could include a number of circumstances, but I would like to focus on one in particular, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The Committee will know that the Government have opened centres to provide accommodation for asylum seekers and are looking to open further such centres. I would like to thank Asylum Matters, Medical Justice, the Helen Bamber Foundation and Ripon City of Sanctuary for their helpful briefings. The Government have, as the noble Baroness said, consistently sought to avoid public scrutiny of and consultation about the construction or operation of large-scale institutional facilities for asylum accommodation.
The Home Office has previously successfully opened such facilities on ex-military sites at Coltishall in Norfolk—which is now closed, despite an attempt to reopen it—Napier in Folkestone, which is still open, and Penally in Pembrokeshire, which is now also closed. It has further made attempts, despite local opposition, to construct or operate similar facilities in Barton Stacey, Hampshire, in a facility on the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre site in Bedfordshire and, from April 2022, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, at an ex-military base in the rural village of Linton-on-Ouse, North Yorkshire. All these projects have been the subject of intense controversy and, in the cases of Napier and Penally, legal challenge over the profound harm to people seeking asylum, as well as the lack of government consultation of local communities and the resulting impacts on community cohesion.
At both Yarl’s Wood and Linton-on-Ouse, pre-action correspondence was issued, and the developments were halted prior to judicial review. At Penally, the Secretary of State for Wales stated that he first had discussions with the Home Secretary about use of the site just nine days before it opened, and the local health board was informed three days prior. At Napier, the local council, local MP and local and district councillors wrote to the Home Office to protest that they had been given
“very little notice of the decision”
to open the barracks and that it was
“one they could not support”.
A similar lack of consultation occurred at Barton Stacey and at Yarl’s Wood. In the case of Napier, planning permission for the facility was initially secured under class Q emergency development rights for six months, subsequently extended to 12. The Secretary of State granted herself permission to use Napier Barracks for a further period of five years, without any public consultation, through the unusual procedure of using delegated legislation.
The Government’s approach has been criticised by your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which raised concerns that the Town and Country Planning (Napier Barracks) Special Development Order 2021 had been laid while Parliament was in recess and that “insufficient information” had been provided by the Government about these developments.
After the fact, the Home Office ran a public “consultation” on the change of use of the site. But this cannot be considered a meaningful consultation, as it took place after permission had been extended. The planning statement that was issued at this time included a commitment to complete a statement of community involvement. This has still not been published, despite the consultation closing at the end of January last year. Perhaps the Minister could give an update on that.
In a judgment handed down on 24 June last year, the High Court ruled that the decision to grant planning permission for a further five years was unlawful. The judge ruled that there was a failure to have proper regard to the public sector equality duty and that the development raised
“very obvious issues … in particular relating to … potential victimisation and harassment … and the fostering of good relations”.
Lack of consultation by the Government has had serious effects on community cohesion in places where large-scale institutional sites have been contemplated. Last April, the Government announced their intention to move towards a system of large-scale permanent asylum accommodation centres in which to place people seeking asylum who would otherwise be destitute, while they await a decision on their claim. The flagship announcement of a facility to accommodate 1,500 people seeking asylum on the ex-RAF base at Linton-on-Ouse, which we have mentioned, was made without any reference at all to the local community, the parish council, the district council, the police and crime commissioner or local police and health services. An initial justification for this was that it was part of a bigger series of announcements.
Current planning laws and, in particular, the right of local residents to be heard on decisions which affect them have proved a barrier to government attempting to institute these large-scale accommodation facilities. Our concern is that the powers provided for in this clause are to facilitate the driving through of centres regardless of their impact on the people placed in them or the local communities in which they are situated. They allow government to totally bypass local councils on asylum accommodation. This is completely the wrong approach. We believe it should be a legal requirement to consult local authorities on asylum accommodation locations.
Appropriate safeguards must be added into the clause to ensure that there are limits to the use of these powers and that minimum requirements are in place to secure some measure of consent from affected local communities. Without a firm commitment that such safeguards will be introduced at a later stage, we believe that Clause 101 must be removed from the Bill.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have not participated in this Bill so far. I arrived today thinking seriously about the matter of principle in the powers given to the Government by Clause 101, and with some sympathy for the ideas behind Amendments 257B and 258ZA. I am disappointed by the way in which both noble Baronesses have spoken to them, moving away from the principle of the way in which the Government have powers to a discussion about immigration policy and the use of asylum centres. That is a much narrower issue; it will come out of this, but it gets away from the principle of the Government having undue powers for whatever reason. Moving on to something highly controversial and difficult at this stage muddies the water in a way that is unhelpful for those of us who think that Clause 101 contains undesirable powers.
The noble Baroness referred to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I chaired during the Napier barracks statements. We have seen the Government push the envelope, in particular during the pandemic. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, will recall some of this as a former member of the committee. Things such as permitted developments were pushed out in response to the needs of the pandemic. I understand that; emergency statements needed to be taken and things needed to be done quickly.
We saw the impact of that in many ways, but most obviously in our having restaurants in the street, which was needed at the time because otherwise they would have had to close due to social distancing. We on the SLSC were content about this because there was a sunset clause built in. However, a year later it was removed by another piece of legislation. By two steps, the Government moved from one position to another with minimal scrutiny from your Lordships’ House and the other place. That is the issue I am interested in exploring in this clause, rather than involving ourselves in discussions about immigration, which will take us back to all sorts of difficult areas that will not help the development of the argument.
The Government said in response to our concerns about making these permitted developments permanent that we were semi-killjoys, trying to stop restaurants in the street and so on, but the reality is that they were controversial for mothers with buggies, pallet truck drivers, people with limited vision and, above all, people who lived above them—all of us talk rather louder and laugh a bit more when leaving a restaurant at 11 pm having had a few glasses of wine, so people found their children being kept awake and so on.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. My concern is to do with not the specific examples referred to, but that we seem to be in a situation where we are asked to confer an unconstrained power in relation to an undefined objective. The undefined objective is “national importance”, and I have not been able to find a definition of what that might be. I suppose you would say that I might ask from these Benches: is the national importance clearly distinguishable from the political aspirations of the Government of the day? Is it something different? I would want to know because I would not want to confer a power without having a very clear sense of purpose.
We turn to the matter of “urgency”—not emergency, I stress, but urgency. We need to understand what that amounts to. It may be irksome to Governments of the day—the more centralist and command economy-type the thinking, the more irksome it becomes—to go through hoops to do with projects that involve Crown land. But it is the price of democracy, and the price of the maintenance of the rule of law and the continuation of what might be regarded as the rules-based system. That demands a degree of consistent approach. Without having some definitions in the Bill, it is difficult to see how there could be any consistent approach here, as opposed to one based on whim.
Some of the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, produced in her excellent introduction made it look like Government gaming the system, and that worries me very greatly because it is not just the Government that may be here today, but one tomorrow or in future years, and perhaps—who knows?—one that is more extreme of right or left; I say not which. I get back to the rules-based system. Are we in that environment or are we getting into the area where anything goes?
I mention the following because I do not want it to be used as the lever by the Minister when he comes to reply. Wrapped up in the middle of page 123 of the Bill, in new Section 293B(11), is the provision for matters of national security and public disclosure that would be
“contrary to the national interest”.
I get that, and I do not have any principled objection to it, subject to adequate definitions and safeguards. I want to know how “national importance” and “national interest” interface for a start.
Going over the page in the Bill, page 124 states, in new Section 293C(3), that:
“A development order may make provision as to the consultation”—
“may”, but does not have to. That cannot be an entirely optional extra at the whim of whichever Secretary of State happens to be in power at the time. Still on page 124, new subsection (8) states:
“The following provisions do not apply for the purposes of determining an application … sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act”.
Section 66(1) is in relation to the desirability of conserving and protecting listed buildings, and Section 72(1) is effectively the same but for conservation areas. But when the Bill says:
“The following provisions do not apply”,
they clearly do not apply to anybody, not even the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is, in other measures, asking the general citizenry to comply with precisely the same burdens that they decide, on a whim, that they are going to relieve themselves of. I am behind the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, because this is just not good enough.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lady Hayman, who performed an excellent destruction of this clause. Other noble Lords have said much the same thing. I have one question for the Minister, because this is all about the Crown, but I cannot see any definition in the clause of who “the Crown” is. There are other definitions in other parts of the Bill, which include the Duchy of Cornwall, which I shall come on to in the next amendment, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Crown Estate. It makes me think that what we are really trying to do is to go back to a time when we had “the Crown” in the shape of Henry VIII, who could do more or less what he wanted. This seems a very good start to the Government’s plan to give Henry VIII, in the shape of whoever is in charge at the time, carte blanche to do what they want.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Before we hear from my noble friend, I want to say that Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 defines what is Crown land and goes on to make it clear what is an appropriate authority for the purposes of what is being introduced in Section 293B, down to and including,
“in relation to Westminster Hall and the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft … the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Speakers of the House of Lords and the House of Commons acting jointly”
being the appropriate authority.
I want to ask my noble friend about something because I simply do not understand it. There is an existing Section 293A, which as it stands is called “Urgent Crown development: application”; it has almost the same name as new Section 293B. I completely understand that the existing legislation does not appear to include all the provisions relating to how the Secretary of State deals with such an application and how the Secretary of State might give permission, so it is probably defective. But then I do not understand why all this is being added in and Section 293A is not being repealed. Perhaps my noble friend can explain that to me.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, looking first at this clause as a totality, I will begin by explaining briefly the purpose of the proposed measure. The purpose of Clause 101 is to update the existing provisions for development by the Crown that is of national importance and required urgently by providing a new, faster, more effective and efficient route for seeking planning permission. It also provides a new route for nationally important development that is not urgent. The objective of these reforms is to ensure that planning decisions can be made in a timely and proportionate way on development that is of national importance and is promoted by the Crown.
Let me banish what I have perceived from this debate is a misconception. A special urgency procedure for urgent and nationally important Crown development has existed in legislation for many years. The purpose of the clause is to update this route so it can be used more effectively to deal with urgent national crises and supplement it with a new route for making a planning decision for non-urgent planned Crown development which is of national importance.
The Government believe that, where a Crown development is of genuine national significance, the Secretary of State, who is democratically accountable to Parliament, should be able to make a planning decision rather than an individual local planning authority answerable to its local community. The Secretary of State is best placed to take a national, balanced and impartial view of the need for development.
Let me explain that nationally important but non-urgent applications will still be considered against the plan-led approach we advocate through the Bill, and local communities will be given their opportunity to give their views and have these taken into account. Again, there is precedent for this type of approach within Section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act, where planning applications can be submitted directly to the Secretary of State. It is thought that this route would be suitable for development such as new prisons and extensions to the defence estate.
All sorts of hares have been set running on this provision, and it is most important for me to emphasise that the urgent route that we are introducing would be used sparingly where—and only where—it can be demonstrated that development is needed urgently and is nationally important. Those are high bars, but the route could, for example, be used for development needed on Crown land to develop medical centres in the event of a pandemic. Such development will need to be operational in a matter of weeks so decisions can be made very quickly. Other examples could include accommodation needed urgently in the event of a future influx of refugees, or military training facilities.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Hodgson for at least part of what he said, if not for all of it. Press reports have been misleading on the issue of housing illegal migrants. As I have said, the power can be used only for Crown development which is of both national importance and needed urgently. As I have said, this is a high bar, and Crown bodies making an application will need to justify that using this route is appropriate.
This does not concern any situation that we may currently be facing on illegal migrants. In the first place, it is worth bearing in mind that this power will not take effect straightaway, contrary to reports in the press. The Bill needs to finish its passage through Parliament and then we will need to lay regulations and produce guidance before this can properly be brought into force. That will take time. To this end, it may not be a suitable route for the immediate issue of housing of migrants to address the current immigration backlogs. In the case of asylum accommodation on MoD bases, it will be for the Home Secretary to decide whether to bring forward an application when the powers are in place.
We recognise that the procedure for this urgent route is not the same as the more commonly known statutory procedure for determining planning applications. It is therefore, I say again, a route that will be used sparingly. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that those promoting the development must clearly demonstrate that there is an urgent need for the development, that timely decisions cannot be delivered by other planning routes and that it is therefore in the wider public interest that the planning decision is accelerated using the new procedure.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister for his careful response to the concerns that have been raised. I said at the outset that I understand that some planning decisions must be made rapidly in the national interest.
However, unrestrained power for an undefined purpose of national importance, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, is at the heart of this. The Executive are taking too much power without being clear on why an urgent decision is needed. If the Government had come forward with a speeded-up process for urgent decisions, shortening the planning process because something is urgent but still enabling people to have their voices heard, I would be more inclined to support that, but not them just saying that, basically, the Secretary of State can make the decision.
I end with this because it is near—well, nearish—me. Linton-on-Ouse was an abject failure of this process. A decision was made to use that accommodation. Nobody was asked, nobody was told. Lots of people said, “Oh, right, we’re not having this then”, as they do in Yorkshire and no doubt do elsewhere. They decided to have a public meeting and put an end to it, and that is exactly what happened, whereas with thoughtful, informed decision-making, the Government may have been able to get to a solution. The Minister’s proposal that this is the only way to get a timely, proportionate, faster and more effective route has not been borne out in practice.
I get upset when the phrase “illegal migrants” is used. The people coming across the channel are asylum seekers. If some of them have their asylum applications refused, they will at that point be illegal migrants, but otherwise they are asylum seekers.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“Application of TCPA 1990 to the Duchy of Cornwall(1) Section 293 of TCPA 1990 (application of Act to Crown land: preliminary definitions) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in the definition of “Duchy interest” omit “or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall”.(3) In subsection (2), omit paragraph (d).(4) In subsection (3B), omit paragraph (b).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to provided that for the purposes of planning law the Duchy of Cornwall is treated as any private sector entity.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I rise to speak to Amendments 258 and 504GJI in my name. Both refer to issues to do with the Duchy of Cornwall. As the Minister will probably know, I live on the island of Bryher in Scilly, and I have been challenging the Duchy of Cornwall on many things for a number of years, including one or two Private Member’s Bills, which only got so far.
Things move on. We have a new Duke of Cornwall, and I welcome him, but if one looks at the website of the Duchy of Cornwall and at much of its publicity, it emphasises that it is in the private sector. My argument is that if you are in the private sector, you have to behave as any other company, estate or whatever that exists in the private sector. Sometimes that is maybe good for the tenants, sometimes it may not be. I will not get into all the other issues that may be affected by changes in the personnel there, but there are two issues that I want to cover tonight.
The first is in Amendment 258 on the application of the Town and Country Planning Act to the Duchy of Cornwall. In other words, why should the Duchy get special treatment for planning applications and everything when other similar organisations do not? That comes back to the question that we had just had now, which is who is the Crown? It is a difficult one. I do not think that the Minister answered my question on this in the previous group. I am sure that he will have a go at doing it again. There are the Crown Estates, which are doing very well in the offshore field, as well as everywhere else, bringing in lots of revenue, and the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. All of them, apart from the Duchy of Cornwall, are effectively arms, shall we say, in the relationship between the Crown and the Government and in the financial arrangements and control that the Treasury has.
However, the Duchy of Cornwall is slightly different, so in addition to my suggestion that it should not have any special treatment when it comes to planning applications—which affect a lot of people on the Isles of Scilly, in Cornwall and probably in other places as well—there is leasehold reform, which we have been debating for about five years. I have a lot of friends who are leaseholders who want to buy their freehold from the Duchy. It affects many people on the islands and probably on the mainland as well. We have had some very interesting and useful documentation on this. The last major one was the Law Commission’s report on leasehold enfranchisement, which I thought was excellent. I sent in lots of evidence and a lot of other people did. It came up with a very good report in July 2021 recommending the right to buy for many people. I am not going to read out all its recommendations, but they were wide ranging and, I think, generally welcomed by leaseholders.
However, the Duchy argued that it should be exempt from any right to buy on the Isles of Scilly and the off-islands and on certain buildings on the mainland and elsewhere. Its reason was that the areas where these buildings were located were of such enormous importance to the environment and the quality of the life there that it should not be left to the local planning authority to decide whether a lease should be able to be converted into a freehold.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for once again using his very detailed, particular knowledge and expertise of issues around the Isles of Scilly and Cornwall. As ever, we are grateful to him for speaking up for those communities. The question he asks is an important one: why should anybody be exempt from proposals in this Bill, never mind the Duchy of Cornwall?
I will start with Amendment 504GJI on leasehold. We have had long and protracted discussions around leasehold in the course of discussions on this Bill previously. My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the Law Commission report on leasehold and the recommendations that people should be able to buy out freehold. I cannot see any reason that Law Commission report has not been acted on, and I hope the Minister will be able to enlighten us about that.
Certainly, it does not seem to us that there should be exemptions that sit outside of that for any reason. If the Law Commission has looked closely at the rationale for the exemptions that were put forward by the Duchy and not found those to be reasonable, it seems that the Government should treat the Duchy of Cornwall in the same way as they treat everybody else. As we have heard the Secretary of State say number of times now, if the Government intend to end the feudal leasehold system, will the Duchy of Cornwall be exempt from that, too, or will the Duchy of Cornwall’s properties be included in that legislation? If the Minister cannot provide the answer today, I am happy to take an answer in writing to that question.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley was kind enough to provide information about the issue related to the Isles of Scilly steamship company to us in advance of today’s session, and the point that he makes is a very valid one. For the communities on the Isles of Scilly, this really is an issue of levelling up. He has given us information on the very steep fare increases on that steamship company, and I understand the fare is now some £89. People on the Isles of Scilly will need to use that service. Their choice is either to travel by air, which we do not want to encourage, or to use this steamship company. A strange situation has developed here; it is a situation that I wish I had had in my borough, where when you find you have to go into competition to deliver something if you use government funding, you suddenly find, after 10 years of asking for government money, that the money has appeared miraculously. That does seem a very strange situation. There needs to be close attention to the way these issues are treated. They are issues of levelling up, because communities on the Isles of Scilly want to know they are being treated in the same way as other communities in the United Kingdom. I support my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will start by addressing Amendment 258 and then move on to Amendment 504GJI, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Amendment 258 would remove land in the Duchy of Cornwall from the definition of “Crown land”, as part of planning law. The noble Lord asked what the definition of “Crown land” was, and I apologise for not answering him in the previous debate. It is set out in Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as my noble friend Lord Lansley rightly indicated in the last debate. It is, broadly, land in which there is a Crown or a Duchy interest—I shall expand on that in a second. I appreciate that the noble Lord tabled a number of Private Member’s Bills concerning the treatment of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, and I admire his tenacity in this regard.
For the benefit of the Committee, I will set out some factual and historical background. For a long time, the Crown was not subject to planning control, but, in 2006, provisions within the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 made it subject to planning permission, subject to special modifications. These recognise not only the unique nature of operational Crown land—prisons and military bases, for example—but the uniqueness and importance of the royal estates.
It is important first to understand the complex status of the Duchy of Cornwall. The title “Duke of Cornwall” and the inheritance of the Duchy were created in 1337 by a charter that carries the authority of an Act of Parliament. By virtue of that charter, the Duchy vests in the eldest son of the sovereign, also being heir apparent. Where there is no son and heir, the estate reverts to the Crown. Craies on Legislation notes:
“That is why … the Crown’s prerogative attaches to the lands of the Duchy of Cornwall, for the reason that they never entirely cease to be Crown lands”.
In short, there is always the possibility of the Duchy reverting to the sovereign, as his or her property. For this reason, the Duchy never entirely ceases to be Crown lands. For example, in recent times, King George VI had no son, so, on his accession, there was no Duke of Cornwall and the Duchy remained with King George VI.
Removing the Duchy of Cornwall from the definition of “Crown land” within Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act risks disrupting this well-established constitutional arrangement. This could open widespread implications for not just planning but how the Duchy is treated in law more widely. I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, but I am not sure that it is appropriate to open up this debate as part of the Bill. From his previous experience, he will appreciate that it would not be right for a single individual or party to seek to change the law on the way the Duchy of Cornwall is treated. If that is done at all, it has to be done with cross-party support. In addition, a Bill affecting the Duchy requires the King’s consent and sometimes also the Prince’s consent. For the reasons I set out, the Government have no intention to change the definitions of “Crown land” at this time, especially where this concerns changes that could affect His Majesty’s hereditary rights.
Amendment 504GJI addresses the impact that recommendations in the Law Commission’s 2020 report on enfranchisement would have on the Government’s levelling-up and regeneration objectives, including for leaseholders on land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall. The Government are committed to making it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to purchase their freeholds and extend their leases, and we are grateful to the Law Commission for its detailed report on enfranchisement reform. This report addressed a range of matters relating to the qualifying criteria for enfranchisement and lease extensions, including the applicability of these to leaseholders of the Crown, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster. In January 2022, the Government consulted on Law Commission proposals that would improve access to enfranchisement and the right to manage. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that this is a long-term and complex reform programme with many interdependencies, and it will take time to get the detail right. Once it is enacted, the effect will be felt for generations, so we are determined that this work consider all the implications with care.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving us a very interesting history lesson, which I certainly knew about but maybe other noble Lords did not. As he said, this goes back to 1300 or thereabouts, when the Duchy started. Yes, it would cause trouble to make changes; however, there has to be a debate about the Duchy land. Is it in the private ownership of the Duke of Cornwall, or it is in what you might call state ownership, alongside the Crown Estates and the Duchy of Lancaster?
When the Law Commission report came out a couple of years ago, I wrote to the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Crown Estates to ask whether they were going to implement the recommendations, in particular for their own land. I got really good answers from the Crown Estates and the Duchy of Lancaster. They said they would follow the recommendations, but in a slightly different way. The Duchy of Cornwall could not make up its mind. It is seen to be trying to be different, and I do not quite know why, because I love it dearly. It is something that probably ought to be looked at, but I will not go any further on that this evening.
There is a democratic deficit, and if the Minister is saying we are going to go ahead and try to complete the process, which I certainly welcome, how is the democratic input from the Duchy of Cornwall’s residents and others, such as stakeholders, going to be put in?
We have had a very interesting debate and I thank the Minister for his helpful answers, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“ScheduleStreet votes: minor and consequential amendmentsTown and Country Planning Act 1990
1 (1) TCPA 1990 is amended as follows.(2) In section 5 (the Broads), in subsection (3), for “61Q” substitute “61QM”.(3) In section 56 (time when development begun), in subsection (3)—(a) after “(7),” insert “61QI(8),”;(b) for “108(3E)(c)(i)” substitute “, 108(3E)(c)(i), 108(3DB)(c)(i)”.(4) In section 57 (planning permission required for development), in subsection (3), for “or a neighbourhood development order” substitute “, a neighbourhood development order or a street vote development order”.(5) In section 58 (granting of planning permission: general), in subsection (1)(a), for “or a neighbourhood development order” substitute “, a neighbourhood development order or a street vote development order”.(6) In section 62 (applications for planning permission or permission in principle), in subsection (2A)—(a) at the end of paragraph (a) omit “and”;(b) after paragraph (b) insert “, and(c) applications for consent, agreement or approval where that consent, agreement or approval is required by a condition or limitation imposed under section 61QI(1).”(7) In section 65 (notice of applications for planning permission or permission in principle), in subsection (3A)—(a) at the end of paragraph (a) omit “and”;(b) after paragraph (b) insert “, and(c) any application for consent, agreement or approval where that consent, agreement or approval is required by a condition or limitation imposed under section 61QI(1) or any applicant for such consent, agreement or approval.”(8) In section 69 (register of applications etc)—(a) after subsection (1)(cza) insert—“(czb) street vote development orders or proposals for such orders;”;(b) in subsection (2)(b), after “Mayoral development order,” insert “street vote development order or proposal for such an order,”.(9) In section 71 (consultations in connection with determinations under section 70), in subsection (2ZA)—(a) at the end of paragraph (a) omit “and”;(b) after paragraph (b) insert “, and (c) an application for consent, agreement or approval where that consent, agreement or approval is required by a condition or limitation imposed under section 61QI(1).”(10) In section 74 (directions etc as to method of dealing with applications), in subsection (1ZA)—(a) in paragraph (a)—(i) at the end of sub-paragraph (i) omit “and”;(ii) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—“(iii) a consent, agreement or approval where that consent, agreement or approval is required by a condition or limitation imposed under section 61QI(1), and”;(b) in paragraph (b)—(i) at the end of sub-paragraph (i) omit “and”;(ii) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert “, and“(iii) applications for consent, agreement or approval where that consent, agreement or approval is required by a condition or limitation imposed under section 61QI(1).”.(11) In section 77 (reference of applications to Secretary of State), in subsection (1), for “or a neighbourhood development order” substitute “, a neighbourhood development order or a street vote development order”.(12) In section 78 (right to appeal), in subsection (1)(c), for “or a neighbourhood development order” substitute “, a neighbourhood development order or a street vote development order”.(13) In section 88 (planning permission for development in enterprise zones), in subsection (9), for “or a neighbourhood development order” substitute “, a neighbourhood development order or a street vote development order”.(14) In section 91 (general condition limiting duration of planning permission), in subsection (4)(a), for “or a neighbourhood development order” substitute “, a neighbourhood development order or a street vote development order”.(15) In section 94 (termination of planning permission by reference to time limit: completion notices), in subsection (1), after paragraph (d) insert “; or(e) a planning permission under a street vote development order is subject to a condition that the development to which the permission relates must be begun before the expiration of a particular period, that development has been begun within that period, but that period has elapsed without the development having been completed.”(16) In section 108 (compensation)—(a) in the heading, for “or neighbourhood development order” substitute “, neighbourhood development order or street vote development order”;(b) in subsection (1)—(i) in paragraph (a), for “or a neighbourhood development order” substitute “, a neighbourhood development order or a street vote development order”;(ii) in the words after paragraph (b), for “or the neighbourhood development order” substitute “, the neighbourhood development order or the street vote development order”;(c) in subsection (2), for “or a neighbourhood development order” substitute “ , a neighbourhood development order or a street vote development order”;(d) in subsection (3B)—(i) in paragraph (ba), at the end omit “or”; (ii) after that paragraph insert—“(bb) in the case of planning permission granted by a street vote development order, the condition in subsection (3DB) is met, or”;(e) after subsection (3DA) insert—“(3DB) The condition referred to in subsection (3B)(bb) is that—(a) the planning permission is withdrawn by the revocation or modification of the street vote development order,(b) notice of the revocation or modification was published in the prescribed manner not less than 12 months or more than the prescribed period before the revocation or modification took effect, and(c) either—(i) the development authorised by the street vote development order had not begun before the notice was published, or(ii) section 61QI(8) applies in relation to the development.”(17) In section 109 (apportionment of compensation for depreciation), in subsection (6), in the definition of “relevant planning decision”, for “or the neighbourhood development order” substitute “, the neighbourhood development order or the street vote development order”.(18) In section 171H (temporary stop notice: compensation), in subsection (1)(a), for “or a neighbourhood development order” substitute “, a neighbourhood development order or a street vote development order”.(19) In section 264 (cases in which land is to be treated as not being operational land), in subsection (5)(ca), for “or a neighbourhood development order” substitute “, a neighbourhood development order or a street vote development order”.(20) In section 324 (rights of entry), in subsection (1A)—(a) the words from “the reference” to the end become paragraph (a);(b) after that paragraph insert “, and(b) the reference to a proposal by the Secretary of State to make any order under Part 3 includes a reference to a proposal submitted (or to be submitted) to the Secretary of State for the making of a street vote development order.”(21) In section 333 (regulations and orders)—(a) after subsection (3) insert—“(3ZZA) Subsection (3) does not apply to a statutory instrument containing regulations made under any of sections 61QB to 61QJ or section 61QL if a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”;(b) after subsection (3ZA) insert—“(3ZZAA) No regulations may be made under section 61QC(3), 61QH(2) or 61QI(5) unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”(22) In Schedule 1 (local planning authorities: distribution of functions), in paragraph 6A, at the end insert “or any of sections 61QA to 61QM (street vote development orders)”.Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
2 (1) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is amended as follows. (2) In section 66 (general duty as respects listed buildings in exercise of planning functions), in subsection (4), after “orders” insert “or street vote development orders (except as provided by SVDO regulations within the meaning given by section 61QM of the principal Act)”.(3) In section 72 (general duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions), in subsection (4), after “orders” insert “or street vote development orders (except as provided by SVDO regulations within the meaning given by section 61QM of the principal Act)”.Elections Act 2022
3 In section 34 of the Elections Act 2022 (campaigners), in subsection (6), in the definition of “local referendum”, after paragraph (d) insert—“(e) section 61QE of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (referendums on street vote development orders);”.The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017
4 (1) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012) are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 75 (general development orders)—(a) in the heading, after “orders” insert “and street vote development orders”;(b) in the opening words, after “2017” insert “or a street vote development order”.(3) In regulation 76 (opinion of appropriate nature conservation body)—(a) in the heading, after “orders” insert “and street vote development orders”;(b) in paragraph (1), after “order” insert “or a street vote development order”;(c) in paragraph (6), after “order” insert “or a street vote development order”.(4) In regulation 77 (approval of local planning authority), in the heading, after “orders” insert “and street vote development orders”.(5) In regulation 78 (supplementary)—(a) in the heading, after “orders” insert “and street vote development orders”;(b) in paragraph (3)(b), after “order” insert “or development order”.(6) In regulation 85B (assumptions to be made about nutrient pollution standards)—(a) in the heading, after “orders” insert “and street vote development orders”;(b) in paragraph (1)(a) after “orders” insert “and street vote development orders”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Schedule which makes minor and consequential amendments in connection with clause 99 (street votes).
Lord Lansley
“(5A) Where a subsequent planning permission (Permission B) is for localised changes to a wider development approved in the existing permission (Permission A), which would not have the effect of rendering the implementation of the Permission A physically impossible, the implementation of permission B does not preclude future reliance upon Permission A (in relation to existing or future development) outside of the area to which permission B relates.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would support the continuation of “drop-in” permissions in large-scale developments, while maintaining the “Pilkington” principle, that they must not render the original permission physically impossible.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. This group relates to planning permissions. There are a number of different amendments for different purposes and perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I speak only to my Amendment 258B, which has a particular purpose. It seeks to provide a clear, statutory provision in relation to an area of planning law that has recently become uncertain and which if not clarified would create a number of costly and difficult consequences both for developers and planning authorities.
I will explain the background. The issue relates to large developments which are built out over a significant period; they are developments which have had a full planning permission. Of course, if development proceeds in phases with outline permission, or with a hybrid mix of outline and full permissions for different phases, the scope for varying a large development can be adjusted over time—but I am talking here about developments with full planning permission. In relation to those, it is clear that variations to that full planning permission are limited. Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 permits variations to a planning permission that are not material. Clause 102 of the Bill seeks to insert into that Act a new subsection (5) stating that planning permission may be granted in relation to an existing permission
“only if the local planning authority is satisfied that its effect will not be substantially different from that of the existing permission”.
That is not quite the same as the existing law; it is a step forward, but a very modest step in that direction. However, the issue is where a developer seeks permission within the boundary of an existing large-scale development for a significant variation to the plan. What happens where two permissions exist together in relation to the same site?
This matter arises in relation to what is known as the Hillside judgment—Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority—to which I will return soon. The Supreme Court judgment was given in November last year, so it is quite recent. In paragraph 28, it said:
“There is … no provision of the legislation which regulates the situation where two or more planning permissions granted for development on the same site are, or are claimed to be … inconsistent. The courts have therefore had to work out the principles to be applied”.
The key case in this respect, up until now, has been Pilkington v Secretary of State for the Environment. I will not dwell on the two bungalows and the smallholding which were the subject of that case. Lord Widgery, in his judgment, stated that the test would consider
“whether it is possible to carry out the development proposed in that second permission, having regard to that which was done or authorised to be done under the permission which has been implemented”.
In a sense, what Pilkington established was the idea that permission could not continue to be valid where it had become physically impossible to implement it by virtue of a subsequent planning permission that has been consented. However, that has tended, over time, to imply that, where it is not physically impossible to fulfil an existing planning permission, it would remain valid, notwithstanding that there is an additional permission in relation to part of the site. So the general expectation has been that, where permissions relate to the same site, the issue is whether the implementation of one renders the other physically incapable of implementation. If it does, the approval of the latter would render the former invalid; if it did not, the former permission would not be invalidated.
I turn now to the Supreme Court judgment of the Hillside case in November last year. An issue for the appellants—Hillside Parks Ltd—was that the Court of Appeal had held that the original planning permission for the whole site could not be interpreted as separable. Paragraph 71 of the judgment of the Supreme Court justices said:
“We agree with the view expressed by the Court of Appeal in this case that where, as here, a planning permission is granted for the development of a site, such as a housing estate, comprising multiple units, it is unlikely to be the correct interpretation of the permission that it is severable”.
Consequently, if a permission were implemented in relation to a part of a larger site, even if the rest of the original permission could be completed, the fact that the whole original permission could not be completed would render the original permission no longer valid.
The problems that arise from this were summarised in submissions to the Supreme Court by counsel for the appellants who submitted that it would cause serious practical inconvenience if a developer who, when carrying out a large development, encountered a local difficulty or wished for other reasons to depart from the approved scheme in one particular area of the site, cannot obtain permission to do so without losing the benefit of the original permission and having to apply for a fresh planning permission for the remaining development on other parts of the site. The Supreme Court justices took the view that that was indeed the legal position: that where a developer had been granted a full planning permission for one entire scheme and wished to depart from it in a material way, it is a consequence of the very limited powers that a local planning authority has to make changes that a full new permission would be required.
I am very grateful to the Home Builders Federation, which supplied a full briefing after I tabled the amendment. It supplemented my knowledge quite a bit. I hope noble Lords have received its briefing, which included several case studies to show how these consequences of the Hillside judgment last November could create cost, delay and disruption to development in large sites. I am not proposing to go through the case studies. I hope noble Lords will understand that at this late hour that would not be terribly helpful. It implies, however, with a series of examples, that the cost of a new, full application with all the attendant documentation, such as environmental impact assessments for a whole site, would be a very costly and time-consuming consequence.
Local planning authorities will not easily resource new large-scale applications for sites which they had regarded as already consented. It could mean that opportunities for desired changes, such as, in one example, to give a small builder access to part of a larger development, would not be offered if they would put the whole scheme at risk. I do not think we can even get into how difficult the community infrastructure levy or, in future, the infrastructure levy, would be to calculate in relation to such further planning permissions relating to the whole existing site. The uncertainty of whether the permission for a large site might be rendered invalid would be a serious risk to the effective delivery of major sites. Only immaterial changes on a large site would be regarded as safe: everything else would put it all at risk.
My objective in Amendment 258A is to give a straightforward statutory provision which would re-establish the position as it had been understood, i.e. that only if a subsequent permission renders the completion of an original permission physically impossible would the earlier permission be invalidated and—perhaps even more important by contrast—if it does not render the original permission physically impossible on the rest of the site, the earlier permission may continue to be relied upon in relation to the rest of that site, i.e. excluding the area to which the subsequent permission has been applied.
I am very grateful for the vocal support I have received for this amendment from the Home Builders Federation. I hope that the Minister may be able to support the intention of this amendment to the extent that she might even look to Parliamentary Counsel’s expertise to see whether my amendment serves the purpose or whether something supplementary might be moved on Report to achieve this—I hope—helpful objective. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 268 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to which I have added my name. I have to say at the outset that I have no idea whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would agree with my comments, but I hope that he would.
Your Lordships have listened to, and taken part in, many debates over the years on the challenges faced by rural communities. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath have chaired committees looking in depth at these challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, called for a national rural strategy, and I support this. Similarly, my noble friend Lord Foster pressed the case for there to be proper recognition of the challenges rural communities face and for the Government to have a discreet policy which recognises this. There is an industrial strategy, so why not a rural strategy?
The Government’s response was that all the issues faced by rural communities were covered under many other policy areas, so there was no need for a rural strategy. Assurances were given that all government policies would be rural-proofed. This, therefore, was a refusal to have a rural strategy—and there is very little evidence that all government policies are rural-proofed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, there are two amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage: Amendment 259, which probes subsection (7), which is inserted by Clause 102; and Amendment 260, which probes the involvement of the Mayor of London under the new section. We consider Clause 102 to be relatively straightforward, in that it simply makes provisions concerning minor variations to planning permission, allowing for greater flexibility to make non-substantial changes that would not be possible at present without the submission of multiple applications by various different routes.
On that basis, we broadly welcome this change, because it will give effect to something that is long overdue, simplifying arrangements currently in place that were only ever intended as a short-term holding position. However, we have tabled Amendments 259 and 260 because there are a couple of areas of concern that we would like the Government to look at. First, current arrangements ensure that, if a variation to planning permission is sought, whether before or after completion, the circumstances of the day are considered when determining the Section 73 application. That, of course, includes the policies in place at the time and any other material considerations. However, as drafted, Clause 101(7) suggests to us—and the Minister may be able to clarify this—that the circumstances at the time of the original grant of permission would be the framework for determining applications in future. We are concerned that this would mean, for example, that if a new local plan had been adopted since the original permission, that plan—which might, for example, include more challenging environmental standards—could not be applied in deciding whether or not to grant the Section 73 application. It may well be that the Minister can clarify that for us.
Similarly, many Section 73 applications relate to the number of residential units or to floor space. Again, as drafted, we are concerned that the decision-maker would not be able to, for example, revisit the amount of affordable housing provided by the scheme, potentially creating a significant loophole. We think that local planning authorities should be able to consider up-to-date planning policy and/or guidance when determining such applications, to guard against such adverse consequences as I have just been talking about. We therefore propose that subsection (7) be removed from the clause.
Our second issue of concern relates to the powers that are devolved to the Mayor of London on strategic planning applications. As the Minister well knows, the Mayor has powers to become the decision-maker for strategic planning applications, subject to certain provisions. However, we are concerned that the Bill as drafted provides only for the Secretary of State’s call-in powers; we believe that leaves a vacuum in relation to the mayoral powers. We propose Amendment 260 to follow Clause 102(13) to ensure that the powers of the Mayor of London to call in applications in accordance with the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order are still taken into account.
I shall say a very few words on the other amendments that have been discussed. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for introducing Amendment 268 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. It is a very interesting amendment, and I am glad that she spoke to it. I absolutely agree with her that we should have a rural strategy. I should draw attention in my interest, in that I have recently been working with the Co-operative Party on its rural policy reviews: it is something that is very close to my heart at the moment. The Government should look closely at how they can give a bit of a leg-up to rural economic development. The Minister will know the particular challenges: there needs to be consideration and support and, as this is a levelling-up Bill, it is an opportunity to take that into account for our rural communities.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, very much for his very thorough introduction. It was very interesting, because I had read the amendment and thought, “Okay, it could be about this; this is what I am thinking”, but his clarification was extremely helpful. I think that he has drawn attention to a really important anomaly in the way the current legislation works. In many ways, that brings us back to something that we have said over and over again—that it would have been better had we had a very specific planning Bill, then we could have got into the nitty-gritty of the current legislation, looked at how it could have been improved and streamlined, and any anomalies such as the noble Lord has drawn our attention to, and any contradictions, could have been properly resolved. So I say to him that we support him in what he is looking to do with his amendment and it would be a very sensible and practical thing for the Government to bring forth such an amendment on Report.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I just want to briefly say that I very strongly support the plea put in by my noble friend in relation to a rural strategy. I am also interested to understand the Minister’s response to the queries that the noble Baroness on the Labour Front Bench has raised about subsection (7); it requires some further explanation. I wait to see what the Government’s amendments look like. With that, I am happy to sit down and let proceedings continue.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Amendment 258B tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley touches on the very specific matter of drop-in applications—not a legal term but one that is used a lot in planning circles. I know he will be well-versed in these matters, and I am grateful to him for exposing me to such technical but none the less important aspects of the planning process at this time of night. I thank my noble friend.
As we have heard, this amendment has been brought forward in response to the judgment handed down last year by the Supreme Court on Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority. My noble friend has given much more detail, but this case considered how far new planning permissions for development that would affect existing planning permissions make these earlier planning permissions unlawful to complete.
I would like to assure my noble friend that my department is already engaging with the development sector to understand the implications of the Hillside judgment for existing and future development practices. As he will know, the matter of drop-in permissions whereby a developer seeks a separate, new permission to overlap part of an existing planning consent has been highlighted as a concern, particularly given their role in supporting the delivery of large-scale developments, which can take several years to build out.
I recognise that the intent of my noble friend’s amendment is to provide legal clarity about the validity of existing planning permissions where a new, overlapping permission is brought forward. However, I must stress that the case law in this area is now quite clear that, unless expressly severable, an existing permission must be interpreted as an integrated whole, and that where a new, overlapping permission comes forward that materially departs from that earlier permission, such that it is impossible to deliver that earlier development, it would be unlawful to carry out further works under that earlier permission. Of course, where the existing permission is clearly severable, or where a new, overlapping permission is not material, it will still be possible for developers to make a drop-in application.
New Section 73B, as introduced by Clause 102, provides for a new, alternative way to make amendments to development proposals and enables minor variations to be made to existing planning permissions. This will allow for changes to be made to existing development proposals, such as to the descriptor plans or conditions, accounting for any amendments already made, providing that the cumulative effect of those amendments does not represent a substantial difference to the original permission. It will be for the local planning authority, in exercising its planning judgment, to decide what constitutes a substantial difference on a case-by-case basis. We anticipate, therefore, that the new Section 73B will provide an alternative route for making changes for many large-scale developments, rather than them having to rely on drop-in applications. We will continue to work closely with the sector to consider whether more guidance about varying permissions would be helpful, and I would be very happy to discuss this further with officials and my noble friend if he would find that useful. With that assurance, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 259 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is intended to probe the purpose of new subsection (7) in Clause 102. This amendment was also tabled in the other place, with the concern that the provisions as drafted would require applications under new Section 73B to be considered in accordance with the framework in place at the time of the original grant of planning permission. New subsection (7) requires that the local planning authority limits its consideration only to the difference in effect that could arise between the original permission and any subsequent grants to vary or remove conditions under Section 73 or the new route, as a result of granting planning permission under the new route.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I apologise for intervening at this late hour. On that point, since the Minister has promised she is going to write to people and has just said very clearly, on the record, that she shares the importance of economic development in rural areas, and given that I asked at Second Reading for evidence that the levelling up Bill had gone through the rural-proofing process, would she be kind enough to include in that letter details of how that process was carried out in relation to this Bill, because frankly, many of us think there is very little evidence of that?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will certainly reflect on that question and see what we can do.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his amendments, and I appreciate his concerns on a matter, which is close to his heart and to the heart of the noble Baroness opposite. While I support the intentions to lend further support to our rural economy, unfortunately I cannot accept this amendment, as it will not have the intended effect, and we believe it is unnecessary.
The permission in principle consent route is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for certain housing-led development. When a proposed development is under consideration, it separates the matter of principle away from technical details. Our national planning policy framework strongly supports policies and decisions to promote sustainable development in rural areas. In particular, it states that to support a prosperous rural economy, local plans, neighbourhood plans and decisions should enable the development and diversification of agriculture and other land-based rural businesses.
Additionally, as set out in Section 58A of the Town and Country Planning Act, any economic development coming forward through permission in principle would have to be predominantly for housing development. Provision already exists to allow local planning authorities to grant permission in principle for economic development related to residential schemes within rural areas. Section 5A of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 also enables local planning authorities to grant permission in principle to any non-housing development if it is associated with residential development, and where the scale of the development and the use to which it may be put is specified.
I am aware that permission in principle is often used to test the principle of housing development within rural areas, rather than applicants going through the conventional planning application route, and these are assessed with our National Planning Policy in mind. It is a valuable tool in this respect, and I hope this provides reassurances to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, and accordingly that she will withdraw his amendment on his behalf.
I turn now to Amendment 282, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on the speeding up of the planning system. There are around 400,000 planning applications every year. The Government have heard many representations that the planning application process is too slow and inaccessible for some users—notably those without the expertise, such as everyday people. It therefore requires improvement and modernisation. The powers being brought forward in Clause 116 enable the Government to apply a more consistent, streamlined and digitally enabled approach to the way in which the applications are made, making it easier for everyday people to submit a planning application. This will also make planning data more accessible. My department is already working with local authorities to tackle the very issue that this amendment raises, working collaboratively with the local authorities through the Open Digital Planning project, which aims to increase efficiencies in the development management process through creating modern development management software. Local authorities using the software that we are trialling have seen an estimated 35% time saving in the pre-validation process, when an application is first submitted, and post-validation, when the process is to reach a decision.
Before enacting these powers, we will fully engage with the local planning authorities and the sector as a whole; given that one of the core aims of this power is to streamline the process, we will of course consider the impact on speed of decision-making. While I support the intention of this amendment, the Government are unable to support its inclusion and hope that the noble Baroness will not press it.
Lastly, government Amendments 260A and 260B provide for consequential amendments to Clause 102 to make consistent the legislation with respect to an application being made directly to the Secretary of State, in relation to new Section 73B and Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, particularly for the opportunity to have further discussions with a view to coming back to this issue positively at Report. Drop-in permissions have played a significant part in enabling development to go ahead as people need it to do. The case law may now be clear, but it has become clear in the form in which it has developed only because there is no statutory basis for undertaking drop-in permissions in the way that they have been done for a number of years—and that is what we need to achieve. With her very kind response, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 258B.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
(a) in subsection (2),”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment paves the way for the second amendment in the Minister’s name to Clause 102.
“(b) in subsection (3)(d), after “73(1)” insert “nor an application that is to be determined in accordance with section 73B”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a consequential amendment to Clause 102.
“(3A) But notwithstanding subsection (3) the completion notice deadline may be less than 12 months after the completion notice was served if the local planning authority are of the opinion that—(a) development has not taken place on the site for a prolonged period, (b) there is no reasonable prospect of development being completed within a reasonable period, and(c) it is in the public interest to issue an urgent completion notice.(3B) A completion notice may include requirements concerning the removal of any buildings or works authorised by the permission, or the discontinuance of any use of land so authorised, at the end of the completion period, and the carrying out of any works required for the reinstatement of land at the end of that period.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the issuance of completion notices withdrawing planning permission with a deadline of less than 12 months when certain conditions are met, and enable completion notices to require that building works be removed from a site or a site be reinstated to its previous condition.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 261 and I am very pleased that government Amendment 261A is complementary to my amendment, or at least I hope that is the intention.
Across the country, communities and councils have found themselves in the incredibly frustrating situation where permissions are sought but sites stay empty, and development does not progress; the LGA estimates that sites with planning permission for over a million homes have not been developed. As well as unbuilt housing we also see employment sites not progressed, communities and local businesses left in limbo and local areas facing an uncertain future and unable to make further plans.
In its comments on proposed reforms to the planning system, the LGA said:
“It is disappointing that no tangible powers were brought forward in the Bill to enable councils to encourage developers to build-out. We would urge the Government as a matter of urgency to empower councils to take decisive action on this issue.”
Too often it is local government that gets the blame for not approving plans quickly enough, but the LGA points out that since 2010-11 over 2.8 million homes have been granted permission but only 1.6 million have been built. In fact, nine out of 10 planning applications have been approved by councils and most adhere to the strict time guidelines for approvals.
The LGA has called for the Government to charge developers full council tax for every unbuilt development when the original planning permission expires, and for it to be easier for councils to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire stalled housing sites or where developers do not build to a timescale agreed with the local authority.
Since the pandemic, this situation has deteriorated because of labour shortages and the inflationary rise in the cost of materials so, as well as developers who are simply holding on to land to cash in on land values, there are also many genuine cases where the viability of schemes has been eroded. The LGA’s housing spokesperson has said that,
“by giving councils the right powers to incentivise developers to get building once planning permission has been granted, we can go further and faster ... to deliver the reform needed to enable councils to tackle the housing crisis”.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned.