House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
Net migration is too high, and this Government are determined to bring it down. Indeed, that was one of the reasons why I voted and campaigned to leave the European Union in 2016. Last month, I announced measures to reduce the number of student dependants coming to the UK, which has soared by 35%, and to stop people transferring from student visas to work visas. We expect net migration to return to sustainable levels over time, and immigration policy is under constant review.
Sarah Atherton
The Labour-Plaid coalition in Cardiff has declared Wales a “sanctuary for all.” The world is welcome. However, its Ukrainian super-sponsor scheme fell apart due to a lack of accommodation and planning, with families still crammed into single rooms. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Labour Government about the collapse of their super-sponsor scheme? Does she know how many families are still inappropriately placed?
Suella Braverman
We are very proud of this country’s track record on providing sanctuary to people in need, and I am very proud of the support that the Government have given to Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s barbaric war. But when it comes to broader accommodation costs relating to asylum seekers, it is clear that we are spending far too much—£6 million a day, or £3 billion a year—on housing asylum seekers in hotels.
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. She speaks frankly to Labour’s abject failure to offer any viable plan for support. Labour is naive about the problem, and it is unrealistic about the solution. Labour has no idea and no plan, and it is letting Wales down.
James Daly
Do the Government have any plans to amend the minimum salary requirement for the skilled worker visa scheme?
Suella Braverman
We always keep the salary threshold under review but, as I said, net migration is too high and we need to get overall numbers down. How do we do that? Well, employers need to recruit more people who are already here, rather than advertising abroad so much. We also need to get more people off welfare and back into economic activity, and our welfare reforms will help with that objective. We cannot ignore the pressure that record levels of people coming to the UK puts on housing supply, public services and community relations. That is why we need to focus on lowering net migration.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Of course, net emigration is the problem in some parts of the UK. Will the Home Secretary pay attention to the plight of our economy in the lakes and dales, where almost two thirds of businesses are failing to meet demand because of a lack of workforce? I have been speaking to the Minister for Immigration about a youth mobility visa scheme, negotiated bilaterally with other countries in Europe, to solve our economic needs so that our hospitality and tourism industries can survive. How is the Home Secretary getting on with those discussions?
Suella Braverman
Migration is a very complex issue, and of course we have to balance the needs of the labour market. That is why we are very pleased to support well-crafted youth mobility schemes. There is one with India, and I have just come back from New Zealand, where we have expanded our youth mobility scheme. They are great schemes that allow the exchange of young people, who can come here to serve and work in our economy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is very clear that the issue of migration must be settled and sorted out. At the same time, it is important to note that those who have come from eastern Europe, the middle east and Africa are contributing to the economy of my Strangford constituency. I think the Secretary of State is committed to ensuring that continues, but what discussions has she had with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we continue to have the workers we need?
Suella Braverman
No single measure can control net migration, but as the Prime Minister has been clear, net migration is too high. That is why I recently announced a series of measures aimed at reducing the number of student dependants, which has risen exponentially over the past few years, and ensuring that students come here in a more proportionate and balanced way.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary wish the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), a speedy recovery from the terrible bug that I understand has, this morning, prevented him from launching an entirely different Conservative immigration policy from the policy of the Conservative Home Secretary? Does she agree with him that social care visas should be cancelled—yes or no?
Suella Braverman
The sorry fact of the matter is that Labour wants open borders and unlimited migration. There is a malaise descending upon the Labour party, and it does not even know what it thinks. Labour’s Sadiq Khan has said that he wants more migration. Labour’s party chairman has confirmed that numbers could rise under a Labour Government. When the shadow Home Secretary was asked whether she wanted net migration to rise or fall, she, in the characteristic style we have come to know and love, could not even answer the question. That is what we always get with Labour—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that you have no responsibility for the Labour party and, in fairness, this is Home Office questions?
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary could not answer the question: does she support her own social care visas or not? She spent all weekend briefing that she agrees with her Back Benchers, but today she cannot even answer the basic question. Making up stuff about the Labour party will not help her when her party has been in power for 13 years and when work visas have doubled, exactly because the Government have failed to tackle skills shortages or issues in the labour market.
This is total chaos. We have a Rwanda policy that is not removing anyone; an impact assessment that says her policies will not work and will cost much more; a 50% drop in removals of foreign criminals—the inspector says this is because the Home Office cannot even identify who can be removed; a record number of people in hotels; a record high asylum backlog; and Back Benchers writing the Home Secretary’s immigration policy because they do not think she is up to the job. It has been a humiliating few weeks for the Home Secretary—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, but you are not going to take advantage of me in that way—that is totally unfair. I cannot pull one side up and allow the other to take advantage of it. I expect all the Back Benchers to be able to get their questions in today. This is about everybody having the same opportunity to get involved, so please do not do that again.
Suella Braverman
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We all know that only the Conservative party and this Prime Minister have a serious plan to stop the boats and stop illegal migration, and that Labour stands for only one thing: open borders and unlimited migration. Labour Members would rather spend their time campaigning to block the deportation of foreign criminals than back our Illegal Migration Bill. They are on the side of the criminal gangs, not on the side of the British people.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The hon. Gentleman will recall that the two of us met just a few weeks ago, on 17 May, together with industry representatives, to discuss hemp licensing. I thank him for taking the time and trouble to organise that meeting. As he knows, there is a light-touch process for licensing industrial hemp. Since 2013, the number of hemp licences has increased from six to 134.
Ronnie Cowan
I recollect the conversation well. We have an opportunity within the UK to grow hemp on an industrial scale and so feed many growing industries that use hemp to produce environmentally friendly products. The growth of these industries has been hampered by overly complicated regulations and a poor application process. Meanwhile, foreign companies are racing ahead in this arena. To protect UK farmers and encourage UK industry, will the Minister consider giving the licensing process over to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and making the process farmer friendly?
Chris Philp
It is, of course, important to make sure that UK industry can compete globally, and a light-touch regulatory framework is important in that. We should be aware that some parts of the plant contain high levels of THC—tetrahydrocannabinol—and do need regulation, which is the Home Office’s concern. I will be meeting DEFRA colleagues in the near future to make sure that our approach to regulation is as light-touch as possible, because, like him, I want to see our domestic industry flourish and I do not want any excessive regulation.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The Government have said they will be reviewing the police funding formula, and I hope to have news for the House in the relatively near future about initiating the consultation process. The formula is quite out of date and it needs overhauling, and we are working on that.
Andrew Selous
The record number of 1,455 police officers in Bedfordshire and the recent £6 million special grant are both very welcome indeed, but does the Minister recognise that it is simply not fair or right to go on funding a force with a series of one-off special grants that really need to be part of core funding?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I should take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Bedfordshire police and crime commissioner, Festus Akinbusoye, who has done a fantastic job for the people of Bedfordshire. He advocated for more funding via the special grant and was successful. He is a great representative for the people of Bedfordshire and I am pleased that he has delivered record police numbers in Bedfordshire, just as the Government have delivered record numbers of police across the whole of England and Wales.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The chief constable of West Yorkshire police, John Robins QPM, recently told the BBC that his force does not have the resources that it needs to deliver the service that the public expect. Cutting through the spin, he said that the force was down 2,000 staff and £140 million since 2010. He said his force could deal with major incidents and crimes, but only at a cost to neighbourhood policing. This comes from a force that was rated outstanding in planning and the use of resources in its latest inspection by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. Which bit of policing does the Minister think should not be done because forces simply do not have the resources?
Chris Philp
The shadow Minister will know that in the police funding settlement for this year, 2023-24, there is around about £500 million extra—in fact, it is slightly over £500 million—for police forces up and down the country. That has enabled us to deliver a record number of officers ever. There are 149,572 officers—about 3,500 more than there were under the last Labour Government. In West Yorkshire, which the shadow Minister asked about, neighbourhood crime is down by 30% since 2019 and overall crime—excluding fraud and computer misuse, which came into the figures only recently—is down by 52% since 2010. I am still waiting for the shadow Home Secretary to apologise for being a member of a Government who presided over crime levels that are double those we have today.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
We are making good progress, and the latest Home Office statistics show that asylum decisions are up, with a 35% increase since last year in the number made. Productivity has increased, and we are on track to have 2,500 decision makers by September, which represents a quadrupling of the number of case workers.
Chi Onwurah
Like many Members from all parties, I am constantly contacted by refugees who are desperate to know what is happening to their asylum claim after years of waiting, so I asked the Home Office how many refugees in Newcastle had been waiting for one, two, three, four and five years. The answer came back that the Home Office does not know—it does not even record the data. Instead of indulging in unworkable, unethical, illegal and unaffordable flights of Rwandan fantasy, why does the Home Secretary not focus on her day job and fix the asylum backlog?
Robert Jenrick
As I just said, we are making good progress on reducing the asylum backlog. Important though the reducing the backlog is, however, it cannot be the totality of a plan. This is the point that the Labour party does not seem to understand: we have to stop the boats coming in the first place. That is the only sustainable way to tackle the issue. Even if we grant our way out of this problem, as the shadow Home Secretary seems to propose, the pressures on the state still remain; they are simply transferred to local authorities and the benefits system, and the British taxpayer continues to pick up the bill.
Kevin Brennan
The Minister has an interesting definition of being “on track”; did the number of decision makers not fall between January and May this year, from 1,333 to 1,280?
A constituent recently passed on to me a letter from a firm of local solicitors that said:
“All possible avenues have been considered to avoid this situation but regrettably, the Home Office’s long term failure to progress asylum claims, and current Government immigration policy, has made it financially unsustainable for”
these solicitors
“to continue Legally Aided work.”
How does it help us as MPs on both sides of the House in our constituency offices, and how does it help with the backlog that the Home Office says it wants to reduce, to make sure that people do not have the legal representation they need to unblock the system and allow progress in asylum cases?
Robert Jenrick
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the problem with our asylum system is not a lack of lawyers; there are plenty of legal representatives around. We have had strong overall progress on the backlog, and I am pleased to say that the early data that I have received suggests that last week saw the best performance in four years.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I know how seriously the Minister takes dealing with the legacy backlog, but, as the Home Secretary showed at the recent Home Affairs Committee, in order to deal with that backlog in the timeframe that the Government have set themselves it would require at least a quadrupling of the number of cases being dealt with as from 1 June. Even with the extra 500 staff appointed at Stoke, that will be challenging. Will the Minister give me an assurance that, if we have not managed to clear the backlog before the end of the year, it will not be done by a blanket amnesty?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I explicitly chose not to pursue the blanket amnesty approach that the previous Labour Government pursued. Instead, we put in the hard yards to improve productivity by streamlining processes, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, ensuring that, where appropriate, interviews were conducted in a timely fashion, and recruiting more decision makers. Since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appeared before the Committee, I am pleased to say that the data coming out of our caseworking team is very strong. We are seeing significant progress. As I just said, early indication suggests that last week was the best for over four years.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am a bit mystified. Given that 95% of these applications are successful, is it not the case that, if we speed up the process and make it easier and easier, more and more people will come? Is not the only solution to detain people and to deport them—offshore them? Those who suggest anything else are living in cloud cuckoo land and every single county will face what we face in Lincolnshire with thousands of illegal migrants having to be housed in unsuitable places. Let us have an answer for once.
Robert Jenrick
The approach that the Home Secretary and I have taken has been both to ensure that, where there are high grant rate nationalities, cases are pursued swiftly, and where there are low grant rate nationalities, such as Albanians—individuals from a safe European country—who can and should be returned as quickly as possible, we do just that. At this point last year, 30% of those arriving on small boats were coming from Albania; today, it is less than 2%. That arrangement is clearly making good progress. None the less, my right hon. Friend makes an important point: those who suggest that we can simply grant our way out of this problem are, I am afraid, hopelessly naive. The idea that the individuals coming across on small boats will, in most cases, make a significant net contribution to our economy is wrong. The costs to the taxpayer are very significant. The ongoing costs of education, access to welfare and community cohesion are very significant, which is why we need to stop the boats in the first place.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Government’s destruction of their own asylum system can best be described as an act of arson and their plans to fix it are utterly farcical. They have sent more Home Secretaries than asylum seekers to Rwanda. They sent the Prime Minister on a victory lap in Dover, apparently failing to notice that the weather improves over the summer and the boat numbers increase. And they were in such a flap about losing votes on their bigger backlog Bill that they resorted to dragging Lord Lebedev of Siberia into the Division Lobby. Now the Court of Appeal ruling has revealed that Rwanda is able to process only 100 claims per year—around 0.3% of those who arrived on small boats last year. Can the Minister tell me what he is planning to do with the remaining 99.7%, and does he therefore agree that the prospect of the Rwanda plan actually deterring any migrant from crossing the channel is close to zero?
Robert Jenrick
I used to say that the Labour party does not have a plan, but the truth is that it does have a plan, but it is a plan that would make things significantly worse. It is a plan that would ensure more granting of cases; more safe and legal routes, so even more individuals would come here; more hotels; and more cost to the British taxpayer. What is so disgraceful is the level of hypocrisy. We only have to look at the record of Welsh Labour to see that. In Wales, the Welsh Minister for Social Justice declared on 15 occasions in the Senedd that Labour-run Wales was “a nation of sanctuary”, but across the same period, Labour-run Wales accommodated 176 fewer asylum seekers. In fact, the latest published data shows that Labour-run Wales has taken just half the number of people that it should per capita.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I have engaged regularly with the devolved Administrations on the Illegal Migration Bill since its introduction in March, in addition to my periodic meetings with my ministerial counterparts on a variety of immigration issues. Most recently, I met the Scottish Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees in May. Looking ahead, the Bill is on the agenda for the inter-ministerial group for safety, security and migration, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will chair later this month.
Chris Stephens
The Bill will place restrictions on the powers of Scottish Ministers, removing the entitlement for victims of human trafficking and exploitation to access Scottish Government-funded support services, and will undermine the Scottish Government’s ability to deliver on their trafficking and exploitation strategy. We know what route the Government’s damaging ideology is dragging them down, but why should Scotland’s elected Parliament and the devolved Administrations be dragged down the same route, when it is abundantly clear that we want no part of the hostile environment ideology?
Robert Jenrick
If the Scottish Government cared so deeply about this issue, they would accommodate more asylum seekers. The SNP Government are accommodating just 4.5% of the total asylum population being accommodated in the UK, when Scotland makes up 8.1% of the UK population. I took the time to look at some of the statistics for those local authorities in Scotland where the SNP is the largest party: Clackmannanshire, zero asylum seekers; Dundee, zero asylum seekers; East Ayrshire, zero; East Dunbartonshire, zero; Midlothian, zero; North Ayrshire—want to take a guess, Mr Speaker? —zero; North Lanarkshire, six—
Mr Speaker
Order. No, no, no—you are going to get my drift. We cannot read out phone numbers. This is not the “Yellow Pages” advert. One or two statistics are fine, but when we get to five I really do worry. Let us have the SNP spokesperson.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister clearly thinks that that is a very clever line, but he knows well that Glasgow takes more refugees per head of population than any other local authority in the United Kingdom. The line he is trotting out is simply wrong and it is insulting to all those in Scotland who have opened their homes to Ukrainians, the communities across the country who have welcomed Syrians and the volunteers in the big cities who work with asylum seekers every day, helping them to overcome trauma. If he wants Scotland to do more to welcome refugees, when is he going to devolve the power and the financial levers that would allow us to do so?
Robert Jenrick
For good reason, immigration is a reserved matter, but the statistics I have just read out make the point as clear as can be. The SNP tries its very best to undermine the Government’s work to stop the boats, but it refuses to accommodate these people when they arrive, and the costs of its fake humanitarianism are borne by everyone but itself. That is not just hypocrisy; it is deeply irresponsible, and the public have had enough.
Patrick Grady
It is not the Scottish Government’s policy towards immigration, refugees and asylum seekers that has been ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal. If the Minister wants the system to work and he wants the Scottish Government to do their part, he must take more action to clear the backlog, as we have heard; there must be proper safe and legal rights for people to arrive; and they must be given the right to work when they get here, because then they can pay for their own accommodation and they will not cost the taxpayer money.
Robert Jenrick
Just the other day, the Home Office suggested to the Scottish Government that a vessel that had been used to house Ukrainian refugees in Leith could be used for others who are asylum seekers—the same vessel, the same port, the same provider, the same package. What did the SNP say? No.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
While I am pleased that the Court of Appeal found that the Government are not in breach of our obligations under the refugee convention, I fundamentally disagree with the judgment that Rwanda is not a safe place for refugees and we are seeking permission to appeal. The Government take our international obligations very seriously and we are satisfied that the provisions in the Illegal Migration Bill comply with the refugee convention. The fundamental principle remains, however, that those in need of protection should claim asylum at the earliest opportunity and in the first safe country that they reach.
Ms Qaisar
The Home Secretary and the Government website say that they are satisfied that the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill comply with the 1951 UN refugee convention. I am looking for clarity from the Home Secretary. What exactly is it about persecuting the most vulnerable groups, creating a hostile environment and stripping people of their right to seek safety that complies so well with the UN refugee convention?
Suella Braverman
As I have made clear, we take our international obligations very seriously, and we are satisfied that the Bill complies with the refugee convention. With respect to the hon. Lady, I will not take lectures from the SNP on this matter. SNP Members are, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) said, the phoney humanitarians in this debate. They are happy to support asylum seekers as long as they are nowhere near Scotland. When they stop opposing the vessel in Leith, which will house more asylum seekers, then we can have a serious conversation.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The UN Refugee Agency has its own asylum seeker relocation programme: it flies asylum seekers from Libya to Rwanda in a scheme part-funded by the European Union. How on earth can Rwanda be deemed not to be a safe country if the UN Refugee Agency itself is using it as a safe haven?
Suella Braverman
As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I could not agree with him more. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees runs an extensive scheme in Rwanda, and supports the resettlement of many thousands of migrants. I met some of them in my recent visit to Rwanda. They are happy and grateful for the generosity and welcome that Rwanda has offered them, which has allowed them to restart their lives. I am frankly very disappointed by the constant smears and assumptions, which are based on outdated and ignorant views, denigrating our allies in Rwanda. I am nothing but grateful to our partners in Rwanda for the continued co-operation.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I am pleased to report that, according to the crime survey, violence is down by 41% and criminal damage is down by 68% since 2010. But we would like to do more. That is why we now have record numbers of police and why we are investing in the safer streets fund, £200 million in the Youth Endowment Fund and £170 million in violence reduction units. We have also launched our antisocial behaviour strategy, about which the Home Secretary will speak in a moment.
Now is a good time to put on the record an intervention made by Mr Speaker in his capacity as the Member of Parliament for Chorley. Thanks to his recent intervention with me and the chief constable, Chorley town centre is one of the areas that will receive antisocial behaviour hotspot patrols, and I am sure that the people of Chorley are very grateful to Mr Speaker for the intervention that he made on their behalf.
Gordon Henderson
Well done, Mr Speaker!
I thank the Minister for his reply. Some young people who are arrested because they are guilty of antisocial behaviour, or so-called low-level crime, are released without charge because there is a reluctance to criminalise them. Too often, those youngsters go on to commit further multiple crimes, and are arrested and released without charge each time. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to end this roundabout of unpunished crime and ensure that young people who repeatedly break the law are not released without charge but are treated as what they are—criminals?
Chris Philp
We want to see tougher action on things such as antisocial behaviour and public drug use; we should have zero tolerance for any of those things. As part of the ASB strategy we are launching instant justice, whereby people who perpetrate acts of antisocial behaviour will rapidly—ideally within 48 hours—be made to do clean-ups and those kinds of things in their local area, to pay back visibly, publicly, rapidly and with enforcement. We are trialling that in 10 police force areas, starting this month, and it will be rolled out to every police force in the country, with funding, by April next year. I completely agree with everything my hon. Friend said.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Minister may not be aware that I was chair of the cross-party Youth Violence Commission. We published an interim report in 2018 and a final one in 2020. Our first recommendation was for the Government to adopt a public health approach to tackling violence through regional violence reduction units and long-term strategies. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that violence reduction units have the long-term funding that they need to achieve the best possible outcomes?
Chris Philp
I agree with the approach that the hon. Lady sets out, and we have already taken action. She asks about long-term plans. She will be aware that the Youth Endowment Fund of £210 million is a 10-year programme, and that violence reduction units—called violence reduction partnerships in some places—have so far received £170 million, and receive funding each and every year, including an allocation this year. The kinds of things that we find work include diversionary activities for young people. In fact, when I asked the chief executive of the YEF what the most effective intervention is, he said that it was cognitive behavioural therapy, which gets used as well. I repeat one statistic that I mentioned earlier: since 2010, violence is down by 41% and criminal damage by 68%.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
A report today found that nearly half of women who experienced or witnessed a crime in the past year chose not to report it because they did not believe that the police would treat it seriously. His Majesty’s inspector, in his latest state of policing report, said that the police were experiencing one of their biggest crises in living memory, there were widespread systematic failings and they were simply not getting the basics right.
Having pushed our British model of policing by consent to the very brink, do the Government take responsibility, do they agree with the inspector that substantial reform is essential, and will they back Labour’s plans to restore neighbourhood policing, halve serious violence and raise confidence in every force—or is the Minister happy to keep twiddling his thumbs while the criminals get away with it?
Chris Philp
I must say, in the gentlest terms, that my constituency neighbour has a bit of cheek to talk about reducing crime, given that according to the crime survey, crime levels under the last Labour Government were around double what they are today. [Interruption.] She shakes her head, but that is from the Office for National Statistics, and it is the only statistically recognised long-term measure of crime. If she does not like the ONS figures, she can go and argue with it. She might not like them, but those are the figures.
In relation to the hon. Lady’s serious question about RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—particularly on women, the proportion being reported is much higher than it was a few years ago, which is welcome. There is a lot more to do, which is why there is a rape review and a rape action plan. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), are working hard on that. Operation Soteria Bluestone was fully rolled out at the end of June, just a few days ago, and we have seen a significant increase in the number of relevant charges. They are still too low, and they need to be higher, which is why we have invested in more RASSO specialist officers, and that work is continuing.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
Earlier in the year, I launched the antisocial behaviour action plan, which includes increasing funding for police and crime commissioners by over £100 million, delivering stronger and swifter punishment, increasing police visibility in response, and banning nitrous oxide. Antisocial behaviour is not a low-level crime. It blights communities, and that is why the Government are committed to tackling it effectively.
Mike Amesbury
Today, to coincide with Anti-social Behaviour Awareness Week, the all-party parliamentary group on antisocial behaviour has published a report with the charity Resolve ASB, which demonstrates, among other things, that 1.7 million people a day experience antisocial behaviour. Some 58% believe that the Government are not doing enough. Will the Home Secretary meet members of the all-party parliamentary group and me to look at the recommendations in that report?
Suella Braverman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on the all-party parliamentary group, and I am sure that the Policing Minister and/or I will meet him to learn more about the vital work that he has led. May I take the opportunity to applaud the officers of Cheshire police force in the hon. Gentleman’s area? I have had the pleasure of meeting the excellent chief constable, Mark Roberts. I applaud the Conservative police and crime commissioner, John Dwyer, who has rolled out a scheme on antisocial behaviour that provides more CCTV and increases the first-responder response. There is a record number of police officers in Cheshire, and the force has received over £3 million-worth of safer streets funding. The results are a 26% fall in neighbourhood crime and a 17% fall in drugs offences in Cheshire. That is common-sense policing, thanks to the police officers and Government support.
Stephen Morgan
Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary is one of the lowest-funded police forces in the UK, and with a decade of cuts to youth services, antisocial behaviour has been left to thrive under this Government. We have seen the consequences at South Parade pier, the Camber and many other places in Portsmouth. Neighbourhood policing is vital in cracking down on ASB, which ruins so many lives. Therefore, what explanation can the Home Secretary provide for halving the number of police community support officers over the past 13 years?
Suella Braverman
The hon. Gentleman and I represent constituencies that are served by the same police force, and I am really proud of the track record in Hampshire. I am really proud of how the new chief constable, Scott Chilton, has assumed his role, with a real focus on back-to-basics policing; I am really proud of how the Conservative police and crime commissioner, Donna Jones, has led initiatives so that every community in Hampshire will have named, dedicated police officers and PCSOs serving them, bolstering neighbourhood policing and building confidence; and I am really proud of the fact that Hampshire has seen a 15% fall in neighbourhood crime since 2019—common-sense policing serving the community.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that some of the principal victims of antisocial behaviour are young people? The Government are absolutely right to bring forward new measures to tackle antisocial behaviour to make our streets, parks and public spaces safer for the vast majority of young people who do not engage in those negative behaviours.
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There is such a need for greater diversion and greater support for young people, so that they do not spend their time loitering in shopping centres, causing a nuisance in car parks or harassing members of the community. That is why our antisocial behaviour action plan commits considerable funding—over £160 million of new funding—including for an increased police presence in ASB hotspot areas and to support the roll-out of diversionary resources to support young people so that they do not fall into crime and antisocial behaviour.
Mr Speaker
Youth zones are exceptional, especially the Chorley Inspire one.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Yet again, in Ilkley and Marley in my constituency, Travellers have set up camp, caused damage and intimidated residents, which just last weekend resulted in Ilkley pool having to close temporarily. When they have gone, they leave a complete mess, which all has to be cleaned up at taxpayers’ expense. Will the Home Secretary meet me to discuss what additional support West Yorkshire police and our local council can get to address this ongoing issue?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend raises a really important point about illegal encampments and Travellers who blight communities by causing a nuisance and who, in some cases, threaten communities—it is unacceptable behaviour. That is why we legislated in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to toughen up the powers and measures available to the police, so that they can take more robust steps in relation to this issue, but I am very happy to speak to my hon. Friend about what more can be done locally.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
The Home Office seeks to end the use of hotels and to move asylum seekers to less expensive, more suitable accommodation. To support that, we are bringing into use large, disused military sites and vessels, which will provide adequate, safe, secure, non-detained accommodation for asylum seekers and also reduce the pull factor to the United Kingdom.
Mrs Hamilton
I recently received an email from the Home Office that said that the use of hotels to house asylum seekers is “inappropriate”, and that reliance on them must be reduced. In the same email, the Home Office informed me that it planned to increase the use of hotel accommodation for asylum seekers in my constituency of Erdington by 159%—the single biggest increase in the whole of Birmingham. How on earth can the Minister expect the country to trust him when he cannot even keep his policies consistent within the same email?
Robert Jenrick
The policy that we have adopted is one of maximising the capacity of the hotels that we have for as long as we have them. That is saving the taxpayer at least a quarter of a billion pounds and reducing reliance on hotels elsewhere in the country. I do appreciate that there are pressures on the hon. Lady’s local authority, and I also appreciate that some Labour local authorities, such as Westminster City Council, say that asylum seekers must be housed in individual, ensuite bedrooms. We do not agree with that: it is a gross waste of taxpayers’ money that would make the UK a soft touch.
Jeff Smith
In my constituency, I have had the same experience as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton), but the question I want to ask is about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The Home Office still has not explained how it is going to find the children missing from asylum accommodation, so will it set out the plans to do that and find these vulnerable people?
Robert Jenrick
We have been very clear that we and the police take extremely seriously any young person who goes missing from a hotel or any other form of accommodation. Local police forces and Home Office personnel treat that exactly as they would any other child going missing and they conduct a full missing person inquiry. However, the only sustainable answer to young people living in hotels is to stop the boats in the first place. Doing nothing is not an option. Doing nothing will lead to more young people living in those hotels and being exposed to human traffickers.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
While I do very much welcome the Minister’s determination to move away from hotels and towards other accommodation, will he give particular attention to the Wiltshire hotel and golf club in my constituency? The number there has gone up: there are now 120 people there, and they are all crammed into very small accommodation. It is not only bad from the point of view of the golf club members and neighbouring long-term residents with them in housing next door, but it is an extremely bad place from the point of view of the asylum seekers. They have nowhere to go and nothing to do. They have no education facilities and no religious facilities. They are stuck in the middle of the countryside with no transport, and it is quite the wrong place for them to be. Will the Minister please give particular attention to the Wiltshire hotel?
Robert Jenrick
I am familiar with the hotel in my hon. Friend’s constituency and the concerns he has raised. I will take a look at that, but as I have said previously, the answer to this challenge is to stop the boats coming in the first place. That is why we all need to support the Illegal Migration Bill. Those who want more hotels would oppose it. The Labour party’s policy will see more hotels, and the shadow Home Secretary will end up with more hotels to her name than Paris Hilton.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I do not know how to follow that, Mr Speaker.
All Members would like to see a reduction in the number of hotels used for asylum accommodation—I am sure that is true—but will the Minister spend a moment to congratulate the community of Sharnbrook, and in particular Rev. Paolo Di Leo and Councillor Doug McMurdo, on providing a welcoming environment for people who are put in such accommodation? I think there are signs across the country that communities do come together in these difficult circumstances to achieve an outcome that is beneficial for everyone.
Robert Jenrick
I would be very happy to put on record my view of the good work being done by my hon. Friend’s constituents. He is right to say that there are voluntary and community groups, charities and churches right across the country that support asylum seekers while they are in this form of accommodation, and we and our providers facilitate that wherever possible.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
I am going to make a short topical statement. The information that Meta and other tech companies give to UK law enforcement helps to protect around 1,200 children and leads to over 100 arrests of suspected child abusers every month. However, Meta plans to roll out end-to-end encryption soon, without safeguards, and it will no longer proactively detect and alert authorities to child grooming and abuse material on Facebook, Messenger and Instagram Direct. This will be a huge boon to anyone who wants to hurt a child. The Online Safety Bill will hold tech firms to account, but indifference to abuse is intolerable. I have written to Mark Zuckerberg—together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), children’s charities and campaign groups—to outline our profound concerns. Last week, I was in New Zealand at the Five Eyes security conference where there was widespread support for working together to ensure that social media companies put child safety first.
Kelly Tolhurst
Following recent knife crime incidents in my constituency and in the Medway towns, will my right hon. Friend meet me and our Kent police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott, to discuss funding and how the Home Office can further support Kent police with the increased challenges we are facing in Kent due to our proximity to London?
Suella Braverman
I very much appreciate the particular challenges in Kent relating to knife crime. That is why I am glad that since 2019, Kent has received £5.5 million in core violence reduction unit grant funding, and £730,000 in additional support for targeted youth interventions. I have met the police and crime commissioner, and Chief Constable Tim Smith. They are both excellent at leading their forces, and there is now a record number of police officers in Kent. I am sure the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), will meet my right hon. Friend to discuss that issue. We have made a lot of progress, but we can do better.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be aware of the documentary last week on the relationship between Boris Johnson and others, and former KGB officer Alexander Lebedev, and about the meeting in an Italian villa, the ignoring of security advice on Lords appointments, and the decision not to sanction Alexander Lebedev. Given the importance of national security, will she tell the House whether she has any concerns about those reports? Will she set up an independent investigation into what happened, into who knew what, and into how far the security risk spreads?
Suella Braverman
At the Home Office, the Minister for Security and I take seriously the threats posed by hostile state actors. That is why the Minister for Security is chairing the Defending Democracy Taskforce, bringing together agencies and Departments in a cross-Whitehall approach to tackling the serious threats that we all face as parliamentarians and facing those in public office. I gently remind the right hon. Lady that one of her own parliamentary colleagues has a very dubious track record when it comes to working with the Chinese Communist party.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
As I said in response to an earlier question, the Government intend to consult in due course on a new police funding formula, and part of that consultation will involve looking at the factors that should be taken into account. Those might include things such as population and crime levels, but things such as rurality, sparsity and seasonality, particularly seasonal tourism, are likely to form part of the new formula. I encourage Members across the House to engage closely with that consultation when it comes forward, to ensure that those factors are properly accounted for.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Chris Philp
Many cannabis base compounds were moved wholesale to schedule 2 a few years ago, enabling them to be prescribed. The question that the hon. Gentleman asked about NHS prescription is perfectly reasonable and fair, but prescriptions on the NHS are a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care and for the NHS, including the NHS in Scotland. I would be happy to pass on his inquiry to them.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We are disappointed by the judgment of the Court of Appeal, but we are determined to follow through. He is right to say that we have to add deterrence to the system, as it is only by breaking the business model of the people smugglers that we will stop the boats.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Chris Philp
As I mentioned in earlier answers, across England and Wales we now have record police numbers of 149,572. The previous peak was 146,030 in 2010, so we have 3,500 more officers than we have ever had before across England and Wales. In Northumbria, the number has gone up by 512 since 2015. Of course, many of the powers sit with the PCC, including powers over the precept. It is entirely open to police and crime commissioners to use those powers.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Suella Braverman
I am delighted with the progress being made to tackle antisocial behaviour in Burnley and Padiham. As my hon. Friend will know, we have allocated almost £1 million to roll out pilots of ASB hotspot response in 2023-24. A new round of safer streets will be announced soon. I take this opportunity to thank Lancashire police, which has launched an ASB problem-solving unit. It ran Operation Propulsion, which involved more officers patrolling locations dealing with motor nuisance and boy racers, and it has had a real good crackdown on residential burglary thanks to Operation Defender. Neighbourhood crime has fallen by 26% in Lancashire. Tribute must be paid to Chief Constable Chris Rowley and the police and crime commissioner, Andrew Snowden.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Robert Jenrick
I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. He knows perfectly well that the proposition was not a prison ship. This is a ship that will be used in exactly the same way as the SNP Government did in Scotland, and in exactly the same way as the Belgian and the Dutch Governments are doing in their respective areas. If I may say, in Edinburgh today, there are 37 asylum seekers. That is disgraceful. If the SNP cared about this issue, it would step up, support asylum seekers and back our Bill.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
People in Southend West want to see a tough, but just policy on illegal immigration that stops people unfairly jumping the queue, that stops evil people smugglers and above all stops vulnerable people drowning in the channel. Will my right hon. Friend therefore agree that we must continue to send a strong signal that it is this Government —not unelected lawyers or criminal gangs—who will decide who comes to this country?
Robert Jenrick
At the core of this question is: who decides who comes to this country? Is it for the Government and Parliament, or is it for people smugglers and human traffickers? Those of us on the Government Benches know exactly which side of the debate we are on; we want to stop the boats, and we want to secure our borders.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The family of my constituent who fled Sudan have been stuck in Egypt for more than two months awaiting a spousal visa. Four of the group of five have UK passports. Can the Minister tell us how long he would expect people to be waiting in this kind of situation when they have suffered such distress and anxiety?
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to look into the case for the hon. Gentleman, but I can say to him that we are processing applications in third countries within service standards. We have closed the visa application centre in Khartoum for obvious reasons to protect the security of our staff and contractors, but we have teams in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and in other close countries who are there to support applicants, such as his constituents.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Given this morning’s U-turn by the Mayor of London on selling off Uxbridge police station, does the Minister believe that the Mayor should also act to save Barnet police station? If he does not, the Mayor’s decision on Uxbridge looks like cynical political gameplaying and interference in a by-election.
Chris Philp
I and many other Londoners were concerned when, I think in 2017, Sadiq Khan announced plans to close 37 police stations. Thanks to the resolute campaigning of local councillor Steve Tuckwell in Hillingdon, Sadiq Khan has executed a last-minute handbrake U-turn under pressure, which I am sure is entirely unconnected with the upcoming by-election. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that if Sadiq Khan is to have any credibility at all with Londoners—he currently has pretty much none—he should reverse not just that one police station closure plan but all his police station closure plans.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Using the maximum police precept on council tax, having to tap into half a million pounds of reserves and yet again relying on grant funding shows that the Bedfordshire police and crime commissioner has failed to secure the long-term funding that our force desperately needs. Now he is off pursuing his personal ambitions as the next Tory candidate for Mid Beds. The review of police funding is welcome, but when will the House see it? Will it be before the summer recess?
Chris Philp
I cannot set out a precise timeframe—it is being actively worked on—but I point out that Festus, the police and crime commissioner for Bedfordshire, is doing a fantastic job for the people of that county. It is thanks to his active, energetic, persuasive and eloquent interventions that Bedfordshire has received these special grants. Its base budget has also gone up by £6.1 million this year thanks to his fantastic work.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Last week, Nigel Farage publicised the cancellation of his bank account under the politically exposed persons regulation, but he is only the latest of a number of people to have had their lives wrecked by that regulation. Recently, Lords in the other place tried to correct the policy, but with only partial success, because, I understand, of pushback from the Home Office and the security services. Will the Minister explain why that is and what he will do about it?
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I am delighted to be asked a question. Yesterday, the Treasury and the Home Office came together and agreed various things that were announced in the House of Lords: the PEPs agreement. Such a closure on political grounds, if that is indeed what has happened—after all, we have only the allegation of it at this point—should, therefore, be completely unacceptable. PEPs is there to prevent the corrupt use of banking facilities by politicians in corrupt regimes. It is not there to silence individuals who may hold views with which we may or may not agree.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In the chief inspector of borders and immigration’s latest report on the Home Office system to remove foreign national offenders, he said
“the Home Office does not have a firm grip on its caseworking operations”,
and
“This is no way to run a government department.”
He also said
“I found the Home Office’s inability to provide reliable or consistent data and management information of particular concern.”
Given that, will the Minister explain how the Department will cope with the increase in casework, detention and removals planned under the Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill?
Robert Jenrick
We take that report, as we do all others, very seriously. The right hon. Lady is right to say that there are lessons to be learned. However, returns are increasing as a result of deals such as the one we have done with Albania, as a result of reforms such as those we have made to the national referral mechanism and as a result of the 50% increase in illegal working visits that we have secured this year alone.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Despite repeated assurances from the Dispatch Box and it being nearly eight months since I first raised the issue with the Minister, the Home Office continues to operate two wholly inappropriate accommodation centres in my constituency, putting an unbearable strain on public services. Will my right hon. Friend expedite a clear timetable to close the centres permanently and restore the hotels to their intended purposes?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this on many occasions. She has doggedly campaigned for the closure of these centres as well as supported the steps that we are taking as a Government to stop the boats in the first place. I will be happy to have further conversations with her, but she has my assurance that we are working as fast as possible to clear all hotels, including those in her constituency.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, the Government rejected a number of recommendations from the inquest into the tragic mass shooting in Plymouth in 2021, which has caused serious concern among some of the families of the victims. Will the Minister explain why he rejected the coroner’s recommendations and whether all those on which he is consulting will be implemented by the end of this calendar year?
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Gentleman for our meeting with the families a few weeks ago. As I said to him on the phone last week, whenever he and the families are ready to have further discussions with Home Office officials, they will be ready. The timing of that will be guided by the hon. Gentleman. On the substance of the Government’s reply, we have committed to doing some things straight away. For example, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has been funded to set up an accredited training programme for firearms officers—that was one of the recommendations. In due course that will become mandatory.
The inspectorate will conduct a thematic inspection of all firearms licensing next year. As I said to the House a few months ago, I asked it specifically to reinspect Devon and Cornwall’s firearms licensing. It is doing that and it should report back by the end of July. The vast majority of the recommendations made by the coroner, the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the Scottish Affairs Committee in connection with the Isle of Skye shooting are being openly and neutrally consulted on.
The Government do not have a position; they will consult openly and respond once we have replies to the consultation. There were two recommendations that the hon. Gentleman referred to that the Government did not feel were appropriate, for the reasons set out in the document, but the vast majority are being openly consulted on. We have taken action on some of them already. I thank him again for his campaigning on this issue, which I know the families are grateful for.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I recently visited Uxbridge police station to hear about the valuable work its officers do to serve my constituents as well as those in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. When the Mayor announced its closure in 2017, Hillingdon Council offered to buy the site at market rate and provide a £500,000 revenue contribution and leaseback arrangement, so that those valuable services could continue to be available. The Mayor said that that was completely impossible. Other than the relentless campaigning of Hillingdon Conservatives and Councillor Steve Tuckwell, could my right hon. Friend suggest any reason why the Mayor decided to keep it—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Simmonds, I think you need an Adjournment debate, not a topical question. See if you can pick the bones out of that, Minister.
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question. The answer is no, I cannot think of anything other than the campaigning by Councillor Steve Tuckwell and others, which forced the Mayor into a last-minute, self-interested, screeching U-turn. I would like the Mayor to do a U-turn on all the other police stations he is threatening with closure.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Home Secretary concerned by recent revelations about the investigation into the Stephen Lawrence murder and what happened in the Brink’s-Mat aftermath? Is she concerned about some of the out-of-work organisations that our police belong to?
Suella Braverman
The recent reports on the Stephen Lawrence case are an operational matter for the police, which I cannot get involved in, nor should I. That is a judgment for the police on operational and casework decisions, within which we do not interfere. We have a good track record on the Met turning around performance. Mark Rowley’s turnaround plan and leadership efforts to restore confidence and rebuild trust with London are working. We need to back him to get the best results possible in London.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
There is a tweet going around regarding a man who identifies as a trans woman. The tweet reads that the trans-identified man who
“appeared in an @itvnews report about ‘mothers’ has posted an image ‘breastfeeding’ a baby. Do you think it’s ok to mock women like this?”
I think that is a valid question, but I am also extremely concerned for the welfare of the child. Will the Home Secretary’s Department look into that for me, please?
Suella Braverman
While we respect all the rights of those in the trans community, it is clear that biological men cannot breastfeed. It is remarkable that we are in a position where the Labour party leader cannot define a woman. I think he said something like 99.9% of women do not have a penis. On that basis, we cannot rule him out from running to be Labour’s first female Prime Minister.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My constituent Sarah has been waiting more than six months for a biometric resident’s permit, during which time she cannot work, access free healthcare or leave the country. Will someone do something to get her the status she deserves, so that she can go on with her life?
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to look into the case for the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The number of foreign national offenders eligible for deportation has now reached a record almost 12,000. Almost 4,000 of those left prison more than five years ago and even those volunteering for deportation are still here. Will the Minister get a grip on the deportation department within the Home Office and make sure those people are chucked out of our country?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want those individuals to leave the country as swiftly as possible. The published figures show that FNO returns increased following the pandemic—by 14% in the latest 12-month period ending December 2022 compared with the previous 12-month period—but, quite clearly, there is more work to be done.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Liverpool is a city of sanctuary. Currently, we have 237 Afghan families who have been languishing in a hotel for two years. The council must rehouse the families by 11 August. Can the Minister say what will happen if we are unable to find suitable accommodation? Will they be made homeless and thrown out on the street?
Robert Jenrick
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and I launched a programme that provides significant support to councils like Liverpool to help individuals find alternative accommodation. That might be in the private rental sector or it might be in social housing, but I think we can all agree on the principle that it is not right for individuals or families to live in hotel accommodation for over two years. We need to help those people out of the hotels this summer.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Immigration Minister’s earlier claim will come as news to the Labour and Conservative coalition which runs North Lanarkshire Council and a surprise to a director of Mears who confirmed to me that North Lanarkshire Council houses not just asylum seekers but refugees. The Immigration Minister has now given factually wrong information to this House three times. When will he apologise to the House, and will he come back to it to give proper information?
Robert Jenrick
I do not think I have given factually wrong information. They may not be the facts the hon. Gentleman wants to hear, but they are the facts. I did not mention North Lanarkshire, but there are six asylum seekers there. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is more to be done.
Road Fuel Prices
(10 months, 1 week 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
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on road fuel prices.
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
From rural hamlets to coastal communities, it is a properly functioning market that ensures fair prices for motorists, but for that market to function customers need transparent data to find the best price. On that basis, when we saw fuel prices rising last summer we asked the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate whether the market was working for customers as it should. Today, the CMA published its final market study report and I am shocked by its findings: rising fuel retail margins, and clear evidence of a rocket upwards and a feather downwards in the pricing pattern for diesel.
It is completely unacceptable that consumers have been paying more. The financial impact of the 6p per litre increase, just in the fuel margin, from 2019 to 2022, cost customers of the four supermarket fuel retailers £900 million last year alone. Asda’s fuel margin target was three times higher for this year than in 2019 and Morrisons doubled over the same period. It is wrong that in a cost of living crisis drivers do not get a fair deal on fuel and end up being overcharged.
Motorists should not be used as cash cows by the fuel industry. The Government will not stand for it and I know this House will not stand for it. Therefore, we accept the CMA’s recommendations in full. We will create a statutory open data scheme for retail fuel prices and an ongoing road fuel prices monitoring function for the UK market. We will consult on the design of the open data scheme and monitoring function as soon as possible this autumn, but that is not enough. I have asked the CMA to have a voluntary scheme up and running by next month and I fully expect fuel retailers to share accurate, up-to-date road fuel prices. The CMA will also continue to monitor fuel prices.
I demand that fuel retail bosses stop ripping off consumers, by making prices available so that the market can operate as it should. Transparency is vital for competition and to keep prices down.
Tim Farron
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero and am delighted to see him, but I am disappointed not to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would have thought that this was something that he cared about.
The problem is that the Government have stood for this over the past year. This morning, right under the Government’s nose, greedy petrol retailers imposed an additional cost of more than £900 million on people filling up their cars. Retailers swiftly passed on price increases in the wholesale market to drivers, and the prices rocketed. Yet when the wholesale prices dropped, prices were lowered only very slowly. I think we could all see that for ourselves. The RAC called this
“nothing short of astounding in a cost-of-living crisis”,
which confirmed that
“supermarkets haven’t been treating drivers fairly at the pumps”.
This affects not just the cost of driving. Higher road fuel prices have a knock-on effect on inflation across the economy, pushing up prices in every sector of our country.
The CMA makes it clear that rural areas still face the highest prices. Where supermarket pumps are fewer and further between, such as in Cumbria and Somerset, fuel retailers are likely to have costs that are higher still. The CMA found that fuel prices in rural places, such as my own in Westmorland and Lonsdale and in Somerton and Frome, are on average 1.2p per litre higher than those in urban areas. Of course, in rural communities with poor public transport links, people have no choice but to drive and the distances to travel are so much greater, affecting, in particular, people who work in the care sector. Once again, rural communities feel taken for granted by this Government.
One solution should be to expand the 5p per litre fuel duty relief scheme to those many isolated parts of Cumbria that are not currently covered by it, so that families in Cumbria are not left at the mercy of the most expensive fuel prices.
Why did the Government fail to stop greedy retailers hitting families with an almost £1 billion excess fuel bill in the first place? Will the Chancellor and the Prime Minister summon those company bosses to Downing Street and press them to return those unfair profits by lowering their prices? Will the Government expand the rural fuel duty relief scheme to more areas, to support communities such as mine that are struggling with the highest petrol prices?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He and the RAC are right to highlight the particular issue in rural communities such as those that he and, indeed, I represent, and the particular pressures on consumers there. He will understand that rural fuel duty relief is a matter for the Chancellor and that what we need is a properly functioning market. That is why we are implementing the findings of the CMA in full and putting in place an interim regime, starting next month.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Towards the end of last year, the local radio station in Milton Keynes, MKFM, published research showing that, although there was considerable competition in Milton Keynes, petrol and diesel prices were substantially higher across the board than those in equivalent urban areas. I very much welcome the proposal for a real-time fuel price comparator, but will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will keep an eye on price differentials between different urban areas and intervene if necessary?
Graham Stuart
As ever, my hon. Friend champions his constituency in this House. I completely agree. That is why the monitoring function is so important in tandem with transparency. We have to make sure that people can see the prices. We know that consumers are prepared to travel but, if they do not know that there is a cheaper price available 2 or 3 miles down the road, they will not access it. That is something that we aim to put right.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
People across Britain are facing the highest mortgage costs in Europe, the highest inflation among advanced economies, and the highest tax burden in 70 years. They are paying the price for 13 years of Conservative failure.
In that context, it is more important than ever for the Competition and Markets Authority to do all it can to help to bring down prices. Effective competition in the interests of consumers must be at the heart of our economy. That is why we firmly support the CMA’s proposals to help to bring down the cost of fuel.
‘Filling up the tank at supermarkets is an essential part of everyday life for families and small businesses across the country, so the fact that the average annual supermarket margins on fuel increased by 6p per litre between 2019 and 2022 is deeply worrying.
I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State has accepted the recommendations from the CMA to stop retailers artificially inflating petrol prices during a cost of living crisis; as he says, transparency is very important. However, given that the then Business Secretary wrote to fuel retailers and the CMA more than a year ago to highlight apparent unfairness in fuel prices, why has it taken so long for the Government to take action on this issue? Motorists did not need a report to tell them that they were being fleeced by fuel retailers; they see it every time they fill up at the pump. Why did the Government need to wait for the CMA to tell them what everyone else knew before they took action?
In Northern Ireland, the Consumer Council published a fuel price checker in September 2020, which has helped to keep fuel costs below those in England. Why have the Government taken almost three years to agree to do the same in England? Once again it is too little, too late from a Government, who have again sat on their hands. I note what the Minister said about an interim voluntary scheme and about consulting as soon as possible, but can he give a clear indication of when the Government will introduce the change in the law that is needed to make this permanent?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the cost of living crisis and the level of taxes. That, of course, is why her party getting into power would be such a disaster for ordinary consumers and motorists throughout the country. We have come through the pandemic and made sure we have kept the country afloat; for instance, the Government supported paying nearly half of everyone’s energy bills through the last winter. A Labour Government would be a threat to markets such as this, which we need to function properly, not in the way they would under Labour.
As for why this has taken so long, the hon. Lady ought to know, having seen the disaster of her £28 billion energy borrowing package, which dematerialised: it was a great announcement, but it did not survive contact with reality.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we need to help the Minister. The subject of the urgent question is road fuel prices and I think we should stick to that. I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
When the Chancellor announced that he was cutting fuel duty by 5p a litre, which cost the Exchequer billions of pounds, little did he expect that, as outlined so persuasively today by the CMA, it would feed through immediately into the profits of fuel retailers—although cynical British motorists may not be surprised, because they observed it themselves on a day-to-day basis. I welcome the steps that the Minister has announced, and urge him to act with greater speed in implementing them, but is he as surprised as I am that he has been asked this urgent question by the Liberal Democrats, who voted at their conference to hike fuel duty sharply?
Graham Stuart
I would like to say I was shocked or surprised, but I am not because—as everyone in the House knows, except the tiny number who sit on the Liberal Democrat Bench—hypocrisy is their main method of behaviour. The initial Government cut in fuel duty of 5p per litre represented savings for consumers worth about £2.4 billion. We on the Conservative Benches are on the side of the motorist. We are going to make sure that the market works and motorists are properly served by it.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister says he will not stand for motorists’ being ripped off, but that is exactly what Ministers have done. The Government have been complacent the whole time, following the 5p fuel duty cut.
Why has it taken the CMA so long to establish that motorists are being gouged by 6p per litre compared with 2019? It reported that diesel prices are an astonishing 13p per litre higher this year alone than they should have been. That is symptomatic of the “cost of greed” crisis. Asda received a fine for not complying with the CMA investigation. That shows an astonishing level of arrogance on the part of supermarkets that are ripping off their own customers. It is estimated that we are paying nearly £l billion a year in additional fuel costs due to the lack of competition. How does imposing an initial fine of £30,000 on Asda work as a deterrent when it is making so much money?
I am all for an open data fuel finder scheme, but really, is that it? I already use an app to shop around for cheaper fuel prices, so this open data will not necessarily bring competition in all areas of the UK, and reliance on an app obviously will not help those who are digitally excluded. What are the Government’s actual plans to ensure competition and reduced fuel prices, especially at motorway service stations, which are between 20p to 30p per litre more expensive? When will we see these fuel prices come down?
Graham Stuart
That is the closest I have ever seen the hon. Gentleman come to welcoming a Government response, so I shall take that with me. I do not mean to try your patience any more than I already do, Mr Speaker, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), whether it is major energy packages or shipbuilding, we find that doing the work first leads to better long-term outcomes.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Given corporation tax, carbon taxes, the windfall tax, fuel duties and VAT, is not the bulk of the price at the pump, and of other fuels, now tax-based? Will my right hon. Friend remind us of how much is tax and urge the Chancellor to reduce some of those taxes to cut the cost of living?
Graham Stuart
I thank my right hon. Friend for championing the consumer, as he always does. As he will be well aware, tax is a matter for the Chancellor, but the whole House will have heard his passionate call to make sure that taxes are held down to the lowest amount they possibly can be. That is one more reason why we cannot have the Labour party taking control of the country.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In March, the RAC revealed that retailers are making a three times bigger margin on diesel than they were at the beginning of last year, and motorists are seeing absolutely no benefit from the Chancellor’s fuel duty cut. Given the Government’s dither and delay on taking any sort of action, how does the Minister feel when the Government’s flagship policy to help motorists is having little to no impact?
Graham Stuart
We are furious that these price cuts have not been passed on to consumers. That is why we asked the CMA to investigate and to get further into the detail, and it is why we will implement its findings in full.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend is aware, I have been campaigning on the issue of fuel prices in west Berkshire for about a year and a half. One thing that has been particularly disappointing is the fact that fuel prices in every single neighbouring constituency are 5% to 8% lower. I wrote to the CMA and I am pretty disappointed to read its response today, which tells us a lot.
I welcome the introduction of a real-time fuel price comparator, but such a tool already exists, albeit in a slightly clunky form. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is not enough just to tell people what the prices are at different pumps in their local area. It must be transparent to consumers whether they are in a general area that has higher or lower prices, so that their MP can make representations on what the supermarkets may be doing in that area and the CMA can intervene properly.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend has been assiduous and, as she has shown with her question, focused and detailed in trying to rectify a problem that the CMA has fully displayed today. It is an unusual way round, but I would be happy to meet her to discuss the matter further to make sure we put in place all the right elements, so that this transparency genuinely gets through to the consumer.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
There is no doubt that fuel costs are driving up inflation, especially in rural areas. I think the fuel price checker has had a dampening effect in Northern Ireland because the supermarkets are always aware that that they are being looked on. However, does the Minister accept that his Government also have a responsibility? Net zero policies, with all their associated taxes—whether it is the emissions trading scheme, green levies or fuel duties—drive up prices, too. The Government have a role to play in reducing inflation as well as in transparency on supermarket prices.
Graham Stuart
The right hon. Gentleman is drawing the wrong conclusion from the sky-high prices of the past year or two. It is sky-high international fossil fuel prices that caused the enormous squeeze. The faster we can move to cleaner and cheaper sources of energy, the sooner we can ensure that our constituents save money and contribute to dealing with what is an ever more serious threat.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Having brought a ten-minute rule motion on this subject some eight years ago, I am delighted that patience has finally paid off. One issue I was raising at that time was the inequality between the prices in towns and those on motorways, which the Scottish National party spokesman has mentioned. Is my right hon. Friend confident that the measures being brought in today will reduce those 15p or 20p premiums on road fuel prices at motorway service stations compared with normal areas?
Graham Stuart
As so often, my hon. Friend has been ahead of me. The issue he raises is part of the picture; like him, I have observed that the captive market along motorways is subject to higher prices than elsewhere. I hope that can be part of our consideration to make sure we have a system that works at its best for everybody.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
May I respectfully point out to the Minister that this is not a town versus country or urban versus rural issue? The RAC has identified that some retailers are grossly profiteering, taking a three times bigger margin than they were at the beginning of last year, particularly on diesel sales. For the avoidance of doubt, will he confirm that the Government scheme he has outlined today will apply to all fuel retailers, not just those at supermarkets?
Graham Stuart
I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the precise details of everybody who will be included. He is right to highlight that this is not just an issue in urban areas. However, in those areas there tends to be more competition and easier transparency than there can be in rural and coastal areas.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
A couple of weeks ago, I drew the House’s attention to the fact that the same supermarket tanker would unload fuel at 10p a litre cheaper in one place than it would if it came 10 to 15 miles up the road to my constituency. If today’s report does not fix that, it will not have been good enough and the Government will have more work to do. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give me some reassurance on that point.
Graham Stuart
We have to make sure the market works. Transparency is our biggest single weapon, and we need to be doing this in a way that reaches people, be they digitally enabled or not; we are wrestling with those details. Let us look at the alternative to a market-based system—other countries have tried it, as it is a populist measure. It does not work, it leads to a shortage of supply and it ends up creating the very dominance that we seek to ensure is not exploited in systems such as we have seen in this CMA report.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) asked a good and apposite question. In February, I wrote to all the major supermarkets that have outlets in Chesterfield asking them why they were retailing petrol for 10p more a litre there than they were selling it for just 10 miles up the road in Sheffield. They were very transparent and honest about this, saying, “ It’s a market where we think we can make more money out of Chesterfield residents than we do out of Sheffield residents. That’s why we charge you more.” That is despite the fact that there is no additional cost to getting the fuel there. Although I welcome the greater transparency, making it easier for consumers, what they will see in Chesterfield is that they are paying more than they would up the road in Sheffield. Is there anything in what the Minister is announcing today that will empower people in Chesterfield to bring their prices down?
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The good people of Bridport and Dorchester in West Dorset have had to pay up to 20p a litre more than those in towns not far away. The Liberal Democrats have been silent about that throughout the entire duration, so it is somewhat hypocritical of them to bring this matter to the House today, particularly given that they voted to increase the price per litre. Although I welcome what the CMA has had to say in its report today, it does not really deal with the issue we are seeing of rigorous yield management by supermarkets with their petrol prices. That is not a matter of competition; that is where they believe they can get more money out of a particular group people or community. I would be very pleased if the Minister would meet me to look at how we can take this forward and grasp that issue.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Now that we know that competition on fuel prices has weakened in recent years and that that has led to inflated prices, particularly in my constituency where, despite a campaign for fair prices led by Stuart McMillan MSP, we have been paying over the odds for years, may I seek a guarantee that supermarket food prices are not following the same pattern?
Graham Stuart
Following this report, the CMA has decided to look into the supermarkets and will report back as soon as next month.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the CMA for its report and the Government for accepting the recommendations, although I think we are putting too much faith in price transparency to solve the market problem. I was interested to see in the trend profit margins for supermarket retailers and non-supermarket retailers that supermarkets are consistently increasing their margins while non-supermarket retailers are not. Will the Minister follow up with retailers, in the light of this report, to make sure that we check that the margins come down next year and in the following year?
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend for his typically penetrating question. As I said, one of the recommendations is to maintain a monitoring function, which will help to give us the market intelligence so that if further intervention is required, we will have the data on which to base it.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Patchy public transport contributes to high costs for rural households, as many people have no choice but to use their cars for essential journeys. Despite this, the rural fuel duty relief scheme does not apply to a single area in Wales. Will the Minister commit to pressing the Treasury to reconsider the scheme to take into account access to local public transport networks, as well as providing a guarantee of inclusion for Welsh areas?
Graham Stuart
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question and will ensure that His Majesty’s Treasury is aware of it.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
The good people of Scunthorpe spotted this issue some time ago, so I thank my right hon. Friend for his work on it and the measures he is recommending. Has the similar open-data scheme that has been trialled in Germany resulted in a boost in competitiveness? If so, when does my right hon. Friend think we will start to see the results at the pumps here?
Graham Stuart
I hope from as soon as next month, under a voluntary scheme. My hon. Friend gives me the perfect opportunity to repeat how determined I am to see the companies provide the data so that we have something far less clunky, as it has been called, and far more comprehensive than what we have today, and so that that can lead to the benefits that have been found elsewhere.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I am not certain that the seriousness of the situation that faces rural constituencies is being taken appropriately into account. My Angus constituents live in towns and landward areas that are miles away from supermarket fuels. They pay the highest prices for fuel, they have no public transport to speak of so have to use their cars and vehicles, they pay the highest delivery prices and they are often on the lowest wages. If the Minister thinks that greater transparency over fuel prices is going to help, he is stretching the point. My constituents in Angus know how expensive their fuel is and they know how far they have to travel to get cheaper fuel. This announcement will not fix the situation. We need the Treasury to get its act together and intervene in what is essentially critical national infrastructure, which is what road fuel is.
Graham Stuart
I will take that as a further representation to His Majesty’s Treasury.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Motorists in and around Kettering have long suspected that petrol and diesel forecourt retailers have been inflating prices well above where they should be. Prices go up far too quickly and come down far too slowly. Given the fact that the petrol and diesel forecourt retailers effectively ignored the letter from the Business Secretary in May 2022, will the Minister assure my constituents that the Competition and Markets Authority will continue to monitor the market closely to ensure that does not happen again?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is quite right. Urging them to behave properly is not enough, which is why we will not only put in place a mandatory system to ensure that the data is there but ensure ongoing monitoring so that, as I said to our hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), we have the data on which to base further intervention should that be required.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is a very welcome announcement, especially in respect of the information on fuel-price competition that will allow drivers to look for fuel at petrol stations that are closer and have better prices, thereby enabling them to save money. On any potential fuel fund offers, there is an older generation—I am probably one of them—who perhaps do not use apps and therefore do not understand how they work; what steps will the Minister take to ensure that they have access to information on fuel funding that is accessible for them and easily understood so that they, too, can take advantage of what is on offer?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I would not want to finish without mentioning that, as of Monday 26 June, unleaded petrol is 143.43p per litre, and that has reduced, on average, by 47.5p from June last year, and diesel is 145.6p per litre, and that has reduced by 53.3p per litre on the previous year. I will write to the hon. Gentleman to make sure that I can properly inform him in answer to his question.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
This report clearly shows that residents in Burnley and Padiham and our villages have been overcharged for their fuel for too long. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Competition and Markets Authority now needs to relook at the ownership changes at Asda?
Graham Stuart
As the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, that perhaps stretches slightly beyond my brief, but, as those on Treasury Bench will have heard my hon. Friend’s question, I am sure that he will be able follow up with others who have direct responsibility.
NHS Long-term Workforce Plan
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I wish to thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for coming to the Chamber to make his statement. It is a pity that the Prime Minister did not do so on Friday when the world heard what he had to say before we did. The Prime Minister is a Member of Parliament. He is answerable to the Members of Parliament from all political parties. I have to say that his behaviour was not acceptable. He may be the Prime Minister, but the Members of Parliament should hear first. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State is doing it the right way.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
The Government note the comments that you have made from the Chair, Mr Speaker.
Steve Barclay
That is also noted, Mr Speaker.
May I, on behalf of the Government, note the passing of the former head of the civil service, Lord Kerslake? He had a distinguished career in public service, including as chief executive of Sheffield Council and chair of King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, as well as being head of the civil service. We send our condolences to his family and friends both in Whitehall and across the civil service.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on our long-term workforce plan for the NHS.
This week marks the 75th birthday of the NHS. We should celebrate its achievements, its founding principles and its people. From doctors and dentists to pharmacists and physios, NHS staff devote their lives to caring for others. I am sure the whole House would agree that the NHS holds a special place in our country due to the care offered by the people who work for it.
It is said that, in 1948, the NHS had fewer than 150,000 staff and a budget of around £11 billion. Today, the NHS employs closer to 1.4 million people with a budget of more than £160 billion. The transformation of the care offered by the NHS through advances in medicine is reflected in the fact that people now live 13 years longer than on average in 1948.
Today, alongside the increase in the number of staff, the range of treatments and the improved patient outcomes, demand on the NHS has also increased. People live longer, they live with more complex medical conditions, and we are also dealing with the challenges left behind by a once-in-a-generation pandemic.
One in four adults lives with two or more health conditions. Although our population is forecast to grow by around 4% over the next 15 years, the number of those over 85 is forecast to grow by more than 50%. In addressing the challenges both of today and of the longer term, it is right that we have a recovery plan focused on the immediate steps as we rebuild from the pandemic, and longer-term plans to ensure that the NHS is sustainable for the future. This will ensure that the NHS is there for future generations in the way that it has been for us and our families over the past 75 years.
We have already set out detailed recovery plans to reduce long waits for operations, improve access to urgent and emergency care and make it easier to see GPs and specialists in primary care. On electives, we have virtually eliminated the two-year wait, which we did this summer, and cleared more than 90% of 80-week waits from their peak at the end of March—in marked contrast to the much longer waits we see in Wales, where the NHS is run by Labour.
On urgent and emergency care, we are investing £1 billion in 5,000 additional permanent beds, alongside expanding virtual wards to improve discharge from hospital and investing in community services to prevent admissions, especially for the frail and elderly. On primary care, we are investing more than £600 million, including in improving technology to address the 8 am rush. We have already exceeded our manifesto target by 3,000, with 29,000 additional roles in primary care to enable patients to access specialists more quickly, and we are reducing burdens on GP surgeries through the development of the NHS app and improving the range of services offered through Pharmacy First, enabling pharmacists to prescribe drug treatments for seven minor illnesses.
Alongside the recovery plans, we are taking action to improve prevention through early diagnosis of conditions, whether through the 108 community diagnostic centres that are already open, or the 43 new and expanded surgical hubs planned for this year. Our national roll-out of our lung cancer screening programme has helped to transform patient outcomes, turning on its head the previous position where 80% of lung cancers in our most deprived communities were detected late, with 76% now being detected early.
Alongside the immediate measures we are taking to deal with demand in the NHS, as we celebrate the 75th anniversary we are also investing in the NHS to make sure it is sustainable for the future. Last month, I announced to the House the largest-ever investment in the NHS estate, with more than £20 billion committed to our new hospitals programme.
Today I can confirm to the House that, for the first time in the NHS’s history, the Government have committed to publishing a long-term workforce plan, setting out the largest-ever workforce training expansion in the NHS’s history, backed by £2.4 billion of new funding. The plan responds to requests from NHS leaders and has been developed by NHS England. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Amanda Pritchard, the chief executive of NHS England and her team, Gavin Larner and colleagues within the Department of Health and Social Care, and the more than 60 NHS organisations that have engaged closely in the plan’s development, including many of our Royal Colleges.
The plan sets out three priorities: to train more staff, to retain and develop the staff already working for the NHS and to reform how training is delivered, taking on board the best of international practice. Let me deal with each in turn. We will double the number of medical school places, increase the availability of GPs being trained by 50%, train 24,000 more nurses and midwives and increase the number of dentists by 40%.
When it comes to improving retention, we recognise the importance of flexible working opportunities, especially for those approaching retirement. The plan will build on proposals in the NHS people plan and build on steps already taken by the Chancellor at the spring Budget on pension tax reform.
In respect of reform, the plan sets out policies to expand the number of associate roles, which provide greater career progression for existing staff and in turn reduce the workload of senior clinicians, allowing them to focus on the work that only they can do. Both measures will improve productivity by enabling more staff to operate at the top of their licence. A constant theme across the long-term workforce plan is our focus on apprenticeships and vocational training, including a commitment to increasing the number of staff coming through apprenticeships from 7% today to 22% by 2031-32. That reflects the strong commitment of the Secretary of State for Education and myself to facilitate greater career progression through apprenticeships. It will also help to recruit and retain staff in parts of the country that often find it harder to recruit
In the week in which we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the NHS, today’s announcement confirms the Government’s commitment to the first ever comprehensive NHS long-term workforce plan. The plan sets out detailed proposals to train more staff, offers greater flexibility and opportunity to existing staff, and embraces innovation by reforming how education and training are delivered across the NHS. The plan will be iterative; we will return to it every couple of years to enable progress to reflect advances in technology such as artificial intelligence so that the numbers trained can be best aligned with patient services. It also reflects a growing need for more general skills in the NHS, as patients with more than one condition require a more holistic approach.
The NHS long-term plan, backed by £2.4 billion of new funding, comes in addition to our record investment in the NHS estate. It ensures that we put in place the funding required for a sustainable future for the NHS, alongside the steps that we are taking in the immediate term to reduce waiting lists and ensure that the NHS is there for patients. As the chief executive of NHS England has said herself, the long-term workforce plan is a truly historic moment for the NHS. As such, I commend this statement to the House.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I thank the Health Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I say “statement”, but what I really mean is “admission”—an admission that, after 13 long years, the Conservatives have run out of road, run out of ideas, and turned to Labour to clear up the mess that they have made. Make no mistake: at its heart, this is Labour’s workforce plan. It is a plan that we have called for since last September; a plan that we have begged the Government to adopt again and again. They say that imitation is sincerest form of flattery, and I, for one, am relieved that the Government have finally seen sense, but the question that the Health Secretary and Conservative Members need to answer today is: what on earth took them so long?
This week, the NHS celebrates its 75th anniversary as it faces the biggest crisis in its history—a crisis that has been building for years under this Government: a staff shortage of 154,000, 7.4 million patients stuck waiting for treatment, people across the country finding it virtually impossible to see a GP, and families desperately worried that if they need an emergency ambulance, it just will not arrive on time. Ministers constantly blame covid for those problems, but the truth is that waiting list numbers were rising and staff shortages increasing long before the pandemic struck.
Patients now want to know when they will finally see a difference. Can the Health Secretary confirm that, under his proposals, the NHS will not have the staff that it needs for at least eight years? Does he now regret the cut in medical school places that his Government brought in in 2013? Does he regret the decision taken last summer to cut the number of medical school places by 3,000 just when the NHS needed them most?
The Health Secretary claims that this is the first long-term NHS workforce plan, but let me set the record straight. In 2000, the last Labour Government produced a 10-year plan of investment and reform—a plan that delivered not only 44,000 more doctors and 75,000 more nurses, but the lowest-ever waiting times and the highest-ever patient satisfaction in the history of the NHS. That was a golden inheritance that Conservative Members can only dream of and that they have squandered through a decade of inaction and incompetence.
Let me turn briefly to what is missing from the proposals. Without a serious strategy to keep staff working in the NHS, Ministers will be forever running to catch up with themselves. Yet the Secretary of State has completely failed to put forward a proper plan to end the crippling strikes that are having such a huge impact on patient care. Six hundred and fifty thousand operations and appointments have been cancelled because of industrial action. Next week, junior doctors will walk out for five days, followed by two days of consultants’ strikes. After seven months of disruption, can the Health Secretary tell us when he and the Prime Minister will finally do their job, sit down and negotiate with staff, and bring an end to this Tory chaos?
The one part of Labour’s workforce plan that Ministers have not stolen is our plan to fund it by scrapping the non-dom tax status. In fact, when the Health Secretary was touring the media studios yesterday, he was asked nine times how he was going to pay for the plan and he completely failed to answer. He has had a little more time to prepare, so I am going to try again. Will he fund it through higher taxes, when we already have the highest tax burden for 70 years, or will he fund it through higher borrowing, when our nation’s debt is at record levels? Labour will introduce plans only when we can show how they will be paid for, because that is what taxpayers deserve. It is high time that Conservatives did the same.
From the windfall tax to help for mortgage holders to a proper plan for the NHS workforce, where Labour leads, the Conservatives only follow. This tired, discredited Government have had their day. The public know that it is time for change, and in their hearts Government Members too know that it is time for change. It is time for them to move aside and let Labour finally deliver.
Steve Barclay
Well, that really was a confused response. The hon. Lady began with reference to Labour’s proposals and the claim that our plan followed them. I took the precaution of bringing Labour’s announcement with me to the Chamber. Members can look at it in their own time, but it does not use the word “reform” once, despite the fact that “Train, retain, reform” is a key part of our proposals. Proposals for reform include moving from five-year to four-year medical undergraduate training; the expansion of roles such as physician associate; a significant expansion in the use of apprenticeships; and flexibility for retiring consultants, so that they can return to roles in, for example, out-patient services. A wide range of reforms came about as a result of the consultation with 60 different NHS organisations and are a key feature of the plan, but in Labour’s proposals reform is not mentioned once.
In addition, Labour’s proposals are for a 10-year period. Our plan covers 15 years. Its proposal covered 23,000 additional health roles; our proposal deals with 50,000. I could go on and talk about the fact that the Labour proposal does not even mention GP trainees. Labour Members keep coming to the House and saying that primary care is important, but their proposals did not even touch on the workforce with regard to GPs. They did not even mention pharmacists, even though, as part of a primary care recovery plan, a key chunk of our proposal is Pharmacy First. It is extremely important that we can deliver services to patients in innovative ways. The ultimate irony is that the shadow Health Secretary, in one of his many interviews, including interviews to promote his book, said that the NHS “must reform or die”. He said that it must reform, yet Labour’s proposals do not mention reform at all.
Labour welcomes the plan, but it goes on to say that it will take too long to implement, while claiming that it is its plan, which, again, points to the confusion among Labour Members. Let me remind the House of what has been done. We had a manifesto commitment for 50,000 additional nurses—we are on track to deliver that, with 44,000 in place. We had a manifesto commitment to have 26,000 additional roles in primary care, and we have met that, with 29,000 roles in place. In 2018, we made a commitment to five new medical schools in parts of the country where it is hard to recruit. We have delivered that—a 25% expansion in the number of medical students, who will come on stream in hospitals next summer. However, as we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the NHS, it is right that we also look beyond that to the longer-term needs of the NHS. That is exactly what the plan does with its doubling of medical places, but alongside that, it innovates by embracing things like a medical apprenticeship so that we can look at different ways of delivering training.
The hon. Lady talked about strikes, which is a further area of confusion on the Labour Benches. Labour Members say that they do not support a 35% pay rise for junior doctors, on the grounds that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), says that they should not. Either Labour Members want to support the junior doctors, or they do not—once again, their position seems confused.
I will finish with one final area of confusion on the Labour Benches. The hon. Lady talked about the elastic non-dom revenue raiser, despite the fact that the former shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, has said that it would not raise the funds that are claimed. He has said that it would do quite the opposite: it would deter investment in the UK. In addition, Labour has already spent those funds on a range of measures, such as the breakfast clubs that Labour Members come to the House and talk about. The reality is that it would not fund Labour’s proposals, whereas we have made a commitment to back our plan with £2.4 billion of funding from the Treasury.
This is a historic moment as we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the NHS. It is a long-term commitment from a Government who are backing the NHS through the biggest investment in the NHS estate—over £20 billion —and a series of recovery programmes, expanding our diagnostic capacity and our surgical hubs. That is why the workforce plan is truly innovative. It does not just train more staff or offer opportunities to retain more staff; it reforms as well—something that is sadly lacking in Labour’s proposals.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
This is a serious piece of work, and it is very welcome. Despite calls from people like me to get on with it, it was right for the Government to take their time and get it right. The Select Committee will scrutinise it—as we do—on 12 July.
The training piece is very strong. Doubling the number of medical school places has to be right, and I am glad that the Secretary of State thought of it. On retention, if we are saying—rightly, I would contest—that it is not all about pay, what role does he envisage the integrated care systems and, therefore, the trusts having in supporting staff as he makes the “one workforce” that is mentioned in section 5, with which I agree, come to pass?
Steve Barclay
Characteristically, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee makes an extremely pertinent point about the role of the ICSs. As we move to place-based commissioning and look to integrate more, the interplay between the workforces in the NHS and in social care will be a key area where the ICSs will be extremely important.
The ICSs will have a particular role in the apprenticeship and vocational training, which are key retention tools in those parts of the country where it is hard to recruit, as well as in offering more flexibility to staff. When I talk to NHS staff, they often talk about having different needs at different stages of their career—whether for childcare commitments, which relate to the measures the Chancellor set out in the Budget, caring for an elderly relative, or wanting to retire and work in more flexible ways—and the ICSs have a key role to play in that. I welcome my hon. Friend’s comment that this is a serious and complex piece of work, and that it was right that we took our time to get it correct.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Despite the significant desert of dentists, I note from the plan that we will not see an increase in dental training places next year, the year after or the year after that, meaning that we will not see more dentists for nearly another decade. We have a crisis now, so what is the Secretary of State going to do about it?
Steve Barclay
We are already seeing a fifth more work than last year, due to the flexibilities that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) announced, including the ability for dentists to take on more work within their commission and the changes to the units of dental activity pricing to better reflect more complex work. Of course, we have 6.5% more dentists than in 2010, but we also recognise that within the £3 billion budget, we want to go further. That is why we are looking at proposals to go further than the measures announced, but progress is being made, with a fifth more activity than last year.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I welcome the workforce plan and applaud NHS England’s ambition. However, for the plan to be successful, it is vital that we promote career options that often go unseen. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to work with the Education Secretary and NHS England to ensure that young people are better informed about the myriad opportunities in the allied health professions and as healthcare scientists before choosing GCSE, A-level or university options.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises a brilliant point. I do not know if Members know, but there are 350 different types of role in the NHS. It is really important that we get the right information to children whose parents are perhaps not informed about those opportunities. One point on which I slightly take issue with my hon. Friend is that it is not just those at the start of their career who need to be aware of the opportunities. This is about offering opportunities to people throughout their careers to progress and to take on more advanced roles. I strongly believe that we should not define people’s future career by where they are at 21 or 22; they should have the opportunity to progress. That is a key part of the workforce plan, and I think it is a key Conservative principle that they have that ladder of opportunity throughout their time in the NHS.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I associate myself with the remarks the Secretary of State made about Bob Kerslake. He was a true public servant, and his death is our loss.
What is the point of a workforce plan if the Secretary of State is not actually talking to the workforce? When will he talk to the junior doctors and the consultants? Can I also ask whether the work on the workforce plan will start forthwith or sometime in the future?
Steve Barclay
The fact that we are talking to the workforce is shown by the fact that we have reached agreement with the largest workforce group in the NHS.
Steve Barclay
The right hon. Lady, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, is shaking her head, but it is a fact that the largest workforce group in the NHS are those on “Agenda for Change”, which covers more than 1 million healthcare workers from nurses, midwifes and paramedics through to porters, cleaners and many others. We have reached agreement with the NHS Staff Council, and those sums—the 5%, plus the lump sum in recognition of their tremendous work—is going into pay packets this month. So we have reached agreement, notwithstanding discussions with the junior doctors. They still demand 35%, and that is not affordable.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I welcome this long-term plan, particularly its recognition that the skillsets required in the NHS over the next 10 or 15 years, with the requirement for multidisciplinary working and generalised clinical skills, are going to change. Does my right hon. Friend agree that two things are needed for implementation? One is to improve the sense of culture in the NHS, which could lead to better retention. The second element is to ensure that digital innovation, particularly the use of artificial intelligence to improve clinical skills and other skills, is rolled out more generally in the NHS. We need to diffuse that innovation a lot more to support the critical new skillsets that are required for a modern health service.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is exactly right. As a former Health Minister, he knows these issues extremely well. There is a requirement—this is something the chief medical officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, has spoken about—for more generalist skills in the NHS, not least given that one in four adults now has two or more health conditions. We need flexibility to respond to changes not just in technology, but in service design, which will evolve as well.
My hon. Friend is also right about the wider issues of culture. I think the whole House was concerned about recent reports of sexual assaults linked to the NHS. One of the key features of the agreement we have reached with the NHS Staff Council is to work more in partnership on violence against members of NHS staff. I know there will be consensus in the House that that is unacceptable, so we are working with trade union colleagues on how we tackle it. Again, with racism, we still have too many cases of concern. There are a number of areas of culture that we are working constructively with trade union colleagues and others to address.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his comments about Bob Kerslake, whose spell in public service included his time as chief executive of Sheffield City Council. He continued to have many roles in the city, where he will be much missed.
After this Government’s 13 years in charge, morale in the NHS is clearly at rock bottom, with the value of pay falling, pressures increasing and a record number of staff—almost 170,000—leaving the NHS last year. The CEO of NHS Providers said that that must be reversed, but all the Secretary of State talks about is a little bit of working flexibility. Does he recognise that he has to address the crisis in morale to stem the tide of people leaving the NHS?
Steve Barclay
It is simply not correct to say that this is simply about flexibility—for example, look at the very significant changes made on pension tax. That was the No.1 demand of the British Medical Association consultants committee, and the Government agreed to it. A significant amount of work is going on. The NHS people plan talked about not just flexibility but some of the cultural points that are important. Some roles that have been introduced need to expand, such as some of the advanced positions like advanced clinical nurse or physician associate, where there are opportunities for people to progress their careers. It is worth pointing out that, once again, not a single Welsh Labour MP has turned up to defend their party’s record in Wales. As we set out a long-term workforce plan, we are setting out that ambition for England, but we see very little from the Labour party in Wales.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this welcome announcement. I was happy to join his celebration of the 75th anniversary in the most practical way by visiting the new children’s emergency department at the William Harvey Hospital in my constituency. It is opening for patients this week and will be extremely welcome. He will be aware that some of the problems of the NHS can be solved only if we solve problems in the social care system as well. I urge him to follow up this extremely useful and welcome workforce plan for NHS workers with a similar idea for the social care system, because unless we fix one, we will not fix the other.
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point about the integration between health and social care, and that was a flagship part of the reforms in 2022, which brought the NHS and social care together through the integrated care system. I join him in welcoming the news about William Harvey Hospital, which is extremely important to the local area. On social care more widely, we must also be cognisant of the differences. The NHS and social care employ roughly similar numbers at around 1.5 million people, but one is one employer and the other is 15,000 employers, so the dynamics between the two are different. The prioritisation of that integration is exactly right. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced up to £7.5 billion for social care in the autumn statement, recognising that what happens in social care has a big impact on discharge in hospitals and hospital flow, which in turn impacts on ambulance handovers.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
After promises of new hospitals that have not got off the ground and 6,000 more GPs that never came to pass, it is fair to say that the British public will judge the Government on their actions not their words. Let me press the Secretary of State further on social care. He will remember that at the start of this year, people were dying in the back of ambulances and in hospital corridors, in part because people could not be discharged from hospitals into social care. If the Government believe, as I do, that we cannot fix the NHS if we do not fix social care, will he also bring forward a workforce plan for our social care sector?
Steve Barclay
That repeats the previous question, so I will not repeat the answer. It is slightly ironic to call for a plan for a new hospital programme and for a long-term workforce plan, and then criticise us when we deliver on both of those, as we have done with more than £20 billion of investment in the new hospitals programme, which we announced last month, £2.4 billion in the first ever long-term workforce plan and the biggest ever expansion of workforce training in the history of the NHS. Of course we need to take action in the short term to deal with the consequences of the pandemic. That is what our recovery plan does. The urgent emergency care plan that I announced in January takes specific action on demand management in the community. There are measures upstream on boosting capacity in emergency departments and downstream on things such as virtual wards. A huge amount of work is going on. We are putting more than £1 billion into 5,000 more permanent beds to get more bed capacity into hospitals. On social care, in the autumn statement the Chancellor committed up to £7.5 billion of further investment over two years, and it was part of our reforms to better integrate health and social care.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I welcome the NHS long-term workforce plan and in particular its emphasis on training, retention and reform. At the moment, about a quarter of NHS staff are recruited from abroad. Can the Secretary of State confirm to the House and my constituents that this plan enables the development of a strong pool of homegrown talent, so that we can reduce foreign recruitment more towards 10%, which would be a lot more sustainable for the long-term future of the NHS?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we boost our domestic workforce training, there will be scope to reduce the number recruited internationally. From 1948 onwards, international recruitment has always played an important role in the NHS, and we are hugely grateful for the service offered by those recruited internationally, but we also recognise that as demography changes in other countries, there will be increasing competition for healthcare workers around the world, so it is right that we boost our domestic supply. That is what this plan does, and it is why this is a historic moment for the NHS in making that long-term commitment that will in turn reduce the demand on the international workforce.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I, too, add my condolences to the family of Bob Kerslake, who did excellent work in my borough tackling poverty. I would congratulate the Secretary of State on this announcement if it did not come 13 years into a Conservative Government. It is a bit like Bobby Ewing coming out of the shower, the way the Secretary of State is saying, “I’ve just realised there’s a crisis in the NHS.” We went into covid with 2.4 million people on waiting lists, which was a record. It is now up to 7.4 million. The report itself says that we have 154,000 fewer staff than we need today in the NHS. After 13 years in government, if the Tories really cared about the NHS, it would not be in the state it is in, would it?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that since 2010, there has been a 25% increase in the NHS workforce. More than a quarter of a million more people now work in the NHS than was the case in 2010. There is a 50% increase in the number of consultants working in the NHS today compared with 2010, but the reality is that demand has increased as a result of an older population, advances in medicine and in particular the demands of the pandemic, and that is what we are responding to. We are also taking measures in parallel. We are on track to deliver our manifesto commitment for 50,000 more nurses, with 44,000 now in place. We also have beaten our manifesto target on primary care, with 29,000 additional roles in place. That means that people can get to the specialist they need, which in turn frees up GPs for those things that only GPs can do and ensures that patients can access care much more quickly.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
According to the King’s Fund, the proportion of GDP taken by the NHS has increased in the past 50 years from 3.4% to 8.2%. On the same trajectory, in 50 years’ time, it will take a fifth of all our GDP. That is totally unsustainable, especially as someone’s only right, despite the fact they are paying ever increasing amounts of tax, is to join the back of the queue. I ask again: will the Secretary of State launch a study—and, if necessary, appoint a royal commission—on fundamental reform of the whole nature and funding of our health system, so that we can learn from every other developed country, such as Australia, France, Italy and Germany, where they unleash private sector investment into healthcare and give people rights to their healthcare, while ensuring that those who need it get free healthcare at the point of delivery?
Steve Barclay
I hope my right hon. Friend is pleased to see the measures we are taking with the Lord O’Shaughnessy review on clinical research trials to make it easier and faster to do research in the NHS. That in turn attracts private investment to the NHS. He will have seen the announcement I made on Tuesday of £96 million for 93 different research projects, such as at Great Ormond Street Hospital, where we have allocated £3.5 million for research into rare conditions in children. That translates into research that is then deployed, usually in adults. We are investing there, and we are screening 100,000 children through Genomics England. We have got a deal with Moderna and BioNTech so that we can have bespoke cancer vaccines. On Monday, we rolled out national lung cancer screening. Previously, in our most deprived communities we were detecting lung cancer late—80% were diagnosed late—but in those pilots we turned that on its head with 76% detected earlier.
I know that my right hon. Friend, as a former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, will agree that by detecting earlier, not only are patient outcomes far better but treatment is far cheaper, whether that is for lung cancer or through our innovation on HIV screening in emergency departments picking up HIV in people who do not realise that they have it. When we treat it early, the patient outcomes are better, and it is fiscally much more sustainable. That is how we will address some of his concerns.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State could do something now—not in eight years’ time—to relieve the pressure on our NHS, and it has nothing to do with pension funds. Figures from the Royal College of General Practitioners show that 53% of GPs think they cannot work in a flexible way to balance family and work commitments. It is little wonder that GPs aged 35 to 44 are the biggest group on the retention scheme who are leaving the profession—it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that it is the mums.
When I asked the Secretary of State’s Department what he was doing to monitor flexible working and whether we are getting roles that people can do—not just sitting with their 16 hours but finding ways to work and balance family—it said that it did not monitor the situation. It was not even looking at it. We are losing brilliant staff and wasting billions of pounds, and we will have a delay before our constituents see the benefit of any workforce plan unless that changes. I have listened to him and looked at the statement that does not make a single mention of childcare, although he did refer to it in passing. What will he actually do not just for retirees but for doctors with families to get them back into the NHS so that we can all benefit?
Steve Barclay
I think there is actually a lot of agreement between the hon. Lady and I. She talked about the plan, and having read it a number of times—that is part of my role—I know that childcare is specifically referred to in the summary, no less, in terms of the key issues that it goes on to set out. It goes into detail about our proposals, including linking up to the NHS people plan and greater flexibility in terms of roles and people retiring. One aspect of the NHS Staff Council deal is the expansion of pension abatement rules. So there is a huge amount.
The hon. Lady calls for more flexibility. I set out a number of the areas, and she does not seem to realise that there are three sections to the plan, with the second being all about giving greater flexibility to help retain our staff. So the plan addresses the points she raises; that just does not seem to be the answer she wants to hear. As for flexibility being important to mums, yes it is, and the NHS has a largely female workforce, but it is also important to dads. It is important to all NHS staff that we have that flexibility.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The NHS today, at 1.4 million employees, is the fifth-largest employer in the world, and if the ambitions in this welcome plan are met, it will be the largest employer in the world. That raises the question of how effective the management of those human resources is. It is a little disappointing that there is so little commentary in the plan on two important management issues: the ambitions on improving the quality of management systems, and particularly clarification of decision rights and responsibilities; and the quality of accounting control systems and how the NHS seeks to improve them. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the NHS looks at those two important matters?
Steve Barclay
Those are both fair points. I know that my hon. Friend comes at this with great commercial experience, and I hope he knows that I have an interest in those issues. Just to reassure him, the plan is iterative; it is not a one-off. It is a framework from which we will do further work. Indeed, one of the areas that I am often criticised for is my interest in data and variation in data across the NHS—he and I probably agree on that more than some of those who are critical. That speaks to his point—the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee’s point relates to this—that in a system the size of the NHS, data on the performance of the integrated care boards and their role in terms of the workforce is one area that the House will want to return to.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We know a Government are out of ideas when they copy the Opposition’s plan to train the doctors and nurses that the NHS so desperately needs. The majority of those policies will not be implemented until after the general election—long after the British public have booted the Conservatives out of power because of their industrial-scale incompetence, which included crashing the economy.
The Secretary of State will be aware that the NHS is short of more than 150,000 staff right now. Will he take responsibility for those shortages and admit that, had the Government acted more than a decade ago, the NHS would have the staff that it needs right now?
Steve Barclay
All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman clearly has not read the plan. If he had, he would have seen that it is developed by NHS England. That the Labour party is claiming authorship of it is slightly odd. As I pointed out in response to the shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), Labour’s plan fails to mention reform at all, or GP training or physios. Our plan is 15 years, Labour’s is 10; it is a fraction of the size and it is flawed in many other ways. This plan has been developed by NHS England with contributions from 60 different organisations across the NHS. That is why it has been so widely welcomed by many in the NHS, who have called for it for some time.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
We have a superb new accident and emergency in Scunthorpe, and we are pressing ahead with plans for a large, state-of-the-art community diagnostic centre. I have lived locally all my life, and those are some of the most significant upgrades we have seen in a generation. But there are things to do—we certainly need more NHS dentists. Would the Secretary of State consider a tie-in so that newly qualified dentists spend a minimum percentage of their time delivering NHS care?
Steve Barclay
I am pleased to see those services going into Scunthorpe. That underscores the investment we are making now while preparing for the long term, through the largest ever expansion in workforce training in the NHS’s history. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of tie-ins. Let me explain why that matters in particular for dentists: around two thirds of dentists do not go on to do NHS work. That is why the plan has looked at tie-ins for dentistry, which we will explore in the weeks and months ahead.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Despite what the Secretary of State says, the Conservatives have finally admitted that they are out of ideas, and are adopting Labour’s workforce plan. The NHS is short of more than 150,000 staff right now. More worryingly, the plan includes no mention of eye health, despite the crisis. In ophthalmology, 80% of eye units do not have enough consultants to meet current demand. Will the Secretary of State say how many years it will take for the NHS to have enough ophthalmologists? Why will he not back my Bill for a national eye health strategy for England, which will seek to tackle the crisis in eye health?
Steve Barclay
The question started by saying that we do not want plans for the future, we want to deal with the present, and finished by asking if we can have a plan for the future rather than for the present. The plan sets out significant additional numbers. Significant investment is going into eye services here and now. Let me give the House one example: at King’s Lynn hospital, in addition to our investment in a new hospital to replace the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete hospital, and in addition to the new diagnostic centre, I had the opportunity in the summer to open a new £3 million eye centre, which is doubling the number of patients who receive eye care in King’s Lynn. That is just one practical example of our investment in eye services now.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
May I add my words of condolence for Lord Kerslake, who served on the greater Grimsby regeneration board, which oversees regeneration in the Grimsby-Cleethorpes area? We greatly valued his experience and advice. Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), it is important that we tie in dentists—and I would suggest GPs—to NHS services, but could they also be directed to areas of greatest need, such as northern Lincolnshire?
Steve Barclay
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) is looking at how we deliver more services within the existing contract, and at what incentives and reforms can be put in place to ensure that the parts of the country that find it hardest to recruit dentists are best able to do so, through both our domestic supply and international recruitment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the positivity he is trying to bring forward. The NHS workforce plan has concluded that the number of places in medical schools each year will rise from some 7,500 to 10,000, but in Northern Ireland it is a very different story: I know it is a devolved matter, but the Royal College of Nursing is facing cuts that could result in the number of places falling to 1,025 per academic year. Will the extra money that the Secretary of State announced be subject to Barnett consequentials? I know he is always keen to promote all this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland together, so what discussions has he had with the Northern Ireland Department of Health and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that Northern Ireland is not left behind? When we are crying out for staff, our students should have a real opportunity to learn and work in the NHS field.
Steve Barclay
Barnett consequentials will apply to the £2.4 billion funding over the five years. In respect of new roles, regulatory changes apply on a UK-wide basis. The plan itself is for the NHS in England, but we stand ready to work with partners across the United Kingdom where there is shared learning on which we can work together.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am really pleased to see the 50% increase in the number of annual training places for GPs—it is music to my ears—but they will need somewhere to work. The £20 billion for the hospital programme is great, but when I look at section 106 applications for my constituency, I still see health getting a tiny proportion compared with education and the environment. May I have an assurance from the Secretary of State that as we increase the number of GPs in the primary care team, they will not have to scrabble around trying to get little bits of money for planning applications here and there, but that there will be a guaranteed capital budget for new doctors, in the way that we are sorting that out for hospitals?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises a perfectly valid point. As we expand the primary care workforce, there is a capital consequence. The 50% expansion he talks about builds on the expansion from 2,100 in training in 2014 to 4,000 now, so there has already been an expansion, but we are taking that further by 50%—and on the higher figure. His point about section 106 applications is absolutely valid, and that is part of the primary care recovery plan. I understand that he is discussing the importance of getting that funding in place with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Given the number of pressures and crises that our NHS faces, it would be a mistake for the Secretary of State to be seen as complacent in how he delivered his workforce plan. Our job as MPs is to speak the truth to power, so I want to raise with him the lack of cancer treatment capacity, particularly in radiotherapy. International comparators suggest that between 55% and 60% of cancer patients should be able to access radiotherapy either directly or in tandem with other treatments. Currently, only 27% do. What is the Secretary of State doing to increase the size of the highly specialised and relatively small radiotherapy workforce? The target is for 85% of patients to start their first treatment within 62 days of an urgent GP referral. What is the current figure?
Steve Barclay
To take the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the plan does not get into individual specialties. That was a Health Committee recommendation, which I have discussed with the Committee’s Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). There is a clear reason for that. Within the framework of numbers, the impact of AI and service design will evolve over the 15 years, so it is right that we commit to the number and then the NHS take that work forward with individual specialities and have discussions with the royal colleges.
The hon. Gentleman made a perfectly valid point about boosting capacity. We have already rolled out 108 of the 160 community diagnostic centres that we have committed to deliver. We are also looking to innovate, and I will give two practical examples. Our deal with Moderna, which is looking at individual bespoke vaccines for hard to treat cancers such as pancreatic cancer, will allow us to get ahead on that. We are already seeing a significant reduction in cervical cancer as a result of prevention measures. Likewise, by going into deprived communities with a high preponderance of smoking, the lung cancer screening programme is detecting lung cancer, which often presents late, much earlier, which in turn is having a significant impact on survival rates.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I recently met a constituent who raised the issue of children’s oral health and shared with me her concerns about the staffing crisis in specialist paediatric dentistry. According to the Government’s own statistics, which were released in March, 29.3% of five-year-olds in England have enamel and/or dentinal decay, and the figure was as high as 38.7% in the north-west. The workforce plan talks of expanding dentistry training places by 24% by 2028-29, and by 40% by 2031-32. I note the Secretary of State’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). However, there is no specific mention of specialist paediatric dentistry in the plan, so what will the Secretary of State do to help those children who are desperate for specialist dental treatment right now?
Steve Barclay
Without repeating my previous answer on specialty, we are boosting a number of areas. There are 5,000 more doctors and almost 13,000 more nurses this year than last year. I have already touched on increasing the numbers in primary care. There are 44,000 more nurses, so we are on track to deliver our manifesto target of 50,000. There are 25% more within the workforce of the NHS compared with 2010. We are boosting the workforce overall. The plan is iterative and further work will go into which specialities are developed and how resource is prioritised as services are redesigned.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the recruitment and retention issues facing the NHS are particularly bad in rural areas. We felt the brunt of that in North Shropshire, with some of the worst ambulance waiting times, cancer treatment rates and diabetic care rates in the country. The plan does not go into much detail on what will be done to help rural areas, but it does acknowledge that by 2037, a third of all over-85s will live in rural places. I urge the Secretary of State to rural-proof this plan and to find ways to work on both the retention and the recruitment of healthcare professionals across the whole spectrum in North Shropshire and the rest of rural Britain.
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady raises a fair point. It also applies to the issue of stroke. The elderly population has increased in many coastal and rural communities. That has created significant pressure: for legacy reasons, services are often in other parts of the country. We have five new medical schools in place, and we have looked at those parts of the country where it is often hard to recruit. Part of the expansion will be to look further at what services are needed in different areas. The hon. Lady’s point also speaks to that raised by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. By giving greater autonomy to place-based commissioning through the integrated care systems, we will enable people at a more local level to design the services and the workforce that they need, and that includes the flexibilities required to retain local staff.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome the workforce plan. Given that it has taken 13 years, one tends to wonder why it has taken so long, but then of course we remember that there is a general election on the horizon.
Page 121 sets out a labour productivity rate of 1.5% to 2% per year. That has never been achieved by the NHS or any other comparable health system, so what assumptions is the Health and Social Care Secretary making in relation to achieving that?
Steve Barclay
First, this is a plan developed by colleagues in NHS England, so these are assumptions that have been agreed by those who lead within the NHS. It is about ensuring that people operate at the top of their licence. It is about having new and expanded roles, such as advanced practitioners and associate roles, that allow people to progress in their careers and, in doing so, freeing up capacity for senior clinicians, who often spend time doing things that do not need to be done by people in those roles.
Of course, there are also rapid changes in technology. We often talk about the developments in artificial intelligence, and I have touched on developments in the life sciences industry. I have also mentioned advances in screening and genomics. All those developments will in turn help us to prevent health conditions, and treating those conditions early will be not only better for the patient, but better value for money for the taxpayer.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for responding to questions for 59 minutes.
Point of Order
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It concerns the status of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill., which we are about to discuss. It occurred to me during my examination of the Bill that there is, at the very least, a prima facie case that it is a hybrid Bill because of the private interests engaged alongside its public elements.
A number of classes of people are particularly affected. The private rights of all the groups in our society who are advocating for Palestinian rights will be affected in one way or another by the suppression of their ability to express their points of view, and that will absolutely apply to administrators of public funds. Those who manage local government pension schemes, for example, as well as the members of those schemes, will not be able to invest in a way that is free, particularly in respect of the state of Israel, the occupied Golan Heights and the occupied Palestinian territories, because of the exemption contained in the Bill. Local councillors will be similarly affected when it comes to expressing their points of view about the merits of being able to exercise power over economic assets for which they are democratically accountable. Muslims in the UK who support human rights in Palestine will also be disproportionately affected.
I have submitted a longer note on the basis of what legal advice I have been able to obtain at this short notice. It is my request to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rule that there is a prima facie case that this is a hybrid Bill, and I invite you to refer it to a committee of experts that you would appoint to examine that case.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. According to Erskine May, paragraph 30.57,
“Hybrid bills are public bills which are considered to affect specific private or local interests, in a manner different from the private or local interests of other persons or bodies of the same category, so as to attract the provisions of the standing orders relating to private business…Such bills are subject in both Houses to certain proceedings additional to the normal stages in the passing of public bills.
The Speaker has defined a hybrid bill as ‘a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class’…it is not the practice to treat as hybrid, bills dealing with matters of public policy whereby private rights over large areas or of a whole class are affected.”
All Bills are scrutinised on publication by the Clerk of Legislation in the Public Bill Office, in consultation with his opposite number in the House of Lords, to see whether they are prima facie hybrid and need to be referred to the examiners. This Bill was not referred to the examiners. However, the hon. Member has put his view on the record, and if he wishes further clarification, I suggest that he go back to the Public Bill Office to put forward his views one more time.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Monday 3rd July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 View all Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 212 / Noes: 272 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 268 / Noes: 70 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I hope the House will allow me first to pay tribute to Lord Kerslake, who, as the House will know, died over the weekend after a short illness. Bob Kerslake was a true public servant, steeped throughout his professional life in local and central Government, and wholly dedicated throughout his career to improving the lives of citizens. He began his career with Greater London Council and went on to run, with distinction, Sheffield City Council—the fourth largest in England—before making the switch to the corridors of Whitehall. He was the first chief executive of the Homes and Communities Agency, the forerunner to Homes England, a vital arm of Government in making sure that affordable housing is available to all. He was deservedly promoted to become permanent secretary to the Department for Communities and Local Government and, later, head of the home civil service, where he served with great distinction and kindness. Speaking personally as a Minister in the Governments where he served, I was deeply grateful to Bob for his dedication, his generosity of spirit and his wise advice.
After leaving Government, Bob led the inquiry into the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. More recently, he chaired the UK2070 Commission on regional inequalities. My colleagues and I greatly valued his work on homelessness with the Kerslake commission, and I think we all agree that his energy, knowledge and wisdom will be greatly missed. I know that right hon. and hon. Members across the House will wish to join me in sending our deepest condolences to his family in their grief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I thank you, Mr Speaker, and colleagues across the House.
The Bill does four things: it honours a manifesto promise to which this Government recommitted in the last Queen’s Speech; it affirms the important principle that UK foreign policy is a matter for the UK Government; it ensures that local authorities concentrate on serving their residents, not directing resources inefficiently; and, critically, it provides protection for minority communities, especially the Jewish community, against campaigns that harm community cohesion and fuel antisemitism.
In our 2019 manifesto, this Government committed to
“ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries.”
The Bill does just that—no more and no less.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I think it does a fifth thing, which is to introduce a thought crime. Were I to be a leader of a local authority opposed to the provisions of this Bill, once it became an Act, if I continued to say that I disagreed with its provisions and what I might wish to have done with the powers I retained were those provisions not to have been made law, I would be breaking the law. That cannot be right in a free society, can it?
Michael Gove
It would not be right if the Bill restricted local authorities from adopting policies that they considered to be in line with Government policy. It is also the case that it would be problematic if we were to restrict freedom of speech in any way, but the Bill does not do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
Not at this point—I will in a second.
It is important to stress what the Bill does not do. It does not restrict local authorities adopting policies in line with formal, agreed Government sanctions, embargoes and restrictions. It does not impede local authorities considering legitimate commercial factors related to business with a foreign state, and exercising due diligence in the award of contracts. And it does not prevent a local authority from exercising due diligence when considering whether a supplier or investment target might be involved in environmental misconduct, bribery, competition law infringements or labour misconduct, including human trafficking and modern slavery. In no way does the Bill circumscribe anyone’s right to freedom of speech or conscience.
What the Bill does do is prevent local authorities from singling out individual nations for discriminatory treatment on the basis of an ideological opposition to that nation and its fundamental basis. Action is required here because there is an existing, organised and malign campaign that aims to target and delegitimise the world’s only Jewish state. That campaign seeks to persuade public bodies to make commercial decisions solely on the basis of harming that state and its people.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so soon in this debate.
Is not the reason every single Conservative Member stood on a manifesto commitment to bring forward such legislation that we understand that there is something fundamentally illiberal, leftist and with deep, ugly connections to antisemitism at the heart of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement? That is what we are trying to tackle today.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall go on to say more about the nature of the BDS campaign because we are not talking in the abstract; we are talking in concrete terms about a campaign that exists, and has been in operation now for nearly 20 years, based on a premise that seeks to delegitimise the state of Israel. The campaign also leads directly, as I shall point out, to antisemitic incidents and a loss of community cohesion.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I just remind the Secretary of State that the Bill goes way beyond the activities of the state of Israel and will apply potentially to other areas of foreign policy, too. Has he considered whether the interaction of clause 1(7) and clause 4 will disproportionately interfere with the freedom of expression, and of conscience and belief, of individuals who are making, or have a stake in, the procurement and investment decisions of public bodies? My view and that of many other lawyers who have looked at the Bill is that it will. Why has he not produced a human rights memorandum analysing the extent to which the Bill interferes with rights under article 10 and article 9, on freedom of belief, of the European convention on human rights, and article 19 of the international covenant on civil and political rights? Will he do so?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. Nothing in the Bill conflicts with any aspect of the ECHR, not least article 10.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is bringing this legislation to the House today. He rightly mentioned the unsavoury connotations of much of the criticism that the Bill is facing, particularly in connection with the BDS movement. On that point, could he clarify his thoughts on Richard Hermer KC, who has provided advice to the shadow Front-Bench team on this legislation? Mr Hermer has previously authored a chapter in a book called “Corporate complicity in Israel’s occupation: evidence from the London session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine”, which is edited by some extremely interesting people—I fear that they are interesting in the most negative sense. Is this really the calibre of individual who should be advising the official Opposition?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend raises an important question because the Opposition have tabled a reasoned amendment. I believe they have done so in good faith. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) pointed out, some lawyers take a different view from the Government. One of those lawyers was commissioned by the Labour party to produce a legal opinion, but the gentleman concerned, a distinguished KC, has a record in this area—a record of political commitments that everyone can see clearly predispose him towards a political and particular view on this question.
Michael Gove
No. I am merely pointing out what is in the public domain. Let us turn to the nature of the BDS campaign.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Michael Gove
Not at this point. The BDS movement deliberately asks public bodies to treat Israel differently from any other nation on the globe. It asks them to treat the middle east’s only democracy as a pariah state and to end links with those who have a commercial presence there. Let me be clear: there are legitimate reasons to criticise the Israeli Government, to question their policy and, if individuals so wish, to repudiate their leadership, as there are with many other countries.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Michael Gove
No. Nothing in the Bill prevents or impedes the loudest of criticisms of Israel’s Government and leaders, including by elected politicians at all levels of government.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Michael Gove
No. But the BDS movement asks that, alone among nations, Israel be treated as illegitimate in itself—
Michael Gove
No. The founder of the BDS movement, Omar Barghouti, has been clear in his opposition to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. He has attacked what he calls the “racist principles of Zionism”—that is, the fundamental right of the Jewish people to self-determination. The man who founded and is in charge of the BDS movement has argued that Zionist principles
“maintain Israel’s character as a colonial, ethnocentric, apartheid state.”
On that basis, he opposes any idea of a two-state solution—a secure Israel alongside a viable and democratic Palestine. Instead, the BDS movement’s leader wants a
“one-state solution…where, by definition, Jews will be a minority.”
It is entirely open to any individual to agree with that proposition, but it is no part of this Government’s determination or intent to give any heart or succour to a movement that argues that the two-state solution is wrong and that Jews should be a minority in one state.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend help us here? As the effect of Israeli policy since 1967 has been to build out of existence the possibility of a two-state solution by settling 700,000 Jews who have arrived in the state of Israel, with their right to go there under Israeli law, it is now no longer possible for there to be a two-state solution, so what is British policy to be?
Michael Gove
British policy is, as my hon. Friend knows, to promote a two-state solution. I know that he has a long, passionate and committed interest in this subject and I respect the compassion and knowledge that he brings to the debate but, respectfully, I disagree with him. I believe that a two-state solution is the right approach, which the BDS movement does not believe.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the legislation that the Secretary of State is introducing, and we as a party will support it when the time comes tonight. There are many examples in Northern Ireland of councils having overstepped the mark by boycotting goods from Israel and penalising and focusing attention on the small Jewish community. Local authorities should be working hard to support diversity and good relations, not ridiculing and condemning our small and minority communities. It is clear to me that the point of the legislation is to make sure that that does not happen, so let us make sure that it goes through tonight.
Michael Gove
I agree, as I do almost always, with every word that the hon. Gentleman said.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I will take interventions in due course, but I want to make a little progress first.
I want to be clear about what the BDS movement is and what it does. The BDS movement is not, in its origins or operation, a campaign that is designed to change Israel’s Government or shift Israel’s policy. It is designed to erase Israel’s identity as a home for the Jewish people. Again, the founders of the BDS campaign have been clear, saying:
“A Jewish state in Palestine in any shape or form cannot but contravene the basic rights of the…Palestinian population and…ought to be opposed categorically”.
Alongside those who lead the BDS movement on the BDS national committee sit members of the Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine, a coalition of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—all militant organisations that are proscribed by this Government.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Michael Gove
I will give way in due course, but not at this point.
The effects of the campaign are sadly manifold. The BDS campaign opposes efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians together to broker peace through a two-state solution, opposes cultural exchanges between Israelis and Palestinians, and fights against co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian universities. BDS has specifically denounced an organisation called OneVoice, which is a joint Palestinian-Israeli youth organisation that campaigns to end the occupation, campaigns against settlements and campaigns for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Because OneVoice does not use the rhetoric of apartheid that BDS deploys, and because it does believe that there should be a Jewish state, it is denounced by the BDS movement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I will make more progress and then give way.
Where the BDS campaign has been adopted and endorsed there have, unfortunately, been real community-cohesion problems. We have seen an increase in antisemitic events following on from the activities of the BDS movement, including supermarkets removing kosher products from their shelves following specific protests. The Community Security Trust has recently recorded the highest ever number of antisemitic incidents.
In evidence adduced before the Supreme Court in 2020, the following point was made. The evidence said that
“although anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian campaigning in itself is”,
obviously,
“not anti-Semitic, there is a pattern of anti-Semitic behaviour in connection with campaigns promoting a boycott of Israel. For example, protests outside an Israeli-owned shop in central Manchester in summer 2014 led to some Jewish people using the shop being racially abused by protestors, including shoppers”—
I hope the House will forgive me—
“being called ‘Child killer’, comments such as ‘You Jews are scum and the whole world hates you’, and Nazi salutes being made at Jewish shoppers using the Israeli-owned store. On social media, hashtags such as #BDS, #BoycottIsrael and #FreePalestine are regularly used by people posting anti-Semitic tweets and comments.”
That is why Labour Friends of Israel has rightly stated:
“BDS damages communal relations and fosters antisemitism at home, while doing nothing to further the cause of peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. Public bodies should not be singling out the world’s only Jewish state for boycotts.”
Luke Akehurst, a Labour NEC member speaking in a personal capacity, has also argued that we should
“welcome the Government’s proposed bill to end the ability of public sector bodies to carry out boycotts and divestment.”
Mr Akehurst added that he was against BDS more widely
“because it deepens the divisions in the Middle East conflict rather than encouraging dialogue and coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. BDS demonises and delegitimises Israel”.
I agree with Labour Friends of Israel, I agree with Luke Akehurst, I agree with the Board of Deputies, and I agree with the Jewish Leadership Council, all of whom back this Bill. I agree with the French and German Governments who have taken action against the BDS movement, and I agree with all 50 Governors of US states—Democrat and Republican—who have denounced the BDS movement. The question for every Member of this House is whether they stand with us against antisemitism or not.
Alicia Kearns
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Although I disagree fundamentally with the point that he has just tried to make, my question to him is this: has a single diplomatic post specifically advised that the Bill contravenes our UN Security Council requirements and resolutions?
Alicia Kearns
Has any diplomatic post specifically advised the Government that what is being proposed this evening in the Bill contravenes our UN Security Council resolutions?
Mr Dhesi
This ill-drafted Bill has multiple contradictions, as excellent legal advice has highlighted, and it may actually contravene international law. Although the Secretary of State may be happy that he will have these additional powers, the Bill will no doubt be subject to multiple legal challenges, and therefore a lot of taxpayers’ money will once again be wasted by the Government. Does he concede that well beyond BDS and the middle east, the Bill may hamper the UK’s ability to protect and preserve human rights across the world?
Michael Gove
No, I absolutely do not. The Bill enhances the UK Government’s ability to protect human rights across the globe. On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about legal challenge, it is the case that organisations such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and others have challenged the Government in this area in the past. They may do so again, but I am confident that the Bill is legally watertight. On the point—
Michael Gove
No, I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question first.
On the point about the legal advice from Mr Hermer KC, as I have said, we believe that that legal advice is flawed and it comes from someone who has a clear political record of partiality on this question.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I hope he will recognise that many of us in this House have stood up to the BDS movement. Therefore, his rather intemperate suggestion that only if we support this legislation are we against antisemitism does not pass muster. Does he recognise that those of us who would like to see local authorities challenged—perhaps through the Equality Act 2010—can find troublesome elements in this Bill? It is almost as if his myopia about the BDS movement has blinded him to the consequences of this and what it could do.
The Secretary of State boasted earlier that there were exemptions around labour rights and environmental laws, but is it not ironic that the Bill does not include an exemption around genocide? Those of us who have communities that are desperately concerned about the Uyghurs, the Rohingyas or what happened in Sri Lanka recognise that this legislation could stop our speaking out for them. Will he work with us—those of us who want to tackle antisemitism and to stand up for human rights—and rethink his proposals?
Michael Gove
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady and I acknowledge her work to fight antisemitism and stand against the BDS movement—more than acknowledge it, I applaud her for it. I would say three things. First, there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that prevents the UK Government or other public bodies from taking appropriate action against Myanmar, against China over the treatment of the Uyghurs or against Russia and Belarus over their aggression towards Ukraine. I have seen no solid legal advice to suggest that is the case at all.
Secondly, if the hon. Lady or anybody else wants to table amendments in Committee that can improve the Bill, I am completely open to them. I have not yet seen any such amendments, but I know she and others in this House are skilled in drafting legislation, and I look forward to seeing the appropriate amendments. However, as we have seen in the past, attempts to deal with the specific menace that the BDS campaign creates through guidance have not been sufficient. Primary legislation is required. The shape of that legislation I hope we can decide together across the House.
Dr Whitford
The Secretary of State mentioned that it is the UK’s long-standing policy to support a two-state solution. It is also the UK’s long-standing policy to differentiate between Israel and the occupied territories. The UK endorsed United Nations resolution 2334. Why is there no differentiation in the Bill between Israel and the occupied territories? Does that not increase the risk of antisemitism?
Michael Gove
No; they are separated in the Bill. I am afraid the hon. Lady is wrong.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being very generous in listening to the rather strong opinions on the Bill, but can I press him again to consider alternative ways to deal with the threat of BDS without offering the glass jaw that I see clause 3(7) as presenting to parliamentarians, and to work with me and others to find a better way to do this? I will also say that ad hominem attacks on independent counsel, whoever they are, are not advisable and not wise.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Of course we are completely open to the consideration of any amendments that can give better effect to the shared intentions that we have across the House to deal with this movement. However, Israel is there in the Bill because of the clear nature and the clear and present activities of the BDS campaign. Were there to be an alternative, one would have to make sure that it dealt effectively with that area.
Sir Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the generosity he is showing in giving way. I support what he says about the importance of setting a clear marker on the menace of the BDS movement and its impact across communities. Does he agree that the Bill potentially goes further, in a positive way, by making the point that it is for local government to spend taxpayers’ money on services and other issues for their constituents in the best available way, not using it—or abusing it—on ideological issues, and that, whether in expenditure for the local community or through local government pension scheme investments, it should be aimed at getting the best return for constituents and beneficiaries, not at driving ideological wedges between communities?
Michael Gove
I think my right hon. Friend is completely right. Local government has a critical role in delivering public services, including support for the most vulnerable in our communities. It is vital that central Government support it in that endeavour and that local government should not be diverted from its core purpose by other temptations.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Secretary of State said earlier that the Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment, but the manifesto commitment was not country-specific; it was country-agnostic. There was no mention of Israel or BDS in it. Indeed, another manifesto commitment was that we would champion freedom of expression and tolerance. He will recall that a former Secretary of State for Education wrote to all our universities to ensure that they allowed freedom of expression. How is that compatible with clause 4(1)(b), which states that any person who
“would intend to act in such a way”—
of having a boycott on any part of a foreign country—
“were it lawful to do so”,
would be prohibited from doing so and would be penalised by the courts for doing so? How does that represent championing freedom of expression and tolerance?
Michael Gove
I should say to my hon. Friend, whose commitment to advancing peace and to freedom of speech I respect, that all the Bill seeks to do is to ensure that boycotts and boycotts in name only cannot be brought forward. It has absolutely no effect—chilling or otherwise—on the exercise of freedom of speech.
Tim Loughton
I agree with the Secretary of State that there is a particular problem to do with Israel and BDS, but the Bill is not country-specific. Nor is it specific on whether it applies to investment or disinvestment. Of all the Bills I have ever read, it is particularly woolly in its drafting. Will the Secretary of State respond to a few scenarios? We found out that a number of local authorities in this country are twinned with Chinese towns. If they choose to un-twin with those Chinese towns, will they fall foul of the Bill? They are investing in twinning offices and travel expenses. If they were instead to set up a twinning agreement with a Taiwanese town, for example, or to set up a Hong Kong freedom centre, would they fall foul of the legislation? Indeed, under clause 1(2), on decisions
“influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”,
would flying a Ukrainian flag over a town hall fall foul of the Bill as well?
Michael Gove
I cannot see that any of those actions would fall foul of the legislation in any way. It is clearly the case that, in each of the areas that my hon. Friend mentions, particularly with respect to China, the Government are taking appropriate action to demonstrate our consistent disapproval of China’s behaviour, not just in Xinjiang but specifically, as he rightly mentions, in Hong Kong.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Michael Gove
Not at the moment.
It is important, following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), to make clear that there is no evidence that anything in the Bill will impede our ability or that of local government to act against modern slavery in Xinjiang or environmental misconduct in Myanmar, or to maintain a united front against Russian aggression. Nor is there anything in the Bill to prevent any individual, including councillors, from articulating in their own right any opinion that they personally hold. It is also important to make clear that nothing in the Bill changes in any way UK Government foreign policy or our position on the middle east peace process. Nothing in it alters our support for an adherence to UN resolutions, and nothing in it explicitly or implicitly supports current Israeli Government policy towards settlements in the west bank.
Mr Wragg
By virtue of my right hon. Friend’s capacious mind, he has had the UK’s foreign policy delegated to his Department as well. He said in answer to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns)—indeed, he just reiterated the point—that nothing in the Bill will endanger our international obligations. Presumably, with that capacious mind, he has read the write-round from the Foreign Office, which says directly that FCDO lawyers advise that the clause on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories would significantly increase the risk of the UK being in breach of our commitments under UN Security Council resolution 2334. Has he had a word with our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about that?
Michael Gove
Yes. Across Government, every Minister supports the Bill, and quite rightly, because it gives effect to our manifesto commitment and ensures that we live up to the responsibilities that we have to deal with divisive campaigns that operate on the ground in a way that adversely affects minority communities and, most especially, the Jewish community.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I am coming to the end of my remarks.
I recognise that many people have, in good faith, expressed concerns about aspects of the Bill, but I point out that the provisions are specifically designed to provide a high bar to ensure that local government acts as it should in accordance with the interest of its citizens, to ensure that UK foreign policy is articulated with one voice, and to ensure in particular that a campaign that those on both Front Benches are clear has been responsible for the demonisation of the state of Israel, for the delegitimsation of its right to exist and for discrimination against Jewish people in this country, is, at last, dealt with. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As I said earlier, the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected. I call Lisa Nandy to move that amendment.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while opposing any discrimination or prejudice in the economic activities of public bodies, believing that all such bodies must act without bias or selectivity when making ethical decisions on procurement and investment and recognising the impact selective and biased campaigns have had on the Jewish community in particular, declines to give a Second Reading to the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, because the Bill risks significantly undermining support for groups around the world facing persecution, for example the Uyghur, who are currently victims of grave and systemic human rights abuses, is incompatible with international law and the due diligence of public bodies, undermines the UK’s long-standing cross-party position in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Golan Heights by conflating these with the State of Israel and running counter to UN Security Council Resolutions, singles out the State of Israel in effect creating the issue it intends to solve, seeks to enforce its provisions by giving unprecedented powers to the Secretary of State beyond those enjoyed by the police and the security services, places unprecedented restrictions on the ability of public bodies, many of them directly elected, to express a view on policy, current, proposed and desired, has potential widespread and negative impacts on local government pension funds, limits freedom of speech and is likely to be subject to repeated and extended legal challenge by reason of its conflict with established legal principles; and therefore urges the Government to bring forward alternative proposals.”
I recognise the Secretary of State’s very touching words on Lord Kerslake. He was Lord Kerslake to some, but Bob to those of us who have benefited over many years from his ceaseless encouragement and advice. His knowledge of central Government and local government was unparalleled. His commitment as a genuine public servant who cared deeply about people will be badly missed. He was taken from us too soon, and I would like to add our voice to the very touching tribute from the Secretary of State.
It is perhaps in the spirit that Bob would have wanted that I approach the Bill—on a note of consensus, on something that ought to be a matter of consensus for Labour Members. I recognise that there are deeply held feelings about these issues, and I want to acknowledge that Members in this debate must be heard. I shall, of course, welcome interventions, but I will seek to balance that with the need of Members on both sides of the House, whether I disagree with them or not, to make their views known.
I want to begin by saying to the Secretary of State that we recognise the problem which he says the Bill is designed to tackle. It is therefore deeply frustrating that the Government have introduced a Bill that is needlessly broad, with sweeping, draconian powers and far-reaching effects. Instead of Members on both sides of the House having the opportunity to come together and welcome long-overdue action, he faces genuine, legitimate, heartfelt opposition from Conservative Members; from groups who face persecution, such as the Uyghur, who thought that we stood with them; from human rights groups; and from local government. I have watched the Secretary of State lose Government Members because of the tone that he has struck in the debate. I hope that as the debate progresses he will listen to some of those concerns.
I say to the House that it does not have to be this way. It is not, in our view, wrong for public bodies to take ethical investment and procurement decisions. In fact, there is a long history of councils, universities and others taking a stance in defence of freedom and human rights. In the case of elected councils, their electors often expect them to do just that. There is a difference between legitimate criticism of a foreign state’s Government and what some individuals and organisations have tried to do in recent years, which the Secretary of State outlined well. To seek to target Israel alone, to hold it to different standards from other countries, to question its right to exist, to equate the actions of the Israeli Government with Jewish people, and in doing so create hate and hostility against Jewish people here in the UK is completely wrong.
There is at least one example of a publicly funded body that has taken a stance against the state of Israel that has effectively cancelled Jewish culture here in the UK. We will always stand against that. Most public bodies would not dream of behaving like that, but even one incident has unacceptable and far-reaching consequences for the Jewish community, increasing hate and hostility at a time when antisemitic attacks have reached a peak, children learn behind gates, and security guards stand outside synagogues.
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Lady is speaking really well, and she gave a remarkable Second Reading speech on the Holocaust Memorial Bill.
The hon. Lady is trying to suggest that examples of BDS are few and far between, and that it is a legitimate field of activity for public bodies to comment on foreign policy and express ethical concerns. The trouble is, time and time again, it is about BDS and it is about targeting Israel. When the Welsh Government issued a procurement advice note two years ago, they were trying to single out Israel yet again, and no Labour MP said a thing about it. Is that not the problem?
Lisa Nandy
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I feel strongly that BDS offers no meaningful route to peace either for the Palestinians or for the Israelis. I can assure him that when BDS is used as an argument for the total economic, social and cultural isolation of the world’s only Jewish state, not only will I speak out but I have spoken out time and time again. As far as I know, I am the only Member in the House—there may be others, and I apologise in advance if I have missed anyone—who has gone directly to take on those who argue for a boycott, divestment and sanctions against the state of Israel and for a one-state solution. I have taken on that argument, because I firmly believe that it is wrong and unhelpful. As I have just made clear to the House, this might not be every public body—I do not believe for a moment that it is—but one incident is too many. It has profound effects on the Jewish community.
That is why so many people in the Jewish community have fought long and hard for action to tackle this problem, and it is why we support them. In fact, we were sufficiently concerned about it that earlier this year we tried to amend the Procurement Bill to ensure that when councils take ethical decisions, they do so in line with an ethical framework and Government guidance and apply those decisions across the board, not seeking to single out any one country for differential treatment. We believe that that amendment offered clarity and certainty to our elected officials and councils, and security for the Jewish community, and we were disappointed that the Government voted it down. However, we continue to believe that there is not—and never should be— disagreement between us on that principle.
I also do not believe there is disagreement between us on whether we oppose the policy of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Opposing that policy is a long-standing Labour position, and it will not change. As I said to the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) a moment ago, it is something I feel so strongly about that I have taken the opportunity to debate with those who expound that policy and who believe in a one-state solution, which we thoroughly oppose. I have made the case that talk of a one-state solution and boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel offers no meaningful route to peace for Palestinians or Israelis. Over the past decade, the one bright spot on a very difficult horizon that I have seen on my trips to the middle east has been the co-existence and joint venture projects that have flourished, through which BDS drives a coach and horses.
We on the Labour Benches do not claim that all those who support BDS, despite our profound disagreement with them on that issue, are antisemitic. Our concern is with those who have tried to whip up hostility towards Jewish people under the cover of either BDS or the targeting of Israel, particularly those who seek the total economic, social and cultural isolation of the world’s only Jewish state. That is what we must deal with, in a way that is enforceable—that has real impact and real teeth—and that tackles the problem it is designed to solve.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have worked hard to ensure that we are not antisemitic, and that for the Minister to display what he has done in the Chamber does no good to our democracy? This is a very badly written Bill—it is not a good Bill—and the Minister’s suggestion that anyone who votes against it is antisemitic is just a disgrace and something he should withdraw.
Lisa Nandy
This is a debate that needs far less heat and far more light, because we are talking about real people—about communities in the UK who are among the most marginalised and discriminated against in our country. I thank the Secretary of State for acknowledging in his opening remarks that Labour Front Benchers are acting in good faith in the approach we have taken, but I would echo a note of caution: we should not in any sense suggest that Members, of all parties in this House, who have expressed profound reservations about the Bill in front of us can be deemed to be antisemitic. They are not. They are participating in democracy and giving voice to real concerns. They are doing what we were sent to this House to do: scrutinise legislation and ensure that it has the intended impact. I encourage Members to continue to do so, because a Bill that is designed to promote and protect community cohesion can proceed only with the broadest possible consent.
Joanna Cherry
I thank the hon. Lady for what she has just said, because I also found the Secretary of State’s suggestion that those of us who oppose the Bill are condoning antisemitism, or are in fact antisemitic, to be disgraceful. Has she, like me, seen a public letter to the Secretary of State from a number of British-based Jewish academic experts in the fields of Jewish studies, the study of antisemitism and Israel studies, including my dear friend Professor Francesca Klug OBE, visiting professor of human rights at the London School of Economics? They have expressed the view that this legislation is damaging and wrong-headed and should be withdrawn. Will the hon. Lady confirm that that is a letter from leading British Jewish academics?
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for raising those concerns. We are keen that all the voices in this debate ought to be heard; I have heard different views from across the Jewish community, but I have to say to her that the overwhelming view I have heard is that there is a desperate need to tackle this very real problem. The strength of feeling in the Jewish community that we must legislate to tackle this problem is overwhelming. I do not want for one moment to deny that that is what I have heard in my frequent conversations with the Jewish community, but as I will outline, there are serious problems with the Bill that need to be addressed.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I am grateful for the hon. Lady for giving way, and for the tone she has struck. As someone who has a significant proportion of Jewish constituents, I speak in defence of them. The BDS movement and its increased presence on university campuses has seen the Community Security Trust state that there has been a 22% increase in campus antisemitism. We are now in a situation where many of my constituents will not go to university because they face such hostility, so the enthusiasm for the Bill may not be about its drafting, but about the aims that it seeks to achieve.
Lisa Nandy
That is absolutely right. In fact, the Union of Jewish Students, which has expressed real concerns about the Bill—the very students who have often been the targets of the appalling abuse and attacks that the hon. Gentleman has outlined—is clear that it wants to see this problem tackled. I hope that is a basis on which we can proceed across the House in a debate that, as I have said, needs far more light and far less heat. I remain confident that, with good faith and good will on everyone’s part, we can find a way to tackle what is a very real problem for the Jewish community in this country.
I will take a moment to explain why the Bill does not do what the Government intend it to do. Clause 1 attempts to ban public bodies from taking decisions influenced by
“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct.”
We have commissioned legal advice that suggests there are two readings of the clause. I would just say to some Conservative Members that a King’s counsel—a distinguished King’s counsel who happens to disagree about the legal impact of this legislation—deserves a hearing and deserves respect. If in a democracy those who disagree with us are accused of acting dishonestly or in bad faith, we are in a very dark place indeed. That legal advice suggests that on first reading the clause applies only when it relates to specific territories. That would create the absurd situation where public bodies could refuse goods from China because of general disregard for human rights, but could not refuse cotton goods from Xinjiang because of concerns about genocide against the Uyghur population.
The second reading of the clause, which I imagine is what the Government intend, is that public bodies are banned from having any regard at all to human rights violations of foreign Governments unless they are expressly permitted by this Government. There are a few exceptions in the schedule referred to in clause 3—labour rights, bribery and the environment—but not genocide, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has said, or systematic torture or grave breaches of the Geneva convention. After the horrors of the second world war, it was British diplomats who held the pen, crafting the international legal system that recognised that some crimes are so grave that they should never be acceptable. What has changed that gives the Government grounds to create two tiers through this Bill—to deem slavery unacceptable, but remain silent on the issue of genocide? Have we given up believing that these things matter?
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she share my concerns that the Bill will weaken our voice on the international stage in tackling human rights abuses? It will enable many regimes with appalling human rights records, or companies that have track records of labour law violations or environmental recklessness, to continue without consequence, including where those abuses are incompatible with international law.
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that concern, which has also been raised with me. I defer to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who I know will make a contribution in due course.
What is not clear to me and other Labour Members is why the Government have sought to draw this Bill’s powers so broadly. It is not just breathtaking in its reach; it is deeply contradictory, because the Bill itself accepts that there will be times when public bodies will take a view about the conduct of foreign Governments on specific grounds, such as modern slavery. In fact, the Secretary of State wrote to councils last year urging them to do so in the case of Russia, and has since signalled his intent to add Russia and Belarus to the list of exceptions allowed by clause 3. Only two years ago in this House, I sat on these Benches as we proudly and rightly passed the Magnitsky regulations, which recognised the power of economic sanctions to direct state conduct and raise global standards. However, the Secretary of State is now proposing a Bill that will prevent—for example—the Department for Business and Trade from taking human rights violations into account when deciding whether to grant export credit guarantees. Surely he can see the problem. The Cameron Government became a signatory to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights a decade ago. The Government’s own action plan makes it clear that businesses have a corporate responsibility to uphold human rights and to monitor those they deal with commercially. After years of promising to hand over powers and spending decisions to Mayors, combined authorities and councils, is the Secretary of State seriously saying that they are not capable of exercising the same duty?
There are other areas of deep confusion in this Bill that we believe will open up the prospect of ongoing legal challenge, and I know that has been raised by Conservative Members. Clause 1 bans action that a reasonable observer would conclude is motivated by moral or political disapproval of a foreign Government, but on these deeply contested notions what constitutes a “reasonable observer”?
Clause 4 is even more problematic. It prohibits public bodies from expressing a view not just about how they intend to act, but how they would have done so had the law not been in force. It is difficult to know how public bodies, particularly those that are elected, should respond to this. In recent years, many councils have, for example, been asked by their own residents not to use Chinese companies with links to Xinjiang. My own council is one of them. Under this Bill, faced with thousands of people signing a public petition, a council would not even be able to give any indication of whether or not it agreed with its own residents. Our legal advice suggests that this extraordinary situation is likely to be incompatible with article 10 of the European convention on human rights.
Clause 3(7) creates even more confusion. It singles out Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan heights as places for which no exemption can ever be made. The long-standing position of the UK Government is to support a two-state solution along pre-1967 lines that protects and respects the security and right to self-determination of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. This clause drives a coach and horses through that, according the occupied territories the same protected status as Israel and in effect conflating the two. It contradicts established Government policy, and I find it hard to believe that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has agreed to this. I note the questions from two Conservative Members, and I am deeply concerned that it appears that the Government and the Secretary of State have not even asked that question. It appears that Conservative Members have seen a circular from Foreign Office officials raising objections to this Bill, yet the Secretary of State has not. I urge him to look closely at that matter before the Bill proceeds.
Dr Whitford
The hon. Lady talks about when she has visited Israel or Palestine, as I have done regularly with the breast cancer projects I am involved with in Gaza and the west bank. The thing is that the settlements are illegal under international law, and they have been condemned by the Government in the past. Obviously, companies, pension funds, councils and devolved Governments who try to act ethically and do not wish to purchase settlement goods, which are illegal, would be floored by that clause. How does that match with current UK policy?
Lisa Nandy
I hope, as the debate goes on, that there may be an answer to this, but I have to confess that so far I am at a loss as to what it might be. Where does this leave our commitment to international law, given that it cuts across UN resolutions, as Conservative Members have highlighted, and weakens Britain’s stated support for a two-state solution, as the hon. Member has said?
The legal advice we have received strongly suggests that this is likely to be in breach of our international law obligations. Furthermore, it will force the UK courts, which have traditionally been reluctant to adjudicate on issues relating to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to take a view. All of these confusing and contradictory measures raise the very real prospect of protracted legal challenge. One of the Conservative Members recently called this woolly. Surely the Secretary of State can see that protracted legal challenge over the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the practice of boycott, divestment and sanctions would not be in the interests of community cohesion, which is the very thing this Bill is designed to protect.
Lisa Nandy
I will not give way, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. A lot of people are wishing to speak, and given that she has made one intervention, I will make a bit of progress.
As if that were not bad enough, it seems that nobody in Government has thought of the consequences for local government pension funds, which is arguably the one area where councils have to have a global outlook. Let me give the Secretary of State a practical example. In recent months, as he will know, three Israeli companies have moved their money outside Israel due to concerns about the financial risks created by the contentious reforms to the judiciary. If a local government pension fund were to do the same, this Bill would open it up to legal challenge, forcing it to prove to a reasonable observer, whatever that is, that its decision was on financial, not moral grounds.
Writing in the Local Government Chronicle, the director of pensions at Westminster Council asks what happens
“where an analyst has anticipated that a company’s value will decrease because of ESG decisions it has made… if that strategy falls within the new law’s definition of not being in line with UK foreign defence policy, and the law therefore states that the fund must remain invested, and the fund therefore loses value, who will pay for that?... The government’s current message is that ‘this is not designed to get in the way of ESG factors, excepting the very narrow area of UK foreign or defence policy’. But this is absolutely not a very narrow area.”
He adds:
“We could end up in a scenario with never ending arguments involving ESG factors versus foreign and defence policy.”
Surely that cannot be the intention of this Government.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I think I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said this afternoon. She will remember, as I do, how many of us on the Opposition Benches, and indeed in all of the House, spent years of our lives campaigning against the apartheid regime. That was a very strong policy within local authorities and it had real impact at the time, so much so that when Nelson Mandela came to this country to thank people, he included them in those thanks. Does she believe that, had this legislation been enacted at the time, it would have prevented those authorities from taking the action they did to oppose apartheid?
Lisa Nandy
South Africa is obviously a different case, but the point my hon. Friend makes remains and is well founded, because this Bill concentrates the decision making and judgment of hundreds of public bodies in the hands of just one person.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady talked about pensions, and there is an additional point. Whatever people may think of BDS or of an investment strategy that is ethical or otherwise, the money that sits in the local government pension scheme—and I am a member of the local government pension scheme—is the members’ money, my money. It is not the Government’s money to direct in one way or another; it belongs to the pension holders, and it is surely for them and those to whom they delegate its management to decide how it should be deployed. As she rightly says, if the Government are getting into the business of managing my pension money and I lose money because of decisions made by the Government, presumably I should be compensated.
Lisa Nandy
This is precisely the question that the Government have yet to answer, but we hope that will be forthcoming during this debate. I would add to what the right hon. Gentleman said that the local government pension service is already under a fiduciary duty to take prudent investment decisions based on an assessment of the financial consequence of a number of matters, including environmental and social governance, and when it divests on the basis of non-financial factors, it should follow the Law Commission direction that any financial impact should not be significant and that the decision would likely be supported by scheme members. I am not sure what happens when a local government pension fund is taking decisions that would not be supported by scheme members. We are talking about the pensions of 6 million people in this country, and I think these are important questions that the Government must answer.
I want to turn to one of our chief concerns about this Bill, which is the concentration of the decision making and judgment of hundreds of public bodies in the hands of just one person and the implications of that for some of the most persecuted people in the world. There will be significant effects on the Uyghur in Xinjiang, who are suffering such serious crimes against humanity that the Biden Administration have recognised it as genocide. The Secretary of State will have read the impassioned letter from those groups in The Times about the effects of this Bill. Surely we cannot abandon them to their fate. For the Rohingya in Myanmar, for the Tamils in Sri Lanka and for countless others, the concern is that this bad law prevents not just economic action to uphold human rights everywhere, but solidarity with some of the most persecuted people in the world.
As was said earlier, the Bill goes further and clause 7 grants to the Secretary of State or other relevant body the power to issue notices requiring all information to be handed over, if they suspect that a prohibited statement expressing a moral or political view about foreign conduct is in the process of or about to be made, including information in subsection (8) that would normally be protected by legal privilege. Let me clear about the effect of that: this hands over to the Office for Students, the Secretary of State, and the Treasury, greater powers than those available to the security services. I know there are Members on both sides of the House who are deeply troubled by that, and those who are not should consider for a moment how they might feel about this Bill if their party was not in power.
We should not be here. We have long fought for legislation to tackle what is a real problem, and we are determined to give the Government the opportunity to do the right thing. That is why today we are proposing an alternative that allows the Government and this House to keep our promise to tackle a long-standing issue of deep concern to the Jewish community, but avoids tearing up our commitment to human rights, local democracy and free speech, in a Bill that does not even appear to tackle the very problem it seeks to solve.
Richard Graham
The hon. Lady has made a number of powerful points. She will have heard me question the Secretary of State about the fact that the Bill is not country agnostic; it is directed primarily at one country and one issue, which is BDS. The question for her is, in a way, the opposite of that, which is that this problem has come to be because of decisions made by Leicester City Council and Lancaster City Council, which are Labour-run councils acting arguably in cahoots with BDS. What does she think the Labour party can do to take away the perceived requirement to have a Bill that seems, at the moment, largely to argue against BDS’s actions against Israel?
Lisa Nandy
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to say and I support it, but he should please not try to tarnish Labour Members with a record on antisemitism. There are those of us who stood up not just to those who are supposed to be our opponents, but to those who are supposed to be our friends as well. And we will always do that. I give my word, and I give our word on behalf of the Labour party.
As I am about to outline, we have provided the Government with an alternative. Earlier this year we sought to amend the Procurement Bill to ensure that no single country, especially in the cases that we have been describing and the world’s only Jewish state, can be singled out for different standards from others, and in doing so whip up hate and hostility against the Jewish community. It is a real problem. We provided the Government with a solution. They refused it, but we remain convinced that co-operation and consensus is the right approach to tackle what we accept is a very real problem.
Today, the Secretary of State will hear this refrain again and again from Members on his own Back Benches, and across the House: two important principles—the need to tackle racism and antisemitism, which are a scourge on our society, and the need to stand up for human rights, freedom of expression, democracy and our long-standing position on Israel and Palestine, and act in accordance with international law—and those things should never be seen as mutually exclusive or allowed to be pitted against one another.
We have a number of serious suggestions about the way that this problem can be tackled. We have outlined an alternative approach. We have provided the Secretary of State with a solution, and we urge him to take it. Otherwise, he should know that Labour Members will be compelled to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, as I suspect will significant numbers of his own colleagues. It is an outcome we should all strive to avoid. If a pledge to tackle division, around which there is broad consensus, was derailed by a combative approach and a Government who refuse to listen to the wide range of voices that have expressed their concerns, that would be a crying shame. With good will and good faith on the part of the Government, we can proceed together. We have proposed how. The ball is now in the court of the right hon. Gentleman.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
This evening’s debate should focus on the specifics of the Bill in front of us. The right of Israel to exist and defend itself is not up for debate. The right of Palestine to exist and defend itself is also not up for debate. The UK supports a two-state solution, and I believe that everyone in the Chamber would also be of that mind. I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to the implications of the current drafting of the Bill. It has implications on our historic commitments and responsibilities and ability to play the role of honest arbiter within the region, and risks undermining our commitments as a United Nations Security Council member.
My concerns about the Bill fall within four areas: first, foreign policy implications; secondly, exceptionalism in legislation; thirdly, protection of freedom of speech; and finally, the legality of what we are being asked to support. Let me begin with the implications of the Bill on foreign policy and international obligations. My first concern, as was raised in earlier interventions, is the conflation of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Conflating East Jerusalem, the west bank and the Golan Heights breaks with our position, because the UK recognises the Golan Heights as annexed and the west bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territories. That is a departure from our foreign policy.
Not only does the Bill break with our foreign policy, but clause 3(7) puts the UK in breach of our commitments under UN Security Council resolution 2334 (2016). That is not just an international commitment; it is one that we drafted back in 2016. It states that in their “relevant dealings”, states must distinguish
“between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”
The Bill does not distinguish between our treatment of Israel and the OPTs.
Why does breaching UNSCR 2334 matter? Because we rely on the rules based system to protect ourselves and to protect our allies. How many of us have talked about the rule of law in this Chamber, when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, Serbia, the Balkans, and so many other parts of this world? The impact of the Bill would be significant. It will undermine our position as a respectable and reliable multilateral partner, committed to upholding UN Security Council resolutions as we should as a permanent member. It risks our losing the support of Arab states on shared issues, and their vote at the UN. We all know that western states are spending a significant amount of time trying to shore up the support of so-called non-aligned countries. I have spent most of the last few days on the phone to Arab ambassadors—the same Arab ambassadors who recognise Israel and want to normalise relations with Israel. Finally, we risk giving China, Iran, Russia, Serbia and others an easy propaganda win, because they will use this against us when we talk about the annexation of territories around the world.
I am concerned that the UN Special Coordinator would have no choice but to explicitly name the UK in their next report on how member states are adhering to compliance with UNSCR 2334. I also worry that it sends the wrong message about the achievement of sovereignty through violence. It means that if Israel breaches international law in the occupied territories, public bodies cannot express their ethical objection to those crimes. I worry that the Bill will leave the international community questioning whether Israeli settlements in the OPTs and the Golan Heights are still regarded as illegal by the UK Government.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady has given a very good list of people that the Bill could undermine. Does she also recognise that it undermines many people in Israel who oppose the occupation in the occupied territories, and it would make their life harder when making the case in Israel in a democratic sense?
Alicia Kearns
I have received significant representations from human rights organisations within Israel, and also from within our Jewish communities in the UK, who feel that this is not only the worst possible timing for the Bill, but that they themselves do not support it.
If we are now to have questioned our position on the OPTs legally, how is the Bill compatible with that, and with the fact that the Conservative Government recognise that settlements built on occupied Palestinian land since 1967 are illegal? We must ensure that all legislation makes a clear distinction between Israel where we support no boycott, and the illegal settlements on occupied land where a boycott would be consistent with our position on UNSCR 2334. Why are we undermining our international position by breaching our position on a two-state solution, and changing the UK’s recognition of certain territories as occupied, when the Bill can achieve the same end simply by removing clause 3(7)? The House will hear that point reiterated throughout the evening by many of my colleagues.
I was also concerned that the Secretary of State appeared not to be aware of the concerns emanating from the Foreign Office and from diplomatic posts. I ask him to clarify that when winding up this evening. I think the wording was that “no such advice had been received”. Has the Foreign Office truly not given any advice that it had concerns that the Bill breached our UN Security Council resolutions?
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Does the UK presently have any policies against goods coming in from the settlements?
Alicia Kearns
I am not aware whether we do, but that would be legitimate within the current UN Security Council restrictions so I would not necessarily oppose it. What I am saying is that we would not necessarily support Israel being boycotted, but we would support a boycott of products from the occupied territories, because we consider them to be illegal or annexed.
Dr Whitford
Is it not an issue to use the term “boycotting” with regard to the settlements? They are illegal under international law, so no public body should be investing in, or making profit from, them.
Alicia Kearns
Inherently, the hon. Lady makes a valid point, although it is potentially a different discussion. There is a fundamental question around whether we should be boycotting or bringing in goods. As the House knows, I have been vocal in ensuring that goods coming from genocide are not imported from across China. We must have a standard response across all countries.
To sum up, my concern is that legislation by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities must not depart from our foreign policy, let alone undermine it or leave us ostracised internationally. My second concern is the legislative implications from the exceptionalism proposed in the Bill. Since my election, the Government have been at great pains to make the point to me that all legislation should be agnostic. I must admit that I railed against that when first elected, and the House may have seen me table amendments with the words “China” and “Xinjiang” on repeat—ad nauseam, some might say. However, the Government are correct, and I have come to appreciate and recognise that position.
To demonstrate that point, let me draw on the Procurement Bill, which this Bill interacts with on exceptions, pension schemes and the UK security services. All the amendments that I tabled to the Procurement Bill—I am grateful to the Government for having accepted them—were country-agnostic, because the Government made the point that that is how we legislate, except for such things as trade Bills. We should be agnostic in all we do, but worse than being non-agnostic, the Bill gives exceptional impunity to Israel. We should not give that to any country, and I would be standing here making the same request were any country named.
To act in this way now sends a clear message to all Members of Parliament: “From now on, it is game on. If you want to put China, Xinjiang or any other country into primary legislation, crack on.” The Chief Whip will not be able to tell Members they cannot do it anymore, and Government Ministers will not be able to argue against it any more, because we have done it and broken that practice in this Bill. The Government will regret making this precedent. The reality is that we can achieve the same outcome without putting geographic references into primary legislation.
On the implications for freedom of speech—I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) for having made me aware of how acute these are—the Bill has unjustifiable clauses. Clause 4(1) states that if a local council leader, university vice-chancellor or even the chief executive of a private company delivering public services speaks in a way that contravenes clause 1, they have broken the law. To make the implications clear, the Bill states that just someone expressing in print that they would like, as an elected official, to boycott products from Xinjiang, China or any illegal settlement but cannot, because the law does not allow them to do so, constitutes an offence punishable by an as yet unlimited fine from the Secretary of State. That is completely inappropriate.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Lady is making a wonderful speech and I agree with everything she has said. On that last point, does she agree that the Bill is likely to disproportionately interfere with freedom of expression and the conscience of individuals, in such a way that does not sit with our obligations under articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR?
Alicia Kearns
I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Lady, because this legislation does breach article 10 rights to freedom of speech, as it fails to distinguish between a person and an authority, so individuals risk being liable. If the legislation made clear that it is about public authorities, we would not have those concerns, but the lack of that clarity makes individuals liable to being fined, and therefore it breaches article 10 of the ECHR. Given that the Government have just rightly passed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which I fundamentally and entirely support, to now stop elected individuals from expressing moral disapproval or even to consider or vocalise ethical investment decisions is wrong.
My final concern is the legality of what we are being asked to support. I question whether this Bill will be legally sound once tested, and I have every reason to think it will not be, because it has previously failed in the High Court. When the measure fails again in the High Court, we will then see a judgment on the UK’s treatment of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which I fear I would not be proud to stand behind. Similar legislation has failed, and legal concerns rest around, for example, the terms “political or moral disapproval”, which are not defined in the Bill and breach our commitment to making human rights fundamental in our decision making. Our obligations under the UN guiding principles on business and human rights essentially mean that this legislation would see the private sector having greater adherence to our human rights than the public sector. I encourage the Secretary of State to consider potential conflict between the UK Government and the UN stating that settlements are illegal while then penalising local councils in the UK for taking ethical procurement decisions to address that illegality.
There is significant unhappiness among colleagues in the House and in our party. To enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to still deliver on our manifesto commitment, I urge him to please remove clause 3(7), which is unnecessary to delivering on our commitment. We can still do this, with just a small compromise from those on the Front Bench. The Government can still introduce Israel’s exception through secondary legislation, which would mean that we would treat Israel as equal to every other state. It would prevent us from breaching our UN Security Council resolutions and from being dragged through the courts. It would maintain our country-agnostic legislative approach, and it would prevent us from undermining our standing internationally.
While we are on the subject, I have never felt that we are so close to conflict, particularly following this morning’s news. There is the chance that we might be seeing a third intifada and the Gaza crisis of 2023, and we need to demonstrate meaningful resolve from King Charles Street in ending the conflict and de-escalating. I therefore urge the Prime Minister to appoint a middle east peace envoy, because we do not have any envoy for the middle east, let alone one focused exclusively on the middle east peace process. We should be worried, because what happens in Palestine and Israel impacts around the world. I stress that this low-commitment ask would allow us to live up to our responsibilities and demonstrate meaningful resolve. With that, I join with other respected friends of Israel in urging the Government to think again.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). I also thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for suggesting that tone in this debate is important. I see that the Secretary of State is leaving at this moment in time, but I do not think anybody will miss the irony of his projecting himself as the sole moral arbiter for the whole United Kingdom. Even worse, he seeks to quell the just protests of honourable organisations and individuals who are trying to bring about decent change internationally.
In Scotland, we have a proud history of promoting social justice, human rights and respect for international law on the world stage. As the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) alluded to in his intervention, Scotland can provide a very good example. In 1981, the then Glasgow District Council decided to award Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city—the first city in the world to do so. Five years later, St George’s Place in Glasgow city centre was renamed Nelson Mandela Place. Why was that? It was because the South African consulate was in St George’s Place, and the council wanted to make sure that everybody knew who Nelson Mandela was by making sure his name was on the address of the South African consulate. When Nelson Mandela addressed Glasgow City Chambers in 1993, he said:
“While we were physically denied our freedom in the country of our birth, a city, 6,000 miles away, and as renowned as Glasgow, refused to accept the legitimacy of the apartheid system, and declared us to be free.”
Had this proposed legislation been in place during the 1980s, Glasgow would have likely been legally debarred from taking the actions that it did, or even from suggesting that it might take those actions, because the then Conservative Government did not support sanctions for South Africa. I remember as a young lad seeing country after country boycotting the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh in 1986 as a result of the then UK Government’s actions.
SNP Members will be supporting Labour’s reasoned amendment. However, it is missing one key part: the attacks on the devolved Administrations. Perversely, the democratically elected Parliament and Government of Scotland will be required under the Bill to give legislative assent to its enactment. We will be asked to provide the gag that silences our freedom of expression and that of the people we represent.
As a good global citizen, Scotland is committed to the highest ethical and moral standards in human rights, climate justice, workers’ rights and economic development. The Scottish Government will always fulfil their obligations under international law and agreements. The people of Scotland rightly expect that actions in Scotland should be taken with full consideration of moral and ethical duties to communities around the world, and we will not idly watch that good work being constrained.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s points. The Welsh Labour Government have policies on such matters as modern slavery and human rights. Public sector investment and procurement are devolved, yet the Bill’s impact assessment does not consider any specific Welch approaches. Does he agree that the Government should do that before taking any further steps?
Chris Stephens
Indeed. There was probably no discussion with the devolved Administrations on the Bill and the impact that it will have on the devolved institutions, so I agree with my hon. Friend. The UK Government claim that the Scottish Government pursue actions that undermine UK foreign policy, but that is simply not the case—it is not true. For many years, the Scottish Government have conducted international engagement which benefits the people of Scotland and aligns with present constitutional arrangements. Scottish Government Ministers are simply embodying the values-based principles of the Scottish electorate, as the Welsh would do with the Welsh electorate.
I listened to the Secretary of State arguing for the Bill, which gave an impression of what the death rattle of a dying Government sounds like. The Bill represents a desperate attempt by the UK Government to salvage something from the wreckage they have created across the fields of international trade, diplomatic relations and human rights. Let us look at those fields in turn.
Dr Whitford
Does not the gagging clause in the Bill, which will stifle debate and discussion about policy, fit with what we have seen in the last year or so with the Public Order Act 2023: the seizing by the Executive of almost every power to hold the Government to account, whether from the judiciary, voters, protesters or even MPs, through post-Brexit legislation?
Chris Stephens
Let me add trade unions and workers who decide to take strike action. Yes, we know who the Government’s enemies are because they have been legislating against them in the last year since they crashed the economy.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
In Nottingham, we have significant numbers of people, including Hongkongers and those from other parts of the world, who have fled from many countries perpetrating human rights abuses. They rightly do not want their councils or universities to be complicit in human rights abuses that their family and friends continue to experience. Does the hon. Member agree that public bodies must have the right to take a principled stance against, for example, the persecution of the people of Hong Kong, the Uyghurs in Xinjiang or political dissidents across China?
Chris Stephens
I do agree. I am going to quote an exchange between the hon. Lady and a Minister later in my remarks, so she may want to intervene again. I have Uyghur Muslims as constituents. I know how serious the issues are. I have Kurdish constituents who are very concerned about the oppression of Kurdish people in Turkey and Syria, for example. I will always stand beside those people, but the Bill will prevent public bodies and institutions from taking such steps. That is a real concern.
The Government are leaving themselves open to a new slogan: never mind the probity, feel the width. Their ability to grow trade is now severely constrained, so they seem to be selling off their own principles to the highest bidder. Previous attempts to work with others in making the world a decent place are now to be put aside. Rogue nations are to be tolerated for the sake of business and their transgressions ignored. The Bill—the dog’s breakfast that it is—leaves them open to that charge.
Amnesty International UK is right to say that the Bill will
“make it almost impossible for public bodies to use their procurement and investment policies to incentivise ethical business conduct that is human rights compliant.”
However, perhaps the objective is not surprising. From the UK being an original drafter of the European convention on human rights, I note that some on the Government Benches now wish the UK to leave that. We would have hoped that the Conservative Government might have learned from their disastrous policy of giving succour to the apartheid regime in South Africa. When the world railed against that regime, the then Conservative Government turned a blind eye, even though we already knew the consequences of appeasement from earlier experiences.
We have learned in the last century what happens when Governments do not have a conscience and turn a blind eye to wrongdoing. We have learned that responsibility lies not just at a national level but at a local level—and, yes, even at the level of the individual. Now we are informed that giving expression to that conscience locally will be penalised under the law. It would appear that the only good conscience is a Tory conscience as expressed by a Government Minister at Westminster.
I ask myself: why are the Government pursuing this policy? Does every Government Member want to stifle local democracy? Every society has its share of people who are mainly self-interested, with little concern for those outside their own circle. It would be good to think that that proportion of society has shrunk as we have become more aware of world affairs. But it still seems to be far too substantial, suggesting to niche voters that principles are costly to us and we cannot now afford them. That is a dangerous game. It is much easier to break down society than to build it up; to make people isolationist rather than internationalist. Patching that fragmented society together again would be a monumental task. But there is good news: there are some parts of the United Kingdom where that dystopian dream is not being pursued—quite the opposite, in fact.
We have had helpful support in our position regarding Israel, for example. On Thursday, at that very Dispatch Box, the International Trade Minister told the House that the UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories:
“they are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and…a two-state solution.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2023; Vol. 735, c. 408.]
As set out in Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office guidance on overseas business risks, there are clear risks to UK businesses related to economic and financial activities in the settlements and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity. So the Government’s position seems to be, “Don’t do it. We don’t support it, but we’re not going to allow people to boycott it.” That is a very confusing position for the Government to find themselves in. The Secretary of State suggested that the Bill does not stop boycotts of occupied territories, but actually we need just to read the Bill to see that that is exactly what it proposes.
Chris Stephens
I will in a second.
I want to make it clear that the Scottish Government and the SNP unequivocally condemn and distance themselves from members or affiliates in the BDS movement who advocate a complete boycott of Israel and Israeli people and who suggest that the state of Israel does not even have the right to exist. The Scottish Government are also committed to tackling all incidents of hate crime, working in partnership with a range of organisations, including Police Scotland. It would be a cruel distraction for the Government to equate sympathy and support for oppressed people with antisemitism. The Bill leads to the accusation that the Government think there are good and bad occupations. As others have said, when I have Uyghur Muslim constituents with children in camps, I cannot support and vote for a Bill that would stop organisations from campaigning against or boycotting Chinese goods on the basis of the treatment of Uyghur Muslims. With Kurdish constituents, I cannot support a Bill that would stop me, or organisations or public bodies, from boycotting goods from Turkey or Syria on the basis of the oppression of Kurdish people. I cannot support a Bill that ignores environmental concerns. Friends of the Earth said that the Bill will
“prevent public bodies from divesting from fossil fuel, as well as diverting their money away from inadvertently funding human rights abuses abroad”.
That is what the Bill does. It will make it illegal for public bodies and local authorities to divest from or boycott fossil fuel companies and those with poor track records on protecting environmental standards.
The Scottish National party—and I believe, the Scottish people—will not participate in this diminution of freedom of speech and disregard for the wellbeing of our friends throughout the world. Earlier, I referred to the Bill as the death rattle of a dying Government. Ministers really should withdraw the Bill; it is a complete and utter dog’s breakfast. If they do not, I support the Opposition’s reasoned amendment and the Bill does not deserve to pass Second Reading.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
A large number of right hon. and hon. are trying to catch my eye. If we are to get everyone in, my guidance is that speeches should be limited to about six minutes.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I agree with much of the sentiment of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for whom I have a great deal of regard, as she knows. However, fine words butter no parsnips. It is easy to identify the source of the problem, but it is a little more difficult to legislate in such a complex area.
I would respond to some of the things that the hon. Lady said on two fronts. First, it is okay for people to make reference to the political views and other writings of a KC who is advising her and her right hon. and hon. Friends. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to bring to the House’s attention. King’s counsels are not Gods and they are not beyond any criticism. Secondly, she made the point, in many ways, for why we require the Bill—specifically, clause 3(7). She highlighted her own work—for which I applaud her—during a very difficult time in her party’s history. She stood up and received all sorts of appalling abuse because of the position she was prepared to take on what was going on in her party. I am grateful for and impressed by her bravery in doing that. It was an incredible thing for Opposition Members to do at that time. Precisely because we ended up in the position we did, where people with sympathies for the BDS campaign came very close to power in this country, we require clause 3(7) and the specification of Israel.
BDS is an antisemitic, racist campaign—there is no doubt about that. It singles out the state of Israel for special treatment. There is something peculiarly sinister about those who obsess about Israel while being blind to the behaviour of despots and dictators across the world. I hope that is not the case for most Members in the House, but it is for some who oppose this view. That is not my view, but that of the German Parliament, the Bundestag, which passed a motion a few years ago that stated that the actions of the BDS were reminiscent of the terrifying Nazi campaign against Jewish people under Adolf Hitler. It went on to say:
“The ‘don’t buy’ stickers of the BDS movement on Israeli products”
could be associated with
“the Nazi call ‘don’t buy from Jews’ and other corresponding graffiti…on shop windows”.
I would hope that none in the Chamber would support those sorts of actions or behaviours. It is a little off subject, but today we learned that the last French D-day fighter of Nazism Léon Gautier has passed away. It would be nice for us to remember his name today.
Sadly, that behaviour rooted in the Nazi period has not passed. We have seen so many examples of it, as Members have reminded us this afternoon. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for reminding me of some experiences of his constituents in recent years. I will not repeat them due to time constraints, but they include the removal of kosher products because of the pernicious, racist BDS movement and the fact that film festivals in this country have been cancelled because they dared to take a small amount of sponsorship from the Israeli embassy.
The BDS campaign has consequences. It is no wonder a Jewish driver was attacked in Golders Green outside Kosher Kingdom for daring to have an Israeli flag on his vehicle. It is no wonder we end up with the appalling antisemitic incidents and attacks on British campuses. British Jews become the targets and victims of the campaign—none of us should forget that. We cannot divorce BDS from its impacts on the Jewish citizens of our country.
We have seen record numbers of antisemitic incidents in recent years—it is important to remind the House of those. Last year, 1,652 antisemitic incidents were recorded by the Community Security Trust. Worryingly, the proportion of victims who were minors has increased. Perhaps even worse, the proportion of minors perpetrating those attacks has also increased; in 2022, 20% were recorded as minors—a number that has doubled in recent years. We must do everything we can to abate the trend among younger people, some of which is motivated by the BDS campaign. Every time there is a flare-up in the middle east conflict, British Jews are on the receiving end. The current issues, which the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) referenced, of rising tensions in the regions are the biggest argument for the legislation in the form in which it has been produced.
Any rise in tensions in the middle east will result in an uptick in BDS activities. I was interested in what the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), said on that. He was careful to say, “Of course, we disassociate ourselves from people in the BDS movement who delegitimise the state of Israel through boycotts.” However, he did not tell us his view of those people when they argue for boycotts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or in the settlements. The problem is that they are not different people, but the same. He cannot separate them from the people seeking to delegitimise Israel, and say, “Those people are wrong, and racist and antisemitic”, as many in the BDS movement are, and then infer, as I think he was doing, that their activities and what they demand are okay when they relate to other parts. They are the same people who hold the same pernicious, racist views.
Many people with issues about the Bill have legitimate concerns—there is no doubt about that. The Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box that he was prepared to work in Committee to see how we can improve the Bill if required. That was a sensible thing to say. However, I am afraid that for some who oppose the Bill, it is always about Israel. Their beef is always the state of Israel. I have heard some bizarre arguments against the Bill, one of which is that it will increase antisemitism. That is a strange argument, to put it mildly. Just because some people do not like the legislation, saying that it might result in an increase in antisemitism and “Oh, in which case, let’s not bother with it” rather proves the point of the Bill.
Richard Graham
It is not really about liking each other, important though that is. It is about what the Jewish Chronicle itself has said:
“Boycotting Israel is wrong but this anti BDS bill is not the answer…This is a bad bill…and bad especially for British Jews”.
Is my hon. Friend aware of that, and does he realise that many Jews are not in favour of this way of trying to protect themselves from antisemitism?
Andrew Percy
The editor-at-large of the Jewish Chronicle, in an excellent piece today, wrote:
“There is no room for shades of grey here. You either think it’s fine to boycott Jews—in which case you will oppose the Bill—or you don’t, in which case you will support it.”
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which rather helpfully takes me on to my point about the view of the Jewish community: the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council are united in believing that the Bill is invaluable in the battle against antisemitism.
I was responding to some of the opposition to the Bill. One issue is that of settlements. The Bill will have no impact on the UK’s policy on settlements, which is that they are illegal under international law. That does not change with the Bill. The country does not, at the moment, have a boycott policy against settlement products or products coming from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, precisely because it is so complex in terms of who actually works there and who is damaged economically. The Bill makes no difference to that and neither does it prevent any criticism of Israel. That can continue and we have heard that today. I end where I started: this legislation is necessary to deal with a pernicious and peculiarly sinister antisemitic campaign group.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I remind colleagues that I said six minutes, as opposed to 10. If colleagues could stick to that, that would be helpful.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I am afraid I completely disagree with the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). The Bill reflects what is wrong in politics today.
The Government have put forward legislation that is flawed, poorly drafted, and will have damaging consequences both here and abroad. They have not done it to support Israel, to demonstrate solidarity with the Jewish community, or to show they really care about undermining the BDS movement. They simply want to set a political trap for Labour. By putting their crude party political interests above the public interest, they confirm what voters think about us: that politicians waste time on childish political games rather than trying to make the world a better place. It is that behaviour that leads to a loss of trust. The Bill is not a considered attempt to bring about peace, provide better security for Israel or respond to the threats posed by BDS. It is about using Jews as a pawn in the Government’s political game. To debate the Bill on the day that violence has flared up again in the west bank is a solemn reminder of why this really matters. I say to the Government: our voters have had enough of that sort of politics, and so have I.
Like many who oppose this legislation, I am a proud Zionist. I oppose the divisive and at times antisemitic BDS campaigns. I will always fight antisemitism, whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head. Action is needed, but the Bill will do more harm than good. So what is wrong with it? First, it singles out Israel. Many supporters of Israel rightly feel that hostile campaigners single out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that the same level of attack is not meted out to Myanmar, for example, or to China for its treatment of the Uyghurs. The Bill plays into the hands of antisemites by doing the one thing we should never, ever do: single out Israel as the one place that can never be boycotted. No other country is named. If the Bill is passed, I fear—and know from my own post box—that it will have the unintended consequence of increasing anti-Jew hatred in Britain. We have seen the letter to the Prime Minister from Uyghur exiles opposing the Bill, because it will affect them and make it impossible to boycott goods from China. What thought have the Government given to ethical concerns that public bodies may have about, for instance, the Ugandan Government and their treatment of the LGBT community? By singling out Israel, the Bill pits the mainstream Jewish community against every other valiant human rights campaign, and does so in a way and at a time that will make peace in the region more difficult.
I returned recently from Israel, where I saw the chaos being wrought by the extreme actions of the present Government. From undermining democracy with attacks on judicial independence to the untrammelled expansion of settlements in the occupied territories, Israel has never been more divided and Israeli politics has never felt more broken. The best thing Britain can do is to put diplomatic pressure on the Israeli Government to abandon the judicial reforms and de-escalate the violence. The Bill will deliver the complete opposite. It will be heralded by the Netanyahu Government as a ringing endorsement of their actions. It will send the wrong message at the wrong time.
Like others, I reject the approach of BDS to Israel. Its actions encourage hatred between communities and too often its supporters are antisemitic in what they say. Wrongdoing is never defeated by stifling free speech and open debate, and that is what the Bill does. It prohibits elected public officers from even making statements suggesting that they support boycotts in any state. Clause 4 is a gagging clause, and arguments are never won by suppressing democratic debate. I learnt that fighting the British National party in the 2010 general election. I did not beat Nick Griffin by refusing to engage with him. It was by engaging publicly, by his appearance on “Question Time”, and by allowing him free speech that we exposed what a vile, divisive, racist party he led. Unmasking him through debate helped us to smash him at the ballot box. The Government have just legislated to enshrine free speech in our universities, but are now cancelling the freedom of elected officials in this grubby little Bill. Were they really committed to tackling the BDS problem, they would support our reasoned amendment which would ensure that decisions public authorities took on procurement and investment would be consistently applied to all countries. Israel would not be singled out.
I spent years as a councillor. The idea that local politicians should not express views on either national or international issues is deeply arrogant. We stand for public office because of our political principles, and that is true whether one is a back-bench councillor or a Cabinet Minister. The idea that the two elected positions differ in their democratic status is plain wrong. It is a typical, hugely centralising move by the Government that puts yet another nail in the coffin of devolution. On those grounds alone, the Bill should be opposed. I was in local government when anti-apartheid was a strong movement. Our council joined many others to boycott South Africa. Margaret Thatcher opposed those boycotts in the name of economic liberalism and introduced legislation in 1988 similar to that proposed today. As we now know, that legislation proved ineffective, but the Government seem incapable of learning the lessons of history.
I urge Members to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). It provides a fair and pragmatic response to the potential damage that BDS could bring to Israel. The Minister may claim to be promoting the Bill in the name of our community, but it fails to protect or advance the interests of the Jewish community: it promotes community discord rather than encouraging community cohesion; it encourages conflict rather than inspiring peace; it cancels free speech rather than promoting democratic debate; it is another centralising move at the expense of localism; and it provides support for the extremist actions of the present Israeli Government, rather than using our influence to express our concerns and calm things down in the middle east. It is a bad, bad Bill. As one of the few Jews on the Opposition Benches, as a committed Zionist and as someone who stands with my community in desperately wanting a peace in the region that brings security to Israel, I ask the Government: please think again.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I thank the Government for bringing forward this important Bill. In my former role as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I took the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 through the House, and that marked the first legislative step against BDS. It was a landmark moment, legally enforcing the principle that BDS has no place in the investment decisions of local authorities. I strongly welcome our fulfilling our manifesto commitment to extend that principle.
Put simply, local authorities have no business running a foreign policy parallel to that of His Majesty’s Government. That remit is absolutely within our gift, not theirs. Their role is to deliver local services for the communities they represent, to innovate and to deliver best value. I say that as someone who is a convinced believer in devolution. I believe that we should empower mayors to lead areas of the country in a way that will unlock their economic potential, but I do not want them opining on the rights and wrongs of the behaviour of different countries. It is emphatically unhelpful for local authorities to hinder our country’s export trade, damage our foreign relations and act in a way that is to the detriment of our international or economic security.
Much of the specific concern in this debate is about Israel, and that is because it is always about Israel. This is the point that we cannot elide and that sits at the heart of the reason why Israel needs to be mentioned on the face of the Bill. There are Members arguing against Israel being named specifically in this Bill for whom I have great respect and whom I count as personal friends. But we cannot be oblivious to why Israel needs this protection. The overwhelming focus of the BDS movement is, of course, on this one small state. The BDS movement is not arguing against the horrors perpetrated in Russia, China, Iran or any number of other countries—we could list for hours those countries that perpetrate grotesque wrongs against their people—and I do not see local authorities acting against those countries, either. I see them acting consistently against our ally Israel. There can be no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, that the motivation of some in the BDS movement is dark, sinister and unashamedly linked to the antisemitism that we have seen in our society over recent years, perhaps particularly and most shamefully in our universities. It is disgusting and it is hard not to see aspects of it in the attempt to enforce some of these boycotts and divestments. They simply have no place in modern Britain. It is right that we should act against this and remind local government of its proper responsibilities, which are large and growing under this Government. I certainly believe that that should be its focus.
I come to this debate without any significant minority community in my constituency. I simply see a wrong that we should right, an offence that we should not give, and money, energy and time that our local authorities should be spending to better effect on their significant responsibilities. Foreign affairs should be left to this place, not to town halls.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is an honour to rise to oppose this Bill in the strongest possible terms. I was very disappointed in how the Bill was presented by the Secretary of State, who left his place without even listening to other Front-Bench speeches. I was incredibly encouraged, however, by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who gave a reasoned and constructive speech, and, of course, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). She comes to these issues from a different place from me, but I agreed with every word she said.
I want to cover three main areas: the unprecedented powers that the Bill gives the Secretary of State and, by implication, the removal of balanced decision making from those in local government who have been elected to serve their local communities; the incompatibility of the Bill with international law and the conflation of the UK’s long-standing cross-party position in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights with the state of Israel; and the exposure of the UK Government to extended and repeated legal challenge, which would take away money that, as the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) said, needs to be spent in our local communities.
Let me go through those three points. The Government have often stated their commitment to devolution, and they have delivered it in many areas, allowing as much decision making as possible to take place near the people whom politicians are elected to serve. This Bill flies in the face of that claim. It will act as a gagging order on local authorities in a way that no other piece of legislation does. Many in local government have raised huge concerns about the impact of the Bill, including the Local Government Chronicle, the Local Government Association and the TUC. Particular concerns have been raised about the Bill’s impact on the 6 million local government pensioners. Is that really the Government’s intention? The Bill will ban public bodies—mainly local authorities but also universities and others—from working within current procurement rules and making their own decisions appropriate to their own areas. If we look to history to inform the future, we will see that the most effective example in my lifetime was the successful campaign against the apartheid regime in South Africa. That undoubtedly helped bring down that regime and led to democracy in South Africa, which is something that the international community and the UK should be proud of. Are we really suggesting that we should not be allowed to take such a position again?
I turn to the Bill’s incompatibility with international law and the UK’s long-standing cross-party position in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights, which are being conflated with the state of Israel. Why does the Bill highlight those three areas? On the face of it, it looks as though the Secretary of State wishes to penalise councils that have acted not against the state of Israel but against illegal settlements built on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in flagrant defiance of successive UN Security Council resolutions, which the UK helped draft and voted in favour of. It seems to me that the UK Government are throwing all sense to the wind. We all wish to see this part of the world living in peace. The violence that has erupted today is an example of how crucial it is to bring peace to this area. The failure to distinguish between the sovereign territory of Israel and the territories occupied in 1967, as outlined in UN Security Council resolution 2334, is an alarming deviation from the long-standing UK policy. I ask the Secretary of State to look again and remove the most contentions parts of the Bill. Those who push this Bill make a very dangerous conflation between legitimate criticism of illegal Israeli actions and the horror of antisemitism, which we all abhor.
Finally, and briefly—I am going to stick to the time limit—this Bill, if it goes through in its current state, will result in an appalling waste of money. It will undoubtedly lead to not one, not two but numerous legal challenges, with each costing the Government, and therefore the British taxpayer, an enormous amount of money. In the current economic climate, throwing things to the wind and rushing headlong into such a Bill, which does not solve the problem that it sets out to solve, is absolutely irresponsible in the first degree. I ask the Government to either look again and remove the contentious clauses, or start again and bring to the House a Bill that actually does what it sets out to do and that sorts out the problem and does not cause utter chaos in this area of policy making.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I rise with a heavy heart to agree with many comments from across the House on the nature of this defective Bill. I agree with Richard Hermer KC, who in a very compelling interview published in today’s Jewish News talks about the problems that this Bill presents not just for the UK as a whole but for British Jewry in general.
Taking things in order, my primary concern is the safety of that community. As somebody who has worked very closely with the Jewish community, particularly in the capital over the years, and who has a strong affection for the Haredi community in north London, whom I know well both in policing and crime terms and having dealt with their housing issues as Housing Minister, I am afraid that I agree with the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) that this Bill, should it go through in its current form, is likely to damage and worsen their safety rather than improve it. In that I am with Jonathan Freedland, who wrote in the Jewish Chronicle just last week:
“What is the favourite refrain of the antisemites? That Israel is the one country you’re not ‘allowed’ to criticise. This bill takes a canard and, in the case of boycotts, turns it into the law of the land.”
The inclusions of clause 3(7) and, indeed, parts of clause 4 send a chill through that sense of debate, and will feed some of the disgusting conspiracy theories about the status of Israel and the influence that that country has around the globe. I have to say that I fear for the safety of the Jewish community should the measures be passed in that form. There are those who would do its members harm—we all know that in this House, and I have seen it for myself—and we cannot give them succour by falling into that trap.
My second concern is the practical impact of the Bill on many organisations across the country. As we heard from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), this is a lawyers’ charter. There will be challenges to and fro, involving universities, pension funds and councils. Every decision that is taken will be scrutinised, and, moreover, councillors who have strong convictions in either direction will seek to find ways that are oblique to fulfil their own sense of moral or ethical obligation. There are groups out there who represent other countries, such as China and Myanmar, who will seek constantly to push councils in their direction, and not just in terms of Israel or Palestine. As a result, a huge amount of money and effort, and KCs at dawn, will be expended in pursuit of this legislation, and the impact will be enormous.
Thirdly, two key fundamental issues that are intrinsic to the way we live in the United Kingdom are challenged by the Bill. The first is, obviously, the free-speech challenge to which a number of Members have already referred, and which is represented in clause 4(2). It appears that I cannot even criticise this law, whether I am a council leader, a university vice-chancellor, or the chief executive of a company that is performing public services. I have never before seen legislation that outlaws disagreement with the law, and I think that breaching that right to free speech is a very problematic step.
The second of these issues was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). A law granting powers greater than those granted to the police to the investigatory or enforcement authorities identified in the Bill—the Secretary of State, the Office for Students, and one or two others—and allowing them, in particular, to breach legal privilege so that organisations can effectively go on a fishing trip looking at the legal advice that individuals have taken as they contemplate investment decisions is a Rubicon that I believe it would be wrong to cross.
The fourth area that concerns me relates to our tradition of pluralism in this country. There is no doubt that the Bill will send a chill through debate about a series of conflicts across the world. Whether we are talking about the Uyghur Muslims in China, the fate of Hong Kong Chinese or, indeed, those in Israel and Palestine, the fact is that everyone who is engaged in democracy, locally or on a devolved-nation basis, will have to be extremely careful about what they say. They will have to think twice and three times before they discuss these issues, lest that should prejudice, or be seen to prejudice, an investment or other decision that they may make in the future.
This is especially problematic in the context of academic freedom. As we heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), we have just passed a law to guarantee academic freedom: freedom on campus. For that freedom now to be restricted. particularly for those in leadership positions in universities, strikes me as perverse. It should come as no surprise that the Union of Jewish Students is flatly opposed to the Bill, which is apposite given that its members are often the people most exposed to antisemitism in this form.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of timing. The right hon. Member for Barking said that this was the worst Bill at the worst time; I think that it is a defective Bill at a dreadful time. Given what is unfolding in Israel and Palestine today, given the toll of deaths that we have seen so far this year on all sides and given the international concern about the escalating violence in that part of the world, the introduction of this Bill at a time when many countries in that region are extremely concerned about what is going on will be seen by Arab countries in particular—although Members may not feel this themselves—as being partial, and as privileging one country over the others. I think that that will be detrimental not just to our interests in the United Kingdom, which are a primary concern. but to the interests of Israel, Palestine and the wider region.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow another excellent speech dissecting what is wrong with this very faulty Bill. What a contrast it was with the Secretary of State’s opening speech, which was effectively a display of polemical and performative rhetoric, containing assertions that the Bill itself contradicts—and I think that was a shame.
We have benefited from some extremely good analysis, although I have not been able to read all the briefings on the Bill that we have received, not just from eminent KCs—it was, again, a shame to witness one of them being speared by the Secretary of State—but from some leading expert organisations in the field: from the Council for Arab-British Understanding, from our former colleague Richard Burden, from the Balfour Project, from many Jewish organisations including Yachad and the Union of Jewish Students, from many trade unions, and from environmental groups who believe they will be caught up in this as well. I do not think that is what the Secretary of State intended; I think he intended the Bill to appeal to a populist narrative; but I do not think that has happened. Perhaps it is the revenge of the experts whom he trashed so publicly years ago.
While it is good that the Bill is not being given a platform and is not acting in the way in which the Government would like it to act—the way in which all the other legislation they are introducing seems to act at the moment—that does not mean that it is not a dangerous Bill. It does not mean that there is no harm in its provisions: harm to civil society, the rule of law and freedom of speech, principles that the Secretary of State would doubtless say that he wishes to uphold.
I am pleased to say that the nature and number of the risks in the Bill have been helpfully set out by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), in the reasoned amendment, and I commend her for an excellent piece of drafting that really takes the Bill to pieces. I hope it will be approved tonight, because it would deny the Bill a Second Reading. If it does not succeed, some Members may vote against Second Reading, while others may abstain. I will abstain at that point, because I am reassured by the shadow Secretary of State’s assurance that if the Bill is not substantially reformed in the way in which the amendment suggests, it will be rejected. I hope it will be rejected by Members in all parts of the House on Third Reading, before it leaves this place.
In the very limited time available to me, I want to headline my concerns. The first question I want to ask is this: will the Bill help or hinder groups that are under threat around the world, such as the Uyghurs, the Rohingya, minorities in countries, or people in occupied territories—in Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, Crimea, or the Palestinian territories? Will it help them in any way? The answer is, I think, a clear no. The Bill will run contrary to international law, it will run contrary to United Nations Security Council resolutions, particularly resolution 2334, and it will run contrary to the due diligence and fiduciary duties of local authorities and other public bodies and to legal principles. The FCDO guidance has already been quoted, and we have heard what Ministers have said as recently as last week in making distinctions between our policy towards Israel and our policy towards the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This point has been made a number of times already. By treating Israel exceptionally, the Bill does it no favours. By treating the Occupied Palestinian Territories alongside Israel, in a way that I have not seen before and that runs contrary to Government policy over many years under different Governments, the Bill makes a significant break and gives comfort to those who wish to see the Palestinian territories under permanent occupation, including many within the extremist Government in Israel.
Whatever the Secretary of State says, the Bill is a clear attack on free speech, and it is quite Kafkaesque in how it denies people the ability to speak out against what is happening. By inflicting not only strong powers of search and seizure but unlimited fines and penalties on those who speak out, this really is appalling legislation.
The Bill will have a chilling effect. We do not need to analyse the exact effect on every procurement and investment decision to see that pension funds are conservative bodies that will take decisions in ways that do not lay them open to this very woolly legislation. The consequence is that they will make bad decisions that go much further than the Secretary of State says he wishes to take the Bill.
Finally, I speak up, as many Members do, for the Palestinian people. How does this Bill benefit them? What effect will it have? On a day in which battlefield weapons are being used against civilian areas of the west bank for the first time in decades, we are talking about this scurrilous and performative Bill. The occupied territories have been occupied since 1967. Who will champion, as I wish this Government and this country would, their right to self-determination and their right to have their country recognised as a sovereign state, as we absolutely respect for the people of Israel? This Bill only hampers ambitions along those lines.
For those reasons, I ask Members on both sides of the House to vote for the reasoned amendment and not to allow the Bill to pass from this House in its current form.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I also have grave reservations about this Bill. I want to be clear that it is not exclusively about Israel and Palestine; it is about the mandate and responsibility of elected figures in the UK. It is also about contradictions in policy.
On the one hand, we have legislated to protect freedom of speech in universities, but this Bill will prevent universities from discussing the impact of foreign Governments’ behaviour on their activities. The Bill is wide in scope but confused in its relationship to the Government’s aims as a whole. For instance, clause 1 is worded so that territories recognised as illegally occupied by international law are still within scope, wherever in the world they are. It seeks to prevent public bodies, such as local councils, from
“being influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign states when taking certain economic decisions”.
In fact, those public bodies may well simply be having regard to international law or the previously expressed opinions of His Majesty’s Government.
Clause 4 addresses how a person intends to act. This means that elected officials with serious responsibilities cannot even have a public discussion about how they ae affected by the behaviour of overseas states. A prohibition on publishing means it is impossible to have a discussion at a hustings, in the media or in response to questions about human rights.
As we have heard, the Bill is likely to end up in court, either in the way that Prigozhin tried to muzzle journalists in the UK or, conversely, by someone asserting that their article 10 rights under the ECHR have been breached. The Bill curbs free speech and the free exercise of responsibility for elected bodies whose mandate we should respect.
The Bill’s wording implies that, among office holders, only Ministers can express an opinion on the countries that should be exempted under clause 3. This means that people in other tiers of government with responsibilities within the scope of clause 2 cannot. No matter how bad a country’s human rights record or respect for international law, discussion or action will be prevented.
That brings me on to Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights. Why have they been singled out in clause 3(7)? Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), I do not believe this is helpful.
Jonathan Freedland wrote in The Jewish Chronicle of his concern that the Bill will make antisemitism worse, because banning the consideration of the economic consequences of things that are happening in the occupied territories, and issuing financial penalties where consideration is given, will just cause resentment. As he says, the best way to bring about change is to engage and debate.
I disagree with some BDS advocates, such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Israel has every right to exist, and its people have a right to live in peace. However, where Israel breaches international law, others must be permitted to point this out and hold it to account. This Bill would prevent that.
The Bill mentions the OPTs and the Golan Heights. Does this mean that boycotting the settlements will be against the law? These settlements are illegal under international law, and the UK Government’s own website states that there are
“clear risks related to economic…activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity… UK citizens and businesses should be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals. Those contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice.”
Israel benefits economically from its illegal occupation, and we should be permitted to comment and consider it in our policies.
The Foreign Secretary’s joint statement with Australia and Canada on 1 July shows the concern about the rapidly increasing number of new settlements on the west bank. How can public bodies show their concern, and why can they not show that concern by not buying goods from settlements or by choosing to buy Palestinian goods instead? Surely this is why we are a free country.
Disagreeing with the policies of the Israeli Government has nothing to do with antisemitism. After all, many Israelis disagree with their own Government. This Bill will not promote community cohesion but do the opposite, opening more divisions. Like others, I fear it may be detrimental to the British Jewish community. I hope this Bill will be substantially changed in Committee and beyond, because I do not understand why we need it.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
This poorly drafted Bill will have far-reaching consequences for the UK’s protection and promotion of human rights overseas. I extend my thanks to the coalition of 70 civil society and justice organisations that have expressed strong concerns about this Bill and how it will outlaw a powerful tactic of dissent and freedom of expression that has been used throughout history to achieve social change.
I rise to oppose this Bill and to support our reasoned amendment that would decline to give it a Second Reading. What is at stake today should deeply concern every Member of this House. The Bill risks significantly undermining support for groups around the world that are facing persecution and international human rights violations. Labour steadfastly supports a negotiated diplomatic settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on two states, and opposes the expansion of illegal settlements, settler violence, evictions and demolitions. But how realistic is that when an Israeli national security Minister has pledged to “crush” Palestinians “one by one”?
Let us not forget that boycott campaigns have existed right across the political spectrum and have long been used as peaceful and principled tools to fight oppression and injustice. They are a form of protest that should be protected in a democratic society. Last year, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities asked councils to divest from Russia following the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and he clearly recognised councils’ economic importance and that moral considerations should inform what they do, so why can they not be trusted to make their own choices now?
This Bill is so broad and destructive that it will completely prevent public bodies from taking responsible and ethical decisions in relation to human rights abuses in their investment and procurement decisions. Although the Secretary of State argues that there are safeguards in the Bill, he knows they will do nothing to limit the damage this Bill will cause.
I am proud to represent the city of Liverpool, a city that has never faltered in its solidarity with international liberation struggles. In the 1980s, when the African National Congress and South African trade unions were fighting apartheid, as a city we mobilised across the board to support their struggle. Trade unionists organised in Ford factories to smuggle ANC literature in the boots of cars, and seafarers dropped parcels at South African ports. The boycott movement played a significant role in successfully turning the tide on the apartheid Government, at a time when many powerful international Governments, including our own Thatcher-led Government, supported the regime. The importance of international solidarity when waging a struggle such as that against apartheid cannot be underestimated and this rings as true today as it has throughout history. In the words of Nelson Mandela:
“our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians”.
His words resonate today, with injustices and violations of international humanitarian law across the globe still demanding accountability. Now, as then, international pressure will be key to achieving peace and justice.
Let us be clear: the aim of the Bill is to limit our ability to take action to protest, and the chilling effect that will be created is immeasurable. Perhaps the most chilling aspect of the Bill is the so-called “gagging clause”, whereby not only will public officials be prevented from raising the issue of human rights abuses in financial decision making, but it will be illegal for them to refer to the Bill as the reason preventing them from making a financial decision influenced by human rights abuses. For a Government who claim to champion freedom of speech, this is the depths of hypocrisy. It should make Members in all parts of this House seriously consider the impact of their vote today.
Today’s vote is historic and it is up to us to decide which side of history we are on: are we a nation that champions freedom of expression and conscience, one that encourages acts of solidarity with the oppressed, or are we a nation that curbs even the basic right to speak out about violations and abuses of human rights? Vote for the reasoned amendment. Decline to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I strongly support this legislation, and I want to thank all constituents who have been in touch with me to tell me their views on it. It is my honour and privilege to represent a constituency that is home to a substantial Jewish community.
As we have heard this evening, the BDS movement is deeply divisive. The founder of the group and many of its leadership figures do not recognise the right of Israel to exist. They have no commitment to a negotiated settlement and want to drive the two sides apart, not bring them together.
As has been pointed out, these local boycotts split communities here in Britain. Many Jewish people feel a deep sense of connection to Israel, so they could feel intimidated and victimised if their local council were to pursue a boycott. The spillover of anti-Israel to anti-Jewish attitudes and discrimination is illustrated by the supermarket that, in 2014, took kosher foods off the shelf after protesters gathered outside in support of a boycott of Israel.
Moreover, the BDS movement often seeks to justify its campaign using the allegation that Israel can be equated with apartheid South Africa. That is a pernicious slur. In falsely accusing Israel of racism, it singles out the world’s only distinctively Jewish state for unjustified and disproportionate attack. That falls squarely within the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism and we should always reject it. I am gravely concerned that BDS activity has sometimes legitimised and driven antisemitism, and I note that the Communities Secretary has stated that BDS has led to
“appalling antisemitic rhetoric and abuse”.
There is no justification for a boycott or sanctions against Israel. Cutting economic ties with Israel will do nothing to further the peace process, or to get negotiations restarted. Israel is our ally. It is the only real democracy in the middle east; the only country in the middle east where equality for women is fully protected; the only one where the rights of the LGBT community are respected; and the only one with a genuinely free press and a fiercely independent judiciary. We should be strengthening economic, cultural and academic links with Israel, not severing them.
Deeper engagement with Israel means that we as a country can play a stronger role in supporting peace and reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians. It also brings advantages for jobs and economic growth here in the UK. I welcome the 2030 road map for bilateral relations between our two countries, which was signed in March and will boost tech, trade and security ties. The phenomenal energy of Israel’s digital economy and its cutting-edge pharmaceutical sector are just two reasons why trade with Israel is an important source of prosperity for us in Britain. In 2017, the Health Minister Lord O’Shaughnessy estimated that every year some 100 million NHS prescription items in England are made by companies in Israel. If we listened to the BDS movement and adopted its approach, we would see major disruption of NHS procurement of the medication that so many of us need and, inevitably, that would lead to rising costs.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming today’s legislation. BDS activists who bully councils into adopting these measures are also bullying the UK’s advertising industry. For example, Stop Funding Hate and Ethical Consumer are pro-BDS groups that tell their supporters to follow the BDS national committee, a group with links to Hamas and other designated terrorist groups. Does she agree that today we can, certainly as a first step, set an example in tackling BDS within public bodies?
Theresa Villiers
Indeed. Today is our opportunity to take a stand against BDS and I encourage as many hon. Members as possible to do that.
As part of the largest ever deal between an Israeli and a UK company, Rolls-Royce is delivering engines for El Al Dreamliner aircraft, supporting many highly skilled jobs in Britain. That type of massive commercial opportunity would be a thing of the past if we let these BDS boycotts take hold and spread.
In conclusion, this is a timely Bill that I hope the House will back. I am deeply disappointed that Labour has said that it is voting against it today. The question is: do you support boycotts against Israel or don’t you? I am strongly opposed to boycotts of Israel, which is why I am voting for the Bill this evening. I am proud that it is a Conservative Government who have listened to the Jewish community on this vital issue and brought forward the Bill it asked for to ban council boycotts. Israel is our friend and ally and we should be trying to increase trade with Israel, not trying to ban it. There is no justification for local councils adopting their own international trade policy. These are rightly matters for our democratically elected Government in Westminster. I urge hon. and right hon. Members to support the Bill in the Division Lobby this evening.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I had been looking forward to this legislation. As the chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I am against efforts to destabilise, delegitimise and destroy Israel, the world’s only Jewish state. The purpose of the BDS movement, with its talk of apartheid, genocide and ghettos, is to demonise and, ultimately, destroy Israel. I had hoped we might see a simple Bill designed to restrain the ambitions of BDS, with its single target, the state of Israel. Boycotts are not new for Jews. On 1 April this year, we marked the 90th anniversary of the Nazis’ first nationwide action against the Jews, a boycott targeting Jewish businesses and professionals. There is a long, dark history of boycotts directed against Jewish people. For the world’s only Jewish state to be targeted in this way shows complete indifference to that history and a single-minded determination to destroy Israel’s right to exist.
The effect of BDS is felt not only in Israel. A 2019 Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy report concluded that the victims of BDS include Jews in the diaspora. Let us think what it means to be Jewish in Britain today. There is an understandable affinity between Israel and Jews in this country, but every day Jewish students confront obsessive campaigns for an academic boycott of Israeli universities. BDS seeks to prevent Israeli artists, actors and musicians from performing in Britain. It wants libraries to remove Israeli authors and to “no-platform” Israeli speakers.
Supporters of BDS often seek to draw a comparison with South Africa. The measures taken at that time were designed to end apartheid and bring about the democratic state that we see today. But—here I agree with the Secretary of State—BDS does not support a two-state solution, advocate peace negotiations or seek to bring communities together. To be fair to its leader, Omar Barghouti, he is clear that he opposes a Jewish state in any part of what he calls Palestine. We all know what the chant “From the river to the sea” actually means. BDS is a policy designed to end Israel’s existence. The movement opposes the idea of normalisation; in fact, normalisation has become a pejorative term in relation to Israel and Palestine thanks to the efforts of such movements.
Of course, BDS is not without success: a vociferous campaign against SodaStream led to the closure of a plant in the west bank and the loss of 600 Palestinian jobs. BDS puts at risk the 10,000 UK businesses that have import-export arrangements. The UK is Israel’s second largest trading partner, with a relationship worth about £7 billion. Israeli companies provide one in seven NHS drugs, estimated to save us around £3 billion per year. As we have heard, we are negotiating a new free trade arrangement, which will vastly improve benefits for both countries. Our security arrangements help to save thousands of lives and regularly help to foil terrorist attacks in the UK, yet BDS wants to end military co-operation.
It is against that background that I had hoped to welcome this legislation; instead, we get a dog’s dinner—a Bill that in its present form can serve only to guarantee conflict between the Government, local authorities and other public bodies, and will inevitably result in endless legal challenges. It seeks to limit the freedom for councils and other public bodies to speak out in the face of obvious injustice. Far from not singling out Israel—a key demand of many Jewish and anti-BDS groups—specific attention is drawn to Israel in the Bill.
This is a Bill that has lost focus. Its scattergun approach and willingness to confuse legitimate political protest with what should be simple powers to restrict the demands associated with the BDS movement will provide endless publicity opportunities for Israel’s enemies. It is unworkable in its current form. If there is to be any hope of the Bill becoming a reasonable, practical measure, it requires substantial improvement. I hope that the Secretary of State will not play party or petty politics but seek to build consensus with people across the House who are willing to work together on measures designed to rid us of the malign influence of the BDS movement.
At the same time, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that, although I am full of admiration for her good intentions and acknowledge that the reasoned amendment has been framed in response to the mess before us, I am not entirely sure that it cuts mustard either. Nevertheless, in deference to her good intentions, I will support the amendment tonight. If I am fortunate enough to serve on the Bill Committee, I hope we can find common ground to create workable legislation to tackle the folly of BDS ambitions and its one and only target. I hope we can achieve that without imposing ludicrous restrictions on legitimate political activities, or the freedom of speech of local government and those who represent public bodies. Having waited so long, tonight is a tremendous disappointment for me, but there is still time to put things right. I urge Ministers not to ignore the opportunity.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), and particularly his final comments about wanting to work together across the House to see how the Bill can be improved. It will, I think, come as no surprise to many that I am uncomfortable with the Bill as it stands—and arguably more, not less, so after hearing the Secretary of State’s almost exclusive focus on the BDS movement and its antisemitic agenda.
The point of the Bill was to fulfil a Conservative party manifesto commitment, so let me explain why I am unhappy with it. First, as it stands, the Bill fulfils something different from our manifesto commitment; secondly, it seriously undermines our commitment to freedom and tolerance; thirdly, it gives a special and exclusive right not just to Israel but to parts of Israel that are either annexed or illegally occupied; fourthly, it effectively outlaws even the express thought of disagreeing with the Bill, should it be passed; and lastly, it could backfire—and it is elements of the Jewish communities who say that, not me.
Let me bring the detail alive. Our manifesto did not mention Israel or the BDS; it focused on preventing
“public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect …sanctions…against foreign countries.”
That commitment was, absolutely rightly, country-agnostic, yet clause 3(7) specifically protects not just Israel but the Golan Heights and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which are of course not countries. The provisions exempt Israel alone from any change in Government policy—for example, the sanctions on Russia—and that could be changed only by primary legislation.
Our manifesto also rightly committed to championing free speech and tolerance. As I mentioned earlier, as have others, the Secretary of State for Education legislated only recently specifically to enforce that commitment on our universities; now, however, as a university vice-chancellor put it to me, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has told him that he cannot even say, were it allowed, that he would prefer his university not to purchase anything manufactured on illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Is that really what is intended?
This Bill, as presented on Second Reading, appears to be a pro-Israel and anti-BDS Bill much more than the country-agnostic anti-boycott Bill promised in our manifesto. In turn, that has caused—there was no point in some Members denying this earlier—some Jewish commentators in Jewish media, Jewish student unions and Jewish civic society groups to express real concern that the Bill risks backfiring. As The Jewish Chronicle said, it would be
“bitterly ironic if this…bill”
to tackle the
“anti-Israel BDS, ends up hurting those who so many…have sought to help”.
The Union of Jewish Students went further and said that the Bill may
“pit Jews against other minorities”.
So what to do? The Labour party solution is to rip the Bill up and start again in unspecified ways. Our solution should be different. We should fulfil our manifesto commitment to legislate against public-body sanctions in a country-agnostic way, but we do not need a special rule for Israel, let alone for annexed or occupied areas that the United Kingdom does not recognise as a legitimate part of Israel. I very much hope that on Third Reading the Government will reconsider clause 4(1)(b), which as it stands is antidemocratic, and drop clause 3(7), which is neither necessary nor appropriate. I will therefore abstain in the vote on Second Reading. I very much hope that the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider drafting amendments will be strongly realised on Third Reading.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I remind Members that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
First, I want to be very clear that the Liberal Democrats condemn antisemitism. Anti-Jewish hatred has absolutely no place in our society, and we must all do more—as individuals, as political parties and as a Parliament—to tackle antisemitism in all its forms. Nor do we support the BDS movement or any other singling out of Israel driven by anti-Jewish hatred. However, we do not believe that this piece of legislation is going to help to tackle antisemitism. In fact, as many Members throughout the House, including the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), have already set out, the measures in the Bill could even be counterproductive, which is frankly the last thing we want.
Liberal Democrats are also deeply concerned by a series of the provisions in the Bill. First, it will greatly restrict the ability of public bodies to take action against human rights abuses. Many public bodies as well as civil society organisations are alarmed by the persecution of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, which has led to the detention of more than a million people by the Chinese state. Regrettably, the Government have failed to recognise the genocide that is taking place in Xinjiang, even though Parliament has called on them to do so. It is appalling that a local council will be prevented from calling what is taking place in Xinjiang what it is—a genocide—simply because the Government continue to take a cowardly approach. It seems extraordinary that a local council or museum would risk a significant fine by deciding that they did not want to buy products coming from Xinjiang.
Many of us in this place will remember the popular boycotts of South African goods in the 1980s, which were an effective way of demonstrating opposition to apartheid and which added to the international political pressure to end the regime. In this country, it was local councils that led the way then—and thank goodness they did—but under these new provisions, such action would be illegal.
Secondly, this piece of legislation represents an unjustified restriction on the power of local communities to take decisions for themselves. As a Liberal Democrat, I believe in liberalism, federalism and localism. We believe that it is up to local authorities and public bodies to be able to decide for themselves what they do. If local councillors are elected on a manifesto that includes a commitment to a boycott on ethical or environmental grounds, we believe that those councillors should be held to account by their local electorate, not banned by a distant central Government.
Thirdly, we are hugely concerned by the restriction on the freedom of speech on public bodies and elected representatives in clause 4—the gagging clause. The Bill does not just restrict a public body from engaging in boycott and divestment; it restricts it from saying that it would support such a boycott if it were legal. That represents a significant overreach, which will erode a fundamental democratic right—that of free speech.
Fourthly, I echo the concerns raised by other Members that the provisions in clause 3 represent an attempt by the Government to change their position on the status of the occupied territories. The UK Government have always made a distinction between the occupied territories and Israel, in line with international law. That is clear in everything from our trading arrangements to the advice given to businesses looking to operate in the occupied territories. However, the Bill conflates the two by listing the occupied territories as exempt from the Bill alongside Israel. The Bill goes against not just the widespread consensus held on both sides of the House and by our allies, but international law. What an irony it is that, at the heart of a Bill designed to restrict local councils from speaking out about international issues, we find the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities trying to conduct his own foreign policy. It is almost as if he has forgotten the purported purpose of his own legislation.
On today of all days, when we have awoken yet again to more violence in the region, it is incredibly depressing that the Government are choosing not to stand up for international law, at a time when there is such hopelessness around the conflict.
In conclusion, I firmly agree that we need to do more on the pressing need to tackle antisemitism. I agree that the BDS movement targeting Israel will not help to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine. If there is a need to beef-up legislation on hate crime or prejudice against protected characteristics, such as race and religion, Liberal Democrats would wholeheartedly support such a move. Local councils should not be singling out one country and holding it to a higher standard than others because of their own prejudice, but closing down debate on international human rights issues will not achieve the stated aim of stamping out antisemitism. The resolution to the problem is not to clamp down on debate on international human rights issues. The Liberal Democrats will oppose the Bill for that reason, and will be voting in favour of the reasoned amendment tabled by those on the Opposition Front Bench.
I urge the Secretary of State to rethink this legislation and work across party lines to resolve issues of prejudice and discrimination by more practical and fair means.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of the legislation this evening. I welcome the fact that we are following through on a manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation in this difficult, sensitive and complicated area. I very much agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) and for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers).
We have had a number of speeches striking slightly different tones. There was a very good speech from the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who tried to strike a reasonable tone and explained the rationale behind Labour’s reasoned amendment. Unfortunately for her and for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who also made a thoughtful and intelligent speech, many of the speeches from the Opposition Benches seemed to be in favour of boycotts, and wanting to keep a candle burning for being able to use boycotts, divestment and sanctions as tools at a local authority level, or among other public bodies. We on the Conservative Benches are clear that we do not want to see public money being used in that way. We are clear about the main purpose of this legislation, which is to tackle, as has already been discussed, the BDS movement, with its pernicious effects, its links to antisemitism and the very ugly and divisive character behind it. To any Conservative Member who stands up and says that that was not the purpose of our commitment in the manifesto, I say that that is just not true. The gestation of the Bill—the process that it has gone through and the internal discussion—has very much centred on trying to do something for the first time about the BDS movement.
To those Members who argue that the problem with this legislation is that it will attract legal challenge, I say that every single time we have tried to do something about the BDS movement it gets a legal challenge. We know that the BDS movement will try to fight this in the court. That is not a surprise, but that should not be a reason for us to resile from our commitment to do something about the matter.
There will be Members in the House today who believe that the BDS movement, leaving aside its ugly antisemitic characteristics, is a legitimate way of trying to challenge the state of Israel. We heard that in some of the speeches. The trouble with the BDS movement, as we know, is that time and again it singles out the state of Israel in a way that it does not do with other countries.
As for the Labour party trying to maintain a reasonableness about its position, I say look at what it does when it is in government. When the Welsh Labour Government tried to introduce a new national procurement note in 2020, what did they do? Surprise, surprise, they singled out one state for potential sanctions—the state of Israel. I am talking about Labour Ministers of the Crown today serving in the Welsh Government in Cardiff, so Members will forgive me if I do not have total confidence in the reasonableness of the Labour position that it is trying to put forward.
Crispin Blunt
The BDS is a Palestinian-led movement. Who else is it supposed to protest against? I realise that it has a global application, but it is a Palestinian-led movement about Palestine.
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend is right: it is a Palestinian-led movement. When we consider the individuals and organisations—Palestinian and otherwise—at the root of it, we can see that the movement is deeply problematic. I do not believe that any Conservative should be identifying and aligning themselves with any aspect of the BDS movement.
I welcome the legislation. I welcome, too, the fact that the Secretary of State has made a very strong commitment to working with others and seeing whether improvements can be made to the Bill. He has shown a genuine openness in that regard. None the less, improving the Bill cannot mean watering it down to make it ineffective, which we know the opponents of the Bill—the BDS movement outside this place—want us to do. I hope that the Government will remain robust and clear-sighted on this, but I also hope that we can work pragmatically and get good legislation on the statute book.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am pleased to contribute to what has been a generally thoughtful debate, from the moment that the shadow Secretary of State rose to speak. I am sorry that the Secretary of State left so soon after his own rather provocative contribution, because he would have benefited from hearing many of the speeches.
This is an ill-judged and unnecessary attack on local democracy—unnecessary not least because of the provisions of the Local Government Act 1988, which, alongside the notorious clause 28 prohibiting local authorities from “promotion of homosexuality”, also banned non-commercial consideration on contracts on the basis of
“the country or territory of origin.”
That remains in place, so the Secretary of State has law to refer to, without needing to bring forward this Bill, if there are the problems he describes.
That legislation was a response by the Thatcher Government to a campaign co-ordinated by Sheffield City Council. We were the first council in 1981, under the leadership of David Blunkett, to pledge to end all links with apartheid. Many others followed, and in 1983 we set up Local Authorities Against Apartheid, developing a network of around 120 councils taking action—action that was subsequently praised by Nelson Mandela after his release for its contribution to ending apartheid.
As someone who was in the leadership of the anti-apartheid movement for 20 years, I do not accept the application of the term apartheid to Israel, although I have to say that, if the policy trajectory of the current Israeli Government continues in the way it has, that comparison will be increasingly difficult to resist. My point about the action that we organised is that it demonstrates the long history of local authority action over human rights, which is something we should be proud of, and of local politicians responding to local concerns, whether about South Africa 40 years ago or about China today.
Clause 3 will enable action to be taken where dispensation is given—by the whim of the Secretary of State, not even by Parliament. However, that highlights the exception provided in clause 3(7) in relation to Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights.
I want to be clear that I do not support the BDS campaign against Israel. I do think that we should long ago have taken action on economic engagement with the illegal settlements, to match our words with positive measures, and it is extraordinary that this Bill prevents public bodies from implementing the Government’s own advice to business not to trade with the illegal settlements. However, for those of us who do not support BDS, that does not mean we should support banning it, and much of Israeli society would agree.
I am grateful to Yachad, which many colleagues will know is a significant voice within the mainstream British Jewish community, campaigning for a political resolution in which Israel thrives alongside a viable and independent Palestinian state. In its briefing on this Bill, it drew parallels with the debate in Israel on its own anti-boycott law in 2011, in which Tzipi Livni, then Leader of the Opposition in the Knesset and previously Foreign Secretary, said:
“I disagree with those that demand boycotts, but I will fight for their right to express their views.”
Dan Meridor of Likud, then Deputy Prime Minister, said:
“I oppose boycotts, but they should not be illegal.”
Ruvi Rivlin, then Leader of the Knesset and subsequently President of Israel, slammed the law for
“turning freedom of speech into a civil injustice.”
The Government argue that this Bill is necessary in opposing antisemitism, but, as others have said, there are important voices within the Jewish community who disagree. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for students, I have worked closely with the leadership of the National Union of Students in challenging antisemitism within its own organisation, and on every step of that journey I have liaised with the Union of Jewish Students. Nobody will question the UJS’s credentials as a robust opponent of antisemitism. At its annual conference recently, UJS unanimously passed a resolution reaffirming its opposition to BDS, but rejecting any attempt to outlaw it. One of those involved in that motion wrote recently in The Times:
“Using legislation to outlaw BDS will do nothing in the fight against antisemitism… We may disagree with the BDS movement—we may even think that there are some people who support the BDS movement who are motivated by antisemitism—but the tactics of boycott, divestment, and sanctions are non-violent and legitimate.”
The Secretary of State has argued that it is his responsibility to bring forward this legislation in the context of the Government’s manifesto commitment. I am conscious of the fact that the Government have fairly casually disregarded manifesto commitments in the past, but even if that were his justification, he should recognise that things have changed enormously since 2019. The new extremist Israeli Government are moving from de facto to de jure annexation of the occupied territories. Illegal settlements have been legalised and many more are planned, with the responsibility for them given to a far-right Minister who denies the existence of the Palestinian people and has been condemned by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Today, we have seen the massive Israeli attack on Jenin, and not the first; it follows months of raids across the west bank and on Nablus. Across the west bank, settler attacks—killing and injuring Palestinians, torching their homes, their businesses and their cars—are being encouraged by the Israeli Government and those responsible are going unpunished. All that is designed to end the prospect of a viable Palestinian state and frustrate attempts to secure a just settlement.
Those Israeli civil society voices who support our ambition for a two-state solution have made it clear that there could not be a worse time for the UK to send a signal that we see the occupied territories as part of Israel in the way that this Bill is framed. We should not do it. I urge the Government to think again.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), with whom I very largely agreed.
I want to start with a challenge to my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) to finish off the answer to my question about BDS itself. BDS is a Palestinian-led movement, so it is not remotely surprising that its attention centres on the policies of Israel, which is in illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. It is Israeli policy that is preventing any possibility of a two-state solution from becoming a reality and BDS is the only movement within Palestinian civil society that is pursuing a non-violent course of resistance.
We need to ask ourselves some fundamental questions about what we expect of the occupied Palestinians. If we present the BDS movement in the very extreme way—described to me as “disingenuous” by someone who has messaged me in the course of this debate—it has been presented in this House, we are denying the Palestinians in that sense by banning their only legitimate way of expressing resistance to that occupation.
That is where we need to take a step or two back. We are now on the receiving end of more than 50 years of illegal Israeli occupation of somebody else’s territory. In an egregious way, Israel has occupied and settled that territory with 700,000 Jewish people. The physical result of those settlements is that a two-state solution is now in effect impossible.
There needs to be some serious consideration of the implications of Israeli policy, because it has been deliberate. We sit here parroting our support for a two-state solution, and the only point of difference I have with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) who is now Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is that I am afraid I now do support a one-state solution, because a two-state solution is now impossible.
I hope that hon. Members on the Front Bench will reflect that the people who convinced me of that were the negotiation support unit that the Department for International Development was paying for in 2002 to give the Palestinian negotiators a bit of capacity and heft in conducting negotiations with their Israeli counterparts. Diana Buttu and Michael Tarazi were themselves then in favour of a one-state solution. What is wrong with that as a vision? Indeed, it would mirror the original sense of moral purpose about the state of Israel. It was a great achievement of the 20th century to find a homeland for the Jewish people, who have been on the wrong end of history for hundreds and hundreds of years, particularly the appalling policies towards Jewish people in Europe.
I say to my colleagues: do not try to present the one-state solution as a terrorist answer driving Israelis and Jews into the sea—that is absolute nonsense and of course it will never happen. If we are about trying to create national reconciliation and a path to peace, we need now to start thinking originally. Palestinians are looking over the wall at Israel and, strangely enough, young professional Palestinians want what the Israelis have. I do not think that Israelis in a similar position want to send their children, in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time, to police the occupation.
We see today the terrible events in Jenin, which are a product of the disaster and false horizon that the Oslo process has turned out to be for the Palestinian people. There is desperate anger in occupied parts of Palestine, where everything is being taken away from people, but here we are attacking a movement that tries—although, of course, there are elements of unacceptable rhetoric—to stay within the limits of peaceful resistance to illegal occupation.
It would be thought absolutely astonishing that we are faced with this measure in the British Parliament. We need to think back on our history and the Balfour declaration. There were two parts to that declaration. We have delivered on one of them, but I am afraid that the rights of the people who were living in the territory that is now Israel have been violated in the most profound and fundamental way. We now have to deal with the dispossession that came of the establishment of the state of Israel. We need to deal with the results of this illegal occupation. We in this House are about to take away not only the ability to seek peacefully the means to do that through local authorities, but people’s right to express support for it. This is a very un-Conservative measure and it needs to be rejected at the first opportunity, which is this evening, and that is how I will be voting.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt).
Like many others, I think this is a sordid and grubby little Bill that takes away many of the political freedoms that we have enjoyed for decades in this country. It follows, of course, similar pieces of legislation from the Government over the past few years. They have sought to restrict our freedom to dissent and protest, but this Bill goes further, as others have already remarked upon. For the first time that I can remember, the Bill seeks to criminalise thought as well as deeds. That takes it into a whole new dimension and is reason enough for it to be thrown out by this House tonight.
We live in a dangerous and uncertain world. Humanity faces many challenges, some of them existential in nature. I would argue that this is a time in our public discourse and public life when we need more moral judgments and ethical considerations, not fewer as the Bill tries to suggest. In fact, the Bill does not actually outlaw local authorities and public authorities taking ethical and moral judgments; it simply outlaws them taking ones that the Government disagree with. The Government are trying to tape to themselves not just the legitimacy of being the elected political Administration of the country, but the role of arbiter and mouthpiece for all of civil society. That is quite ridiculous.
As others have said, many people elect their public officials to represent their point of view, and they have a right to do so. If we constrain the ability of the representative, we also constrain the ability of the people. It is in the field of pension policy that this is most ridiculous. Like others, I am, since the age of 60, in receipt of a local government pension. That is because I paid into a savings fund for the years in which I worked in local government. It is my money and that of my fellow pensioners. What right do this Government have to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own money?
The Government have sought to place the question of Israel right at the heart of this legislation and of their argument. It is fundamentally based on a flawed premise: that criticism of the Israeli Government or of Israeli state policies is in itself antisemitic. That is wrong. We in this House should never get ourselves into the position of thinking that we have to choose between defending the human and political rights of Palestinians in the middle east, and fighting antisemitism on the streets of our own country and throughout the world. We can and we must do both.
I had the privilege to attend last week a meeting called by Yachad, a Jewish organisation, in this House. I heard Michael Sfard, a distinguished human rights lawyer from Israel, speak on the situation. He gave a concise picture of what is happening in Israel today and described the actions of the current Israeli Government—the most right-wing, anti-Palestinian Government that Israel has ever had. He described how two projects are under way in that area of the world at the moment: the first is the de jure annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories into the state of Israel, and the second is the changing of constitutional law inside the state of Israel to allow that to happen. That is what has provoked mass demonstrations by the ordinary Israeli public on the streets of Israel, where hundreds of thousands of people are turning up to protest.
That is what has led to a situation in which the current Government of Israel has opinion poll ratings down at 20%. If there were an election today, they would be thrown out of office by a landslide. Yet in the context of what is happening on the streets of the middle east at the moment, and of even the American Administration trying to put distance between themselves and President Netanyahu, what is the policy of the UK Government? Their policy—an outlier in the international community—is to welcome the Israeli Administration with open arms. No one would be more pleased or gain more succour from the passing of such legislation than the current Israeli Administration, and no one would be more crestfallen about its passing than those of progressive liberal opinion inside the state of Israel, who do not want that to happen. The choice that we need to make is whether we will stand with the people of Israel and of Palestine in protecting their human and political rights against a very right-wing anti-Palestinian Administration, or give succour—almost alone in the world in doing so—to that Administration.
I have already run out of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me finish with this. We have to ask ourselves why the Bill comes at this particular time, in the middle of all the crises in the world and the domestic economic crises right here on our own doorstep. Why this piece of legislation at this particular time? I think the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) hit the nail on the head: this is a grubby measure by the governing party to try to embarrass His Majesty’s Opposition for party political advantage. It is sordid, bad politics. It will not help Jewish communities in this country and it will not help to find a solution in the middle east for all the people who live there.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I join the Front-Bench spokespeople in their tributes to the late Lord Kerslake. I will never forget the help and advice that he gave me on delivering the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. It is sadly ironic that the Kerslake commission, on which I was proud to serve, was due to meet tomorrow to approve a long-awaited report, but it has been cancelled because of his sad death.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this long-awaited Bill, in which we take on—let us be clear—the BDS movement directly. This legislation is an endeavour for which I have been campaigning for many years, and I thank him for his tireless work in bringing this policy to fruition. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). I know his views—they are very clear, and he has espoused them on many occasions in the Chamber. He is vocal about them, and he is rightly held in regard, but I am afraid that he is wrong.
The House will be aware that the ability for public bodies to take powers unto themselves that should correctly be reserved for the Government has sown division and discord across our nations. Calls for universities to sever ties with academic partners in Israel have led to a great number of prejudicial motions at our institutions, isolating and alienating Jewish students. The National Union of Students has reported that anti-Israel hatred is plainly linked to the racist treatment of British Jews, corroborating findings from the Community Security Trust, which found that campus antisemitism has hiked by 22% in the past year alone. This brand of student politics should not be permitted at our universities, let alone in our great democratic institutions. This is not news. When I was at university the same things went on—and that was a long time ago.
Speaking of democracy, I shall elaborate on the claim that I have heard in recent days that this Bill somehow harms our commitment to free speech. I believe that it is the proponents of BDS who are pitting one community against another, which results in a chilling effect on honest debate. It is intimidation, marginalisation and incitement to hatred. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), a former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who said in 2021 that
“successive studies have shown the single best statistical predictor of anti-Jewish hostility is the amount of BDS activity”.—[Official Report, 22 February 2022; Vol. 709, c. 213.]
Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Omar Barghouti, founder of the BDS movement, wrote 20 years ago in 2003 that
“the two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israel conflict is finally dead…the more just, moral and therefore enduring alternative...the one-state solution...where, by definition Jews will be a minority”.
The BDS national committee, the directive organ of the BDS movement, has on its board organisations including the Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine, and a coalition of proscribed terrorist groups, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and many others. The council’s leader, Khaled al-Batsh, acts as a senior official for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The council’s general co-ordinator, Mahmoud Nawajaa, has publicly supported the armed wing of Hamas, the terrorist organisation that heinously murdered three British nationals—a mother and her two daughters—in April. Today in Holland, two BDS fundraisers were arrested for securing €5 million to go directly to Hamas.
The propositions set out in the Bill are a safeguard against the rising tide of discrimination and double standards, and will provide the balance crucially needed in our national conversation. The Bill will empower the Government to introduce secondary legislation to enforce a boycott of states committing human rights abuses. In response to colleagues who have cited particular countries, that means that the Government can introduce those measures through secondary legislation. In turn, public bodies will be able legitimately to advance their own trade sanctions in support of the national interest, as determined by the democratically elected Government. Surely, that is welcome. This is precisely what will, I hope, happen shortly in relation to Russia.
The Bill will inevitably generate much debate, but I restate its importance in protecting the Government’s foreign policy interests, the Jewish community and the wellbeing of the many citizens who have grown tired of grandstanding public bodies exploiting the public purse and the money on which they depend. The Government will have my full support on this important matter. I listened carefully to the shadow spokesperson, who gave a very reasonable speech. When the Bill goes into Committee—I hope that it will go into Committee—all these different elements should be examined carefully to make sure that we end up with a Bill which, I hope, can command the support of the overwhelming majority in the House.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
It is genuinely an honour to speak in this debate. There have been some incredible contributions, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for the way in which she recalibrated the tone of the debate. It got off to an appalling start, so I congratulate her on her tone and the way in which she has engaged in discussion of this vexed issue.
This is a difficult Bill. It is one of the most freedom-damaging, human rights-destroying pieces of legislation that I have ever seen. It is badly drafted and ill thought-through. I take issue with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). The concept of trying to correct an appalling Bill that cannot be corrected is not one that I share. That said, the Labour party has tabled a reasoned amendment, which rightly declines to give the Bill a Second Reading, and sets out a compelling case as to why it should be given short shrift. I speak in favour and support of the powerful arguments contained in the amendment.
The Bill will, as we have heard, prevent public bodies from making decisions to procure goods or services, or invest or divest according to their own ethical framework. Local authorities have long played an important role in the protection and promotion of human rights overseas, for example, in opposing the apartheid regime in South Africa, as Members have mentioned. The Bill will make the Westminster Government the ultimate arbiter of what is acceptable. As the reasoned amendment sets out, the Bill is a clear and obvious fetter on the principle of devolution and on freedom of speech. By hamstringing the due diligence that public bodies carry out, it will entirely disregard the European convention on human rights.
The Bill will be a disaster for the environment and the drive to net zero, by withdrawing the freedom of public bodies to boycott countries that pollute our environment. As for Palestine, which has been the subject of a lot of attention in this debate, the legal opinion of Richard Hermer KC, commissioned by Labour Front Benchers, states that
“legislation prohibiting local authorities from taking steps to promote Palestinian self-determination within the OPT, taken with the terms of the exclusion in Clause 3(7), would likely place the United Kingdom in breach of international law obligations.”
Labour’s amendment points to the way in which that clause conflates the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan heights with the state of Israel, undermining the UK’s long-standing cross-party position, and running contrary to UN Security Council resolutions, specifically resolution 2334.
By singling out the territories under Israel’s control in this legislation, the UK will give licence to the continuation of the terrible events that unfolded in Jenin today, without an appropriate, legitimate and peaceful response. No other people should be put in the position of the Palestinians. At this very moment, we are seeing the images from Jenin, where a massive number of Israeli occupation forces are committing what the Palestinian president has called a “war crime” as they storm the city and refugee camp. They have killed at least nine Palestinians, including three children, and injured countless innocent civilians. Over 180 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since the beginning of 2023—about one a day. At least 34 of those have been children. The destruction of schools, homes and lives is being carried out with total impunity.
How many times have we heard warm and ineffective words from Ministers at the Dispatch Box? One wonders how such an attitude and policy would have played out in respect of South Africa. The Tory Government of the day deemed the South African apartheid regime legal, and Nelson Mandela a terrorist. If that policy had succeeded, he would have been left to rot in jail. What has happened to any sense of a moral compass in our country? Have we forgotten the lessons of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa?
The Bill would make it an offence for someone from a public body to say that, if not for the legislative ban contained in the Bill, they would have chosen to pursue some form of sanction. That has been rightly called a “Minority Report” provision and I know it worries many Members across this House. The Bill is wholly incoherent, given how we have rightly imposed sanctions on Russia following its illegal invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory. The Bill is simply wrong—an offence against human decency and international law. I will be exercising one of my human rights, the freedom of expression and of conscience, by voting consistently against it at every stage. It is unworthy of this House and I have no doubt that history will judge it so. I urge Members to support the reasoned amendment, but to reject the Bill in its entirety.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews. I am privileged to represent a very diverse constituency with a large and established Jewish population, and indeed many people from every possible religious background. It is great to see that, on the whole, those different communities get on extremely well, but this legislation is necessary for the reasons that many Members have outlined.
As the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, the long-standing BDS campaign creates a situation where the state of Israel, and Jewish people here in the UK and elsewhere, are singled out for criticism and discrimination. However, like my neighbour and hon. Friend, the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), I will be voting for the legislation, having noted a number of areas in which improvement is required, which I hope we will be able to address in Committee. I will take each in turn. First, I urge Front-Bench colleagues to give serious consideration to entirely dropping clause 4(1)(b), which has raised a number of concerns among Members. In the context of local government, especially in respect of pensions committees, a significant population of councillors are decision makers for the purposes of the legislation and, as an increasing number of local authorities—especially small ones—move to the committee system, the constituency of members who would be considered decision makers for the purposes of the legislation gets larger and larger.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) will probably remember the late councillor Ray Davies: everywhere you turned, you would find him protesting against something or chaining himself to railings about something else. We can imagine a situation in which a back-bench member of a local authority called to attend a pensions investment committee as a substitute member expresses the view that their preference would be to not make a particular decision because of concerns about the behaviour of a particular Government, and finds themselves in breach of the law as a result. That would seem to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. We should ensure that those who disagree with a policy are able to express that view while still making a decision that is within the law, as outlined in clause 4(1)(a).
The second piece of important context goes to the point that was raised by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge): we should give our local government colleagues a degree of respect for their common sense in this matter. At the Local Government Association, it was my privilege to do some work on exactly this issue, working with the Local Government Friends of Israel—a very good organisation. Through that process, we identified that, at the time, at most two or three councils had passed BDS motions. We should accord respect to our local government colleagues by removing clause 4(1)(b), recognising that, on the whole, they have been wise and sensible in exercising their powers.
The next issue is the way in which these powers are exercised in respect of contractors and subcontractors. On, for example, an investment committee or a procurement committee charged with making decisions to place contracts, elected members may not necessarily be aware of the decisions and policies of the bodies with which they are contracting. It is not unusual for a local government pension committee to have 15 to 20 investments at any one given time. Given that those private companies may themselves be under similar pressure to exercise BDS views, what is not always going to be transparent to those elected members is how those things are taking effect in practice. We need to ensure that, in bringing in what is intended to be about decision makers in public bodies, we are not losing our desired intention to ensure that BDS is not present in the public sector by ensuring that those bodies that are contracting or subcontracting are also within sight.
Again on my concern in respect of how these decisions will affect elected members in local authorities, the legislation envisages that it will apply where matters are in line with, or outside of, the policy of the Government. Paragraph 9 of the explanatory notes sets out the example of where a specific legislative provision was introduced in respect of sanctions against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine. It is my view that when this legislation passes we need to be completely clear what we mean when we talk about the policy of the Government. Do we mean as expressed in legislation? Do we mean as expressed by the Minister at the Dispatch Box? What is it that we mean when we talk about the policy of the Government? Is it a policy of different Government Departments? We need to make sure, given that it would be a breach of the law to express opposition to it, that the position from which the policy of the Government is drawn is absolutely clear.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), with his very pleasant reference to the late Ray Davies, who was a wonderful campaigner all his life.
A truly appalling piece of legislation has been put before us. It fits into the bigger picture of anti-democratic legislation that this Government have put forward that reduces the rights of free speech and assembly, over-empowers the police, restricts trade unions and tries to criminalise people who seek a place of safety and asylum on our shores. We have to put it in that context; it is yet another attack on the civil liberties of people in this country.
Over 70 organisations have expressed deep misgivings and opposition to the Bill. Muslim organisations, Jewish organisations, trade unions, human rights organisations, libertarian organisations, religious groups and many others have said that the Bill is wrong and that it will damage the civil liberties of everyone in this country. It gives massive power to the Secretary of State effectively to decide what local authorities can say, think or do. If a local authority, for example, decided it wanted to speak up about human rights in a country when a significant number of people from that country were living in its community—for example, there is a very large Somali community in my constituency—would my local authority not be allowed to say anything about Somalia under the Bill? It would have to seek the permission of the Secretary of State before it could do anything, and so it goes on; there are so many other examples.
Having been in this House since the 1980s, I sat through many debates about South Africa. There were many Members over there on the Government Benches—many—who supported the apartheid regime. They openly supported the apartheid regime, called Mandela a terrorist and asked for the banning of the African National Congress in this country. The ANC had its offices in my borough, and the South West Africa People’s Organisation, which led to the liberation of Namibia, had its offices in my constituency. There were calls to ban them and, when local authorities such as Sheffield led the way on local authority action and opposition to apartheid, they faced sanctions from the Government. Why were they so concerned about it, other than to prevent any effective, peaceful show of loyalty and support to the people of South Africa who were facing the horrors of the apartheid regime?
Under this legislation, what we did over South Africa would be impossible or illegal, so we would end up suspending councillors, prosecuting local authorities and surcharging councillors. I am not sure where it would lead. Some of us supported the people of Chile after General Pinochet seized power, and called for a boycott of Chilean goods and a non-investment policy in Chile; again, that would be illegal. On a different basis, some of us called for a boycott of Californian grapes when Californian grape pickers were facing oppression from police forces in California; again, that would be illegal. All the issues around the world that we are faced with, such as Indonesia’s behaviour in West Papua, the failure of Morocco to allow a referendum on the future of Western Sahara, Saudi Arabia and its war against Yemen—any expression of that would be banned by the Bill. A terrifying Bill has been put forward here today.
Most of the Bill has been framed around Palestine and Israel. Many groups in Israel are frightened by the Bill and what goes with it and also believe that there should be justice for the people of Palestine. I spent Saturday evening talking to Mustafa Barghouti of the Palestinian National Initiative, who believes in non-violent resistance to the occupation. He pointed out to me—I noted the figures down as he was talking—that, at the moment on the west bank, there are 150 settlements, 70 more settlements are being planned or actually built at present, more than 400,000 Israeli people have been moved into those settlements and it is impossible for Palestinian people to move around their own area of land. The idea that the products made on those settlements that are sold outside should be seen as legitimate products—they are illegal within terms of international law and within terms of EU law. So I just ask that we understand the importance of the right of protest.
Today in Jenin, as an example of the occupation, 14,000 people are in a refugee camp that is less than 0.4 square kilometres—14,000 people in less than half a square kilometre of land. Israel Defense Forces says that it is not targeting civilians. It is impossible to use any kind of weaponry against the population there without targeting civilians. More have died. More bitterness, more hatred and more problems come down the road. Those people all around the world who want to support the Palestinian people are not antisemitic. They are not anti-Israeli groups, but what they do want is justice for the Palestinian people. That surely would be a much better and stronger message to send out from this House today, rather than the attempt to close down free speech in this country.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Three decades ago, Margaret Thatcher said that the ANC was a “typical terrorist organisation”, adding
“Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land”.
History proved her wrong on that, but that history was shaped by the determined efforts of people worldwide, including millions in this country and many local governments, to boycott South Africa. The lesson is clear: Governments are not always right; Governments do not always make moral decisions; Governments do not always act in line with the wishes of the population, but through the democratic process, millions of people can effect change. This Bill ignores that lesson. It shuts down the freedom of people to exercise a key democratic right. It is just another example of this Government’s anti-democratic crackdown, with restrictions on the right to vote, the right to protest and the right to strike.
Labour’s reasoned amendment, which declines to give the Bill a Second Reading and which I will be supporting, makes the case clearly about the many deep flaws in the Bill, as did the shadow Secretary of State in her response. In summary, the Bill is a huge attack on the concept of ethical investment and procurement by preventing public bodies from being influenced by “political or moral disapproval” of the actions of any foreign state. The Government claim that boycott and divestment will still be possible, but just not where it
“relates specifically or mainly to a particular foreign territory”.
That simply does not wash.
Almost all cases of companies engaging in human, labour or environmental abuses have a territorial element. If we are talking about divesting in companies that cut down the rainforest, for example, that activity will obviously take place in areas with rainforests, and certain countries would be targeted by campaigns. This Bill even bans public bodies from saying they would support such boycotts were it legal to do so. It is a gagging Bill that breaches freedom of speech and would prevent a local councillor in hustings debates or other public forums from giving their political view.
This Bill also has chilling elements in how it will be enforced, including potentially huge fines and far-reaching information compliance notices. The aim is clear: to put so much fear into public bodies of ending up in court that they do not just act within the law, but go beyond it in an effort to reduce that risk. As legal advice provided to the Labour party makes clear, this Bill would be likely to place the UK
“in breach of international law obligations”
and
“effectively equates the Occupied Palestinian Territories with Israel itself and is very difficult to reconcile with the long-standing position of the United Kingdom which supports a ‘two-state solution’ based on ‘1967 lines’ in which the security and right to self-determination of both Israelis and Palestinians are protected.”
I am afraid that I do not have any faith in the exemptions listed in the Bill at schedule 3. Just as apartheid was legal in South Africa, much environmental destruction takes place entirely legally. The very fact that something is illegal is often the rationale for a boycott and divestments campaign in the first place. Many people in the discussion today and around this Bill have mentioned boycotts—not just those relating to illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, where we have seen terrible scenes today in Jenin, but arms boycotts against Saudi Arabia over its war crimes in Yemen, boycotts in Colombia over its past treatment of trade unionists, and commercial boycotts of goods relating to the treatment of the Uyghurs in China or the Rohingya in Myanmar. It is not for us to decide which countries people are allowed to boycott—that is a huge curtailment of basic freedom. We need to maintain the democratic rights of people to challenge Government policy through boycotts and divestment, if that is their wish.
To conclude, the Bill has faced widespread civil society opposition, including from the Quakers and the Methodists, the Muslim Association of Britain, Friends of the Earth, the Union of Jewish Students, the TUC, Unite the union, Unison and the directors of 14 Israeli civil society and human rights organisations, as well as Human Rights Watch, Liberty and Amnesty, whose own legal ruling suggests that the Bill would be illegal. Not all those groups support boycotts, but they do support the right for people to boycott. That is what we are voting on today. We cannot allow the Government to scrap this cherished democratic right.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Reference has been made to Bob Kerslake consistently throughout today. Bob and I were friends. I go back longer than most, because I go back to 1981, when I was a young man and a GLC councillor and Bob was a young man and a GLC officer. I fully concur with all the tributes that have been paid, but I also want to say that he was a good man. He was a very good person and a good friend, and we will miss him.
Let me come on to this debate. I do not want to repeat some of the arguments, but I want to get on record for my constituents why I am voting the way I am this evening. I will vote in solidarity with the amendment, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on her speech, but I will also be voting against the Bill, because I cannot do anything else.
The debate has largely focused on the specific BDS movement and Israel. Just to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), I want to talk about the right to boycott, to disinvest and to sanction as an issue. At the weekend I drafted an article, because I wanted to get clear in my own mind the whole issue around boycotts and the past history of the boycott, disinvestment and sanctions movement. To be frank, virtually all of my life I have been involved in some boycott, disinvestment or sanctions campaign, so it was almost like a flashback. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I was outside the South African embassy when the City of London anti-apartheid group was on a 24-hour permanent picket.
John McDonnell
He was arrested; I was not. I was there on Christmas day simply singing carols.
John McDonnell
I got off lightly. All we were singing for was the release of Nelson Mandela.
For the other one, I plead guilty. I was one of the organisers of the demonstrations over a decade ago against the royal visit of the Saudi leaders. We were calling for no public contracts to be awarded to companies operating in Saudi Arabia, because at that time they were beheading gay people for being gay. That was later focused on military support from this country for the Saudi attacks on Yemen. The list of BDS campaigns that I have supported goes on and on. I campaigned against the Bahraini regime and its ongoing brutal repression of the country’s democratic movement, and the continued imprisonment of opposition political leaders. We have met some of them over the years, and they are still inside.
I have campaigned against the Sri Lankan Administration owing to their genocidal attack on the Tamils, with their continued abuse of human rights, their use of torture, the disappearances, and the colonisations of Tamil homelands. Again, I have lost constituents who have been disappeared when they have gone out there. I campaigned for sanctions against the military junta in Myanmar to halt the attacks on the Rohingyas and to demand the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi.
Yes, I have supported the boycott of goods coming from the Palestinian territories occupied illegally by Israel. The campaign in my constituency was undertaken by young people when the bombings in Gaza were killing young people there. In solidarity, young people in my constituency went round the local shops asking them to check where their goods were coming from and urging them not to sell goods from the occupied territories.
There has been some reference to BDS campaigns being associated with antisemitism. That is not what I have witnessed in my constituency, but if there is evidence that individuals associated with these campaigns are antisemitic, we already have laws to deal with that, and I believe that the full force of the law against racist behaviour should therefore be deployed.
More recently, I have called for sanctions against the Chinese Government for the barbaric treatment of the Uyghurs, and also because they have imprisoned a group of my Unite trade union friends who worked with me on the British Airways campaigns. All they were demanding was adherence to democracy by the Chinese, and they have been inside for two and a half years, without any form of access to their families in many instances.
The common factor in all those campaigns is that they would not have been supported by Government policy. Therefore, they would have been rendered illegal in their demand for action by public authorities to boycott, disinvest and sanction. I agree with the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) that there needs to be clarity about who is making foreign policy and what is being referred to, because actually the Bill makes the Secretary of State ex cathedra—infallible—and puts at his whim decisions about what is right and what is wrong across the globe, when Governments in this country have consistently got it significantly wrong. They have certainly not backed such campaigns and would have outlawed them overall.
All those campaigns have focused on pressing for action from Government, local councils, pension funds, private companies and investors. It is interesting that a few hon. Members have mentioned the focus on the local government pension fund. I declare an interest as a member of the local government pension fund, and I think it is up to members of the fund to determine its investment policies. I must say, as a constituency MP, that the campaigns have reflected the diversity of my constituency. There is not a campaign that has not involved a constituent or group of constituents or has not been asked for by my constituents. It is a matter of standing in solidarity.
The advice of every human rights lawyer I have spoken to so far, and all the briefings from human rights groups and trade unionists, have all made it clear that that range of activities will be outlawed and it will be made illegal for decision makers even to talk about the strategy. That is why I oppose the Bill. I am voting against it because we have heard today, right across the House, that not a single clause has stood up to scrutiny. Therefore, I do not believe it can be amended; it is fundamentally flawed and should be defeated.
Let me make one final point, as an aside. We should change the Standing Orders or look at “Erskine May”, because it would have been useful if the Secretary of State coming here to present the Bill had actually read it or addressed the same Bill that we are addressing in this debate. All we saw today was a diatribe of the lowest politics we have seen for a long time, which divides our community unnecessarily and, to be frank, appallingly.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Let me be absolutely clear that the Bill before this House, which should be rejected, is not just bad and unworkable but fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Hon. Members across the House have rightly stated that it does not just prevent public bodies such as local councils involving themselves in foreign policy—as the Government innocently declare—but meddles in the autonomy of local government pension schemes to make the best investment decisions, and swings a wrecking ball through the UK’s obligation to respect international law and countless United Nations resolutions.
The Bill undermines the ability of public bodies and civic society to divest from those who are harming our environment and driving climate change. It provides the Government with unprecedented and deeply alarming powers of enforcement that curtail freedom of expression and democracy by gagging public bodies that have the audacity to speak and act on their conscience. It forces public bodies and civic society to kneel, against their own moral convictions, to the Secretary of State’s foreign policy.
Most alarmingly, by preventing public bodies from adopting positions that deviate from this Government’s foreign policy of turning a blind eye to persecution, oppression and injustice in other countries, the Bill quashes the ability of those individuals, public bodies and members of civic society with any sense of humanity to take a stand against human rights abuses, at a time of rapid increase in those abuses right across the world.
Each of those reasons alone is enough to bin the Bill but, taken together, they make it not only one of the most far-reaching and dangerous pieces of legislation this Government have ever sought to make law, but one of the most repressive. That is why it must be struck down today.
As pointed out by hon. Members across the House, the Bill directly contradicts decades of established UK foreign policy on illegal Israeli settlements built on occupied land. It is astounding that it has to be repeated in this Chamber time and again that settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. Why does the Bill not recognise that international position?
Instead of introducing legislation to Parliament that provides cover to the Netanyahu Government’s illegal annexation of Palestinian territory, Ministers must decide whether they agree with the established position of the rest of the international community that the settlements and the Israeli Government’s repeated disregard for international law are illegal. As hon. Members have stated, the Bill as it currently stands is in direct contravention of not just international law but United Nations resolutions.
Many of us fear the anti-democratic precedent the Bill will set. Effectively, if a human rights campaign does not enjoy the support of the Government, it will be criminalised for attempting to bring abuses to light. The Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the Rohingya in Burma, the Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir—members of those communities, many of whom are resident in my constituency, have now had their fear doubled. Not only are they witnessing numerous human rights abuses in their countries of origin, they are now being silenced here, too. Indeed, until just recently the UK Government refused to approve sanctions against the Burmese military despite the horrific genocidal campaign it waged against the Rohingya, with Ministers declaring that they did not want to unbalance what existed of Burma’s democratic Government. Instead, it was left to other organisations and groups to lead the resistance against a genocide taking place while the UK Government looked on. The Government are in a better place on that issue today, but we are still left with the question of what happens if there is a return to the same form of democratic Government in Burma that existed before and which allowed the Rohingya genocide to take place. It is clear that Ministers will lift sanctions and force local authorities to do the same through the Bill, leaving the perpetrators of genocide able to escape justice and accountability for their grave crimes against humanity.
The impact the Bill will have on human rights in Indian-occupied Kashmir, where Kashmiris continue to face persecution, oppression and injustice is even more alarming, because it is in this region that UK foreign policy under this Tory Government is not only most unreliable but most spineless. Even as the Indian Government blatantly engage in violent, physical and psychological suppression of any resistance to the military occupation, however peaceful it may be, and seek to deter further opposition to their brutal rule by making an example of campaigners such as Yasin Malik, whose execution Indian prosecutors are now seeking, all the UK Government remain focused on is securing a trade deal with the right-wing Modi Government before the next general election. They could not even bring themselves to object to and boycott, as other countries did, the shameful decision to hold the G20 culture working group summit last month in Srinagar. In the absence of the UK Government stepping up to fulfil their historic, moral and international obligations to the region, it is once again left to local councils and public bodies to do what they can to protect human rights in Indian-occupied Kashmir by refusing to engage with those whose hands are stained with the blood of Kashmiris. Yet under the Bill the Government will put a stop to that and force public bodies to be party to human rights abuses because they think it is in the UK’s best foreign policy interests.
This rotten, unworkable and dangerous Bill is an alarming overreach of Government powers that breaks the UK’s international obligations and undermines efforts to protect our environment and fight climate change. It protects human rights abusers in countless nations and gags democratically elected local representatives. We cannot pick and choose which human rights abuses to act on and which to turn a blind eye to. Let me be clear: human rights are a universal obligation and a universal right. It is time the UK Government accepted that. I will therefore be standing up, as I always have done, for democracy, for our environment and for human rights by voting for today’s amendment that will reject the Bill.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
On first reading the Bill, memories of my childhood came flooding back, when my family and I were very heavily involved in the South Africa anti-apartheid movement in Wales. That campaign deployed a range of campaign methods, including boycott, divestment and sanctions, and lobbying local councils to divest and use sanctions against South Africa. We campaigned and succeeded in stopping a local choir from touring South Africa, as well as boycotting goods. That was some of my formative political campaigning. It was legitimate, proportionate and all about challenging racism. It informs me on why I must oppose the Bill in its entirety.
This Bill is the latest example of the shrinking space for freedom of expression in the UK, following the passage of the Elections Act 2022, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023, and the continued progress of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill. Today’s Bill is an attack on democracy and rides roughshod over democratically elected representatives at a local, regional and devolved level. It is the epitome of cancel culture that the right-wing culture warriors on the Conservative Benches complain about so bitterly. It really does, as others have said, contain a direct threat to freedom of speech by barring public authorities from taking action and, indeed, from even making statements of policy.
The Bill will assist the suppression of campaigns for justice and accountability across the globe on issues as wide ranging as pollution, the environment, exploitation of children and women, and fossil fuel divestment—the list goes on. I and others who have spoken out against this Bill are not alone in opposing it. A wide range of human rights organisations, lawyers, trade unions, charities, non-governmental organisations, faith groups, climate justice groups and cultural organisations share our concerns. And all of those would rightly reject the use of boycott tactics being used to stoke racism or antisemitism.
The Bill, as has been said, undermines elected local councils and regional Mayors by not allowing them to make decisions that they have been democratically elected to make. It also clearly and definitely undermines the devolved settlement. What consultation has been carried out with the Welsh Government and the other devolved nations? How will the Bill impact on the devolved nations’ procurement policies, which are currently being pursued and are ethical and have human rights considerations at their heart?
It has already been highlighted how this Bill, while giving the Government broad-brush powers to prevent criticism of any state Government, uniquely privileges Israel. That is despite its repeated and escalating human rights abuses in the west bank and Gaza, and, as we are witnessing today, the horrific and heartbreaking events in Jenin. Despite assertions that foreign policy is unchanged, for the first time a piece of British legislation will require Israel and the territories it illegally occupies to be treated in the same way, departing from decades of international consensus on the illegality of settlements.
There is a proud record of the use of boycotts in progressive struggles—from the sugar boycotts of slavery abolitionists in the 18th and 19th centuries, to the anti-apartheid boycotts of South Africa, divestment from fossil fuel companies and action against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Boycotts have been used legitimately, proportionately and often successfully to peacefully put political, economic or cultural pressure on a regime, institution or company to force it to change abusive, discriminatory or illegal policies. They have historically been anti-racist campaigns, and I believe that they must and will continue in the future.
I want to finish with a quote from Nelson Mandela, who came to Cardiff in 1998:
“When the call for international isolation of the forces of apartheid went out to the world, the people of Wales responded magnificently. The knowledge that local authorities all over Wales were banning apartheid products from canteens and schools…was a great inspiration to us in our struggle.”
I believe that he too would have said that those opposing this Bill in its entirety are on the right side of history. That is why I support the Labour Front-Bench position to decline a Second Reading, and as a matter of conscience I must oppose the Bill in its entirety. Diolch yn fawr.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It has been a joy to hear the different opinions expressed in the Chamber today, both from those in favour of the Bill and from those against it. I have to say to my good friends, as I call them, sitting near me in the Chamber that my opinion differs from theirs, but that will not be a big surprise to them.
I am a well-known friend of Israel, and I make no apology for registering my interest and my support. Having said that, I know that it will—again—come as no surprise to any Member that I support the Bill, and, indeed, I said as much to the Secretary of State in an intervention earlier. The anti-Israel sentiment that flourishes in the absence of legislation must be addressed. I know that some Members who are present believe that the principle of boycotting has been used effectively for years, recalling the boycott of German goods, and I know of many a person who has boycotted a company in opposition to a decision or policy in that company. However, it is not the job of universities or other Government-funded bodies to make the decision to boycott for a political reason without an outright decision in this place, which is why the Bill is before us tonight. While some may also believe that only a principle is being debated today, the fact is that there is an active boycott against Israel in some political circles, and it does have an effect.
Let me give some examples from Northern Ireland. In 2014, the Sinn Féin mayor of what was then Newry and Mourne Council wrote to shopkeepers in the council district requiring them to inform him about all the Israeli goods that they stocked. In his capacity as mayor, he told local businesses in Newry that unless they immediately withdrew Israeli goods from sale, they were giving
“financial support, succour and legitimacy”
to “apartheid” and racism. Well, no, they were not. Those receiving the letter from the mayor—local shopkeepers and business people—understandably felt targeted, and some said that the letter struck them as deeply sinister, intimidating and extremely divisive.
This boycott is clearly racially motivated, which is underlined by debates taking place on the Israel issue. In a Belfast City Council debate on Israel in 2019, Israel was presented by nationalist and Marxist councillors as a unique evil in the world, requiring unique measures to be taken against it. People Before Profit councillors referred to Israel’s establishment and existence as a racist endeavour. Well, no, it is not, but they said that it was. The reality of any conflict in the middle east was denied; it was only their perceived Jewish oppression of Arabs. Concerns expressed about growing antisemitism were shamelessly deflected and ridiculed; it was just a deliberate tactic to silence criticism of Israel. It was suggested by some councillors that only Jews who held anti-Zionist positions deserved the council’s solidarity, a view that is perpetuated by the boycott of Israeli goods on a global scale in which this nation has been a silent partner for so long. That is why the Bill is so important.
Let me be clear: Israel’s existence and survival are vital to many in our Jewish community as a matter of their core identity, religious faith, family connections and sense of physical safety and security. Criticism of an Israeli Government or policy is one thing; demonisation of Israel as a unique evil, along with demands for the Jewish state’s elimination from the face of the earth, is quite another. Demonisation, boycotts and expulsions directed against the world’s only Jewish state do not sit well with me or with my colleagues, and, indeed, should not sit well with any member of this House. Local authorities in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, should be working hard to support diversity and good relations, not isolating and undermining one of our smallest and much-cherished communities.
Recently, a media outlet in Northern Ireland published a letter from a self-styled interfaith group identifying the leadership of Ireland’s tiny Jewish community with genocide and apartheid in the middle east. Well, no, they do not do that. The letter called on the 80 Jews in Belfast to support their “moderate” aim of bringing down the Zionist regime. To put it starkly, this is where the so-called BDS campaign will lead if it is never properly called out and challenged: it will lead to the targeting and isolation of not just the Jewish state, but those of us—and I am one—who consider ourselves friends of Israel, including many members of our Jewish community.
Let me give some more examples in the last couple of minutes available to me. Family businesses in Northern Ireland, such as Wilson’s Country Ltd, were subjected to a vicious attack on social media because they stocked Israeli new potatoes. An Israeli-owned stall at CastleCourt in Belfast was regularly physically attacked, and its staff intimidated. Some of these attacks were so serious that they led to custodial sentences. The stall was forced to close and has never returned.
Staff at the Linen Hall library in Belfast complained of online bullying after it hosted an event celebrating the centenary of Chaim Herzog’s birth in Belfast. Library staff were harangued.
During the conflict in the middle east, Belfast’s synagogue had its windows smashed and the community’s rabbi received threats and needed escorts to and from the synagogue. The community has frequently been targeted by online abuse.
A County Tyrone sports personality with an online following tweeted, “If you’re lucky enough to know a Jew, punch him in the face.” The PSNI is investigating. Pubgoers in the Bogside were recorded by an undercover Israeli reporter telling him, “Jews are the scum of the earth. Hitler didn’t kill enough of them.” The PSNI is investigating.
There were calls to cancel a friendly football match between Northern Ireland and Israel. The Israeli national team is more diverse than any other team in the world, because it includes Jews, Muslims and Christians. Again, the line of abuse is incredible.
My last example is from 2016, when Derry City and Strabane District Council claimed to be the first local authority in Northern Ireland to pass a motion boycotting Israeli goods. In 2018, the same council voted that to have a Friends of Israel representative speak to the council to put their side of the case would be a disgrace to the city. It did not want to hear the other side of the argument. The voice of freedom and free speech was not heard.
I will not be siding with the threat of expulsions, boycotts and isolation. I therefore welcome this Bill, which will prevent our local authorities from being abused in this extreme and divisive manner. We in Northern Ireland have seen more of that than most.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to close this challenging but important debate on behalf of the Opposition. The debate has covered Britain’s place in the world, freedom of speech, human rights, genocide and a whole range of other important topics.
At the heart of the debate lies a central question: does the Bill balance legitimate, strongly held and well-meant desires to challenge behaviours overseas on principled grounds against important protections for particular nations or regions in the face of disproportionate treatment? I am afraid the answer is no.
We believe there should be legislation to frame boycott and divestment-type activities—legislation that allows communities to decide where their money goes—in response to human rights or genocide concern, while ensuring such decisions are made equitably and consistently so that the world’s only Jewish state, for example, is not singled out and targeted. This is consistent with our long-held stance against the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel.
Colleagues can have confidence that we believe in such framing legislation, because the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and I tabled such amendments to the Procurement Bill in Committee, some months ago, and on Report. The amendments were rejected by the Government, but the Bill tabled in their stead, the Bill before us, is considerably worse than the option we offered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) called the Bill a “dog’s dinner.” He is generally not a man to disappoint, but his sentiment was one of disappointment, which was echoed in the remarkable contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who spoke of the frustration of those, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who want to see legislation that the House can unite behind. We do not have that currently.
There has been a range of other excellent contributions. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), referenced clause 3(7), as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond). This subsection breaks the distinction between the state of Israel and the occupied territories, which is a significant change in Government policy, and it asks significant questions about our compliance with UN resolutions. The Minister must account for that change of policy and assuage some of those concerns in her summing up.
The right hon. Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) and for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said that foreign policy matters of this nature are not for local decision makers. Well, we do not think that is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) made a very strong argument about how it has worked and been effective in his community in the past. In a bolder argument, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) rightly said that it is our communities’ money. I, like many colleagues, am a member of the local government pension scheme—that is our money; and I am a council tax payer—that is our money. It is not unreasonable that we might want to have a say in how it is spent.
Nadia Whittome
This Bill is anti-democratic and anti-human rights. It frustrates peace efforts in the middle east and it is an obstacle to social justice everywhere. As such, it has been condemned by a huge range of civil society organisations, including trade unions, charities and faith organisations. Does my hon. Friend agree with them and with me that for those reasons the Bill must not receive a Second Reading?
Alex Norris
Yes, I think that what has been striking is that colleagues who come at this from very different places and parties have reached that conclusion of the inadequacy of this legislation. I hope the Government will reflect on that. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) asked what our alternative was. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made a powerful contribution, but I slightly challenge his suggestion that we were saying that we should rip this up in an unspecified way. That is not the point we are making. We are saying that we tabled an amendment to the Procurement Bill that we think is better. If the Government think it is technically inadequate, we would be happy to work with them to improve it. What we do know is that it is much better than what is before us today.
My hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) made important points about what this Bill does to the devolved regional and national settlements—it challenges and presses them greatly. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made powerful anti-BDS cases. I hope the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and I have taken on that assuages some concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford is my friend and we should always be honest with our friends, so let me say that he has done peerless work in this place on tackling the persecution of Christians abroad and he should have real concerns about how this legislation would fetter such activities in the future.
I will cover some more of the contributions as I get through the rest of my points, but certain concerns must be addressed by the Minister in her closing remarks. First, which of the two possible readings of clause 1 do the Government intend? Does the “territorial consideration” provision mean that not wishing to procure from Xinjiang is unacceptable but that not wishing to procure from the entire nation of China would be acceptable? Or does it mean that all actions of all foreign Governments are beyond the scope of local decision makers? How, at this stage, can it be satisfactory that there is ambiguity? As we have heard, this is legislation that will head straight to the courts. Secondly, to accept clause 3 is to exalt the Secretary of State ahead of any other public representative, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. It is to set aside the mandates of the Mayor of the West Midlands, the Mayor of Greater Manchester or of the leaders of councils in favour of the Secretary of State. It is to give that person, whoever they may be, sole arbitration of human rights abuses, of genocide. That should give all of us pause, but it is worsened by clause 4, the gagging clause, which my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
We heard a powerful and compelling contribution from my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, about pernicious political thinking behind this Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that that has happened multiple times? We are talking about a smackdown on democracy. We had the so-called “gagging Bill”, which was about gagging charities and became the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014; in 2016, we had the wrapping up of trade unions in even more red tape; and, recently, we have had more attacks on trade unions and the right to protest. Are the Government not crushing dissent on the part of any organisation or body that wants to challenge them?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend almost reads to the end of my paragraph, so I will address that point presently. The point on gagging clauses was also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East and for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), and the hon. Members for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). The Bill means that not only does the judgment of the Secretary of State supersede any and all local leaders, but the Government seek to ensure that those leaders are not even allowed to talk about their desire to challenge human rights abuses or not to consume settlement goods. The Government are taking away not only the right to act, but the ability to speak. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) says, that is consistent with a legislative programme designed to whittle away at the civic space, with the Trade Union Act 2016, the 2014 Act, the Public Order Act 2023 and more. What we have in front of us is an unacceptable fetter on free expression.
Separately, but no less importantly, the Bill will, as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, have consequences for billions of pounds in local government pension funds. Any hard deadline that is imposed on them to change their operations in accordance with new law could be deeply destabilising, and the Minister ought to talk about how much she has looked into that impact. We know that at the moment a pension fund makes a divestment decision on a financial ground that relates to territories named in the Bill, that decision will be challenged in the court as a moral judgment. That will bind up our pension funds in court case after court case.
Let me turn to an issue that has had little airing in the debate so far and will have a lot more to run. Through clause 7, the Bill permits extraordinary powers to compel information—powers that demolish long-held legal privileges. It is not proportionate to hand to the Secretary of State even stronger powers to compel information from public bodies than the security services have. Surely the Government see the unsustainability of that position. As detailed by Labour and other colleagues, these are weighty concerns that make the Bill unacceptable in its current form.
But there is an alternative, as covered in our reasoned amendment. Our country has a proud history in the development of modern international humanitarian law, from the ashes of world war two to the creation of the United Nations and the role that we continue to play on the world stage. We have always defended the fundamental and inalienable rights of all human beings. It is vital that procurement decisions made in respect of such rights are then applied across the board to prevent unethical actions against specific states and to ensure that common actions have the greatest impact. That could be readily achieved by requiring public bodies to produce a document that sets out their policy on procurement and human rights, and for that to be developed in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. That would ensure consistency in how contracting authorities decide on such matters.
What would that suggestion mean in practice? The practical effect would be to make it clear and unambiguous that if a public body does not wish to procure goods from Russia because of President Putin’s abhorrent human rights abuses in Ukraine, the law will be on its side. If that same body does not wish to procure services from Xinjiang because of the appalling treatment of Uyghur Muslims, the law will be on its side. But if a public body acts only against a particular state—let us say the world’s only Jewish state—while turning a blind eye to human rights abuses elsewhere, such actions would be illegal. We offer this workable solution to the Government and I hope the Minister picks it up. If colleagues do not hear that in the Minister’s response, I encourage them to vote in favour of the reasoned amendment tabled in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
I thank Members from throughout the House for their impassioned and heartfelt contributions. Let me remind the House why we have introduced this legislation: we believe that we should have one foreign policy, and we also believe that BDS campaigns risk undermining community cohesion. We believe that public bodies should not be wasting time and money on pursuing their own foreign policy agendas and should instead focus on providing vital public services and delivering value for money for the taxpayer in their procurement and investment decisions.
Let me also clarify certain misapprehensions that certain Members have about the Bill. First, the Bill applies only to public authorities. It does not apply to private individuals or private companies, except if they are exercising public functions. It does not place restrictions on local councillors, except when they talk expressly on the behalf of their local authority. It does not prevent public authorities from making statements on foreign policy; it prevents them only from making a procurement or investment decision if it is motivated by moral or political disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct.
Many Members have mentioned clause 4. I reassure Members that clause 4 only prevents public authorities from making statements of intent to boycott or divest. It does not prevent public bodies from disagreeing with this legislation. The Bill does not ban ethical, religious or socially conscious funds, so, for instance, climate change funds can continue with the Bill unless there are issues that are country-specific.
A number of Members mentioned clause 3(7). I want to clarify the role of the clause. The Bill applies equally to all countries. Countries can be exempted from the ban by secondary legislation, which is what we are planning to do with Russia and Belarus—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. This has been a very good-natured and difficult debate. It has been held with disagreement, but courtesy across the House. People have now come into the Chamber who have not been here during the debate and it is most discourteous of them now to make so much noise that we cannot hear the Minister. That is bad behaviour and it is bad for the way in which we do things in here, especially on a day when we have had a very well-constructed and conducted debate.
Felicity Buchan
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Given the focus of the BDS campaign on Israel, we are simply saying in this clause that, for Israel to be exempted from the legislation, it will require primary legislation. I want to make that very clear. This policy does not affect our foreign policy position. We are not legislating for the UK’s foreign policy on Israel or on any other country in the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure a consistent approach to foreign policy across our public bodies, led by the UK Government. The Bill will not prevent the UK Government from imposing sanctions, or otherwise changing our foreign policy on any country in future.
I stress that none of the provisions in the Bill changes the UK’s position on Israeli settlements in the west bank and the Golan Heights. We are continuing to urge Israel not to take steps that move us away from our shared goals of peace and security. We support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and a just, fair and realistic settlement for refugees.
Furthermore, our position on settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law; present an obstacle to peace; and threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution. Our position is reflected in our continued support for UN Security Council resolution 2334, with which the Bill is compliant.
Richard Graham
What the Minister says is not really what is reflected in the Bill because a specific exemption is given not just to Israel, in what should be a country-agnostic Bill—just like our manifesto commitment—but to two parts of Israel which we do not recognise as part of Israel under international law. Therefore, there is specifically an exemption for Israel. Does she agree—the Secretary of State said earlier that he would listen very carefully to suggested amendments—that this is something that needs to be worked on during the Bill Committee?
Felicity Buchan
UN Security Council resolution 2334 asks countries to differentiate between Israel and the occupied territories. We have done that in this clause; they are clearly separated out in different paragraphs. However, as the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, we are open to any discussions on the Bill and of course we want the best legislation here.
Felicity Buchan
I am very conscious that, in the interests of time, I only have a few minutes.
Alicia Kearns
My hon. Friend knows the incredibly high esteem I hold her in, but it just is not credible to keep repeating that this does not change how we treat the Golan Heights, which have been annexed, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Foreign Office’s own legal advice states that the Bill could breach UNSC 2334. How am I being told repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that that is not the case, when that is what Government lawyers are saying themselves? We have a responsibility to uphold that resolution. We drafted this legislation and therefore we need to remove clause 3(7). We on these Back Benches have offered a landing platform to the Government: “Remove that clause. You can still do this.” But please do not repeat that this does not change anything when the Government lawyers themselves say it does.
Felicity Buchan
The Government’s view is that the Bill is compliant with UN Security Council resolution 2334.
I move on to the reasoned amendment, which rightly recognises the impact that boycotts and divestment campaigns can have on undermining community cohesion. The Government, however, are resisting the amendment on the basis that this legislation is a robust and proportionate means of stopping public bodies engaging in divisive campaigns and of fulfilling our 2019 manifesto commitment. The amendment refers specifically to the Uyghur Muslims. This Government are concerned about the issue of Uyghur forced labour in supply chains and are taking robust action. The exceptions in this Bill, alongside the exclusion grounds in the Procurement Bill, will keep suppliers involved in labour market misconduct, including human trafficking and modern slavery, no matter where they are in the world, out of public sector supply chains.
We have already discussed the point on the occupied territories and the Golan Heights. The amendment claims that this Bill limits freedom of speech, but that is not the case. Private individuals and bodies are not affected by the legislation. The right to freedom of speech is protected by article 10 of the European convention on human rights and the Government remain strongly committed to the UK’s long and proud tradition of freedom of speech.
The amendment also criticises the powers given to the Secretary of State to enforce this ban. Far from being the unprecedented powers claimed, they are modelled on existing powers of regulators such as the Office for Students and the Pensions Regulator. It would simply not be logical to impose a ban with a toothless enforcement regime.
This legislation delivers an important manifesto commitment. It will ensure that the UK has a consistent foreign policy approach and speaks with one voice internationally. I look forward to working with hon. Members throughout the Bill’s passage to deliver this important legislation and to continuing engagement on the issues that hon. Members have raised in the House today. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Crime and Antisocial Behaviour: West London
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to lead this debate on crime and antisocial behaviour in west London. I am pleased that this debate comes so soon after my most recent crime survey for residents. We had more than 300 responses this time, and the results were sadly more shocking, more worrying and more concerning than those from our last survey in 2019.
While the title of the debate covers west London, I know that the experiences and challenges we face in my constituency are felt across London and the whole of England. I want to discuss four central themes today: my constituents’ own experience with crime, based mainly on my recent constituent crime survey; the responses of the Metropolitan police; the response of the Government; and, finally, what we can and should do to tackle crime and keep people safe.
I could have started this debate by reeling off a long list of figures and statistics about crime and policing, but I will not. Debates about crime are not abstract. It is not a line on a bar chart, but so much more. It is often a life shattered, confidence taken away and a hole left behind. Take one constituent who contacted me after a string of car thefts outside their home. They told me:
“We are scared to walk outside alone, we are scared to wear a watch, we are scared for the safety of our children.”
That is what crime does.
Crime has an acidic and poisonous impact on communities, whether that is cars being violently stolen outside of houses, homes being broken into, schoolchildren being mugged at knifepoint or young people afraid of getting involved and being sucked into gang activity.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she agree that it is a wake-up call when children tell their mums they are afraid to walk home through the high street after school? That is taking away their childhoods.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Children are afraid of being the victims of crime. They are also afraid of the gangs. Too many parents and young children are being targeted and, once sucked in, if they do not have the money to pay the gangs back, it is difficult to get out. I will come to that later.
The fear that crime puts into victims lasts so much longer than the time taken to experience and report the crime itself. Something wider has also emerged in recent years: a sense of broken Britain. People tell me of seeing drugs being dealt openly in plain sight, bike theft and phone theft becoming virtually legal due to the lack of policing response, and fraud and cyber-crime becoming more and more widespread. There is a sense that this is a country where certain forms of crime simply happen without any consequence. Recently, even calling 999 was a futile gesture that led nowhere.
I will touch briefly on the responses I received to my recent constituency crime survey. Of those who responded, 35% had been victims of crime in the last 12 months. The most common thefts were vehicle theft and catalytic converter theft. West London is at particular risk because of the A4 and M4 passing through, which allows for a quick getaway. For years, I have been raising the issue of catalytic converter theft with the Home Office. As we know, they are stolen to order and passed on for the valuable materials they contain. One of the many policing Ministers told me that the Government would consider a review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 if necessary. Will the Minister tell me whether the Home Office is doing that review? If so, when will we hear of any likely action? His script might mention the national vehicle crime working group, which apparently meets regularly, but will he tell the House how it measures its outcomes?
In my survey, the top three areas of priority for constituents were burglaries, violent and sexual crimes, and drug-related crimes. Antisocial behaviour was also frequently bought up, and it is also raised when I meet constituents, although the phrase rather obscures just what that crime is. Whether it is constant fly-tipping on estates, long-running harassment campaigns against neighbours or illegally modified bikes speeding through parks, it feeds into the sense of hopeless and powerless and the sense that our justice system is simply not working as it should.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Does she agree that when residents contact us, contact the police and contact others for help, they have the feeling that the answers are there but those who should be helping them—local authorities and the police in particular—are not responding and not joining up to ensure swift action and cutting this off so that residents and communities can live in safety?
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem with antisocial behaviour is that it is often dealt with as “no crime”. It is true that there are more serious crimes that need to be dealt with, but, for so many, antisocial behaviour feels like the thin end of the wedge.
There is a thread connecting these crimes that impact on all of our constituents, and ASB in particular: the sense that they are allowed to happen in plain sight. There is an assumption that the police are at the core of the solution. In some ways, they are.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. She is describing something familiar to all of us in west London. In the post-covid period, there has been a rapid increase in antisocial behaviour, vehicle crime and drug-related crime. I have an active local authority that has more CCTV cameras per head of population than any other in the country and which has employed 70 law enforcement officers of its own. What is missing is the neighbourhood policing that we used to have that reassured local communities and gathered intelligence. That really did make a contribution to both reassurance and keeping crime down, and that is what we need back.
Ruth Cadbury
I agree. We remember the time in the noughties when we had five officers for every ward, but they have been cut to less than half that.
Let me talk about the role of the Metropolitan police. I am grateful for my regular meetings with Chief Superintendent Wilson and other inspectors in Hounslow, and for the fact that Commissioner Mark Rowley has met London MPs frequently, including last week. In Hounslow, I have been on a walkabout both in Osterley and in Isleworth, and in a response car all around my constituency. I have had the chance to see just how well local officers know our community and how hard they work.
However, there is a huge gap between those positive experiences and the wider services provided by the Met, as we know from both the Casey report and the experiences of our constituents. I am well aware of the work that Metropolitan Commissioner Mark Rowley is doing to try to turn around the appalling prejudices of a number of police officers and the generic responses that all victims of crime get, so that people have some confidence in the core service. We look forward to seeing significant progress on that before too long.
Many residents, constituents and businesses have told me that when they have reported crimes, they receive either not a proper response or no response at all. They get a crime reference number—that is it. A crime reference number is not justice served. That is Commissioner Mark Rowley’s task. The lack of response feeds into the sense of powerless and unfairness. People want the police to investigate, catch the criminals and stop crime from reoccurring. Mark Rowley has promised to turn around the ship and restore trust in the Met. That trust needs to be rebuilt urgently.
I want to focus on the Conservative Government, who have overseen the last 13 years of broken promises on policing across England. First, there was the decision to cut 20,000 experienced police officers. In London, more than 2,000 were cut, and in Hounslow borough, 80 experienced officers were cut. They knew their communities and knew the appropriate response to ensure that information was gathered and conflict situations were not escalated. Those experienced officers have, too often, gone.
Seema Malhotra
Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which the cuts took place and police were taken from our communities has had an impact on the relationship between the police and our residents? The loss of knowledge of people, their lives and communities, and those in our schools, has had an impact on that trust and familiarity, which go such a long way to preventing crime and giving reassurance.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend explains so clearly the points that we made back then when the cuts were being made. When I was deputy leader of Hounslow council, we said that the cuts would have consequences, and my hon. Friend just described them perfectly. So, what has happened? The Government have realised that they made a mistake, and are providing funding to re-recruit those vacancies. However, recruiting is difficult. The experience has gone out the door. Getting new people in involves cost and training, and it takes years for knowledge to be built up. There are not the number of keen, competent and experienced recruits the Metropolitan police so badly needs, particularly from within London.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, ward teams were cut from five or six police officers and police community support officers, down to one or two per ward. The police have told me that they still do not have the numbers to carry out regular, high-profile foot patrols in at-risk areas. That is what people desperately want to see, but Conservative cuts have made it impossible. In parallel to the cuts were the swingeing cuts to local government and other key frontline services: Sure Start centres, play areas, parks, public health, social workers, schools and colleges—all areas that form the soft safety net.
Local groups have had to fill the gap. One group I have worked with is Action Isleworth Mothers. It is just one of many community groups across west London working tirelessly to support families, in particular young people at risk of being exploited by gangs. For three years Astrid Edwards, who founded AIM, has been working unpaid with mothers and their sons to support them in keeping away, or getting away, from gangs. She cannot do that alone. She has worked hard, using a progressive public health approach, to ensure key agencies in the borough—schools, the police, social services, housing, mental health and youth offender services—get out of their silos and work together. After three years of doing that unfunded, AIM now has funding from Hounslow Council and the Mayor of London’s violence reduction unit to be the lead facilitator for the Hounslow parent-carer champion network to provide peer support to parents whose children are, or may be, at risk of serious youth violence, criminal exploitation and/or getting involved in the criminal justice system.
Meanwhile, the Government have been bystanders on the issue of crime and the causes of crime. On their watch, the number of arrests has halved, prosecutions have almost halved and the number of crimes solved has halved. More crimes are being reported, but fewer crimes are being solved. Criminals are getting away with it. Don’t worry, the Home Secretary is working hard—but only to prepare her leadership bid. She is often missing in action and seems to talk about crime only when she thinks she can get a cheap hit and headline out of it.
I hope to finish on a slightly more positive note by saying that we have seen some signs of improvement locally in recent months. We have a new dedicated policing team in Hounslow town centre, made up of over 20 officers, focused on the high street which has been a hotspot for crime. Businesses and shoppers say that it has made a positive difference.
Seema Malhotra
Does my hon. Friend agree that the way our police and local authorities work with other organisations, such as No Shame in Running, run by Garvin Snell, and Project Turnover, working with children on the very edge of crime, is really important, and that our institutions must have the capacity to support those who do such frontline work in our communities?
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some of the most effective work is being done by people of, and from, the community—people like Garvin Snell and organisations such as AIM. They know the young people and they know the parents, but they cannot do it alone. They must work in partnership with statutory agencies. I am glad to say that in the borough of Hounslow there is better working together and less silo working between key public services. Only then, when we see the child as a whole and work around the child as a whole, can we support them in keeping away from crime and gang activity.
One other success, following my intervention, was the installation of CCTV cameras behind a local estate and extra police patrols after residents contacted me about crime gangs using the alleyway for a quick getaway.
To feel safe, all communities need a visible police presence, proactive community work and engagement with the local council. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) the shadow Home Secretary has called for the Government to bring back neighbourhood policing and to recruit over 10,000 neighbourhood officers and PCSOs. These are people who know their streets, know their community and know how to tackle crime. That is what we desperately need: a Government focused on tackling crime rather than chasing cheap headlines. After 13 long years of Conservative rule, people locally desperately want change.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing the debate. It is particularly well timed, given that this week is Anti-Social Behaviour Awareness Week. In fact, the launch event happened in Parliament earlier this evening, attended by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) who is the Minister with responsibility for safeguarding.
We are clearly all extremely concerned about the effect of antisocial behaviour: the effect it has on our communities and the way that it can undermine residents’ feeling of safety in their own neighbourhoods. Whether it is a high street, a local park or a playground, people should be able to feel safe on their own streets and not feel any sense of fear or menace. The hon. Lady is right to say that antisocial behaviour should not be considered a low level or minor thing, because it affects how people feel in their own neighbourhoods. For that reason, it is a very important topic, and I am glad that we have an opportunity to discuss it this evening.
The hon. Lady started by saying that she did not want to talk about figures. However, although the stories are important and we will talk about how people feel, it is also important to have a firm statistical grasp of what is actually happening. As Members will know, the only statistically approved measure of crime in England and Wales is the crime survey, endorsed by the Office for National Statistics, which says that it is the only reliable long-term measure of crime. If we look at the figures since 2010, just to take an arbitrary year, we will see that violence has reduced by 41%, criminal damage by 68% and various forms of theft by about 40%. We have, therefore, seen dramatic reductions in crime, as reported by the crime survey, over the past 13 years, but we should not be complacent, and we clearly need to do a lot more.
One thing that we have in our armoury to fight antisocial behaviour is police officers. The hon. Lady spoke passionately and eloquently about that. It is particularly welcome that we now have a record number of police officers across England and Wales—149,572, to be precise, which is about 3,000 more than we had in March 2010. There are now more than 35,000 officers in London—every Member present is a London MP—which is more officers than it has ever had at any time in its history. That is thanks to the police uplift programme that the Government funded.
Chris Philp
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. London could have had another 1,000 officers on top of that, funded by the Government, but unfortunately Sadiq Khan was not able to organise himself to hire them, which is a great shame. I am sure that Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), will join me in calling on Sadiq Khan to get his act together and recruit those extra funded officers.
Andy Slaughter
I just want to give the Minister a quick reality check. If he is right that crime is massively down, why are my constituents telling me every day that there is a feeling of lawlessness on the streets that they have not experienced before? Offences include drug offences and cars being broken into and stolen. If he has replaced the 20,000 officers that the Government initially got rid of, why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth has said, do my neighbourhood teams have only one or two officers per ward, rather than the six officers that they had before the Conservatives started running them down?
Chris Philp
It is not me that is telling the hon. Gentleman that crime has reduced; it is the crime survey of England and Wales, endorsed by the Office for National Statistics. What he is talking about is the perception of crime, which is very important as well. It is important that people feel safe, and that is why we need to do more, but the figures are very clear. If he doubts them, I honestly recommend that he looks at the crime survey statistics, because they actually make for quite comforting reading. The perception of crime is important and there is more to do.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the deployment of neighbourhood officers. How the record number of officers are deployed is an operational matter for the commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, and the police and crime commissioner for London, Mayor Sadiq Khan. The hon. Gentleman’s representations would be well directed to them, but London has never in its history had a greater total number of officers. I agree that having them on neighbourhood deployment is valuable. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth said that an extra 20 officers are part of a newly established town centre team. The same is true of Croydon, which also has about 20 extra officers, and that is very welcome and useful. In addition to officers, we also need bases from which they can patrol. I am sure that Labour Members will join me in calling on the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan to ditch his plan, announced in 2017, to close 37 police stations. I notice that, miraculously and for reasons that I cannot imagine, he has just decided to cancel the closure plan for Uxbridge police station. Let us hope that he cancels the closure plans for the other 36 police stations.
Let me move on to the importance of prevention. We have talked about police stations, officers and the importance of their being deployed in the neighbourhood, but prevention is important, too. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth referred to the Mayor of London’s violence reduction partnership, and in the next breath she said that the Government had been bystanders. What she forgot to mention was that the so-called Mayor of London’s violence reduction partnership is entirely funded by the Government. For some reason, she omitted to mention that. I am glad to say that violence reduction units, or partnerships, have received £170 million of Government funding. They do valuable work in providing diversionary activity. The Youth Endowment Fund, which has £200 million over 10 years, identifies the best kinds of intervention and funds them, as well as cognitive behavioural therapy, which helps many young people.
We have an antisocial behaviour action plan, which was launched by the Prime Minister just a couple of months ago and is being rolled out as we speak. It has a number of elements; I will not detain the House by going through all of them at this late hour, but I will mention a couple. One is hotspot patrolling: antisocial behaviour hotspots are identified, and police officers are “surged” into those areas. Ten police force areas around the country are conducting pilots during the current financial year. I spoke to the police and crime commissioners about it today, and all the pilots will be up and running this month. From next April, every police force in the country—all 43 of the forces in England and Wales—will have hotspot policing, and there will be just over £1 million for each police force to fund the ASB patrols. That will be welcome, and will address some of the issues that the hon. Lady raised.
There will also be 10 immediate justice pilots, again funded with about £1 million for each force, and starting this month. People who take part in antisocial behaviour will very quickly—ideally within 48 hours—have to undertake restorative work such as removing graffiti or cleaning up a park or a high street, wearing branded hi-vis jackets. Once the pilots have been completed this year, every police force in the country, from next April, will have an immediate justice project, again fully funded by the Government with £1 million for each police force—about £43 million in total. We are banning nitrous oxide, which I think will also help on the antisocial behaviour front. I hope Members will agree that the antisocial behaviour action plan, of which those measures are just a small part, will help us to clamp down on ASB in our communities. The total funding for the plan is about £160 million.
In the moments remaining to us, let me commend the safer streets fund. The hon. Lady mentioned CCTV in an alleyway, which may well have ultimately been funded by the fund. London has so far received about £3.2 billion. The fund is designed to fund measures such as CCTV to help people feel safer on the streets, with particular emphasis on women’s safety but with the aim of combating ASB more widely as well. We will shortly announce the next safer streets funding round.
We take vehicle and bicycle theft very seriously—the incidence of both has fallen dramatically, and I think that bicycle theft may have fallen by as much as 65% since 2010—and we also take catalytic converter thefts very seriously. We had a spate of those in Croydon. I was told by our borough commander that a gang had been arrested a few months ago, and since then we have seen a big reduction, certainly in south London, although I am not sure whether the same is true in west London. We experienced a big drop about six months ago, when that gang was arrested. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013—which began as a private Member’s Bill, taken through the House by my constituency predecessor, Sir Richard Ottaway—has helped a great deal. The Bill was originally inspired by thefts of lead from church roofs, but it is also making it harder, although sadly not impossible, to sell the rare earth metals to be found in catalytic converters. We are working on that with the National Vehicle Crime Working Group.
Ruth Cadbury
I did ask whether there would be a review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act. It is clearly not working, because we are still experiencing spates of catalytic converter theft.
Chris Philp
My predecessor’s private Member’s Bill, now the Scrap Metal Dealers Act, has dramatically reduced the theft of scrap metal from things like church roofs, which is what inspired his PMB 10 years ago, but we are always happy to look at whether the legislation can be strengthened. Broadly, the Act deals with metal, but I would be very happy to respond if the hon. Lady would like to write to me with specific proposals for how it could be improved or for how regulations could be strengthened.
It is welcome that crime has fallen so much since 2010 and that we have record numbers of police officers—more than we have ever had in England and Wales, and more than we have ever had in London, too—but we all accept that there is more to do to fight crime. This Government are committed to doing that, whether through the safer streets fund, violence reduction units or the ASB action plan. When we need to do something, we will do it. I look forward to working with Members across the House to keep our constituents safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Pensions Dashboards (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pensions Dashboards (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 18 June. I am pleased to introduce this statutory instrument, which removes the staging profile from the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022 and introduces a single connection deadline of 31 October 2026 for relevant occupational pension schemes to connect to the pensions dashboards.
The successful introduction of automatic enrolment more than a decade ago, combined with a trend towards people working multiple jobs in their lifetime, has seen a substantial increase in pension pots. Research published by the Pensions Policy Institute estimates that there were 8 million deferred pots in 2020 and that, without intervention, that number is likely to rise to 27 million by 2035. Pensions dashboards will help hard-working savers to locate pension pots that they have accumulated over time, reconnecting them with lost and forgotten pots, supporting better planning for retirement. People will be able to deal with their various pensions, including their state pension, securely in one place online.
There can be no doubt that pensions dashboards have the potential to change the pensions landscape, but delivering dashboards for widespread use efficiently and securely is a complex undertaking. We anticipate that, once all schemes in scope of the draft regulations are connected, the pension records of more than 71 million memberships from relevant occupational pension schemes and providers of Financial Conduct Authority-regulated entities will be accessible to people at the touch of a button at a time of their choosing.
The reason for the draft regulations is that, at the end of last year, the pensions dashboards programme, which is responsible for delivering the digital architecture that underpins pensions dashboards, informed the Department for Work and Pensions that more time was required to complete the build of the digital architecture. The PDP faced several key issues: the technical solution had not been sufficiently tested and there was still work to do to finalise the necessary supporting documentation and to get the necessary systems in place to support industry with the connection process. It was concluded that more time was needed to deliver dashboards successfully and that a reset of the programme was required.
In my written statement in March 2023, I announced the delay and set out that the pensions dashboards programme would be reset to get it back on the path for successful delivery. Following the announcement, my Department engaged with a broad cross-section of industry and gave assurance that it would legislate at the earliest possible opportunity to provide certainty to schemes.
Since then, we have been examining several challenges facing the pensions dashboards programme. The decision to pause, review and reset the programme is providing the time to ensure complete delivery of the ecosystem and supporting documentation before industry begins to connect. So far, the reset has assessed the digital architecture and no fundamental issues have been identified. That has provided reassurance to Government to move forward with amending the regulations.
The staging profile in schedule 2 to the 2022 regulations set out the order in which different types of schemes, categorised by size and type, would connect to pensions dashboards. The 2022 regulations, however, did not provide the flexibility necessary to deliver a programme of this magnitude: a digital undertaking that will enable users to search more than 3,000 schemes to find their pensions. The draft instrument curtails the period of uncertainty for the pensions industry. As the staging profile in the 2022 regulations required the first schemes to connect at the end of August 2023, the amendment regulations were laid to avoid any perception that schemes are in breach through no fault of their own.
The draft instrument uses powers in the Pensions Act 2004 to amend the 2022 regulations to compel all schemes in scope to connect to dashboards by 31 October 2026. At the same time as providing more flexibility than is available in the 2022 regulations, retaining the broad framework of a phased approach will continue to help manage the flow of connections and maximise the coverage as early as possible. Government will work with key partners and the pensions industry on a connection timetable to be published in guidance.
We expect that the connection timetable in guidance will continue to prioritise large schemes with the greatest number of members for the first connections. It is also important to note that the dashboards’ available point—the point at which dashboards will be available for widespread public use—could happen before the October 2026 connection deadline in the regulations. The connection timetable set out in guidance will require scheme trustees or managers to have regard to the guidance; not doing so would be a breach of the regulations.
While the instrument amends the requirements on trustees or managers by the removal of schedule 2, there are no other material changes to the 2022 regulations. The amendment regulations will facilitate a collaborative approach to connection that delivers on our commitment to introduce pension dashboards.
I am satisfied that the draft regulations are compatible with the European convention on human rights. Pension dashboards have the potential to transform retirement planning forever, and the regulations are another step in the right direction.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I also thank the Minister for updating the Committee on this important matter. The Opposition support the dashboard. It is an important initiative that should offer a great deal of benefits to pension savers and the pensions industry.
However, I have noted the Minister’s remarks today, the explanatory note, the considerable delays that she has described to us, the cost overruns and the reliance on guidance—all of which is somewhat concerning. I hope that the Minister will address some questions.
Before I ask the Minister some direct questions, however, I will mention some of the valid points about the delays raised by key members of the pensions industry. Tom Selby, the head of retirement policy at AJ Bell, for example, described the delays as “hugely disappointing”. Others have described the whole dashboards project as one that has been
“beset by difficulties and delays from the get go.”
I hope the Minister will address those concerns and reassure me and colleagues across the House on the future progress of this important project.
I realise that the Minster has not been leading the project in its entirety herself; it has been a project supervised by several Ministers. I hope she will be able to update us on how she feels the delays will affect savers, how they will affect the wider pensions industry, which is a very important part of the financial services industry, and what measures she plans to use to ensure compliance.
The Minister talked about the reliance on guidance and the way that it will work, as opposed to the Government’s previous mandatory approach. Will she reassure us that she is confident about hitting the October 2026 deadline, because we have already seen significant slippage? This is a really important programme that means that pension savers can look at and understand their savings and plan for the future. That is very important at a time when there is a considerable body of evidence showing that people are not saving enough for their pensions, and that they may not know where their pension pots are. I hope the Minister can reassure me on those points.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the Minister for her continued collegiate approach to this issue. As others have said, it is disappointing that we have had the delay, but there is no point in crying over spilled milk. What we need to do is ensure that we get it right.
The Work and Pensions Committee has been undertaking an inquiry into the plan for jobs and the thorny issue of why the over-55s have not come back to the workplace, and it strikes me that the pension dashboards will really important when people are making informed decisions about what they do in the latter part of their career. We all want to see it, but we want to see it delivered in such a way as is efficient and not besieged by technical problems.
The hon. Member for Reading East made reference to some of the stakeholders that have expressed concern. I will draw the Minister’s attention to the remarks of Dr Yvonne Braun of the Association of British Insurers, who said:
“Our members have indicated they’re willing and able to continue to comply with a voluntary timetable, although it would have been our preference that these remained a regulatory requirement to prevent a last-minute rush of firms connecting to the system. We ask that Government keeps this under review and considers making the staggered dates a regulatory requirement again if it should become clear that the wider industry is not taking the same approach.”
I think the Minister should bear that in mind.
While talking about this subject, it would be remiss of me not to say that pension dashboards work only if more and more people are opted in to pensions. The Minister knows fine well my views on auto-enrolment and how I would like it to go further. It would be churlish of me not to commend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on his private Member’s Bill, which goes some way to widening it. I think that we all look forward to a time when pension dashboards are in place, and most importantly people are making informed choices in terms of retirement.
One final plea to the Minister would be, once again, to look at things such as the Stronger Nudge to Pension Wise to ensure that people make decisions about retirement and later-life savings with as broad a picture as possible, and do not take decisions that will be, in the short term, financially disadvantageous.
Laura Trott
As ever, I am grateful for the constructive approach taken by all parties. To address some of the issues that were raised, as I said in my speech, using guidance will allow for extra flexibility. Under these regulations, the regulator will ensure that schemes have regard to the guidance. That is really important and a key part of what we are trying to do. If for whatever reason the schemes breach that significantly, we may have to come back and revisit it, but I do not anticipate that that will happen. The Pensions Regulator will keep that under review, but it is significant that the ABI said that it will comply anyway. From conversations that I have had with the industry, that is absolutely the intent, but as I said the regulator is on hand and will issue guidance to ensure compliance.
I am confident about the October 2026 deadline. Everything that we are trying to do is about putting that confidence in place and ensuring that we have a programme that is overseen by a joint delivery board from the DWP and by the Money and Pensions Service, that we have regular interactions, and that it is keeping to time and to the outline. That is part of what the reset programme is trying to do. Total costs have decreased during the standard assessment period. Transitional costs for industry have increased to reflect that some schemes may face additional costs ahead of the proposed changes, but that does not offset the overall decrease in total costs over the 10-year period, and the dashboards programme has run slightly under budget to date. From a cost-to-industry perspective, the overall benefits far outweigh the costs, and from a scheme perspective I am confident that it is keeping to its outline budget, although we will continue to keep that under review.
On the AE extension, I will not miss an opportunity to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who has done a fantastic job. Hopefully his Bill will go quickly through the other place, and I promise to get the consultation on the regulations out as quickly as I can, to ensure that we get it moving through. We need to evaluate the impact of Stronger Nudge so far, and then base any next steps on that.
I think that that covers everything, but Members are welcome to intervene if not. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft African Development Fund (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2023
Draft African Development Bank (Sixteenth Replenishment of the African Development Fund) Order 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft African Development Fund (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2023.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft African Development Bank (Sixteenth Replenishment of the African Development Fund) Order 2023.
Mr Mitchell
I believe that this is the first time we have served together in a Committee such as this, Mr Vickers, and it is an enormous pleasure. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, and I have served together on many occasions; it is a pleasure to see her in her seat as well.
The orders, which were laid before the House on 23 and 22 May, will permit the British Government to make financial contributions to the African Development Fund up to the stated values for the purpose of core replenishment of the fund and contribution to the multilateral debt relief initiative. The African Development Fund—ADF for short—is an arm of the African Development Bank Group, which is the largest development finance institution focused solely on Africa.
As the Committee will be aware, the bank is a major source of funding for economic, social and institutional development across the continent, providing concessional loans and grants to the 37 poorest and most vulnerable countries in Africa. It is 60% owned by African countries, 80% staffed by nationals of African countries, and highly trusted across the region. It promotes green and inclusive growth and supports development in five focus areas, from infrastructure to industrialisation, food supplies and quality of life.
The bank is an important partner for UK international development. By spreading opportunities in African countries, it helps make the UK more secure and more prosperous. That is why we have purchased additional shares to increase our shareholding in the bank from 1.7% to 1.8%. We are also providing the bank with guarantees to release $3 billion of additional climate finance across the continent. At the bank’s recent annual meeting in Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt, I launched projects in Senegal and Egypt, which are the first to be supported by the guarantees.
I turn now to the African Development Bank (Sixteenth Replenishment of the African Development Fund) Order 2023. The ADF is replenished by donors every three years. The 16th round of replenishment negotiations took place last year, with pledges made in December. The British Government pledged to provide £650 million to the ADF over three years, including £450 million to the core budget. The order allows for the provision of the core funding by the United Kingdom.
Forty per cent of our core pledge will be used to tackle climate change. We also pledged a further £200 million to the climate action window, which will be used entirely to help countries to adapt to climate change. Overall, that will represent a slight increase on our previous contribution and will make us the largest contributor to the 16th replenishment. That reflects our assessment that the ADF represents excellent value for money for British taxpayers.
For example, the African Development Fund is ranked second in the Centre for Global Development’s quality of official development assistance report. The total value of the 16th replenishment is $8.9 billion—up from $7.4 billion for the previous round. That is an act of global solidarity with the poorest African countries to help cushion them from a series of crises, including a food crisis driven by the impact of Russia’s illegal war and a climate crisis that is unleashing increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather on African countries, alongside the challenges of recovery from the pandemic.
The ADF works to respond to such crises with urgency and in a way that is tailored towards the needs of different communities. For example, to respond to the food crisis, the bank approved a $1.5 billion emergency food production facility last year, which supported 20 million African smallholders and farmers by providing them with certified seeds and access to fertilisers. This supported the production of 38 million tonnes of food and helped to avert a looming food crisis on the continent.
The UK Government used the replenishment negotiations to secure commitments from the bank that will advance a number of our development priorities. The bank made commitments to support African countries to develop long-term strategies to tackle climate change, empower women, strengthen food security, tackle fragility, improve debt management and mobilise private sector investment.
The 16th replenishment is expected to deliver new or improved electricity connections for more than 19 million people, advances in agriculture for more than 24 million people, new or improved access to water sanitation for more than 32 million people, access to transport for over 14 million people and it is also expected to create 2.4 million new jobs, including more than 1 million new jobs for women.
We also welcome the agreement by the bank’s governors in May to make changes to the ADF articles of agreement that will enable it to borrow from capital markets. The UK has been supportive of the bank taking this step for several years, which could release $25 billion of additional financing for ADF countries over the next 15 years. That is very much in the spirt of the Bridgetown initiative.
I turn now to the draft African Development Fund (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2023, which permits the British Government to provide an additional £56 million between 2023 and 2035 to support the ADF’s participation in the multilateral debt relief initiative, or MRDI. The UK Government played a leading role in establishing the MDRI in 2005 through their G8 presidency. The initiative enabled the African Development Bank and the World Bank to cancel debts owed by some of the poorest countries by committing donors to compensate them for losses. This order will enable the current Government to continue to make good on that commitment.
To conclude, the African Development Bank Group is one of our closest and most important partners. The financial contributions covered by the two orders are an important part of this country’s commitment to the poorest people in Africa. The orders will deliver UK international development and foreign policy objectives in some of the world’s poorest countries and bring opportunity to tens of millions of people. That is not just in their interests. It is also in the UK’s national interest, because greater opportunities in African countries reduce customers for people traffickers while creating more customers for UK exporters.
I commend the two orders to the Committee.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the African Development Fund orders. We will not oppose them. I welcome the support they show for tackling poverty and food insecurity, creating new jobs and opportunities to meet the demands of Africa’s young and fast-growing population, and tackling the climate crisis.
Since 2019, Africa has been hammered by the converging crises of the pandemic, the climate crisis, debt, inflation and conflict. An estimated 55 million people on the continent have been pushed into extreme poverty since the onset of the pandemic. In 2021, nearly half a billion people in total were living on less than $1.90 a day. In that context, it is essential that we do what we can to prevent the current crisis from derailing long-term development gains.
Our financial support via the African Development Bank, with its significant financial clout, strong regional identity and deep knowledge, is one excellent means of doing that. Not only has Publish What You Fund ranked the African Development Bank’s sovereign lending as No.1 in transparency out of 50 global development institutions but the bank is also well aligned with the UK’s objectives and was green in its 2020 review.
While public-private infrastructure finance volumes in sub-Saharan Africa have stagnated over the past decade, the African Development Bank has punched above its weight, far outspending other multilateral development banks in support for infrastructure partnerships with the private sector in recent years and giving donors more bang for their buck. During the new funding cycle, the African Development Bank will focus on two strategic priorities: governance, capacity building and sustainable debt management in recipient countries; and developing sustainable, climate-resilient and quality infrastructure. As we heard from the Minister, it will also focus on empowering women and girls as a condition for achieving inclusive and sustainable development. Through those investments, the total replenishment will help to connect 20 million people to electricity, benefit 24 million people through agricultural improvements, provide access to water and sanitation for 32 million people and improve transport infrastructure for 15 million people.
The bank’s work over the next three years will complement long-standing investments in regional growth and infrastructure, offer a sustainable alternative to non-concessional Chinese lending and make headway on the long road to economic recovery from the pandemic and the worsening food security crisis, all of which are priorities that we support.
In that context, I must express some disappointment that we are again seeing a significant cut to UK financial support in this area; it is down nearly £200 million. The African Development Bank has done great work in the closely linked areas of climate adaptation and food insecurity in recent years. It has prioritised high-impact investments in water resource management and climate-smart agriculture, while also holding true to a model that puts countries in the driver’s seat of their own destinies. Will the Minister say whether we should take these funding cuts as proof of the former International Environment Minister’s comments on Friday? Do we have a Prime Minister who is “simply uninterested”, is it true that
“efforts on a wide range of domestic environmental issues have simply ground to a standstill”
and are the Government
“absent from key international fora”?
They are breaking their promises on international climate finance, hoping to leave a tab for the next Government to pick up.
The African Development Bank estimates that the continent needs $7 billion to $15 billion a year in adaptation finance to meet this accelerating challenge, yet ICF, international engagement and domestic commitments were conspicuous in their absence in Government announcements at the Paris summit. Can the Minister explain whether the Government remain committed to delivering the £11.6 billion in international climate finance that they promised in 2019? How and when will that be delivered? Will the Minister explain why the Prime Minister was absent from the summit while more than 100 world leaders were in attendance at a time when, by his own admission, there is growing anger at the international community’s failure to help the most vulnerable countries adapt to a climate crisis that they did not create?
Will the Minister say something specific about the absence of an announcement on the remaining half a billion special drawing rights that the United Kingdom promised but is yet to deliver? As he may well know, the African Development Bank has proposed an innovative new vehicle for the SDRs to be lent as hybrid capital. That would mean that every 100 million of SDRs recycled to the African Development Bank will be multiplied to increase loans to vulnerable African countries by up to 400 million. In effect, the African Development Bank proposes to leverage SDRs as capital to mobilise more lending funds so the SDRs are never spent; rather, they will be held as capital in the bank’s SDR account at the International Monetary Fund. Has the Minister looked at that proposal, and will he comment on it? Why has the delivery of the 100 billion SDRs promised at the G7 in Carbis Bay in 2021 been so achingly slow?
Finally, the previous replenishment round included an element of performance-based funding dependent on positive results reported at the mid-term review. Will he clarify how much was disbursed or held back at that point, and what support has the UK provided to the bank to recruit sufficient staff in key areas, such as environmental and social safeguards and fragile and conflict-affected states, in recent years? What efforts, if any, have the Government made to encourage closer working, better information flows and better-informed oversight between the bank and Government country teams?
On the sovereign debt crisis in many African countries, I must start by noting the incredibly positive news that, three years after its default, Zambia has finally agreed a deal for debt restructuring with straight creditors, including China. The £5 billion deal will provide crucial fiscal space for its Government to serve its people, 16% of whom live on less than a $1.90 a day, although billions owed to private lenders still needs to be tackled.
The situation is an ongoing illustration of the importance of the multilateral debt relief initiative agreed at the Gleneagles G8 summit 19 years ago. That was an outstanding example of what British leadership on the world stage can achieve and one of the proudest legacies of the last Labour Government. It has since had a transformative impact on many poor countries, freeing up their Governments to invest billions of pounds in public goods, such as health systems, climate action and education, that would have otherwise been spent servicing unsustainable debts. Will the Minister tell us how much debt the UK support has enabled the African Development Bank to cancel over the recent accounting period? What expectations does he have in relation to the orders? We welcome our latest contribution to the African Development Fund’s portion of the multilateral debt relief initiative, and will not divide the Committee on the order.
Many of the development gains that we have made in Africa in recent decades are currently at risk of reverse. We can, however, choose to forge a way to a more positive future with the expertise, influence and financial muscle of institutions such as the African Development Bank. For Labour, the power of co-operation is unmistakeable. We can choose to turn to each other when confronted with global crises, rather than turning inwards. We can choose to modernise our approach to international development. Learning from each other, we can and must address the world’s greatest challenges together.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Minister has described some excellent initiatives towards which the funds will be applied. I do not want him to think anything other than that I fully support the proposed measures, but there is a great deal of money being provided, which is, if I recall, UK taxpayer funds. Will the Minister clarify how the effective use and impact of those funds will be scrutinised and assessed, and by whom? What reports can we expect to receive and what will the processes be so that the public can have confidence that assessment and scrutiny will take place?
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I concur with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said. To follow on from the point that the hon. Member for Congleton has just made, it says in the explanatory note that:
“An impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no impact on the private or voluntary sectors is foreseen.”
I find that incredible.
There is a huge amount of money going in—although not as much as we wanted—and we want to see the good work that is being done. As the Minister said, it will have a huge effect, creating over 2.4 million jobs, and that will have an impact. Food security for the region will have a huge impact. Security for the electricity work that has been done, and many of the other points that the Minister mentioned, will have an impact. We should take account of that. Will the Minister look to see if an impact report could be produced, saying what difference the money we are putting in will make?
Mr Mitchell
I am extremely grateful to the Committee for its comments, and I will try to respond. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston set out an analysis of the crisis that has struck Africa and the reasons for it. Across the Committee there will be complete agreement with her analysis, which was correct. She rightly pointed out that following a period from 1990 to 2020, under all three major parties, there was tremendous progress under British leadership particularly in the eradication of the extremes of poverty. There has probably been no period in human history when so much poverty alleviation has taken place so successfully. Of course, a lot of it was due to progress made in China and India. As she said, since 2020 those advances have been under threat due to the covid epidemic, the appalling aggression of Russia in Ukraine and the effect that that has had on inflation, standards of living and food flowing into Africa—in particular, to places of great shortage. We would all agree with that analysis.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston then made the point about Publish What You Fund and the high accolade that it has given to the work of the African Development Bank, which is, in part, the answer to the question of my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr. There is a clearly a strong Birmingham-Sutton Coldfield element to this debate. The clear benefits were set out by Publish What You Fund.
On the level of funding, the ODA budget is immensely constrained. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and I both know that the budget could be spent many times over—and spent extremely well. The replenishment was for £650 million; we would have liked to have spent more, but we have to balance it with other funding. We have spent £1 billion supporting the global fund, which is outstandingly good expenditure. We settled on £650 million in this case, which is a little up from last time, when the figure was £633 million. I assure her that the money will be very well spent.
The hon. Lady referred to the letter written last week by my former colleague in the Foreign Office, Lord Goldsmith. Of course, I will not be drawn on any of that, except to say that those of us who know the Prime Minister well know that he is incredibly interested in the science and activity around climate change, and is very committed to that agenda. The hon. Lady asked about the Prime Minister’s attendance at the summit. It is true that he was not able to attend; he sent me instead, and I hope the Committee will accept that. I could only be a very poor reflection of him, but I did my best at the summit, and Britain was able to lead on the climate-resilient debt clauses, which will make such a difference to countries caught up in tragedy or crisis. Say disaster or covid struck the Government of Ghana, and that they really needed liquidity in order to help their people, and then had to pay off the capital and interest of loans. The climate-resilience debt clauses mean that they would get a two-year break to help them cope with the crisis. That is added on to the end of the loan. That is being done now by UK Export Finance, and it was the big British contribution to the summit; I think it will be powerful.
The hon. Lady asked me about SDR. We are engaged with the Treasury in a serious discussion on whether we can do more on SDRs. She is right in saying that the African Development Bank is a good potential vehicle for that. All I can say to her is that discussions are ongoing. Our colleagues in the Treasury are being very helpful, and we hope that the matter will move forward, though I point out that at the spring meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that Britain would use $5.3 billion of SDR through the two particularly important pro-poor IMF funds. That was the British announcement.
The hon. Lady asked me about accountability, and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton raised the same point. The accountability of the African Development Bank is absolutely excellent. Our performance tranche was fully disbursed at the mid-term review. We do not have a performance tranche for this replenishment, but that reflects our experience, which is that the other controls are absolutely adequate to ensure value for money for the British taxpayer. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, will recall that—quite apart from our having officials who are based in Abidjan at the headquarters of the bank, and who regularly visit experts on all these matters—I am the British governor of the African Development Bank, and I can tell her and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton that I keep a sharp eye on the interests of British taxpayers in this matter.
Finally, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston mentioned the deal done on Zambian debt. I completely agree with what she said. Zambia has had to wait far too long for relief from those debts. Finally, the Chinese were persuaded to join in the international settlement. I had a WhatsApp message from the President of Zambia at the end of last week, thanking Britain so much for our engagement and assistance in the negotiations, which, as I say, went on for far too long. The African Development Fund is a vital source of finance and hope for the poorest and most vulnerable countries and people in Africa. I hope and trust that the Committee will support the orders.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft African Development Bank (Sixteenth Replenishment of the African Development Fund) Order 2023
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft African Development Bank (Sixteenth Replenishment of the African Development Fund) Order 2023.—(Mr. Mitchell.)
Draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Dowd. The draft order was laid before the House on 24 May.
Since the energy company obligation scheme was introduced in 2013, it has ensured that about 2.4 million predominantly low-income households have received much-needed support to improve the energy efficiency of their home, with more than £19 billion-worth of savings for households over the lifetime of the measures installed. The Government committed, in the growth plan 2022 and the energy security plan, to placing a new obligation on energy suppliers to deliver vital energy efficiency upgrades, helping hundreds of thousands more households to take action to reduce their energy bills by making their homes cheaper to heat.
The draft order will deliver on those commitments by introducing a new energy company obligation, the Great British insulation scheme, to run until March 2026. Alongside that, it will introduce small additions to the existing ECO4 scheme, providing heating support for certain households that are not currently eligible for these measures.
I turn to the detail of the order. It will establish the Great British insulation scheme in law as a complement to the existing energy company obligation scheme, ECO4, in Great Britain. Its main provisions are an additional energy company obligation to run from 2023 to 2026, boosting previously planned energy efficiency investments by another £1 billion across this period; a focus on the rapid installation of the most cost-effective single insulation measures; and the extension of support through the ECO schemes to a much wider group of households living in the least energy-efficient homes in the lower council tax bands, which are also now challenged by higher energy bills.
The Great British insulation scheme will boost further the support already available through ECO4 that targets low-income and vulnerable households—those most at risk of being in fuel poverty. Energy suppliers must deliver at least 20% of the new help available through the scheme to those households. That low-income group will include those on means-tested benefits, as well as households in the least energy-efficient social housing. Fuel-poor homes in the private rented sector will benefit, too. That builds on the provisions of existing regulations.
Working alongside the low-income minimum, the scheme’s flexible eligibility provisions will offer additional routes to reach those who are on low incomes or in other ways vulnerable, such as through ill health, but where households may not be in receipt of benefits. The flexible eligibility provisions will enable local authorities, energy suppliers, Citizens Advice and the NHS to work together to help those most vulnerable to the effects of living in a cold home.
As with previous ECO schemes, the obligation will be set based on annual bill savings. That incentivises energy suppliers to target those homes where the savings from energy-efficient measures will be greatest; they will also be installing the measures that will have the greatest impact. The scoring approach for this will mirror the approach used for ECO4, minimising complexity and any bureaucracy for industry. Installation quality will be governed and assured under TrustMark’s compliance and certification framework. The quality of installations, alongside a whole assessment of the property, will continue to rely on independent industry standards: PAS—publicly available specification—2030 and PAS 2035.
The draft order will also add to the circumstances in which some heating measures, in particular solar PV and electric heating, can be available for households in the existing ECO4 scheme.
We estimate that as a direct result of the boost provided by the Great British insulation scheme, about 376,000 measures will be installed in around an additional 315,000 homes. That is expected to save households on average £300 to £400 per year.
To help to insulate as many homes as possible before next winter, the draft order will permit measures installed since 30 March to count towards the suppliers’ obligation target. This provision was signalled to energy suppliers in the Government response to their earlier consultation on scheme design; the response was published on that date. The Government consultation was conducted towards the end of 2022. The scheme design encapsulated in the draft order takes forward the main provisions set out in the consultation. The majority of consultation responses supported the proposals, including as central features the extension of energy efficiency help to the wider household group and a focus on the most cost-effective single insulation measures.
The Government are therefore proceeding with the main proposals, with some key changes considering the responses received and the final impact assessment. We have expanded the eligible council tax bands in Wales from bands A to C to bands A to E, better aligning with the proportion of eligible households in England and Scotland. We are requiring all measures to be installed with the PAS 2035 requirements, given the complexity of defining low-risk measures that could use any alternative standards. We have not implemented the proposal consulted on that suppliers must provide evidence that low-income households cannot meet the ECO4 scheme minimum requirements, to simplify administration.
We have ensured that households supported under the Great British insulation scheme will not be excluded from receiving future help under the ECO4 scheme where the eligibility criteria for that scheme are met. We will uplift scores on measures delivered to low-income rural off-grid households in Scotland and Wales, given the additional challenges that those households are likely to face. Equivalent households in England will be supported via the home upgrade grant. Recognising the value of innovation, those innovative products offering the greatest improvements and delivered to the low-income group will be eligible for both at 25% and 45% uplifts, subject to a cap.
The Great British insulation scheme will continue building on the successful ECO approach that has delivered energy efficiency measures to millions of households for the past decade. The scheme will extend help to hundreds of thousands more households previously ineligible for Government energy efficiency support. It will build momentum towards the Government’s ambition to reduce total UK energy demand by 15% from 2021 levels by 2030, and it is estimated that it will save more than 5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions from the lifetime of the measures installed. It will empower thousands more people to insulate their homes, protecting the pounds in their pocket and supporting jobs across the country. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The draft order is, in general, an unexceptionable statutory instrument, as the Minister says. Essentially, it will extend what was provided for in ECO4 to a further group of people who would otherwise not be eligible for assistance under that scheme. The explanatory memorandum indicates that the extent of the total obligation—taking ECO4, ECO4+ and ECO4A together—will be increased from about £1 billion to £1.3 billion or £1.4 billion overall.
If I may reprise a debate that the Minister and I had in the recent Energy Bill proceedings, what we call something and what it legally is appear to be two different things to the Government these days. For the benefit of the Committee, my understanding is that ECO4+, ECO4A and the Great British insulation scheme are the same thing; they are just different names for one scheme. For the purposes of our discussion, I will call it ECO4A, the middle of the three definitions, which will reasonably clarify what we are talking about.
As I understand it, ECO4A extends the eligibility of a number of people for ECO in its present manifestation: a scheme that is running from now until 2026 and is, or has been, targeted at more vulnerable customers, particularly people receiving particular benefits. ECO4+ will continue with a general approach of targeting disadvantaged customers, but on a much wider scale than was previously the case. However, ECO4A will not change ECO’s rules on the eligibility of properties: a wider canvas of customers, but the same canvas of properties, will be eligible. That is where some of the big problems with ECO4 have manifested themselves so far.
There is certainly a general feeling in industry and elsewhere that ECO4 is beginning to fail. I understand that that is for two particular reasons. First, whether a property qualifies for assistance under either ECO4 or ECO4A is based on whether the measures can make a difference of two bands to the property. Most properties cannot achieve that very easily. A lot of work has gone into searching for properties and particularly for people who qualify for ECO4, but it has been found that the people qualify and the properties do not. Some 90% of found searches are proving impossible to proceed with under ECO. The high rate of aborted programmes adds an enormous cost to the companies that are seeking searches for people who can qualify for ECO4.
The second issue is the very substantial difference in the cost of materials, given interest rate increases and inflation, and the ability of the programmes to stay within the ECO cost parameters for the schemes. For example, loft insulation has proved 430% more expensive than the ECO4 and ECO4A methodology assumed. Cavity wall insulation is 372% more expensive, and external wall insulation is 147% more expensive. Companies are just not able to do the amount of work for the amount of money that the ECO4 costings assume. An obliged company is therefore not able easily to meet the obligation targets in the way the methodology for ECO4 assumes. The delivery of ECO4, in comparison with that of previous ECO iterations, is very seriously behind schedule.
What dismays me is that none of those problems has been recognised in the methodology for ECO4A. Indeed, as we can see from the draft order, that methodology is pretty substantially the same as that for ECO4, with the exception of one or two things about off-grid customers and various other matters.
My question to the Minister, at the end of all that, is what consideration he has given to changing the methodology for ECO4A so that it does not fall into the traps that ECO4 has already started to fall into. Perhaps ECO4 could be brought back into any new methodology, because the two schemes run in parallel up to 2026, and we could solve a number of the problems in implementation over the period.
I think I may know the answer. Informal sources tell me that a further SI might be on its way in the not-too-distant future and will seek to correct a number of those methodological problems as ECO4 goes forward. Is that the case? If something is indeed coming to correct the methodological problems, will the solutions apply to both ECO4 and ECO4A, bearing in mind that that has not happened today? If the answer to both those questions is yes, I will be fairly pleased. If the answer is, “I am not sure: maybe,” I think we need to look at that further.
Finally, if the Minister is looking at methodological issues, might he consider whether the issue of the eligibility of the number of homes—as opposed to people—for ECO4A could be substantially ameliorated with a methodology that puts the focus of ECO4A, and by implication ECO4, on reducing energy costs in homes, rather than heating costs only? A number of measures that seem evident to most of us are not actually allowed under the ECO4 methodology as a result of the distinction between heating and energy costs. For example, where a home needs to upgrade light fittings and wiring so that it can switch to LED lighting, that makes an enormous difference to energy costs, but it is not eligible under ECO4 because it is only about heating costs in-home. Perhaps when the Minister tables his new SI—if indeed he is going to—he will think about that, because it would be helpful in taking the progress of ECO4 and ECO4A in a positive direction.
Other than our disappointment in the lack of a new methodology to mend both ECO4 and ECO4A, the official Opposition have no objections to the draft order, because we need to make progress with energy efficiency as quickly as possible.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
I welcome the draft order. The more money we can invest in energy efficiency, the better. How could I not be drawn in by a scheme that includes “Great British” as part of its title? It is so alluring. [Laughter.] But I do welcome the investment.
I have just a few questions for the Minister. Page 4 of the impact assessment states that, overall, the UK Government have a target to reduce energy consumption by 15% by 2030, compared with a 2021 baseline. How much will the draft order and these proposals for the installation of energy efficiency measures contribute to that 15% reduction target? What is the overall plan to get that 15% reduction by 2030?
The impact assessment also states that more than 100,000 additional homes will be helped to meet the target of being upgraded to achieve an energy performance certificate rating of band C. That is welcome, but to put it in context, it will still leave another 14 million or so homes to upgrade to EPC band C. What is the long-term target for getting those other 14 million homes upgraded to EPC band C, which is critical? That is the scale of the task that lies ahead.
The impact assessment further mentions a 20% uplift allowed for tackling rural properties in Scotland and Wales. What is the derivation of that 20% uplift? How realistic is the uplift as an allowance enabling rural homes in Scotland and Wales to fall under the scheme?
The whole thrust of the scheme seems to be based on cavity wall insulation as the main measure. Is that the right strategy overall, or does it mean that we are not tackling enough homes with other measures that could lift people out of fuel poverty? That is also critical. It is not just about reducing energy usage; it is about lifting people out of fuel poverty.
Further to the comments made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, I also want to highlight that the Government need to look at the roll-out of ECO4+, because it is quite clear that energy companies are saying that they are not getting the number of target properties to keep the scheme operational.
Andrew Bowie
I thank both my counterparts. Obviously they have not spent enough time locked in a Committee Room over the past six weeks, so they wanted to come back for some more today. It is a pleasure to be back with them both this afternoon.
Improving the energy efficiency of our homes is the best long-term solution to reduce energy bills and therefore to tackle fuel poverty. That is why the Government have set a new and ambitious target to reduce final energy demand from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030, and are committed to ensuring that homes are warmer and cheaper to heat by investing £12 billion in Help to Heat schemes such as the home upgrade grant and the social housing decarbonisation fund. The Government remain committed to helping low-income and vulnerable households to reduce their fuel bills and heat their homes. The Great British insulation scheme will be a crucial element of that help over this winter and for years to come.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked why a smaller number of all properties are projected to be insulated and why we are not focusing on solid wall insulation. The scheme will focus on the most cost-effective insulation measures to ensure that as many households as possible can receive support. Solid wall insulation remains eligible for the scheme, but as it is a high-cost measure, it is more likely to require a consumer contribution.
The Government are absolutely determined to reach our energy efficiency ambitions by 2030. We need to balance the ambition of the scheme with the impact of consumer bills and the ability for existing supply chains to deliver measures quickly. This Government are taking action now, led by the energy efficiency taskforce, and building on what has already been achieved through more efficient use of energy in the UK.
Let me address the points raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. Why is the number of homes estimated to be upgraded through the insulation scheme lower than was originally estimated? Compared with the modelling undertaken for the consultation stage impact assessment, the final modelling has incorporated higher-measure cost assumptions. These updated cost assumptions were informed by independent surveys of installers and have been the primary factor in causing the estimated number of homes treated through the scheme to fall.
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s statement that ECO4A, ECO4+ and the GBIS are the same scheme. He asked whether a minimum of two standard assessment procedure band improvements would be required, which might create problems for the insulation scheme. The GB insulation scheme has no minimum improvement requirement; it will target the most cost-effective single measures to make the biggest difference to the most energy-inefficient properties.
Should we support fully those who are on the lowest incomes and are the most vulnerable? We want to extend support to a broader pool of households who are currently ineligible for support through existing schemes but are also likely to be struggling to pay higher energy bills. At least 20% of the obligation will focus on low- income households, targeting those on means-tested benefits, living in the least efficient social housing or referred by a participating local authority or energy supplier and considered to be on a low income or vulnerable. The remainder will be open to households in the lower council tax bands: A to D in England and A to E in Scotland and Wales, equivalent to EPC rating D to G.
Has a comparative assessment been made of the cost assumptions for the ECO4 scheme and of those set out in the Great British insulation scheme consultation? We are monitoring ECO4 delivery against the current cost assumptions and will consider changes if necessary. However, changing the cost assumptions may require either a change to the overall energy bill reduction target, the estimated funding scheme policy details or a combination of all three. Such changes would require public consultation, and possibly regulatory change.
Dr Whitehead
I think the Minister has just indicated, in his very last sentence, that another SI may be on its way. If so, what is the timescale?
Andrew Bowie
I would not want to commit either to another SI being on its way or to a timescale for that happening. However, as the hon. Gentleman has just heard me say, any changes would require possible regulatory change. He can take from that what he will.
I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for their contributions and for the points that they made, and I thank everybody else for turning up today. I recognise that there is agreement that the scheme should continue at this time, providing critical support to a greater pool of households challenged by higher energy bills. Once again, I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, for what I think is the first time since I took on this role. The draft regulations were laid before the House on Wednesday 7 June 2023, under section 23(6) of the Business and Planning Act 2020, for approval by resolution of each House. If approved and made, they will extend the temporary pavement licence provisions for a further 12 months, to 30 September 2024. They will come into effect on the day after they are made.
The temporary pavement licence provisions created a faster, cheaper and more streamlined consenting regime for the placement of removable furniture, including tables and chairs, on pavements outside premises such as cafés, bars, restaurants and pubs—great local institutions, I think we can all agree. Such businesses have found it easier to offer al fresco dining with outside seating—and with the weather we have been having of late, I think we all appreciate that. The decline of high streets is a well-worn tale that negatively impacts local economies. Therefore, I am sure that hon. Members will welcome this extra support for businesses, especially as we seek ways to transform town centres into vibrant places to live, work and visit.
Now is not the time to switch off our support to the hospitality sector, which was one of the hardest hit by covid-19. The end of the pandemic was not the end of the impact of the pandemic, with inflationary pressures persisting to this day. It is therefore crucial that we extend these provisions for 12 months to give businesses certainty and to avoid unnecessary confusion while we seek to make the provisions permanent through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.
I will briefly remind hon. Members of what led to us this important debate. Part VIIA of the Highways Act 1980 sets out a permanent local authority licensing regime for the placement of furniture such as tables and chairs on the highway. The process involves a legal minimum of 28 days for consultation, which is problematic because many local authorities take much longer to determine applications. There is also no statutory cap on the fee that a local authority may charge.
Therefore, with effect from 22 July 2020, temporary pavement licence provisions were introduced under the Business and Planning Act 2020 to support the hospitality sector in response to the covid pandemic. The draft regulations use enabling powers in the Business and Planning Act 2020, which allow the Secretary of State to extend the temporary provisions, subject to parliamentary approval, if they consider it reasonable to do so to mitigate the effect of coronavirus.
I will turn briefly to the details of the draft regulations. Their sole purpose is to change the four references to the expiry date of the temporary pavement licence provisions in the legislation from 30 September 2023 to 30 September 2024. They do not change any other part of the temporary pavement licence provisions, so the process for applying for a licence during the extended period will not change.
Subject to the regulations being approved and made, businesses will be able to apply for a licence under the process set out in the pavement licence provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 for the extended period until 30 September 2024. The regulations do not automatically extend licences that have already been granted under the current provisions. Therefore, businesses will need to apply for a new licence if they wish to have one in place during the extended period.
Local authorities are encouraged by guidance to take a pragmatic approach in applying the relevant provisions, so that it is as convenient as possible for businesses to apply for a licence during the extended period. As the process for applying for a licence will remain unchanged, I will only briefly outline those steps. Licence applications are subject to a seven-day public consultation period starting the day after the application is made. A further seven-day determination period then follows, during which a local authority is expected to either grant a licence or reject the application.
If a local authority does not determine the application before the end of the determination period, the licence will automatically be deemed to have been granted in the form in which the application was made. A business can then place the proposed removable furniture, such as tables and chairs, within the area set out in the application for the proposed purposes.
Licence application fees will be set locally but capped at a maximum of £100. Those fees are unchanged from the licence application fees under the current temporary provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I welcome the provisions put forward by the Minister. On fees, I urge her to ensure that local authorities do not get excited and start to see this as another way of earning revenue. I hope that, if there is pressure from local authorities to increase the fee from £100, the Minister and her officials will clamp down hard. Many of these businesses are still recovering from the pandemic, and the last thing they want is increased fees.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In developing the provisions, we have engaged extensively with the Local Government Association and a range of local authorities, and we have paid attention to the costs and resourcing for the applications. The rationale behind the extension of the temporary arrangement is to try to make it cheaper and easier for businesses to operate outside—that is our top priority in extending the provisions.
All licences will be subject to a national no-obstruction condition and a smoke-free seating condition, as well as any local conditions set by local authorities. It is important to note that the grant of a pavement licence covers only the placing of removable furniture on the highway. It does not negate the need to obtain approvals under other regulatory frameworks, such as alcohol licensing.
Once a licence is granted or deemed to be granted, the applicant will also benefit from deemed planning permission to use the highway land for anything done pursuant to the licence while the licence is valid. That could include using furniture to sell or serve food or drink supplied from a premises.
The draft regulations will enable food and drink hospitality businesses to continue to obtain a licence to place furniture on the highway outside their premises quickly and cheaply. I firmly believe that the regulations will provide essential economic support for many food and drink businesses. If the regulations are passed, we will publish an updated version of the pavement licence guidance for local authorities and businesses so that they are aware of the continued support on offer.
I must stress—it has to get serious sometimes—that if the draft regulations are not introduced, there is a real risk that the steps that food and drink hospitality businesses have taken to recover from the economic impact of the pandemic will be undermined. We are seeking to make this measure permanent through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and a failure to extend it would result in an unnecessary gap in service and a return to the process under the Highways Act 1980, which would be confusing and costly for businesses and local authorities alike.
I am sure that many of us have enjoyed al fresco dining at pubs, cafés and restaurants and can see the positive impact that it has had on customers and the vibrance of our brilliant high streets. Since introducing a simplified route to obtain a temporary pavement licence, we have heard many examples of local businesses being able to increase their outdoor capacity quickly and at low cost. I am sure that we can all think of examples in our own constituencies.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Draft regulation 2 states:
“These Regulations extend to England and Wales.”
But the explanatory memorandum states:
“The territorial application of this instrument…is England.”
Will the practical introduction of the statutory instrument in Wales be left to the Welsh Government, or will the measure now be stopped in Wales?
Dehenna Davison
For fear of misleading the Committee, I will follow up on that point in writing immediately following this sitting, so that I can set it out firmly and clearly and based on the regulations more widely. I apologise for not having an answer immediately to hand.
I want to express my gratitude to local authorities for the huge effort they have made in this matter. Their hard work has enabled businesses to thrive, while building vibrant high streets, and it has led to the success of these measures.
The draft regulations will allow al fresco dining and drinking to remain a reality for businesses and provide much-needed continuity and certainty for another year while we seek to make these measures permanent through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. For me, it feels a little like groundhog day. This time last year I spoke on legislation to extend pavement licensing from 2022 to 2023, although in front of a different Minister—some might argue a lesser Minister. I hope for answers and some progress today.
We are yet again working on the basis of extending this legislation for just another year. We support this statutory instrument, but I lament the fact that the Government continue to think in the short term. They tinker around the edges of policy to make it stretch further, rather than put the work into long-term strategies to support high street businesses.
We all know from our local communities that businesses have not fully recovered from the pandemic; they have not had a chance. The Government’s mismanagement of the economy has sent fuel and food prices soaring, inflated interest rates and made mortgages, including for business properties, increasingly unaffordable. We do not plan to oppose the regulations, but there are improvements that the Minister could make, and I would be grateful to have her response on some of them.
There continue to be widespread job vacancies in hospitality—an industry that has traditionally relied on overseas workers and is now struggling to fill gaps. If media reports over the weekend are to be believed, Conservative Members are pressing for even stricter limitations on visas for foreign workers. Will the Minister please share with us whether any assessment has been done of the impact of those plans on the hospitality sector? How many more vacancies does she think it can sustain before closures become inevitable?
Small and medium-sized enterprises are still struggling with an outdated and punitive business rates system, while online giants grow fatter by avoiding paying their fair share of taxes. The lack of Government action on bringing in a digital sales tax is pushing more bricks-and-mortar businesses into bankruptcy as they struggle to compete. We will continue to fight that battle in our debates over the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, which is being examined thoroughly in the other place.
Enabling hospitality venues to operate outdoors for longer will certainly help boost custom, particularly in the summer months—although perhaps not this morning. Sector representatives, including UKHospitality, have emphasised the economic benefits to non-urban areas, which have previously not facilitated outdoor dining and are eager for this to be a permanent change in how hospitality businesses can operate. Will the Minister please tell us how much the extension to pavement licensing will offset the damage caused by covid and the Government’s economic mismanagement? Has any assessment been made of that at all? Ultimately, what is the point of these piecemeal bits of legislation, such as extending pavement licensing year after year, if there are fewer businesses and workers on the high street because the wholesale changes that are needed have not been made? However, that is what we have in front of us.
In previous years, charities advocating for people with sight loss have berated the Government for pushing through this well-meaning legislation without adequately consulting them. There are obvious dangers for people with sight loss, and often corresponding hearing loss, when the pavements they are familiar with become occupied and hazards arise. A-boards are a familiar problem that disabled groups are sick of having to raise again and again. I note that, once again, there is no impact assessment for the regulations.
Shailesh Vara
The hon. Lady said in opening that she welcomes the proposals, and she is now raising a legitimate concern relating to those who are partially sighted or not sighted at all. What would be her solution to that issue?
Sarah Owen
This hugely important issue has been raised time and again. One of the solutions is to have an equality impact assessment and to put it before Members today so we can actually take those decisions. There should also be a proper consultation. Last year, I was promised a consultation with the sight loss groups and charities, but we have not seen one. That solution is staring us in the face.
Shailesh Vara
The hon. Lady says that part of the solution is to seek an impact assessment, but what practical solution does she propose? An impact assessment would be a get-out clause to allow her to make the criticism but not provide an alternative solution—[Interruption.] I am simply asking. She raises a fair point, but what is her practical solution? She approves of this measure but seeks to criticise it in relation to access for those who are disabled. [Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter.
Sarah Owen
None of us is laughing about this, but one of us is ignoring the problem that those groups are raising. We all agree that there is a serious problem with A-boards and pavement licensing: the lack of consultation and information about the impact. The right hon. Member asked me what my solution would be, and I would want to see what impact the regulations have on people, particularly those who are disabled. Right now, we are not being given that information, so we are having to take this decision without the information in front of us. I would be able to make a much more informed decision if I had the information, but, surprisingly, for now, I am not in government.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Maybe the hon. Lady could help us by telling us why the Welsh Government have not pursued an impact assessment, because Labour is in government in Wales.
Sarah Owen
I think what I will do is check whether the Welsh Government have actually done this. I will be urging them to do the same, and I ask the right hon. Member to put the same pressure on Ministers in this Government.
Can the Minister assure me that greater care was taken this year to listen to stakeholder concerns and to make improvements accordingly? I think that that is something we all want to see. We all recognise that there are serious issues—particularly for people who are blind, partially sighted or disabled—when it comes to the use of A-boards and obstructions on our pavements. We are being asked to make a decision on the draft regulations without any information on whether a detailed consultation took place last year, as was promised, and on the equality impact assessment. That is the point of equality impact assessments: so that we can take knowledgeable, understanding decisions in this place. They are not a get-out clause; they are so that we know the true impact of the legislation on which we are voting.
On the unintended negative implications of the draft regulations, we have spoken before about the growing pressure on councils to provide more services with less funding, and local government is another sector suffering from staff vacancies. Extending pavement licensing will bring a benefit to the consumers using these businesses, as well as to the business owners themselves. However, we must also consider the burdens piled on councils in the administration of reviewing pavement licensing, monitoring adherence to these policies, maintaining and cleaning the areas involved, and other responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) effectively raised this issue in Committee during deliberations on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill last year, when he reminded the Minister that pavements and highways are public assets and that the public should get a share of the profits garnered by businesses, which take those profits into their private domain. I note that the Minister expressed her gratitude for the work that local authorities have done, particularly during covid, to keep businesses afloat, but can she provide me with an update on whether further consideration has been given to the proposal to allow councils to have more of a share of the financial rewards gained by businesses, which would allow precious revenue to be spent on residents when resources are so scarce?
As I said, we will not oppose the licensing extension, because something is better than nothing and any gesture of support for the businesses that make our high streets, town centres and tourism hubs so vibrant is most welcome. However, the glaring truth behind the smaller debates that have been had on the draft regulations is that, ultimately, these measures are another policy solution typical of this Government: they are a short-term sticking-plaster policy that hopes to tide us over before the election of a new Government who will really tackle the financial mess. This is the sort of strategy that will define this Prime Minister’s era. Businesses will not forget the trauma they went through during the pandemic, but if they were lucky enough to survive that and still exist today, they certainly will not forget the chaos since then.
The cost of living crisis has meant that every pound must be stretched further. Families are struggling to put food on the table at home, and we can be certain that they are limiting their spending on eating out even more. Measures such as this statutory instrument will provide a vital opportunity for businesses to reach customers outdoors, but until customers have more money in their pockets to enjoy what is on offer, the Government are just throwing scraps to a fragile, diminishing industry.
Dehenna Davison
There was me thinking that we had agreement and that it was going to be nice, chilled session today. On the first core point about the Government’s support for high streets, I need to put on the record some of the incredible support the Government put in place throughout the pandemic, and before and since. Let us talk about additional support on business rates, the furlough scheme, the future high streets fund, the towns fund, the levelling-up fund, the high street rental auctions that are coming into play soon to help with vacant units, the high streets taskforce, the roll-out of high-speed broadband—
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Would the Minister speak a little slower? I am profoundly deaf, and I am struggling to hear and make out what she is saying.
The Chair
That is all right, but it is entirely for the Minister to determine how she wishes to speak.
Dehenna Davison
I apologise for rambling, but I am so excited about the support that the Government have put in place for our high streets that I wanted to rattle off the list to reassure the Opposition that support for our high streets, and ensuring that they thrive into the future, are incredibly important. That is not to mention our devolution agenda, which providing more support, more funding and more local powers for local people to take control of their destinies—a Conservative approach to levelling up our high streets.
On the cost to businesses, which has been raised from the introduction of these provisions, we used the new burdens doctrine to ensure that councils would not be penalised for the monitoring, evaluation and enforcement of the measures. That is why the Government have reimbursed councils for the first year of the provisions. The sum came to just under £5 million, and that will continue as the measures are extended.
On the idea of taking a slice of business takings under these measures to pump back into local government, that seems to me exactly the opposite of what we should do when trying to support our incredible hospitality businesses. That is not something that the Government will support.
An important point was raised around accessibility, which we are taking incredibly seriously. We introduced the measures in response to a really difficult time for the hospitality industry. We received a number of representations from institutions such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. Following the first year of the measures, we took those fully on board and introduced newer guidance. We consulted with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the RNIB and Guide Dogs so that the most up-to-date guidance ensured that local authorities knew their obligations, ensuring that the pavement licensing regime is fit for purpose, in terms of both supporting businesses to trade outside and people who have accessibility issues.
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for those points, but could we please have an assurance that when we are, inevitably, here again next year, we will have an equality impact assessment so that we can see the results of the consultation and what those charities and organisations are calling for?
Dehenna Davison
We will not be here next year, because the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will get Royal Assent to make the measures permanent.
Nick Smith
Paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum says:
“No formal consultation has taken place on this measure.”
The Minister said that there had been consultation in an earlier year with Guide Dogs and the RNIB. What did the RNIB ask the Government to do, and what have the Government done to support those organisations to help people to get around these obstacles on our pavements?
Dehenna Davison
I will certainly provide some more specific detail on that point, but the core point was ensuring that we update the guidance for local authorities, which we have done. As I said in my opening remarks, we will update the guidance further this year for the extension of the provisions.
Nick Smith
I am glad of that, but that is not what I asked, which was about what the RNIB asked for and what the Government then did.
Dehenna Davison
As I said, I will follow up on that specific point in writing. I do not want the fact that we have disagreements to take away from the fact that we agree on the extension of the measures and on supporting our hospitality industry in rolling out al fresco dining and other great things that we are all benefiting from in Britain. That is why I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Employment Tribunals: Average Waiting Times
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
Following a merger of IT systems, there is no current data on average waiting times, but the outstanding caseload has reduced from 48,000 in February to 41,000 in March this year because of an increase in the number of sitting days. As well as the increased sitting day allocation, we continue to support and reform the employment tribunals process and to make progress in reducing the backlog.
[Official Report, 27 June 2023, Vol. 735, c. 137.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore).
The correct response should have been:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
Following a merger of IT systems, there is no current data on average waiting times, but the outstanding caseload has reduced from 48,000 in February to 41,000 in March this year, in part because of an increase in the number of sitting days. As well as the increased sitting day allocation, we continue to support and reform the employment tribunals process and to make progress in reducing the backlog.
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
Approved Mileage Allowance Payment Rate
(10 months, 1 week 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
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 600966, relating to the Approved Mileage Allowance Payment rate.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. The prayer of the petition reads:
“The HMRC mileage rate for reimbursing the use of private cars (e.g. for employees but also volunteers) has been fixed at 45p/mile (up to 10,000 miles) since 2011. The lack of any increase since then is a serious disincentive to volunteer drivers particularly as fuel has gone up again recently.
Since 2011, inflation has gone up by over 25%; fuel has increased by over 20% over the last 5 years. Volunteer car drivers who did so much during Covid, and still do, to get people to healthcare settings, e.g. hospitals, vaccination centres, and to deliver shopping and prescriptions, are not being compensated fairly for the use of their cars. Consequently charities are struggling to recruit new volunteer drivers. These drivers help free up hospital beds and keep people independent and in their own homes.”
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for opening his speech so powerfully. Does he agree that the approved mileage allowance payment rate must increase because it has not increased since 2011, while motoring costs, including the cost of fuel and vehicle maintenance costs, have risen?
Elliot Colburn
The hon. Lady has basically nicked the crux of my speech, but I thank her for making my point so succinctly.
The petition received over 41,500 signatures, including 25 from Carshalton and Wallington. On behalf of all parliamentarians, I should declare that MPs’ mileage rates, claimed through the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, are also calculated at 45p per mile, in line with the approach taken by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. However, I hasten to add that we are not debating MPs’ rates today.
I thank all those who signed the petition and have taken an interest in the debate, including the many volunteer and community groups that have been in touch. I also thank the petition creator, Rev. Nick Ralph, as well as representatives of the Good Neighbours Network, the Community Transport Association, Unison and the Association of Taxation Technicians, for meeting me to discuss the subject of the debate. As always, a massive thanks must go to the Petitions Committee team, who have worked incredibly hard to organise the meetings I just mentioned and to provide briefings in advance of the debate.
When I agreed to lead the debate, I did so with a focus on the charitable activity mentioned in the petition’s prayer, remembering the enormous volunteering effort that I witnessed and was part of during the pandemic, both locally and nationally. Our country has a proud history of volunteering. One route can even be traced back to the medieval age, when there was a strong link between religion and the aiding of the sick, needy and poor. Indeed, according to sources, over 500 voluntary hospitals were established in England in the 12th and 13th centuries alone. More recently, in this century, we London MPs think of the enormous army of volunteers who helped to spread joy and cheer throughout the Olympic park during the 2012 London Olympics and, as I have already noted, the hundreds of thousands of people who volunteered their time to help those in need during the covid pandemic. From taking part in befriending telephone calls to collecting and dropping off shopping or prescriptions, the effort was enormous. It made me incredibly proud of our country and, indeed, my own community.
Volunteering is an incredibly noble calling, endorsed by its long history of royal patronage. This year, the Royal Voluntary Service launched the Coronation Champion awards to recognise volunteers who have gone above and beyond for their charities, and volunteering was made an intrinsic part of Their Majesties’ coronation itself. Billed as a lasting legacy of that momentous occasion, the Big Help Out took place on the bank holiday Monday of the celebration, with hundreds of thousands of people taking part across the country.
The numbers speak for themselves. According to a survey in 2019-20, 64% of people had volunteered at least once in the past year, and just shy of 40% had volunteered in the past month. The following year, 62% of respondents stated that they had volunteered at least once in the past year, and the number reporting having volunteered in the past month rose to 41%.
That potted history of the relationship between our country, its people and volunteering featured so heavily in my introduction because it helps to set the scene for the petition and makes clear its importance. Many in our communities depend on volunteers, but it is important that those volunteers, whatever they may be doing, feel valued and appreciated. That is important not just for retaining volunteers but for recruiting new ones. Yet from the conversations that I have had with affected stakeholders, the current HMRC AMAP rate is proving to be a real sticking point for many charities in retaining their volunteers, particularly longer-serving ones.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The hon. Member is outlining powerfully the benefits of volunteering for the community, but he will also be aware of its benefits for individuals. Does he share my concern that, as the cost of motoring rises, we are excluding many people from the benefits of volunteering to both them and their community, and does he agree that all community transport networks should be consulted in any review of the mileage rate?
Elliot Colburn
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady.
The mileage allowance payment rate currently allows volunteers to claim up to 45p a mile for the first 10,000 miles and 25p for each mile after that, yet the 45p rate has not been reviewed or increased since 2011. That affects not just charities but many employees of the variety of businesses that use the AMAP rate to regulate employees’ use of their private cars for business.
In their initial response to the petition, the Government stated that the rate
“is intended to create administrative simplicity by using an average, which reflects vehicle running costs including fuel, depreciation, servicing, insurance, and Vehicle Excise Duty.”
Indeed, I spoke to many stakeholders who agreed that the rate was probably the best approach for reimbursing volunteers and employees. It is easy to use and free from bureaucracy, and it minimises the burden of extra paperwork or the potential for inaccurate or incorrect payment.
The issue for the petition creator is not necessarily the system itself but the rate of the allowance. The “RAC Cost of Motoring Index 2011” concluded that that year was not an easy one for motorists; drivers had to contend with record fuel prices and a sharp increase in the cost of car insurance. Much of that remains true today—it is just a lot more expensive. All the costs associated with vehicle use have increased, but the disparity between today and when the AMAP was last adjusted is demonstrated most simply by the cost of fuel. The current average cost of petrol nationwide is 144.86p a litre, and diesel is at 145.54p. In 2011, the last time the rates were changed, petrol averaged 133.65p and diesel 138.94p.
Those averages do not reflect sporadic fluctuations over that time. One argument that has been made is that fuel costs were brought down by the temporary 12-month cut to duty on petrol and diesel of 5p a litre announced in last year’s spring statement, and the Government noted that in their response. Many people I spoke to in the run-up to the debate argued not just for a review of the rate but for regular reviews, which could take into account fluctuations and would make the system much nimbler, given the continuing uncertainty with respect to the costs of running a vehicle in general and of fuel specifically. Charities and employees could therefore properly fund and support those who currently find that the AMAP only partially covers the costs of running a vehicle, without fear of being penalised through the tax system for paying a more fitting rate.
The AMAP is only one way suggested to employers and charities to reimburse drivers. Some may argue that they could choose to pay more to reflect the increased cost of running a vehicle, but if a higher allowance is paid, an income tax and national insurance charge is placed on the difference. That is precisely why the petition was set up—to try to scrap the charge for those wanting to pay an allowance that better reflects the reality of driving a vehicle in 2023.
Can the Minister tell us how much revenue is collected through overpayment of the AMAP rate and how that would be impacted if the rate were raised to, say, 60p as outlined in the petition? It could be argued that with a more rigorous, up-to-date support system with regular reviews, our businesses and charities would be able to ensure that those using their vehicles for work or for volunteering are valued, and they would find it easier to retain them. The Government have worked to stabilise fuel costs by cutting fuel duty in the light of the knock-on effects of the invasion of Ukraine, among other factors. I believe that that stabilising work should filter down to our volunteers and workers through a regularly reviewed and increased AMAP rate.
The arguments in favour of the petition’s aims seem incredibly plausible, especially since, as I have noted—I am sure we will hear this a lot during the debate—the rate has not been adjusted since 2011. I hardly need to list the ways in which our world, our lives and the cost of things have changed over the last 12 years. Instead, in drawing my remarks to a conclusion, I will again draw Members’ attention to the workers and volunteers who have strived to get this country moving and growing over the last decade.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is a pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend, who is making incredibly important and sensible points. Does he share my hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to them? We have a very strong voluntary sector on the Isle of Wight. Mike Bulpitt, one of the lead volunteers on the Island and chief executive of a community action centre, contacted me because he is worried that a lot of our voluntary drivers will find it difficult to continue to volunteer due to the lack not only of an increase in the rate but of regular reviews. I say on his behalf that we thoroughly support what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he share my hope that the Minister is listening and feeling generous?
Elliot Colburn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that the rate affects businesses and employees too, but the core principle is that volunteers, in particular, should not be penalised for their noble service and for giving up their free time to help others. It is clear that the rate is affecting the recruitment of volunteers to use their private vehicles at a time when those volunteers are so needed.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so gracious in giving way again. Volunteers must be appreciated, and ensuring that these allowances increase is one way to appreciate them, but does he agree that public sector workers—I was one in the past, and they did so much during the covid period and continue to do so—should also be given the allowances they are due, too?
Elliot Colburn
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, too; public sector workers, particularly those working in our national health service, are also impacted by the reduced rate. That only enhances the petitioners’ call for the rate to be increased and reviewed more regularly.
Our volunteers in particular, but also our public sector workers, have shown themselves to be true engines of growth and betterment. It is surely time that they feel properly supported in their endeavours, whether entrepreneurial or charitable. If we are to ensure a brighter future for our country, those who drive it must be paid a rate that reflects today’s world and not the world of more than a decade ago. I look forward to hearing from all hon. Members. I hope that the Government will listen to our calls and look to introduce an increased rate, as well as a system of more regular review so that we do not have to come back to the issue every 10 years or so and just hope that the Government fancy doing it one day.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) not only for the eloquence with which he presented his argument, but for its very balanced nature. This issue unites the Chamber; there is almost a manifest injustice here. There is little that has not increased since 2011, and there has been a significant number of elections, never mind of changes in office. As he correctly pointed out, it is not simply the voluntary sector that is affected. Not only those employed by the council, but those who are self-employed—the traditional white-van man and those in other occupations—also need recompense for the mileage that they are required to do to carry out their trade, their services or whatever.
In a matter that I have been pursuing locally it has often been put forward that there can be local settlements, but, as the hon. Member correctly pointed out, the template tends to be HMRC’s and there are implications for taxation if that is not followed. Even when I have had negotiations and discussions with officials, it has been very difficult to get political sign-off, so it is one thing for officials to be persuaded. There are Members here who were at the meeting held by Unison along with the RAC Foundation. Although some might view Unison as having a vested interest, I do not think that that can be said about the RAC Foundation.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I, too, was at the Unison-organised meeting and I can say only positive things about its engagement with Members right across the House. Let me put on the record my thanks to Anna Birley from Unison for the report that she so ably prepared.
Kenny MacAskill
Absolutely. I am sitting with a copy of the report myself and the hon. Member is correct; there were people from a variety of parties at the meeting. The RAC Foundation was not there in a political capacity. I think Unison did the right thing to hold the meeting with the RAC Foundation. It gave the meeting ballast and legitimacy because the RAC, along with the AA, is a specialist in motoring matters and has come to the conclusion that 63p, together with some form of system, is what is necessary.
Locally, I face all the difficulties that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington ably pointed out. East Lothian is not the biggest constituency—it is not the size of some of those in the highlands of Scotland—but it is still significant. It runs along the A1 for in excess of 60 miles, from Musselburgh all the way to the villages before the Scottish Borders. Although the principal town tends to be Haddington, with the community hospital hub and the council based there, people are unable to work without going into the other towns, which are equally jealous of their independence and seek to retain their own facilities, whether it is those on the coast such as Dunbar, where I live, and North Berwick, or inland at Tranent or elsewhere, never mind the small villages. Whether someone is doing voluntary work, working for the council or carrying out a trade, they cannot do their job without running up significant mileage.
We are not only talking about those working in fields such as care. There are people in senior positions and health visitors who are struggling financially because, as with others, they have seen their mortgage go up while they have to keep a roof above their head, yet it costs them to work because they are not recompensed for the daily mileage that they rack up. They need a car to carry out their work on behalf of their employer, and they have to pay additional costs to do that. That is why the issue has to be taken on board.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington correctly pointed out that we should not just seek to remedy the mileage allowance once and then have to look at it again; it could be worthwhile to make it index linked. As the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) will be aware from the meeting I mentioned, we also have to bear in mind that when the allowance is paid by employers, it is meant to recompense workers not simply for the cost of fuel—the £1.45 that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned resonates with what Asda is currently charging in Dunbar—but for the wear and tear on their cars and for insurance.
One of the most significant things that I learned from the RAC Foundation was that fuel costs had increased at the lowest rate; insurance, as I recall, had increased at the highest rate, but other things had increased too. Not only do people have to pay for their petrol or diesel, but they have to pay the car costs that are necessary for their work and that their employer expects them to pay, because otherwise they cannot do their job. That is certainly true in my area, but it is the same in others, whether they are urban or rural. That is why the mileage allowance should be increased.
There is, as I say, political buy-in from across the Chamber. There is a recognition, not just from trade unions but from motoring organisations, that the rate is long past its sell-by date. It is clear from what others have said that this is not simply about people struggling to do their work, but about getting people into the labour market—a statement is being made elsewhere in this building on that very subject. People must be recompensed for their work and not pay out of their own pocket to do their job.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a brilliant and eloquent speech. Many of my Livingston constituents signed the petition, but one of my constituents, who is a housing officer, was struggling to get by on the mileage allowance before the cost of living crisis. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that if staff, whether they are NHS staff or other public sector staff, cannot get by on the mileage rate that is being offered, they will go elsewhere? We are already struggling to keep people in those vital roles.
Kenny MacAskill
Absolutely. The issue was first raised with me by the chief executive of East Lothian Council, because it is struggling to retain staff, and staff are necessary.
I will finish there, Mr Sharma. It seems that we have buy-in from across the Chamber and, I think, in the community, as shown by Unison and the RAC Foundation. This is about remedying a wrong: 2011 was a long time ago politically, never mind in terms of costs, and on that basis I hope that the Minister can come around not simply to addressing the rate, but to ensuring that we do not have this issue recurring and that we sort out some annualised system.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for leading this e-petition debate. Petition 600966 calls for a review of the approved mileage allowance payment rate—the AMAP rate—which, as we have heard, has remained at the same level since 2012. The petitioners are supported in their campaign by the Community Transport Association and by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has previously called for an urgent review to reflect the soaring cost of living increases.
When previous campaigns have been launched calling for a review of the AMAP rate, the Government have invariably responded by stating that the rate is not mandatory—that employers can set whatever level of mileage reimbursement they want. However, very few set a different rate, due to the tax liability implications for employers and volunteers. The rate is thus a standard to which the vast majority of businesses and charities adhere; it is regarded as best practice and avoids the complications of drivers having to pay income tax.
I acknowledge that the 5p per litre cut to petrol and diesel prices, announced in the 2022 spring statement and extended through to next year, has provided respite and support to drivers, but the current cost of living crisis has brought into clear focus the need for a review. If it is not carried out, I fear that there will be negative knock-on implications for services such as the NHS, social care and public transport, and that ultimately the Treasury will pick up the bill.
Many of my concerns revolve around community transport and the great work that is carried out in north-east Suffolk and south-east Norfolk by BACT, which provides community transport for people for whom other forms of public transport are not easily available. BACT has its own minibuses and wheelchair-accessible vehicles, but a significant proportion of its services are provided by its volunteer drivers using their own vehicles. The failure to review the AMAP rate is imperilling the crucial lifeline services provided by BACT and many other community transport providers.
I shall briefly set out what I believe is a compelling case for a review. First of all, it should be pointed out that the cost of motoring has increased significantly since 2011-12. The petition, as we have heard, highlights that inflation has increased overall prices by over 25% since 2011, and that of fuel by over 20% over the past five years. Since 2011, vehicle maintenance costs have risen by 38% and, as we have heard, the RAC Foundation’s cost of transport index has increased by 41%.
The third sector—that is, the voluntary sector—plays a vital role in local communities. We would not have gotten through covid without volunteers, and we need them even more now to get through the cost of living crisis. Many of those working for charities and organisations like BACT use their own cars, and it is only right that they are fairly recompensed for doing so. Currently they are not, and that disincentivises volunteers to offer their services. Community transport operators like BACT increasingly report challenges with driver recruitment and retention.
In many areas, including Suffolk and Norfolk, community transport operators have become a vital part of the public transport system. They are, in effect, the Heineken of the system—they go where commercial operators and the local transport authority either cannot or will not go—and heavy reliance has been placed on them to provide their services. Without their drivers, a system that I sense already operates on the brink would collapse altogether and many vulnerable people would be left isolated. Community transport operators like BACT provide a vital service to the NHS, driving people to hospital, GP surgeries, vaccination centres and dentists. The latter can be quite a trek, even assuming that an NHS dentist can be found. They also provide non-emergency transport to hospitals, and if they are not around to do that, that will be another cost that the NHS has to bear at a time when it can ill afford to do so.
A product of covid has been a dramatic increase in social isolation and loneliness. During the lockdowns, many vulnerable people were left marooned in their own homes, and it was almost always local volunteers who rallied round to ensure they were not alone and not forgotten. Post lockdown, many people have only tentatively come out of their homes, and for some their only lifeline to the outside world is provided by the volunteers who drive them for their weekly shop, without whom life would be very lonely.
It is important to acknowledge that the service provided by community transport operators like BACT is vital in rural areas, where for many people there is no alternative means of public transport. If the volunteer drivers throw in the towel because they are not being properly recompensed, another group of people will be left stranded, unable to access services that most of us take for granted.
Finally, I come to social care. The Government rightly recognise the importance and the need for an integrated and improved health and social care system that keeps people independent in their own homes. That will need a whole army of dedicated social care workers on the road, invariably in their own vehicles, to visit and support their clients. Unfortunately, they are not well paid, and the last thing they need is a mileage allowance that does not cover the cost of keeping an old vehicle roadworthy. Skimping and saving on the AMAP rate will result in recruitment becoming even more difficult in this vital sector.
The case for a fair, urgent and transparent review of the rate is compelling. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister’s reply, but I urge him to take the message back to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should instigate the review straightaway, with a view to announcing the outcome in the spring Budget.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for leading the debate and for an excellent speech. I am very happy to contribute to this important debate.
Although a relatively small number of my constituents— 38—signed the petition, the issue of mileage allowance payments looms large in my constituency and has been raised a number of times in correspondence and conversations with my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South. Stoke-on-Trent is a hub for logistical industries and delivery operations of various kinds, and a larger than average proportion of the workforce works in health and personal care services. As we have just heard, social care is particularly affected by this issue, because people often drive their own vehicles to go to care for people in their homes. Stoke-on-Trent is a city that has no tube or tram network and a very limited local train network, and bus services have been in sorry decline for too long. I am glad to say that this Government have shown a real commitment to remedying that, but for those who have to travel beyond the usual commute for work, without a company car or other such vehicles, there is often no alternative to the use of private vehicles.
In 2011, it was recognised that the time had come for the main allowance to increase by 5p to 45p, because it had been held at 40p for nearly 10 years, since 2002. It has now been more than 10 years since that last uprating. At the very least, we need to look at the allowance again and undertake a review, as many colleagues have called for today. Of course, I accept that the last 10 years were somewhat different from the 10 years before them. In the decade up to 2011, fuel duties rose from 45.82p per litre to 58.95p per litre, but drivers incur a number of other costs, as many colleagues have said. In the decade after 2011, the fuel duty story was very different, thanks to this Conservative Government. Duty was cut to 57.95p per litre in March 2011 and then frozen for a decade until a cut of 5p per litre on 23 March last year—a cut we thankfully still enjoy today. I welcome the Government’s action. It benefits all motorists, and it is the simplest administrative measure available. Generally, I support the Lawson doctrine of lower tax rates funded by fewer tax breaks where possible, but there is clearly a need for a specific tax break, mileage allowance, to reflect the additional inflationary and other costs of using personal vehicles for work purposes. The system needs to be fit for purpose, and the rate needs to be appropriate to the current situation.
The Government say that they want to minimise administrative burdens, so the system needs to be simple and predictable. I wonder whether the employer’s discretion in using the AMAP rate really makes the system that predictable for the driver. There is huge variation in how the rate is applied, and many use a rate that is far less generous than the standard rate. Unfortunately, I have heard of a number of employers that are not even applying the 45p rate, never mind a higher one, and some workers are having to suffer much lower rates.
Many who do larger amounts of mileage, such as those who work in delivery or a trade that requires them to travel around the country, have been hit by the 10,000 mile advisory annual limit, after which the rate drops from 45p to 25p. I have spoken with a number of constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South who undertake trades that require them to travel up and down the country to work and deliver services. They often travel many more than 10,000 miles in a year, and they have to put up with a much lower rate after they have gone over the 10,000-mile limit.
I note that the startups.co.uk website warns budding entrepreneurs and contractors:
“Whether you can claim, and how much, depends on an assortment of factors that can require a lot of admin to calculate.”
Notwithstanding that, I think that most colleagues would agree that the current mileage system has not been as pressing an issue historically. The petitions and letters campaign has appeared quite recently, because the feeling that the allowance rate is insufficient is now acute, particularly because of the post-pandemic inflationary pressures, which have been massively increased by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Even in the face of the freeze and cut in fuel duty, this issue continues to be a major challenge. To afford a more generous allowance, it has been suggested that the system be changed so that only certain sectors qualify for a higher rate. We have been talking about the social care and healthcare sectors, and a number of colleagues have mentioned the voluntary sector, wherein many people who voluntarily take parcels and things do so using their personal vehicles. It is potentially important to have a higher rate for individuals who are volunteering, and for organisations that are currently struggling to recruit volunteers because the rate remains at 45p, as it has for so long. The Government could certainly apply sectoral codes, as they do with other reliefs, such as the energy bill relief scheme, but deciding who is left out can lead to challenging outcomes, as I have found with the energy and trade intensive industries scheme, where some sectors have fallen through the cracks.
I do not underestimate how challenging the fiscal situation is. Over 10 years ago, the cost of increasing the allowance by just 5p was around £35 million per annum. That is quite a significant cost, but as the Treasury prepares for the autumn statement—now just weeks away—and the spring Budget, it needs to look at how the rates might be modernised to help with the cost of living pressures that many of our constituents are feeling, given that the rate has been frozen for so long. I hope that the Government and the Minister will consider the issue, and look into the potential for a review. I look forward to the Government’s response in due course.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on ably leading yet another Petitions Committee debate. Thirty-eight of my constituents in Darlington have signed the petition, but I know that it is an issue of great importance to many more. Mileage rates were first introduced to reflect the costs of using a vehicle for work and to make reimbursing them administratively straightforward. However, as we have heard, HMRC’s current rates have not changed since 2011, despite many increases in the cost of motoring, particularly the rapid increase in fuel prices that began in early 2022 as a result of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine.
It is estimated that one in five frontline service workers are required to drive to do their job, often travelling significant distances to carry out their work. Moreover, research from the RAC Foundation shows that the vehicle of a public sector worker who drives for their job is typically older and driven further than the average. As that will result in a greater effect on the servicing and depreciation of their vehicle, it is clear that a significant number of those workers will be left out of pocket by the present mileage allowance payment rate.
I welcome that the mileage allowance of NHS workers under the agenda for change agreements are reviewed twice a year, taking into account changes in motoring costs, and I know that current NHS mileage approved payment rates were increased on 1 January 2023 to 59p per mile. That is above the HMRC approved amount. Although the approved mileage allowance payment rate is advisory, it is ultimately up to employers to choose what they reimburse. It is still hugely important to public sector workers, charities and many others in society that mileage rates are reviewed across the board regularly, and not just for those working in certain sectors.
It would be remiss of me to not mention that, compared with others in the region, many of my constituents face another issue when it comes to the cost of motoring. Fuel prices at forecourts are significantly higher at Morrisons, Asda and Sainsbury’s branches in Darlington than they are at the exact same supermarkets in Bishop Auckland, so I ask the Minister to look at what more can be done to ensure that my constituents get a fair deal. I appreciate that it is not the specific topic of this debate, but it highlights the postcode lottery of forecourt fuel competition in this country.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) was unable to attend today’s debate. However, she has asked me to raise her concerns on her behalf. Her constituency is made up of 187 villages, with a number of elderly residents relying on incredible carers who get to them by car. We face a similar issue at Herriot hospice in Harrogate, of which I am a trustee. I know all too well about the impact of mileage rates on those who take part in rural community hospice care. An increase from 45p to 60p per mile would be of significant benefit to people such as carers, and I know that my hon. Friend also supports an increase in mileage rates.
I appreciate the efforts that the Government have taken to support motorists with increased costs. At the spring statement this year, the Government announced a temporary, 12-month cut to fuel duty of 5p per litre. Furthermore, to continue supporting motorists, they are extending the 5p fuel duty cut, which is worth £100 a year to the average driver. Ultimately, the Government have to balance support for individuals with the responsible management of public finances, which fund our essential public services, but it is clear to me, and should be clear to the Minister, that mileage rates need to be looked at very closely. I urge him to do all he can to ensure that we see this vital increase and that public sector workers who drive for work are not left out of pocket merely for doing their job. The Minister should be mindful that the HMRC mileage rate is used as a benchmark for many charities, voluntary groups and small businesses. Although it is up to such organisations to set their own rate, they take a lead from HMRC.
Public sector workers, charities, volunteers and small businesses need to see a change in the rates. I trust that the Minister can see that this has cross-party support, and reform would be welcomed by people in every constituency. Please, let us level up these mileage rates.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing the petition, and other hon. Members for their contributions.
Since the start of this cost of living crisis, many of my constituents have been in contact with me to express their concerns about the need to raise the approved mileage allowance payment rate to help tackle the impact of rising fuel prices and maintenance costs. As the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) mentioned, it is vital that we see reform and change.
As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) highlighted, the AMAP has not changed in over a decade. In fact, when it was last updated in 2011 the rate was set at 45p. The petition suggests that this amount be raised to 60p to help tackle rising fuel costs and the impact of inflation. Since the rate was last revised in 2011 costs have drastically increased, leaving much of the financial burden on drivers. It is more expensive to run a personal vehicle now in comparison to 2011. Although fuel prices have decreased from their all-time high of nearly £2 a litre in July 2022, with prices now hovering around £1.43 a litre, they are still 16% higher than the price when the rate was set in 2011. The costs associated with the maintenance and insurance of a vehicle are also much higher; they rose by as much as 40% between 2011 and January 2023. Those costs will continue to rise, leaving workers and volunteers worse off.
The failure to raise mileage rates is particularly detrimental to those in the voluntary sector, as we have heard from Members across the House today. I was recently contacted by Getting Better Together Shotts, which is an organisation that aims to improve the education, health and wellbeing of those living across Shotts and the local area. One of the vital services that it provides to the local community is transporting people—predominantly older people—to NHS appointments.
Volunteers can cover thousands of miles in their vehicles, transporting people to get the treatment they require. They provide a vital service in support of the NHS and local authorities. The covid-19 pandemic highlighted how integral they are to our society. It is only correct that those who volunteer are fairly compensated for the use of their cars, and I echo the calls of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and Volunteer Scotland that the rates should be raised to give better compensation to those who give back to society.
My friend, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), said that his constituency is not geographically the largest. My constituency of Airdrie and Shotts is the same; it is not particularly large when compared to the constituencies of some of my Scottish colleagues, but it still encompasses some rural areas. It is obvious that those who live in rural areas are more dependent on vehicles to undertake their work. Some constituents have said to me that they have a sense that they are subsidising their employer through using their cars. Those in typically low-wage professions often travel the most for work. Some professionals, such as care professionals, drive many thousands of miles each year as part of their employment. Failing to adequately compensate those professionals leaves many of them out of pocket, especially during a cost of living crisis.
The problem is particularly acute for highland communities. As my colleagues from those constituencies can attest, people there often have to drive many tens of thousands of miles per year. That means that those working in some of our most rural constituencies in Scotland are racking up larger mileage and being left out of pocket.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a crucial point when he drew on the impact of the cost of living crisis. I would gently go one step further, and argue that the impact of failing to raise mileage rates speaks to a larger issue of the mismanagement of the economy by this Government. There is a failure to recognise the impact of their actions on constituents across the four nations. Volatility in fuel prices now seems to be a regular feature of our lives. The announcement today that fuel prices are 6p per litre higher than they should be due to weaker competition between supermarkets is only the latest example of that. The lack of action from the UK Government has allowed supermarkets to artificially increase prices, and that expense rise completely offsets the 5p fuel allowance introduced last year.
Workers and volunteers are relying on mileage rates. They are faced with not only the impact of volatile fuel prices but the Government’s inability to get a handle on inflation, with the UK having the worst rate in the G7. Despite the Prime Minister’s promise to halve inflation, the UK looks set to miss its target. Alongside that, household disposable income continues to fall. This year, it is estimated to decrease by 3.2%, which is on top of a 3.1% fall in the prior year.
By failing to raise mileage rates at the last Budget, the UK Government left employees and volunteers financially worse off. I hope that the Minister will lay out what steps the UK Government are taking to raise mileage rates and address the concerns of those who have signed the petition. We clearly have buy-in from across the Chamber, so let’s get this done.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. I thank everybody who has spoken in today’s debate; I found all their insights informative, and they spoke passionately on behalf of individuals and their constituencies about subjects that are important to millions of people up and down the country. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his contribution, which provided an overview of the issue.
The petition we are here to discuss was signed by over 40,000 members of the public. It asks the Government to increase the HMRC mileage rate from 45p a mile to 60p a mile. Approved mileage allowance payments are used by employers to reimburse employees’ expenses for business mileage in their private vehicles. The Government set the rate. The AMAP rate aims to reflect running costs, including fuel, servicing and depreciation. Ministers have previously stated:
“Depreciation is estimated to constitute the most significant proportion of the AMAPs.”
The HMRC mileage rate is essential for millions across the country. For those working hard for their families, businesses and communities, it is a vital measure to ensure that they are not out of pocket for the extra miles that they do in their private vehicles. That has been reflected in Members’ contributions today.
As a country, we are proud of our volunteers, who spend their spare time helping others and saving lives. The mileage rate is a critical support system that provides not only reimbursement for those actions but an incentive for volunteers to do more where and when they can, no matter their financial status. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington highlighted, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) echoed, it is important to feel valued. However, we are all aware of the cost of living crisis that British people are facing, which comes after 13 years of Tory Government. It is clear that families are struggling through no fault of their own, but as a result of the policies of this Government. In the last year, Britain has been rocked by the worst cost of living crisis in a generation. It has been driven particularly by spiralling energy bills, which have fuelled inflation, thrown 3 million people in England into fuel poverty and forced businesses to close.
This country needs a Government who can get a grip and show some leadership. We need a Government who focus on the things that really matter and provide hope and optimism about the future. The reality is that the mileage rates have not changed in over a decade—to be exact, the approved mileage rate for cars, which is set by the Treasury, has not changed since 2011-12. It stands at 45p for the first 10,000 miles and 25p for every additional mile in a tax year. As Members have already mentioned, the cost of petrol and oil rose by 45% last year. In addition, overall motoring costs, including petrol, oil and vehicle maintenance, have soared since 2011. Fuel prices have settled somewhat since last year, but this country is still burdened by a high rate of inflation—8.7%. That is higher than in European nations and America, and proves that the Government have left our economy exposed. With higher interest rates, we are now facing a Tory mortgage bombshell for millions of people across the country. The Government are failing across the spectrum. Labour wants to make the changes that will help to fix that. I am talking about energy security, creating good jobs across the country, and making, doing and selling more in Britain.
With the increases in motoring costs and the overall cost of living crisis, it is reasonable to ask the Minister what impact the current mileage rate is having on the living standards of those affected. I also want to share a survey that was conducted by Unison last year and whose findings have been echoed by a number of hon. Members. It highlights how staff in our NHS and the healthcare industry are deeply reliant on their own vehicles to do their jobs. As we all know, that means that if they are not reimbursed, our healthcare workers are out of pocket for the life-saving work they do day by day. Unison’s findings are based on 550 staff. They show that the vast majority—91%—of those who drive a car at work use their own vehicle. More than two in five—44%—of them travel more than 4,000 miles a year for work, including some who clock up more than 10,000 miles. An overwhelming number—95%—of staff who drive for work are required to do so as part of their contract. More than a fifth—24%—say that they are unable to use public transport to do their jobs, either because none is available or because it does not run at suitable times, and about one in six—18%—say that they need to carry heavy or dangerous equipment when they drive for work.
We all know and have heard personal stories from those in our constituencies who are struggling to put food on the table, pay their bills and keep their children warm over weekends and over the winter. Workers and volunteers across the country work long and hard hours, and they deserve a Government who listen and make fair and practical decisions in response. I therefore urge the Government to get around the table and listen on the issues affecting millions of drivers across the country. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that is taking place or whether the Government will be carrying out that work in due course.
That brings up another important issue—transport infrastructure across our country. I know personally how tough it is for families and communities who struggle without the necessary transport infrastructure to get to work. In my constituency, we have a large community in Thamesmead who have no station, which makes them one of the only communities in Greater London left off the public transport map. On a positive note, I was pleased to see Transport for London submit a proposal for a docklands light railway extension to Thamesmead. However, we know that this is not an isolated problem but one seen across the country, and that other places have seen a decline in the transportation system. I think that that is one reason why so many people have signed this petition: it shows that our local communities severely lack the real transport infrastructure that they need and deserve.
Labour has committed to giving our communities control over their own destiny by unlocking the pride, potential and purpose of our towns and cities and putting power directly in the hands of people, whether that is in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. We feel that the UK is the most centralised country in Europe and the most geographically unequal large country in the developed world. That is no coincidence. Too much power is hoarded in Westminster, and that is holding our country back. The Government need to listen to communities that rely on cars because there is no adequate public transportation, and explain the level of support they are providing.
I thank everyone who signed the petition. As other Members mentioned, those who did so do not want to earn more money or to be greedy; they just seek a fairer system for all.
I have some questions for the Minister about the issues that I have raised. First, does he expect there to be any change in the mileage rates in the near future? Can he confirm what thresholds he and the Treasury are looking at when deciding how to set the mileage rates? He has said that the economic outlook is one factor that they consider when assessing mileage rates. Given that things are really difficult for people at the moment, has the continuing failure to get bills down had an impact on the Government’s decision on mileage rates this year?
I thank the Minister for responding to the debate, but I echo that what is needed is for him to get around the table with working families and those representing all those affected, and provide full answers to their questions and a full explanation on this critical issue. The Government are facing this issue and many more because of an inability to deal with their failure to manage our economy over the last 13 years. We need urgent action to address the significant issues that many people face. Labour has a serious plan to get the economy growing. I urge him to reassure worried constituents who may be watching the debate, having signed the petition, that the Government are listening and will take action on this issue.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Sharma, and it is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship. This is an incredibly important subject, and I will do my best to address all the many points that have been made in some fantastic speeches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and thank everybody who signed the petition.
The Government, right up to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, are absolutely committed to supporting individuals and businesses with the rising cost of living. That includes motoring expenses. Let me respond to the various points by first setting out what AMAPs actually are, the rationale for their existence, and how they work. Then I will talk more broadly about how the Government are supporting people, because hon. Members have rightly asked about that on behalf of their constituents.
As we have heard in this very good debate, approved mileage allowance payments, or AMAPs, allow employees to receive tax-free reimbursement from their employer when using their own vehicle for business journeys. The rate for cars and vans is currently set at 45p per mile for the first 10,000 miles travelled annually and 25p thereafter. The AMAP and simplified expenses rates are designed as tax simplifications, as my hon. Friends have pointed out. They are intended to make it to easier for employers, employees and small businesses to record their mileage and calculate how much tax relief is due.
Simplification is at the heart of this. It is a key objective of the overall tax system, and the Government want the tax system that we oversee to be simple and fair, and to support growth wherever possible. The AMAP and simplified expenses rates are a long-standing tax simplification measure that helps us to achieve that simplification objective. Rather than having to work out a business or employment proportion of all their individual motoring costs, the rates allow taxpayers to make a simple calculation based on their business mileage to work out how much tax relief is due. The rates form the basis of a single calculation that can take the place of multiple calculations that would otherwise be required, which would be administratively taxing.
Because the single rates are much simpler than an alternative calculation of actual expenses, there will always be a trade-off between accuracy and simplicity for motorists who use the rates. The rate may reflect the actual costs of motoring better for some than others—we completely accept that. In some cases, it may provide slightly more relief than the actual costs would; in others, it might provide slightly less. That will depend on factors such as fuel efficiency, the car’s size, driving conditions and the level of associated costs such as insurance. Tax simplification is an ongoing priority for the Government and, frankly, AMAPs helps us achieve that.
Ultimately, however, as several colleagues have pointed out, the AMAP rate is not mandatory. Employee and employer expenses are a matter for individual employers and voluntary organisations to determine. It is up to employers to determine the remuneration and expenses for their employees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) rightly raised the issue of employees who receive less than the AMAP rate from their employer. Those people can claim mileage allowance relief on the difference, as HMRC provides. That reduces the tax that they can pay, and I urge my hon. Friend’s constituents to look into that in more detail.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As the Minister mentioned, the allowance offers relief whereby individuals can claim money back. Do the Government have figures on how many people are using the relief? It would helpful to know that.
Gareth Davies
That is a very reasonable question. I do not have the figures to hand, but am happy to provide them if we are able to. I also point out that employees paid expenses above the AMAP rate may be taxed on the difference, depending on their personal circumstances—if they earn in excess of the personal allowance, for example.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Waveney (Peter Aldous), as well as several others across the Chamber, have outlined, volunteers are an important part of our communities and perform incredibly important services for all of us. It is right that they be highlighted and recognised in the debate today. The Government recognise the outstanding contribution that all volunteers and the charities that employ them make to our communities, including my community of Grantham and Stamford.
I should reassure hon. Members that, unlike employees, volunteers can receive payments in excess of the AMAP rate and do not have to pay tax if they can provide evidence that they have not made a profit. If they provide the receipts and evidence of their travel, they do not have to pay tax above the AMAP rate, unlike employees. That provides volunteers and voluntary organisations with additional flexibility, given how important they are. And they are important to the Government—that is why, for example, at the spring Budget the Chancellor set out an additional £100 million support package for charities and community organisations in England. That will be targeted at voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations at most risk at this difficult time. We will be setting out more about the eligibility criteria in due course, and hon. Members may wish to monitor that carefully.
Peter Aldous
That was an interesting point, and I just need to digest what the Minister was saying. I think he was saying that volunteer drivers can claim extra tax relief provided that they can show that they are not making a profit. Does he have any figures showing how many are actually doing that? I suggest that the system is so complicated that very few take it up. It would be far simpler to increase the rate.
Gareth Davies
The point I would make is that volunteer organisations do not need to use AMAPs; all that is required are receipts and evidence of journeys. Volunteer organisations can set literally any rate as long as that evidence is shown. The AMAP is a simplified rate and applies to employees of private organisations and businesses, for example.
I want to address the review period and the regularity of reviews, because they were mentioned by a number of colleagues. They make a fair point, but I would point out that by its very nature AMAP is a tax relief, as is mileage allowance relief. It is convention that they are reviewed at fiscal events, in line with most taxes we have, but it is also important for the work that we do with the Office for Budget Responsibility, so that it can score during the Budget process. That is why the reliefs are always reviewed. I assure hon. Members that there is a review at every fiscal event, and it is right that it is done at fiscal events and not in the middle of the fiscal events cycle.
A couple of Members mentioned self-employed individuals, so let me quickly address that issue. Self-employed individuals can choose to use simplified motoring expenses, which allows them to deduct a fixed rate per mile against their self-employed profits, and those rates mirror the AMAP rates. Self-employed individuals do not have to use the rates; they can instead choose to deduct capital allowances and actual costs. However, it is not possible to switch between the two options with the same car or van once a self-employed individual has chosen to use either the simplified mileage rate or the capital allowances and expenses. I hope that clarifies the position: they do have that choice.
Some hon. Members rightly talked about the cost of living situation in which we find ourselves. I want to directly address that now, because AMAPs are one part of our system to support employees across the country, but it is important to recognise the other measures that the Government are taking to support people at this very difficult time, and that is part of the review process when we look at AMAPs. I simply reiterate the point that many hon. Members have made today: in the spring Budget, the Chancellor announced continued support for both households and businesses by extending the temporary 5p fuel duty cut and cancelling the planned inflation rise for 2023-24. That represents a saving for all drivers across the country, amounting to £5 billion, which is about £100 per household.
In addition, at the spring Budget we went further by extending energy support, because we know that inflation has been a real problem for many households across the country. We kept the energy price guarantee at £2,500 for three months from April, saving households an additional £160 and bringing total Government support for energy bills to £1,500 for a typical household since October 2022.
Alongside that, we have gone even further and helped to support households by ending the premium paid by over 4 million households using prepayment meters across the United Kingdom. We have also introduced 30 hours of free childcare per week for working parents with children aged nine months to three years in England, alongside a substantial uplift in the hourly rate paid to providers and market reforms. That is in addition to the benefits uprating and support for vulnerable households across this country that we announced at the autumn statement, which included new cost of living payments for this year and next, helping more than 8 million UK households on eligible means-tested benefits, 8 million pensioner households and 6 million people across the country on disability benefits.
Taken together, we have provided £94 billion-worth of support to help households with higher bills, or an average of £3,300 per household, across 2022-23 and 2023-24. That is one of the largest packages of support in Europe, but as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) pointed out, high inflation is the greatest immediate economic challenge that we face. That is why the Prime Minister has set it out as one of his top priorities, and it is why we in the Treasury have set out a clear plan to reduce inflation.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way, and his time. Given that over 40,000 people signed the petition and many have raised the issue, will the Treasury look into it? Will the Minister indicate whether work is already being done behind the scenes? Has the Treasury been lobbied directly on changing the mileage scheme, because I know Unison and other stakeholders have done some work on the matter? I would be keen to know if any meetings or engagement have taken place.
Gareth Davies
That is a fair question. I assure the hon. Lady that an extensive review is taking place, which takes into account a range of factors, but a big part of it is engagement. We have engaged extensively with various industries and unions, and we will continue to do that around the fiscal event cycle, as I have said. All taxes remain under review.
I have magically received an answer to the hon. Lady’s earlier question: between 1.8 million and 2.1 million people use their own vehicles for business travel, and 200,000 employees claim mileage allowance relief. That is 40% of all those entitled to it. I hope that answers her question.
I am coming to the end of my remarks, but I want to ensure that I address as many points raised as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made points about the importance of NHS staff, and I want to put on record my thanks to all NHS workers who use their own cars. I entirely agree with the emphasis he put on the importance of those workers to our society. I stress that paying the AMAP rate is voluntary. It is up to the NHS as an employer to determine expense rates. Travel cost reimbursement is covered by NHS terms and conditions, jointly agreed between trade unions and the employer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) pointed out, as of January 2023, the NHS increased its rate above the AMAP rate to 59p for cars up to 3,500 miles, in recognition of the fact that a number of NHS workers travel a shorter distance.
Peter Gibson
I am grateful for the clarification. Will the Minister clarify why it is right and fair for that scheme to apply in the NHS, but not outside it?
Gareth Davies
As I said, the scheme is voluntary. Any organisation can apply a higher rate than the AMAP rate, and the NHS has chosen to do that. If my hon. Friend believes that other organisations should offer a higher rate, that is something he should take up with them.
Peter Gibson
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Will he outline what tax consequences there would be if an organisation chose to take those higher rates?
Gareth Davies
If a rate is provided that is above the AMAP rate, national insurance and income tax would be applied to that difference, depending on the personal circumstances of the individual—for example, depending on the overall amount of income tax they pay, or whether they are over the personal allowance amount. Voluntary organisations, which my hon. Friend spoke about, can offer any rate they want, as I pointed out to my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney, and for Carshalton and Wallington. So long as evidence is shown for the journeys, organisations do not have to use the AMAP rates. I hope that clarifies things.
In conclusion, it is ultimately for employers to determine the expenses paid in respect of motoring costs that employees incur with their private vehicles. The Government set AMAP and simplified expenses rates with the aim of creating administrative simplicity. Those rates will necessarily be more appropriate for some motorists than others. However, the Government have taken decisive steps to support households with the costs of living, which I have extensively set out. The Government will continue to keep AMAP and simplified expenses rates under review, as they do all taxes and allowances.
Peter Aldous
I have listened very carefully to my hon. Friend and I thank him for his response, but would he not agree that, over the past decade, there has been a societal change in the way that community transport has become a vital component of our public transport system, and in the way that health and social care is delivered? Health and care workers often go to people’s homes now, rather than those people coming to hospitals. That in itself warrants a fundamental review of the system.
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend was just in the nick of time, but he makes a valid point. I will answer that in two parts. On care providers, the rate paid is a matter for the employer. It is entirely up to them, in the light of changes to how care is provided, to offer a rate that they deem appropriate; as I say, the NHS has offered a higher rate for those travelling fewer than 3,500 miles.
My hon. Friend made a broader point about the importance of community organisations, and mentioned community transportation. Those organisations are a vital part of our communities, particularly in constituencies like mine, in rural parts of the country. That is why this Government have got behind voluntary and community organisations. As I say, we recently announced another £100 million of support to specifically target charities and community organisations. That support will remain, just as it has for many years.
I am grateful for all the contributions and interventions from my hon. Friends, and from colleagues from across the House. This is an important debate to have, and I am pleased to have addressed the issue on behalf of the Government.
Elliot Colburn
I promise not to detain the House until 7 pm. I thank all hon Members for attending today’s debate and, again, the petitioners for bringing us here to discuss this important issue.
I just urge the Minister to take back to the Treasury, in advance of the autumn statement, the fact that a strong cross-party consensus has been demonstrated here, and that we would like an uprating of the AMAP. I think that we all agree, as do the petitioners I met, that the system is not the problem; the frequency with which it is uprated clearly is.
I take the Minister’s point that the rate is voluntary, but there are two quick points that I would make on that. First, on employers, of course they look to HMRC to set the standard. Many of them use the system, and not many would be tempted to incur a tax liability for going over that amount. Secondly, on volunteers, again, while I appreciate that one could go further, the need to provide evidence seems an unnecessary administrative burden. It would be much simpler to increase the base rate that voluntary organisations could offer, because of course the general principle is that no one should be out of pocket for using their personal car for work or volunteering.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 600966, relating to the Approved Mileage Allowance Payment rate.
Written Statements
Civil Service Code: Prima Facie Breach
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
On 6 March 2023, I explained in reply to an urgent question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) that the Cabinet Office was looking into the circumstances leading to the resignation of Ms Sue Gray, the former second permanent secretary for the Union and the constitution. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out further information in a written statement on 2 May and a commitment was made to update the House again in due course.
The civil service code sets out the four core values of the civil service:
Integrity—putting the obligations of public service above your own personal interests;
Honesty—being truthful and open;
Objectivity—basing your advice and decisions on rigorous analysis of the evidence; and
Impartiality—acting solely according to the merits of the case and serving equally well Governments of different political persuasions. The political impartiality section states, “you must...act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of Ministers”.
Section 4.4.9 of the civil service management code sets out that all members of the senior civil service are in the “politically restricted” category, which places further restrictions on their political activity.
In addition, the guidance on the declaration and management of interests for civil servants, which is enshrined in departmental HR policies, sets out that individuals must declare all relevant outside interests to their line manager as soon as they arise. The policy advises that individuals should err on the side of caution when considering what to declare,
“but the onus is on the individual to consider what might be relevant and declare it”.
The Prime Minister has now received and accepted the advice of the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) in relation to Sue Gray’s appointment, and the final conditions letter has been published on ACOBA’s website. The Government expect all parties to abide by the conditions set out in the letter.
ACOBA’s final conditions letter sets out a timeline with regard to the contact Ms Gray had with the Opposition. It records that Ms Gray first spoke to the Leader of the Opposition in late October. This was approximately four months before she resigned from the civil service. The letter from ACOBA also states that
“she had subsequent brief informal conversations...where she was updated on their developing plans”.
She did not inform Ministers or the civil service of these interactions at any point prior to her resignation.
It is right that we maintain the principle of confidentiality with respect to individual personnel matters. However, I am sure the House will agree with me that the facts in this case, when compared to the rules and guidance in place for civil servants, speak for themselves, and that there is a public interest in ensuring that the civil service code is adhered to.
Given the exceptional nature of this case and the previous commitment by Ministers to update the House, I can now confirm that the Cabinet Office process looking into the circumstances leading up to Ms Gray’s resignation has been concluded. As part of the process, Ms Gray was given the opportunity to make representations but chose not to do so. This process, led by the civil service, found that the civil service code was prima facie broken as a result of the undeclared contact between Ms Gray and the Leader of the Opposition.
The rules and guidance that govern the conduct of civil servants are clear and transparent. It is deeply unfortunate that events have transpired in this way. However, regardless of the details of this specific situation, I remain confident in the impartiality of our civil service and would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that it is the responsibility of everyone in this House to preserve and support this impartiality.
[HCWS900]
Reforming Anti-Money laundering and Counter-terrorism Financing Supervision
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
My noble friend the Treasury Lords Minister, Baroness Penn, made the following written statement on 30 June:
On 30 June 2023, HM Treasury published a consultation regarding the reform of the UK’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) supervisory regime.
Consulting on and implementing reform of the AML/CTF supervisory system is a key commitment in the Economic Crime Plan 2023 to 2026. It is expected to complement a number of other actions aimed at strengthening the UK’s anti-money laundering regime, and ensuring that businesses most vulnerable to abuse for money laundering or terrorism financing have robust and proportionate controls in place, and are subject to effective supervision.
The Treasury’s 2022 Review of the UK’s AML/CTF regulatory and supervisory regime concluded that, while further improvements should be made to the current regime, structural change may be needed to address certain weaknesses. This consultation outlines in more detail four potential models for the future of supervision and seeks to gather evidence on which will best deliver the reform objectives.
The first model, OPBAS+, would provide increased powers to the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS). OPBAS was established in 2017 and has made significant progress against its aim of ensuring high and consistent supervisory standards among the 22 professional body supervisors (PBSs) which supervise the legal and accountancy sectors.
The second model would consolidate PBSs so that between two and six PBSs would retain responsibility for AML/CTF supervision.
The third model would see the creation of new public body. This could take over the AML/CTF supervision of the supervisory populations of PBSs, and potentially some additional sectors currently supervised by HMRC. Alternatively, it could be given responsibility for the AML/CTF supervision of all populations currently supervised by a PBS or by HMRC. This would create a system whereby either three or four public bodies carry out all AML/CTF supervision.
Finally, the fourth model would place the AML/CTF supervision of all sectors regulated under the Money Laundering Regulations under the remit of a single public body.
These four models represent a commitment to strengthen the UK’s defences against economic crime, responding to calls to address weaknesses in the current system made by stakeholders such as the international AML/CTF standard-setter, the Financial Action Taskforce. The consultation also seeks views on whether there is a case to increase requirements on supervisors and their regulated populations to further support compliance with sanctions.
The consultation will be open for three months, closing on the 30 September 2023. After this, the Government will make a policy decision by the end of Q1 2024 on the model which best achieves the reform objectives. Strengthening the effectiveness of the UK’s AML/CTF regime will also support wider public and private sector priorities set out in the Economic Crime Plan 202 to 2026, such as the reforms of Companies House legislated for through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. Taken together, these reforms will help to cut crime, protect our national security, and support the UK’s legitimate economic growth and competitiveness.
The consultation is published on gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-anti-money-laundering-and-counter-terrorism-financing-supervision
[HCWS905]
Nature Recovery
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
I am repeating the statement made last Friday by my noble Friend the Minister, Lord Benyon. Local Nature Recovery Strategy Responsible Authority Planned total LNRS funding for financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25 Buckinghamshire Council £238,000 Cambridgeshire an Peterborough Combined Authority £307,974 Central Bedfordshire Council £238,000 Cheshire West and Chester Council £314,299 Cornwall Council £343,692 Derbyshire County Council £375,342 Devon County Council £388,000 Dorset Council £257,647 Durham County Council £238,000 East Riding of Yorkshire Council £240,747 East Sussex County Council £300,740 Essex County Council £379,987 Gateshead Council £238,000 Gloucestershire County Council £271,350 Greater London Authority £238,000 Greater Manchester Combined Authority £255,535 Hampshire County Council £388,000 Herefordshire Council £238,000 Hertfordshire County Council £240,793 Isle of White Council £238,000 Kent County Council £381,784 Lancashire County Council £388,000 Leicestershire County Council £337,741 Lincolnshire County Council £388,000 Liverpool City Region Combined Authority £238,000 Norfolk County Council £333,020 North Northamptonshire Council £238,000 North of Tyne Combined Authority £285,498 North Yorkshire Council £388,000 Nottinghamshire County Council £285,268 Oxfordshire County Council £238,000 Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead £238,000 Shropshire Council £320,921 Somerset Council £310,000 South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority £241,265 Staffordshire County Council £388,000 Suffolk County Council £282,108 Surrey County Council £254,844 Tees Valley Mayoral Combined Authority £242,285 Warwickshire County Council £238,000 West Midlands Combined Authority £238,000 West Northamptonshire Council £238,000 West of England Combined Authority £243,909 West Sussex County Council £255,464 West Yorkshire Combined Authority £296,911 Westmorland and Furness Council £388,000 Wiltshire Council £277,813 Worcestershire County Council £253,618 Total £13,938,555
The Government are committed to delivering large scale, widespread nature recovery across England. We depend on nature for everything—from food, water, and resources to the places we go when we need to relax and recharge—but over the last century, the state of nature in our country has declined dramatically.
Our environmental improvement plan, published in January 2023, set out how we will continue to help nature to recover and thrive. We committed to doing more to restore the vital habitats that support a huge variety of species, which will help us deliver the ambitious biodiversity targets we have set under the Environment Act 2021.
Local nature recovery strategies will be key to our drive to restore nature. The 48 responsible authorities, announced today, will lead on the preparation of localised, tailored strategies to support and recover nature, using the best of local expertise in the community. These responsible authorities, supported by £14 million of Government funding, will now begin to engage across their areas to prepare the strategies, working closely with landowners, farmers and land managers. Regulations and statutory guidance setting out the process responsible authorities must follow and what they should include in the strategies was published in March 2023. Delivery of the proposals set out in a local nature recovery strategy will not be directly required but will instead be encouraged by a combination of financial incentives, the support of local delivery partners and broad requirements on public bodies.
Alongside local nature recovery strategies, which will support long-term planning for nature, the first round of the species survival fund opens today with an initial £25 million available to projects that will help drive the action we need to halt the decline in species.
Taken hand in hand, the species survival fund and local nature recovery strategies provide opportunities, both in the shorter and longer term, for new and innovative projects to make a real difference, so that communities across England can contribute to nature recovery.
This Government are proud of their extensive record on nature and climate. These measures are the latest of many to protect the environment. In just the last six months, we have:
Set legally binding targets to protect our environment, clean up our air and rivers and boost nature
Announced our environmental improvement plan which sets out delivery plan for building a greener, more prosperous country
Announced nearly £30 million to support developing countries in delivering the “30by30” land target
Announced the £5 million for projects which showcase the incredible work under way to study and restore nature across our network of overseas territories
DEFRA Ministers attended the G7 Meeting on climate, energy and the environment in Sapporo, Japan. The G7 leaders agreed a joint statement to tackle global nature loss
Hosted a major multinational event at Lancaster House in London to drive forward action on the COP15
Provided the £16 million of funding for local authorities to support plans to make new housing, industrial or commercial developments “nature friendly”
Published the draft border target operating model setting out the UK Government’s plan to strengthen our borders against biosecurity threats and illegal imports
Launched a new climate change hub for the forestry sector
Secured a landmark deal for nature at COP15 in Montreal to protect 30% of our land and ocean by 2030
Provided England’s national parks with an additional £4.4 million to support services such as visitor centres and park rangers
Handed over the COP presidency at the COP27 summit in Egypt as we work to tackle climate change and reverse biodiversity loss
Launched the new green finance strategy and the nature markets framework to develop the growth of green finance
Announced £110 million of funding for communities allocated under the rural England
prosperity fund.
Announced a ban this week on the sale of peat-based products in the retail horticultural sector by 2024
Re-opened grants to boost domestic tree production with £5 million available for free and seed suppliers
Provided £500,000 to our delivery partners of The Queen’s Green Canopy to fund the planting of trees in communities across the country
Published the plant biosecurity strategy
Introduced new powers, including unlimited fines and prison sentences, as part of a crackdown on illegal tree felling in England
Launched the Great Britain invasive non-native species strategy
Opened this year’s round of the tree health pilot—a three-year scheme which tests different ways of slowing the spread of tree pests and diseases as well as building the resilience of trees across England
Made £14 million available to allow both local authorities and community groups to access funds for new tree-planting projects
[HCWS906]
Shark Fins Act: Royal Assent
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I am repeating the statement made today by my noble friend the Minister, Lord Benyon.
On Thursday 29 June the Shark Fins Act received Royal Assent, banning the import and export of detached shark fins, including all products containing shark fins such as tinned shark fin soup. The Act extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
This Act goes further than existing protections by preventing the trade of detached shark fins and related products obtained using this method.
Many species of shark now face significant population pressures. Out of approximately 500 species of shark, 143 are listed as “under threat” under the International Union for Conservation of Nature, with different species ranging from “vulnerable” to “critically endangered”.
Demand for shark fin products and subsequent overfishing is a significant driver for these pressures. The Act will help protect sharks and reduce the unsustainable overfishing of sharks.
This Act is a significant step in demonstrating the UK’s global leadership in shark conservation, in protecting our natural environment, and in continuing to deliver on our “Action Plan for Animal Welfare”.
The Government are proud of their extensive record on animal welfare. This Bill follows several others in protecting animal welfare, both at home and abroad. Some examples include:
The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021.
The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022.
The Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022.
The Ivory Act 2018, came into force in 2022 and extended to further species this year.
Measures to crack down on hare coursing in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022.
[HCWS907]
Bathing Water Designation and De-designation in England
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Designated bathing waters are coastal or inland waters that are used by large numbers of bathers and have facilities to promote and support bathing as set out in the Bathing Water Regulations 2013.
This year, four new sites were designated and one de-designated, taking the total number to 424, the highest ever. 93% of bathing waters were classified as good or excellent last year, up from 76% in 2010.
Today, my Department is publishing updated guidance on how to apply for both bathing water designation and de-designation for this and future bathing seasons, making it easier for applicants to understand.
The main changes to the designation guidance are:
There must be at least 100 bathers a day at the site during the bathing season.
Applicants must carry out user surveys on two days during the bathing season to provide evidence of this.
There must be access to toilet facilities within a short distance up to 500 metres of the proposed bathing water site.
Clearer guidance on seeking local views on proposals to designate sites as bathing waters.
The introduction of an application form to make it easier for people to prepare their applications.
Local authorities and landowners should contact Natural England for advice on managing bathing waters in protected sites, including ensuring any necessary consents, assents or licences are obtained from Natural England as appropriate. Bathers should comply with any local byelaws.
For de-designations the changes are the same except toilet facilities are not a requirement and a site must be used by an average of fewer than 100 bathers a day during the bathing season.
Applications for bathing water designation and de-designation in 2024 must be submitted to Defra by 31 October this year. My officials will consider all applications against the revised guidance and will continue to run a public consultation on those selected as candidate sites.
[HCWS908]
NHS Long-term Workforce Plan
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
I refer hon. Members to the oral statement I will make in the House today, 3 July 2023, on the long-term workforce plan.
[HCWS909]
Community Ownership Fund
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
On Friday, I was delighted to announce the outcome of round 2 window 3 of the £150 million community ownership fund, which will see £12.91 million awarded to 52 projects across the United Kingdom. This additional funding takes our funding total to £36.83 million for 150 projects.
This investment will ensure that important parts of our social fabric, such as pubs, sports clubs, theatres and post office buildings can continue to play a central role in towns and villages across the UK.
The community ownership fund is helping to reduce geographical disparities across the United Kingdom. To this end, the funding provided in round 2 window 3 will see over £2 million awarded to projects in Scotland, £1.4 million to Wales and £1.4 million to Northern Ireland. This, so far, brings the total funding awarded across Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland to over £11.3 million collectively, with each nation on track to receive its minimum allocation across the duration of the fund.
The funding provided in round 2 window 3 will also see £8 million awarded to projects in England. This brings the total funding awarded across English regions to over £25.5 million collectively.
The community ownership fund is already supporting 98 projects across the UK such as the Leigh spinners mill in Greater Manchester; the Queen’s ballroom in Blaenau Gwent, Wales; St Columb’s Hall in Derry City and Strabane, Northern Ireland; and the UK’s most remote pub, The Old Forge, in the Scottish highlands. These projects are making a genuine difference to their communities.
With the additional investment awarded in this bidding window, I am delighted to be supporting many more small but mighty local assets across the United Kingdom, levelling up the places we love and cherish.
Interested groups can submit an expression of interest form to start their application process at any time. The fund will be running until March 2025, so there is plenty of opportunity for interested community groups to apply to take over invaluable community assets and to run them as businesses, by the community, for the community.
[HCWS901]
Investment Zones: Scotland
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Investment zones are a crucial part of levelling up, and are designed to deliver economic growth, more high skill jobs, investment, and future opportunities for local people—a key priority for the Prime Minister.
The UK and Scottish Government have jointly announced that there will be two investment zones in Scotland and that the Glasgow city region and north-east of Scotland region offer the most potential to host these. This is a significant milestone for the investment zone programme, and for our wider ambition to level up the whole of the UK as set out in the levelling up White Paper.
This is the result of significant joint work between the UK and Scottish Governments to identify investment zone areas in Scotland, reflecting Scotland’s specific geography and economic landscape. The speed at which we have been able to develop this work is testament to the strength of the partnership between the UK and Scottish Governments. The locations of the Glasgow city region and the north-east of Scotland have been selected based on several criteria, including their research strengths, an assessment of economic need and potential, and a consideration of geographic spread.
Subject to final approval, investment zones will benefit from an overall funding envelope of £80 million each over five years. They will help to level up Scotland and drive long-term innovation and economic growth in selected areas. These will be focused around research institutions such as universities and focus on driving growth in priority sectors including digital technology, the creative industries, life sciences, advanced manufacturing and the green sector.
Our ambition is for these investment zones to make the most of both reserved and devolved policies as is the case with green freeports. We will publish further information jointly with the Scottish Government in due course and will continue to work in partnership, including with regional partners, the private sector and communities across Scotland to ensure our programmes’ overall objectives are achieved.
[HCWS902]
Project Gigabit Progress Update: June 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
On 30 June 2023 we published, at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/project-gigabit-progress-update-june-2023 Building Digital UK’s (BDUK) latest progress update on Project Gigabit, the Government’s £5 billion mission to deliver lightning-fast, reliable broadband across the UK.
In this update, we report on the six latest contracts to be signed in Cambridgeshire, the New Forest, North Shropshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Hampshire with a total value of up to £425 million, covering up to 284,000 premises.
In total, we now have 30 live procurements and contracts in place, amounting to £1.4 billion of funding available to the market to extend gigabit-capable networks into hard-to-reach parts of the country.
We also provide an update on the development of our first cross-regional procurement, which has been designed as an alternative approach to reach premises in areas where there is insufficient market appetite to support a local or regional procurement.
The report also highlights our progress across the Union, with procurements planned to launch in the summer in Wales and in the autumn in Northern Ireland. The public review for Scotland has concluded, and the Scottish Government have committed to launch procurements by the end of the year.
On top of our Project Gigabit procurements, more than 117,000 vouchers have been issued so far under the gigabit broadband voucher scheme and its previous iterations. To date, 89,000 of these vouchers have been used to connect premises to a gigabit-capable connection. Two case studies included in the report provide an overview of the benefits of the voucher scheme, highlighting examples of successful projects on the Isle of Jura and in Elvington, North Yorkshire.
Finally, we report on the launch of an £8 million fund to provide satellite connectivity to a cohort of 35,000 of the very hardest-to-reach premises. This announcement follows the launch of alpha trials in December 2022.
I will place a copy of the latest Project Gigabit progress update in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS903]
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Second Additional Provision
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
On 9 March 2023, the Secretary of State for Transport restated the Government commitment to building HS2 between London Euston and Manchester. Continuing to progress the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill through Parliament is a vital part of this commitment. Today the Government are introducing into Parliament a second additional provision to the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill.
HS2 is a key part of the Government levelling-up agenda; this new railway will act as a catalyst for investment and economic growth, offering an unparalleled opportunity to deliver new homes, jobs and commercial development. The section of the railway between Crewe and Manchester will also form the foundations for Northern Powerhouse Rail, boosting inter-city connections and speeding up east-west rail services between the north’s towns and cities.
The second additional provision proposes a number of changes to the powers of the Bill. These changes have been developed following engagement with individuals and businesses, requests from individuals affected by the route, and further improvements to the route design, to ensure that the best possible railway is built. The main changes are:
Realignment of the M56 junction 6;
Lane and slip road works at junctions 19 and 20a of the M6;
Relocation of the Palatine Road Vent Shaft to the former Hollies Convent School site near the Britannia Country House Hotel;
Altered utility works to avoid or mitigate impacts on five ancient woodlands and sites of special scientific interest;
Road works along the line of route between Crewe and Manchester Piccadilly station to reduce congestion and increase road capacity during construction and operation.
The additional provision also includes works to reduce the risk of flooding, new footpath provision, changes to parking and taxi provision at Manchester Piccadilly station, and added areas of planting to mitigate impacts on the environment.
Delivery of a project on the scale of HS2 will inevitably cause disruption for local people and their communities. Those individuals who are directly and specially affected by today’s proposals can petition against the changes. The petitioning period will open tomorrow—4 July 2023 —and continue until 15 August. I have overseen extensive engagement with affected individuals and their communities by HS2 Ltd and I have written to elected representatives, such as parish councils and local authority leaders, as well as my colleagues with impacted constituencies in Parliament. Petitions will be heard by the specially appointed Select Committee. The Select Committee can make recommendations to address matters raised—it may amend the Bill, it may ask for new Bill powers, or it may require HS2 Ltd to address a petitioner’s issues via other means.
I am also publishing a supplementary environmental statement setting out the significant effects, mitigation, and compensation from the changes in the additional provision, as well as reporting new environmental information relating to the scheme. A public consultation on these documents will run until 31 August 2023. The documents will be put in the Libraries of both Houses and will also be made available in locations open to the public in all local authorities and parishes affected by the changes.
[HCWS904]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Non-Domestic Rating Bill
Monday 3rd July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023 View all Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 140-I(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (30 Jun 2023)
Lord Ravensdale
“(za) the chargeable day falls after the day on which qualifying energy efficiency improvements are completed,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others to Clause 1 in the name of Lord Ravensdale, would allow qualifying energy efficiency improvements a time-unlimited level of improvement rate relief.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 1, 3 and 4. I apologise to noble Lords for not being present for the opening speeches of Second Reading and therefore being unable to make my points then. However, I was present for the rest of the debate and wrote to the Minister with the points I would have made, so I hope that I may be forgiven. I declare my interests as a project director for Atkins and as a director of Peers for the Planet. I certainly support the aims of the Bill and the measures contained within it, which will support businesses and high streets across our country and the economy.
My amendments in this group are very straightforward. They relate to the application of improvement relief. I listened with great interest at Second Reading to the remarks on this topic from noble Lords and the Minister, who said:
“The Government consider that a 12-month relief will allow time for the benefits of the property investments to flow through into businesses. We will keep this under review”.—[Official Report, 19/6/23; cols. 83-84.]
Although the 12-month relief is very welcome, there is a strong case for the Government to remove such constraints from a specific class of improvement—energy-efficiency improvements. I will explain why.
The Government have already made the great move of exempting renewable energy generation and storage from rateable value through regulations introduced in 2022. However, energy efficiency does not receive a matching exemption, despite the efficacy of energy- efficiency measures in increasing the energy security of the UK and reducing carbon emissions, not to mention in reducing costs for businesses and supporting economic growth. Energy efficiency has been raised many times recently in your Lordships’ House, so I will not bore the Minister and other noble Lords with an extended analysis of why we need to do more in this area.
As to the effect of the Bill as written, we know that all but the simplest energy-efficiency measures have longer payback periods, so it is likely that a 12-month exemption will continue to disincentivise improvements. To be adopted by business, energy-efficiency measures must make clear financial sense and have a low net cost. As a simple illustration, it is unlikely that a household would contemplate insulating their home if there was a risk that the savings would be outweighed by the introduction of a higher council tax band after only a year of relief.
My amendments seek simply to align energy-efficiency measures more closely with the existing reliefs for renewable energy generation and storage so that we have a coherent approach in this area. They represent a great opportunity for the Government to help increase investment in energy-efficiency improvements across business and to contribute to critical national goals in energy security and net zero, as well as lowering bills for businesses at a time when this is needed more than ever. Fatih Birol of the International Energy Agency warned recently that we may see another surge in gas prices this winter. The amendments would extend improvement rate relief for energy efficiency to 1 April 2029; the Government could then decide whether to extend any reliefs beyond then. I beg to move Amendment 1.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who cannot be with us because he is arguing his case across the way in the Chamber, has added his name. I declare that I am a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association, which, together with Luke Wilcox, barrister of Landmark Chambers, has been helping me formulate my views on these amendments.
The purpose of the two amendments in my name in this group, Amendments 2 and 6, is to extend the application of improvement relief, so, to some extent, they follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Without discussing it with him, I opted for extending the application to works carried out within a five-year period. The amendments follow up on the comments made at Second Reading.
The expected lifespan of the many types of improvement may extend to decades. If, as one supposes, the relief is intended to incentivise improvements—not just mandatory compliance works but those which add materially to utility, convenience and annual value—it needs to be an altogether bigger quantum; otherwise, as matters stand at the moment, we will be in a situation where, maybe 13 months after the work is carried out, the rateable value will increase by some 50% of the additional annual value of the works. This may not be so much for the purposes of adding value as of preserving value in the face of decline, so this dynamic needs to be whittled down.
We have issues with the definition of “relief” and whether it will count for anything at all in practice, and of “improvement”, of which other noble Lords may seek to define certain aspects more clearly—I agree with that. Unfortunately, the Government’s protestations about the sums they claim to have earmarked for this relief do not disguise the fact that the design of these things is often such that none of it is ever called on in practice. I will leave that bit of cynicism to one side, but if this relief is to mean anything beyond a fig leaf, it has to be large enough in quantum and long enough in duration to be commercially noticeable and relevant. Some types of improvement may take a considerable time to translate into a business benefit.
Although I understand, for instance, not including developers in the benefits of this measure, I maintain that the net effect of excluding any otherwise qualifying works carried out by landlords for the tenant, for which there may be a higher rent payable, is based mainly on groupthink rather than objective balance. That is the reason behind Amendments 2 and 6.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 5 in this group. Its purpose is to probe the expiration date for heat network relief. For example, why have the Government come up with 2030 in this respect? As I said at Second Reading, we very much welcome the introduction of heat network relief but, as I asked then, as the exemption of renewable energy plant machinery is permanent, why has a similar approach not been taken to heat networks?
Also, the heat network relief applies only to what are described as “occupied” heat networks, so it would be helpful to have some clarification of the definition of “occupied”. For example, if the networks apply as a mix of properties, some of which are traditionally occupied and others are unoccupied, is that still considered to be an occupied property, or does the whole property have to be occupied?
More broadly, the aims of this amendment are also to do with the fact that we believe that the reform of business rates as a whole should have the underlying principle and aim to encourage green improvements to business properties, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, talked about, the targets are around net zero and emissions. We feel that all the proposals should have as their aim—at their centre—ways of meeting those targets.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his introduction of this group of amendments. His amendments are very sensible, and I hope that the Minister will look at them carefully. I also take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her letter to all Peers following Second Reading, in which she gave quite detailed clarification of a number of issues, which I am sure we will discuss further today. I put on record that that was extremely helpful.
As for the other amendments in the group, clearly, improvement relief has been designed so that no business will face higher business rate bills for 12 months following qualifying improvements. We also heard from the Minister in her letter and at Second Reading that the Government consider 12 months sufficient for the benefits to flow through but, clearly, noble Lords who have spoken previously have reservations about this—in particular the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, at the outset of the debate I remind the Committee that I have relevant interests as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
This group of amendments is significant because it focuses our attention on energy efficiency and on how the business rates system could be adjusted to encourage more businesses to improve the energy efficiency of their premises. Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is important in that regard. As he said, an earlier Bill on non-domestic rating focused on relief for energy generation and storage, but not energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is the non-glamorous side of getting to net zero. It is about improving the general energy efficiency of buildings through loft and cavity wall insulation, putting in more efficient heating systems and so on.
I have a high regard for Amendment 1 for the reason that the noble Lord outlined, which is that the payback period for energy-efficiency improvements can be very long. Therefore, giving just one year’s relief is a drop in the ocean. If we want to encourage businesses to make these improvements and to invest in their property by improving their energy efficiency, there must be relief on business rates. This is a positive amendment and, if the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, wants to pursue it on Report, I am sure that we will give it positive consideration.
The other amendments in this group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, suggest five years of relief. That is another way forward. I think that we will have to debate five years of relief or unlimited relief. If we are really concerned about getting to net zero, there has to be a real incentive to do so.
I co-signed Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about heat networks because I thought that it was important in itself. The Government have a scheme—the heat network efficiency scheme—which gives grant funding to communal heat networks or district heating schemes. This amendment matches well with that. If the Government are giving with the one hand but taking with the other, that seems a negative approach to encouraging heat network schemes. That is why I very much support Amendment 5 in particular.
Maybe when we get to Report the amendment will not say “2050” but will be unlimited, matching the other amendments in this group, which are making a positive push towards getting businesses, via the relief through the business rates system, to become more energy efficient. These are all good, probing amendments. I know that the Minister is supportive of energy-efficiency schemes and moving towards net zero, so I look forward to her positive response to this group of amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I start by welcoming our new Deputy Chairman of Committees on his first outing today. I think that I am allowed to say that—anyway, I have said it.
These amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock, concern the two new business rate reliefs introduced by the Bill: the new improvement relief and a relief for low-carbon heat networks.
First, on the improvement relief, during the review of business rates a key ask from ratepayers was support for those businesses looking to improve their property. Clause 1 delivers on that ask by introducing the improvement relief. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked about the definitions of “improvement” and “relief”. These definitions are in the draft regulations, on which we are consulting. We will consider those matters following consultation.
Clause 1 will ensure that from 1 April 2024 no business will face higher business rates bills as a result of qualifying improvements it makes to a property it occupies, in the 12 months following those improvements. When a ratepayer makes improvements to the rateable part of their property, that is likely to increase its rateable value and, therefore, the rates bill. To deliver the relief, Clause 1 will ensure that, where that happens and the qualifying conditions for improvement relief have been met, that increase in the rateable value will be delayed for 12 months. Clause 3 does the same for the central rating list.
As is common for business rate reliefs, the detailed rules will be in regulations made under the powers in these clauses. My department has published those regulations in draft so that the House may see during the passage of the Bill how we intend to use these powers.
The amendments we are considering in relation to improvement relief, from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, seek to extend the period of relief from one year to five years and to allow unlimited relief for energy-efficiency improvements.
Of course, I understand the concerns we have heard and why some consider that the relief should be extended. It is a question we face when we come to consider and review all the reliefs in the business rates system. We recognise the importance of energy-efficiency improvements to properties. We have already ensured that eligible plant and machinery used in onsite renewable energy generation and storage, such as rooftop solar panels, wind turbines and battery storage, are exempt from business rates from 1 April 2022 until 31 March 2035. Onsite storage used with electric vehicle charging points is also exempt. We have done this using existing powers.
However, as with all tax breaks, we must balance the need for support with the need to fund the vital public services that those taxes support. In the case of improvement relief, we considered these matters at length during our review and, following extensive engagement with business groups, settled on a 12-month relief.
Under the current system, as one would expect for a tax based on the value of property, businesses may see an immediate increase in their rates bill for improvements they make to their property, where those improvements increase the value of the property, but they may see a lag in the return or income that flows from that investment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will continue. The 12-month relief will provide a breathing space for the investment to start to generate returns before business rates have to be paid. I know that some feel that 12 months is not long enough to incentivise the types of major refurbishment and improvement often made to properties by landlords and developers. However, as I explained to the House at Second Reading, this relief is designed to help occupiers make improvements to their existing premises rather than subsidising general commercial property development.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked what “occupied” meant. We already have a current discretionary heat network scheme that we have worked up with full guidance in partnership with the heat network sector and local government. That guidance is already published. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, we intend to translate that guidance into regulations and to make those in good time to ensure a seamless transition between the current discretionary scheme and the new mandatory scheme. I suggest that noble Lords look now at the guidance as it will make it clear what will go forward. In the meantime, we will work with the heat network sector on the regulations in case they need any tweaking.
Nevertheless, as this is a new relief, it is right that the Government evaluate whether it is working and delivers value for money. Therefore, the Bill as currently drafted includes powers to extend the duration of the improvement relief and in 2028 the Government will review the scheme. That will be the appropriate time to consider whether to continue with the scheme and how effectively the relief is operating. As part of that review, we will consider whether 12 months remains the correct duration for the relief. We have, however, allowed for a longer period of relief for low-carbon heat networks, given the particular role that they play in reducing our dependence on natural gas. That relief runs until 2035. Amendment 5, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock, would extend that to 2050. As with improvement relief, we have to balance the need for support with maintaining the services funded from the tax, as I have said. The end date in the Bill aligns with our ambition to phase out new natural gas boilers by 2035. By that date, new low-carbon heat networks will no longer have to compete with natural gas alternatives. Under those circumstances, we hope that the relief will no longer be necessary and, therefore, 2035 will be the right time to end the relief. However, as with the improvement relief, we will keep this under review and the Bill includes powers for us to extend the 2035 date, if it is necessary at the time.
I hope I have given noble Lords the explanations and assurances that they were seeking and that the noble Lord is able to consider withdrawing his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
The Minister mentioned regulations following Royal Assent and I am happy with that, but could she confirm that this will have a consultation process attached to it? She also referred to something that I interpreted as a post-legislative review. What is the framework for that in this instance?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
On the regulations, we are consulting at the moment and that will be discussed afterwards. If noble Lords want to put anything in, I suggest they look on GOV.UK. I shall sit down so that the noble Earl can ask his second question because I did not quite pick it up.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
It was about the post-legislative review and its framework, in so far as it would apply to the workings of the Bill once it gets Royal Assent.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As far as I know, we do not have a framework yet, but as soon as we have—I assume it will go out to some sort of consultation—I shall make sure that noble Lords are aware of when it is issued.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made a compelling argument for a general extension of improvement relief, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman, for extending heat network relief. For me, this is all about joining the dots across the legislation, so that we have a coherent picture. As the Minister said, we already have a permanent exemption for renewable energy and storage. All these factors feed into our overall strategic targets, so we need a coherent picture across the legislation. The Minister rightly talked about fiscal responsibility and the need to bear it in mind.
The other side of the picture, to counter that, are all the benefits to increasing private investment—in the case of energy efficiency, lower bills—and the benefits from overall economic growth that would flow from that. I look forward to further discussions with the Minister leading up to Report, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require central non-domestic rating lists to be compiled every two years.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shipley and I have Amendments 7, 9 and 11 in this group, all of which seek to achieve the same end; namely, that the revaluation period be reduced to two years. The Minister and the Bill team have been very generous with their time and that has enabled a discussion of the time gap between revaluations. The Government have decided on a three-year gap. We are suggesting that a shorter gap may enable a valuation that more closely reflects business confidence and thus rental values.
There is a revaluation this year, which will be based on rental values in 2021. Under the Government’s proposal, the next revaluation will be in 2026 and based, therefore, on rental values in 2024. In the Government’s own business rate review of 2020, respondents wanted a shorter gap between the assessment of revaluations and implementation. Hence the amendments to Clause 5, which reduce the three-year gap to two years, as this will result in a closer alignment between business confidence and the revaluation. Businesses, as we are all very aware, are facing considerable challenges as a result of factors well outside their control. The significant fluctuation in economic outlook, reflected, for instance, in the level of inflation and the rise in interest rates, creates uncertainty for businesses. A narrower gap between revaluations is one step that will help businesses.
In our discussions with the Minister, it became clear that there are no administrative barriers to a two-year gap. Indeed, the Netherlands has for many years managed a similar system with annual revaluations. Other amendments in this group are designed to achieve the same outcome and come from noble Lords who have considerable experience in these matters. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, all have considerable expertise and knowledge in practice and have picked up the same issue of the period between revaluations.
It seems to me, an amateur in these things, having read the reports from businesses asking for a shorter period between revaluations, that the Government should go back and go for two-yearly revaluations. It would be better for everybody. If we have, as the Government say they have, a priority to support businesses and give them greater certainty and confidence in the system, I am sure the Minister will again respond positively to this set of amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I have four amendments in this group, of which Amendments 8, 10 and 13 relate to the matter explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Amendment 14 is a little different and to do with downward-only transition.
Before I go any further, I should have thanked the Minister earlier for her drop-in sessions and her willingness to engage on the Bill. To some extent, it is a joint venture between business, professions and the Government in trying to wrestle with the issues of local government revenues. I understand that.
The purpose of Amendments 8, 10 and 13 is to create an ability for the Secretary of State to adopt a shorter cycle, be it of one year or two years, but they are not prescriptive as to what that might be. That is simply because, having considered the situation and how things have bedded in, the Government should at least have the ability to do so without then seeking a legislative slot later. Although it is counterintuitive to suggest anything that might smack of a Henry VIII clause, this is a sort of Henry VIII clause that I think might be useful in this particular instance.
I pick up something that the Minister said at Second Reading, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned, namely the potential instability of more frequent revaluations. However, this does not seem to be a problem in Hong Kong or Scotland; why should it be here? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, alluded to my next point, which is that the stability of the system is within the gift of the Government in terms of their wider policies. I would argue that it is the level of business rates—levied at around 50p in the pound at the assessed rateable value—that is itself the harbinger and cause of a degree of instability. Professionals and businesses just need to feel that there is a better commitment—a more bankable expression of intent—about this. That is why these amendments would serve to allow the shortening of the revaluation gap and, of course, its attendant antecedent date.
I now turn to Amendment 14, which, had I spotted it before, I might have disaggregated from this group because it relates to downward-only transition. Although the Minister made some hopeful noises at Second Reading, I have not yet persuaded her to signpost the permanence of what is otherwise a very welcome item in this Bill; namely, the removal for the next revaluation of downward transition. It always seemed to me invidious that those whose rateable values were reduced should see the benefit only by such minimal and curmudgeonly means as to deprive them of the effect of a significant reduction, not just for many years but, sometimes, for many revaluations. Now that the principle is established that the transition no longer has to equal and offset the transitional phasing of increases by those who should be paying, it is time to confine this rather dishonourable measure to oblivion, if I may so suggest.
Let us not forget that, for every measure of palpable unfairness, perceived or actual, in the business rates, there will be an unknown number of potential entrepreneurs who simply will not lay themselves open to such practices because they see the system as unfair and operating unfairly against them. To that extent, the system is not as elastic an economic function as may be supposed. That is the background to my amendments.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I take a slightly different position. I support these amendments, but I want to introduce a brief note of caution. The case for a reduction in the frequency of updating rateable values has been extremely well made, but I think experts should have a voice in the proposal. I think we should wait until the three-year review process has bedded in and all interested parties should then be free to comment, before reducing that interval further from three to two years, or even one year. Clearly, the VOA has a central role—the most important role—but ordinary ratepayers have a role too. It is possible that an annual or biannual revaluation will become unworkable. That is unlikely with digitisation and the wider use of technology, but any period longer than one year between revaluations is, by definition, quickly out of date. We saw that in high relief with volatile rental markets during and following Covid.
My amendment suggests that the Government listen to the view of the VOA, of course, but also to the RICS, the Rating Surveyors’ Association and the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation, together with other accredited advisory groups, before making a decision on these further reductions. I ask the Government to write into the Bill that they will listen to the voices of these experts before further reductions are agreed to.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My name appears on three of the amendments in this group. I think that the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is very strong. We have to be certain. I believe a reduction from three years to two years—and, in an ideal world, to one year—would be the right thing to do.
I should state for the Committee stage, however long that lasts, that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I am convinced that currently revaluations are too infrequent. The Government have accepted that case. We are going to three years, and that is indeed better, but to reduce appeals and to ensure a fairer system requires two years or fewer. Like my noble friend Lady Pinnock, I will be very interested to know why we cannot draw on the comparator of the Netherlands since it does a revaluation every year.
There are clearly advantages to more frequent revaluations. We will have fewer appeals because the valuation would be more accurate. It would be fairer to businesses and reduce complaints about the system. I read very carefully the letter the Minister wrote after Second Reading, but it is not clear to me that there are any administrative barriers to moving from three years to two years.
We support Amendments 8 and 10, which suggest that the Government introduce a change to two-year revaluation or to one-year revaluation by order, as long as the affirmative procedure is used. As I said a moment ago, I think the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, matter. I hope the Government will pay particular attention to Amendment 12 because it would enable us to be certain that it would not be a mistake to move to two years. We are sufficiently open to say that we want to go to two years and would like to go to one year, but we are very happy to build in a timescale which enables that to happen securely.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for introducing this group with Amendment 7, which seeks to change the Bill so that lists must be produced every two years instead of three. Today’s discussion has demonstrated that noble Lords think that this needs to be revisited and that perhaps three years is too long.
I am quite interested in Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which would allow SIs to be introduced to change it to one or two years. Bringing in flexibility to adopt a shorter cycle without that kind of prescription is a really interesting idea and approach. In principle, we would support that; my only concern is that the SI procedure has not exactly gone entirely smoothly in recent years. To get our full support to move in that direction, we would need to ensure that SIs are managed better than they have been recently.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made some important points about the need for business confidence regarding valuations. That is incredibly important, particularly given the uncertainty resulting from inflation, various costs—of energy, for example—going through the roof, the challenges following the pandemic, the business rate holidays that have moved or not moved, and the differences resulting from where in the country you may be. None of that helps with certainty for businesses, particularly those that have retail in different parts of the country.
Another really good point was made about the fact that a small but perfect group is taking part in these discussions. Here we have noble Lords with real and practical experience and knowledge, which I hope will be helpful as we move through Committee.
The Chartered Institute of Taxation has agreed that moving initially to three-year revaluations would provide a balance between the administrative costs and the need for regular revaluation to reflect the economic conditions of business. But it also said that, given the rapidity of changes in business and shopping practices, the Government should consider a phased approach to achieving more frequent revaluations, and that this should remain under evaluation. Given the different amendments we have today and the discussions that we have had, will the Minister consider taking back to her department the introduction of a phased approach? I know that in the letter to noble Lords following Second Reading, she said that the Government will
“carefully consider the case for even greater frequency of revaluations once the new system changes have bedded in”.
That brings us to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who suggested that waiting for that three-year cycle to bed in might be very helpful. He made the point that we need to listen to the experts and advisory groups and make sure that we get this right, because anything over two years goes out of date very quickly. The Labour Party position is that we should have more frequent valuations. We have talked about them being annual, but of course this has to be right, and it has to work for business.
Finally, on Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the abolition of downward caps, it is concerning that the downward caps can prevent savings being passed on to businesses and could mean that they unnecessarily pay more in business rates. It is an important amendment, and I would be interested to hear what reassurances the Minister can give the noble Earl.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments takes us to the heart of the Bill; namely, our commitment to modernise the business rates system through more frequent revaluations. Amendments 7 to 13, from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Thurlow, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, are concerned with the frequency of revaluations. They provide for either the revaluation cycle to move to every two years or for the Government to adopt a two-year cycle by order. The Government fully understand the desire to keep business rates as accurate and responsive as possible. That is why the frequency of revaluations was a key part of our review.
Regular revaluations update rateable values, and so rates bills, to reflect changes in the property market. During the business rates review, we heard from businesses that they overwhelmingly favoured more frequent revaluations. Interestingly, a majority of respondents to the review supported a three-year revaluation cycle. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned countries that had annual revaluations, but it is not straightforward or accurate to simply compare our revaluation cycles with places such as the Netherlands. Evidently, a single property tax there covers both residential and commercial properties, so it is a very different system from the one in this country. We also considered annual revaluations, but some stakeholders raised concerns about an annual cycle, such as the increased volatility of bills and potential impacts on valuation accuracy. We therefore concluded that we should move to a three-year cycle of revaluations, and the Bill provides for that, with the next one to take place on 1 April 2026.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I am delighted about what the Minister has just said. I thank her for that and apologise for making her say it twice, if I did. It is my understanding that this is now a permanent abolition of downward relief, which is extremely welcome.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. As she rightly said, this is at the heart of the changes being introduced in the Bill. I thank her for recognising that there could indeed be a further review to reduce the gap between revaluations. However, although I may have misheard her, I thought that the Minister said that the review conducted by the Treasury was—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I shall try to pick up from where I left off. I may or may not have heard the Minister aright so this is just to check. The very good Library briefing on the Bill references the Treasury review into business rates. I shall refer to the Library briefing, then the Minister can say whether or not I have misunderstood. It says:
“On the longer-term proposals, most respondents stated that … revaluations should happen more often”—
we agree with that. But then it says that
“the gap between when the revaluations were assessed and when they came into force should be shorter than the current two years”,
which was one of the points that I was trying to make.
I may have misheard the Minister—if I have, I apologise—but the point that the review was making was to say yes to a shorter gap than five years, and the Government have pitched on to three. At the same time, the assessment year should be shorter than the two years that it currently is—that is what I think the review was saying, and I was trying to say that part of the argument for reducing the gap between the assessment year and the revaluation year is to make it narrower.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The response was three years, because of the reasons that I put forward—but, yes, we have aspirations to squeeze that to two years. That is the issue that we are discussing, and it is absolutely right that we are trying to do that. It is where we would like to get to, but it will take the changes that we are making to the Valuation Office Agency to do that—and then there is the digital aspect, and things like that, which we have already talked about.
Lord Thurlow
“(2) V must disclose the information to P without delay if requested by P.”Member's explanatory statement
This adds an obligation on the Valuation Office Agency to reveal their rental comparables/evidence used in arriving at a Rateable Value when challenged in the interests of transparency. This may satisfy ratepayer concerns at fairness early in the process and reduce the numbers resorting to appeal.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I declare my interest as a former chartered surveyor. I should have done so earlier, and I apologise. I, too, join in the chorus of thanks to the Minister and her Bill team for the help and meetings a week ago. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who is absent, for adding his name to my amendments in this group. I am sorry that he is not here to add his voice. This group of amendments is focused on the operation of the VOA and rooted in the desire for transparency for the ratepayer. It is a matter of simple public interest.
The current arrangements require registration for the check, challenge, appeal process before the VOA reveals the evidence it relied upon in assessing rental value. Amendment 15 questions why the VOA should be so secretive. There is no need for it. On appeal, the evidence is revealed, so why not admit it on first inquiry without the need for the CCA registration process? We all hope that the VOA’s figures are correct when assessing new rateable values and that its assumptions in arriving at them are well founded. It is hoped that, by the evidence being shown at the outset of any inquiry, most ratepayers would agree with the VOA’s evidence and accept its valuation. This would avoid the cost, resourcing and administration of the CCA process for the VOA and ratepayers.
With the help of the RICS, I have looked at some of the statistics for recent check, challenge, appeal numbers. In the quarter to March this year, more than 10,000 CCA notices were received. This is the first stage in the appeal process. Fortunately, 90% of them came from interested persons, and I believe that means ordinary people, not agents acting on behalf of ratepayers, so the leaseholder or the freeholder. It is a good thing in the absence of a requirement to use accredited agents, which we will come on to. But 10,000 registrations is an unusually high number. It is to some extent the result of the publication of the latest business rates revaluation. It must put great pressure on VOA resources.
If I am reading the VOA’s published data correctly, in the rating list period 2017-23, 30% of challenges resulted in a reduction. That is far too high. It suggests that the VOA may be taking a bullish view of estimated rental value, rather than an objective one. The VOA translates from estimated rental value to rateable value. This is very likely to lead to a growing trend towards challenges of the fairness of assessments, which is a concern. I do not want to overlook the fact that 70% of CCAs were found in the VOA’s favour, but 30% is still too high for successful appeals. My amendment seeks to reduce the volume of CCAs by thousands of appeals through applicants withdrawing at an early stage in the process.
My other amendment in his group is Amendment 17. It is a simple matter concerning confidentiality of information. Occasionally there is a confidentiality clause in a rent review or a new letting. There may be a means by which the VOA can obtain that detail but the ratepayer cannot. There may be other reasons for confidentiality. Why should the VOA be allowed to factor this evidence into its assessment if the ratepayer may not? It is akin to the VOA informing the ratepayer that it has information it cannot reveal which supports its figures. My amendment does not dispute the reasons for confidentiality being protected—not a bit—but requires simply that any information which cannot be shared with the ratepayer must be disregarded. The ratepayer must be empowered to challenge all the evidence used against them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I have five amendments in this group. I support the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in what he has just said in relation to Amendments 15 and 17. My Amendment 16 follows on from that, and for that reason I will be quite brief about it. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and my Amendment 16 seek to provide a duty on the Valuation Office Agency to provide such information, subject only to data protection legislation.
This addresses something that has been a bone of contention for many years, namely that a target and tax revenue focus in HMRC seems to have affected areas of Valuation Office Agency practice to the point where—or where the appearance has been that—evidence has been withheld, right up to tribunal-stage appeals. Over the years, as I have monitored the updates from the Rating Surveyors’ Association and others, I have noted with alarm some examples—I hope these instances are few and far between—of appalling and unprofessional practice, not, as one might suppose, from rating agents of an indifferent moral persuasion and possibly no professional training at all, but from the VOA itself. I worked for the VOA’s predecessor body, the Inland Revenue Valuation Office, for nearly seven years. Then, it was held in universally high esteem for its ethical and professional principles. It would be highly regrettable if, as time has gone on, that were no longer a given—I want to stress that.
This amendment does no more than insist on the same standards for disclosure and candour from the VOA that it requires of private sector agents acting for ratepayers. If this or something similar is not agreed to, there will be not only a rising tide of criticism within the profession but some sort of backlash from the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, which will ultimately force the issue. We need to deal with that at this stage.
I move on to Amendments 18 to 20 in my name. Again, I can deal with these quite briefly. All three interlinked amendments try to remove the requirement for an annual return. The principle is that the requirement for notification arises only when there is a change in that status requiring the notification. At Second Reading, there was some consensus that the proposed volume and frequency of making returns to the Valuation Office Agency in relation to changes was misconceived. We heard that it would bring into scope some 700,000 hereditaments on which an additional return-making duty will fall—we are talking about a return per hereditament, not a blanket return per operator. If you are, for instance, an outdoor advertising company—that trade body has been in touch with me, as it has with many other noble Lords—with thousands of billboards, or an operator of cashpoints, this starts to matter. I do not know whether the latter is a good or bad example.
I accept that, if we move to two-yearly or yearly valuation, the real-time provision of data capture becomes that much more important. But why, in all logic and seriousness, if a return is required for a change within 60 days after the event, is it also necessary to make an end-of-year return in addition for the same hereditament, especially as a form of return can be requested at any time by the VOA? To put it another way: the desire for real-time notification and coherence of VOA record-keeping cannot be a justification for unnecessary duplication of duties on the ratepayer. I really do not think that this should be a matter for negotiation; it is a matter of straightforward common sense.
I move on to Amendment 21 in my name. It seeks to ensure that ratepayers do not receive retrospective increases in their rating liabilities where the Valuation Office Agency has not acted promptly on the receipt of ratepayer-provided information. It is to prevent retrospectivity where there is delay in acting on the ratepayer’s provision of information on a notifiable event. Its intention is to cover all situations where the rateable value is likely to be affected, including entering a new hereditament into the rating list. I think it is basically self-explanatory, but it is the counterpart to the duties on the ratepayer to furnish information in a timely manner and, of course, the penalties for failing to do so—about which more in due course.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name is on Amendments 28, 33 and 34 in this group. I will come to the accreditation of rating advisers in a moment.
There are a range of issues here which relate to the performance of the Valuation Office Agency. I agree entirely with all that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has said about the amendment to which his name is attached and with Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, which is about the proposed requirement on the Valuation Office Agency to reveal rental comparables and the evidence used in arriving at a rateable value. A lot of these issues meet the test of reasonable common sense. If I were challenging a business rates bill or valuation, I would want to be certain that it was at the correct level.
The amendments in my name relate to annual reporting and, jointly with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to whether the Valuation Office Agency has a problem with its resourcing. We need to be clear whether it has a problem and cannot do things because it does not have the resources. However, the principle that this group of amendments tries to establish is that the Valuation Office Agency should meet the same performance standards that it requires of business rate payers. It should have a duty to provide information requested, in particular comparable evidence on valuations, as I said earlier. That comment relates to Amendments 15 and 16.
It is very important that the burden of the regulatory requirements on business rate payers is re-examined to make sure that all that business rate payers are now being asked to do is valid. It is said that all the proposed increases in workload are required because of the reduction of the valuation time period from five years to three. I am unconvinced by that and I hope that the Minister might be able to explain why that statement applies. Maybe, as I said a moment ago, it relates to resources. However, the Valuation Office Agency should meet the same performance standards that it requires of business rate payers. That is a very important principle.
My Amendment 34 relates to the Secretary of State being required to consult on the benefits and practicability of a system of accreditation for rating advisers. It seeks to explore an avenue for combating the rogue and unprofessional practices of some rating advisers. It is a simple issue. The new duty to notify will give rise to demand for professional help among business rate payers and, therefore, a serious risk of there being a rise in unqualified advisers offering services, so I conclude that there should be a licensing or accreditation system. At the very least, the Government should consult on that.
The context is simple: there is to be more work for business rate payers, the system is more complex, more will seek professional help and, when they do so, they will expect expert advice. If they do not get expert advice and mistakes are made which perhaps cost the business rate payer a substantial sum as a consequence, whose fault will that be? Of course, the immediate fault will not lie with the Government or the Valuation Office Agency, but behind that failure will be the fact that the Government could have done something to ensure that those who are giving advice are competent to do so.
This is simply a proposal that the Government set up a consultation for a system of accreditation. I hope that the Minister will take it seriously; it is a big issue. The changes in the Bill are welcome in so many ways but, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said a moment ago, there is a danger of unintended consequences, which will cause some to feel that they have not been properly attended to. Setting up a consultation on the issue of accreditation of advisers seems an appropriate measure that the Government could take.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as we have just heard, I have Amendment 28 in this group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his support for my amendment. We tabled this because we are concerned that the VOA may not be sufficiently resourced, particularly as the Bill gives the agency additional responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has clearly expressed many of the concerns behind the amendment.
I looked at some recent data about the number of staff employed by the agency. The latest figures that I could find showed that it has a full-time equivalent of 3,698 staff, which is not huge, to be honest, particularly as a large number of new responsibilities is being brought its way. The global property consultancy, Colliers International, has described the Government’s plan to reduce the number of VOA offices from 56 to 26 as “a shambles”, and said that it will be a
“nightmare for businesses wanting to appeal their business rates”.
That is another reason why I was concerned enough to table this amendment.
We also know that there have been problems with the VOA managing the number of appeals and the time taken for resolution. I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said in his excellent introduction to this debate, about the importance of transparency. He also talked about the number of challenges—30%—resulting in reduction. Clearly, that is too high and needs to be addressed—and the VOA needs sufficient resources to be able to do so.
We also know that, often, the number of challenges and the time taken for resolution relate to the number of rogue agents, many of which want to make a fast buck out of this. That is why we support Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which looks to address this. Again, we had discussions about it at Second Reading. We support his amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in this group. In the letter that the Minister sent to noble Lords after Second Reading, she acknowledged that rogue agents need to be looked at and that this would be part of a government consultation. I hope that the Government will take this seriously enough to consider action on this following the consultation, because it seems genuinely to be a problem.
We very much support what Amendments 15 and 17, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, are trying to do to increase transparency in the revaluation process. We hope that that transparency would also reduce the number of appeals, as the noble Lord so eloquently said. Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, would also increase transparency, and we would be happy to support it. Clearly, increasing transparency is important, but we have to be careful that amendments we put down on transparency do not have the unintended consequence of adding to the valuation office’s workload without it having sufficient resources—this comes back full circle to what I said at the beginning.
There is also the risk of a major bottleneck in the system, through the new online portal. It would be good to have reassurances from the Minister about how that will be resourced and managed. It is human nature that a large proportion of ratepayers will put in requests for their rental evidence soon after the 1 April date, when the new rating system is published. It would be helpful if the Minister could give assurances that the VOA will be able to respond in time to allow ratepayers and their agents to construct and submit challenges by 30 September—the six-month deadline—because that six-month window for a challenge is a fundamental change to the rating system. We need greater clarity and certainty about exactly how that window will operate, particularly in relation to new tenants and the changes in the list that occur during and after the six-month window. Where is that flexibility?
The Bill states that a ratepayer must provide “annual confirmation” that they have, first, provided “all notifiable information required” or, secondly, that they are “not required to provide” any such notifiable information. Is this confirmation likely to be digital, to fit in with the online system? Will accessible formats be reduced, and will any mitigating circumstances be considered, if a person is unable to complete that confirmation?
As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, described it, his Amendments 18 to 20 remove the requirements for the annual return. He talked about duplication and unnecessary returns, and it would be helpful if the Minister could provide clarification on that, because a number of changes to how this is done are coming in, and it is important that it works smoothly from the start.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, group 3 concerns information sharing between the Valuation Office Agency and ratepayers, the performance and capacity of the VOA, and the behaviour of some of our rating agents. Central to this part of the Bill is our commitment to move to more frequent revaluations, delivered by Clause 5. As we have discussed, sustainably delivering this important goal is contingent on increasing the timeliness and quality of the information received by the VOA.
To ensure that the VOA has that timely and complete flow of information, Clause 13 introduces a duty on ratepayers to provide notifiable information to the VOA and to confirm each year that they have met their obligations under that duty. In return, Clause 10 provides the means for ratepayers to access an analysis of evidence used to set the rateable value for their property, which should reduce the need for ratepayers to make a challenge. Ratepayers will be able to access guidance from the VOA, provide information on their property and request evidence on their own valuations, all through an online service. This will be the same online portal through which ratepayers will also be able to provide their taxpayer reference number to meet the other duty introduced by Clause 13.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked about information if you have more than one property. The VOA will seek to enable ratepayers with multiple properties to provide information about their properties at the same time every 30 days, to limit their administrative burden. We have listened to requests from stakeholders for this functionality, and we recognise that there is also a benefit for the VOA from receiving information in this way. We will work with businesses, agents and software suppliers to rebuild a robust and effective system for ratepayers. The deadline for notification of the underlying changes will remain at the now-increased 60 days, and the same deadline will apply to all, regardless of the means of notification.
I turn to Amendments 18 to 20. As I have set out, Clause 13 includes a requirement on the ratepayers to confirm once a year that they have provided the information required of them—this will be digitally, to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—under the VOA duty. Amendments 18, 19 and 20 from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, would remove that requirement. I shall explain why this part of the duty is necessary.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I think that I have listened very carefully but, on the digitisation of business rates, which I support, did the Minister explain the arrangements that could be made for businesses in remote locations where there is little or no mobile signal and where broadband has yet to reach them, despite what I accept are the Government’s best intentions that that should be the case? I live in the upper Pennines region, where there are businesses and remote farming communities. So far, they do not have either. Ditto in the Yorkshire Dales; I know of businesses there with neither a mobile signal—one that works, anyway—or a broadband connection. What arrangements will be made for such businesses?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am told that there will be a non-digital availability. I will get all the details for the noble Baroness and I will write a letter, which will also go to the Library.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I would like to tease out a little more information following the Minister’s response on Amendment 17. What happens, in effect, is that the evidence is part of an adjudication process. In my professional line of business, there are various stipulations about surveyors acting as expert witnesses and the way in which these things are to be handled. Amendment 17 is particularly important because, when one gets into a situation where there is an appeal pending, there is this little thing about equality of arms. If one party is able to use information that is held confidentially, to the exclusion of the other party, I do not think that equality—that transparency standard—is met. We are talking about what is ultimately something that leads to an appeal before the valuation tribunal.
Can the Minister say whether I have got it right that the VOA can have a protected category of evidence, as it were, that it is not prepared to share? This is something that has come up on my radar when looking at some of the blogs that have come out of the rating surveying world. It is a matter of fundamental importance in terms of the administration of any sort of justice system and adjudication, which is what this is. I would therefore like to pin down the Minister a little more on that point.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think we made it very clear that the information that can be shared is the information that does not affect the data protection. Therefore, there will be information that cannot be shared because it will affect data protection. Because this is quite a legal issue, I will offer noble Lords a further, in-depth meeting, with lawyers there. If we are to get to the bottom of this, it is better to do that with a lawyer with us talking about the data protection law. Would the noble Earl be happy with that?
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this group. I thought that the reference made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to a timely VOA response was particularly apt, and I was grateful for his support just now on Amendment 17 on confidentiality. I thank the Minister for the offer to follow up.
The comment from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the amendments in this group are simple common sense was one of the most powerful pieces of oratory that I have heard this afternoon, and I hope that it materialises very soon. I admired his well-made comments about the rogue agents, and once again I thank the Minister for her comments in that regard, as to how the Government intend to protect the public. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for identifying a number of concerns over the VOA’s resourcing, which tie in directly.
The Earl of Lytton
“(3A) No penalty notice may be imposed pursuant to paragraph 5ZC(1) or (3), and no offence is committed pursuant to paragraph 5ZC(2) (as the case may be), where P’s failure to comply, or P’s provision of false information, was made in reasonable reliance on any relevant guidance published by or on behalf of the valuation officer, or any advice provided to P by or on behalf of the valuation officer.”Member's explanatory statement
This would prevent the imposition of penalties where ratepayers’ errors or omissions are the result of reasonable reliance on VOA guidance or advice.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, this is the first of a series of amendments relating to penalties. Amendment 22 tries to create a defence to a penalty. I say straightaway that I do not have any principled objection to penalties as such, but the amendment tries to make sure that, when a penalty demand is made, if the ratepayer had reasonably relied on published Valuation Office Agency guidance or specific advice given about what was not relevant, that should be a relevant defence.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I was making the point that it should be a defence for a business rate payer to say that they had reasonably relied on published VOA or other guidance in respect of anything to do with being made liable for a penalty. Failure by a ratepayer to notify carries with it a number of penalties, at least one of which is entirely open-ended—more of that in a minute. The implementation of this will depend very much on the extent and quality of the guidance issued, especially as it is supposed that this will be comprehensible to unrepresented ratepayers. I particularly make that point because we are trying to make sure that this does not trigger a requirement across the board for more ratepayers to seek professional advice.
I appreciate that the VOA will not bring in notification and penalty measures until it is satisfied that they work smoothly and seamlessly. That is my understanding—my words, I stress, not necessarily the ones that the Minister would use. My submission is that no government body should be at liberty to state one thing in guidance and then do something quite different or to reinterpret established understandings at its own whim and caprice to the detriment, in this instance, of a ratepayer.
I shall deal with Amendments 23 to 26 as a job lot because their purpose is to fix a number of issues that appear to me to be typos or errors of construction or perception to do with the way in which the penalty regime will work. First, the fixed penalty minimums for incorrect information provided to the VOA appear to be the wrong way round and Amendments 23 and 24 serve to remedy that. I think the figures have just been transposed.
Secondly, unlike the penalties in relation to the provision of information to HMRC as opposed to the VOA, there is no cap whatever for non-compliance on the VOA notification. This seems contrary to legal principle in general and at odds with non-compliance with, for instance, the form of return under Schedule 9 to the 1988 Act, which is subject to a cap, so Amendment 25 seeks to address that.
Finally, there is the question of the Valuation Tribunal for England’s—VTE’s—determination of penalties, which the VOA has imposed in lieu of prosecution for false information. As drafted in the Bill, the burden of criminal proof is inverted, with the ratepayer having to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that they did not commit the offence. That cannot be right or reasonable. I suspect that it is not intended, either—I hope I am correct. Amendment 26 seeks to deal with that.
That summarises my amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has raised an important group of issues regarding the penalties that could be imposed on ratepayers who do not provide accurate, timely information. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that and explain how ratepayers seem to have more and more imposed on them. They must provide the information annually to the VOA—in the last group we debated the VOA’s transparency in relation to that—and the noble Earl has just raised the quite significant penalties imposed if the information is not accurate, even if, as he pointed out, there is a genuine error. It seems that, in the previous group and this one, we do not have the right balance of responsibilities between the VOA requiring information, what business rate payers are required to provide and where the final duty lies.
The VOA is serving two masters: the Treasury on one hand and business rate payers on the other. It seems that the VOA is responding to its Treasury master and is not giving sufficient cognisance to the customers—the business rate payers. The noble Earl raised some important points regarding that. We must get this balance right. The VOA needs to be more transparent and responsive to business rate payers. It also needs to be accountable to them—and the reverse is also true, as the noble Earl said. The VOA demands penalties if the ratepayer gets the information wrong but—hang on—the VOA makes errors all the time. Where is the accountability and compensation to business rate payers for those errors? The noble Earl raised that issue and I hope that the Minister will be able to get the balance right when she responds.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for bringing the amendments on penalties forward because a number of questions around compliance and the penalties regime have been drawn to our attention. One is how it aligns with the wider UK tax regime generally. Another is that a new criminal offence is being created here, but is that actually necessary? Is this not covered by existing legislation and existing criminal charges, for example? I am more broadly probing why we need a new offence here.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Group 4 consists of Amendments 22 to 26, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. They are concerned with the application of penalties for non-compliance with the VOA duty. As we have said, we will not initiate the VOA duty until we are satisfied that all ratepayers can reasonably and efficiently comply. There will be a soft launch of the duty, during which time no penalties for non-compliance will be issued and the VOA will raise awareness and expand its engagement with sector bodies and businesses of all sizes. As was said, issuing penalties will be the last resort. The VOA and HMRC will ensure that the new online service is simple to use and will take multiple steps to encourage ratepayers to comply, through reminders and warnings, before issuing a penalty.
Amendment 22 seeks to prevent the imposition of penalties where ratepayers’ errors or omissions are the result of reasonable reliance on VOA guidance. However, it is already the case that the VOA is able to apply penalties only where the ratepayer could reasonably be expected to know that the information would assist the VOA. All ratepayers will need to do to ensure that they are complying is follow guided steps on GOV.UK. If the ratepayer follows this guidance, the VOA will not, under the existing provisions of the Bill, be able to apply penalties. Thus, we do not think that this amendment adds anything of substance to the position as it already stands. If a penalty is issued in error where a ratepayer has relied on VOA guidance, the Bill gives the VOA the power to remit it. Ratepayers will also be able to appeal any penalty applied, and this will be independently reviewed by the valuation tribunal.
Amendments 23 to 25 are designed to address the penalty tariffs applicable to instances where a ratepayer has either failed to notify the VOA or provided false information. I will briefly explain the Government’s approach here. The Bill sets out the maximum level of penalty which the VOA may apply depending on the nature of the failure to comply. Our intention, as set out in our response to the technical consultation, is for the VOA sometimes to levy lower penalties than are set out by the framework of the Bill. Penalties will be levied as a percentage of the change in the rateable value rather than the entire rateable value and, where penalties are issued for a failure to provide information, the minimum penalty will be reduced for those on lower rateable values.
The Bill also introduces an offence where a ratepayer has knowingly or recklessly made a false statement. In these cases, a ratepayer could be subject to criminal sanction. Alternatively, making a false statement will lead to a civil penalty, the amount of which is provided by new paragraph 5ZD. Where the civil penalty is applied, in practice the maximum penalty will be 3% of the change in the property’s rateable value plus a fixed penalty of £500. To address the amendment, the Bill rightly provides a more severe penalty for knowingly or recklessly providing false information.
The point has been made that there should be a cap on daily penalties following an initial instance of failure to provide information. This information can have a direct impact on tax liability, so it is crucial that the duty is underpinned by a fair and proportionate but robust compliance regime. However, I can provide the reassurance that, even after the initial 60-day deadline, ratepayers will receive a reminder, warning and final warning before a penalty is applied. Only after an additional 30 days would the first daily penalty of £60 be issued. Ratepayers will be able to request a review and appeal of any penalties imposed. The daily penalties will be stopped when the ratepayer provides the required information, so as soon as the ratepayer complies, the penalties are effectively capped.
Applying daily penalties in this way is not an uncommon feature of taxation penalty regimes. For example, Schedule 36 to the Finance Act 2008 deals with powers for HMRC to request information from taxpayers and imposes penalties for a failure to provide such information. It includes penalties of up to £60 per day for as long as the non-compliance continues, without an overall cap on liability.
Amendment 26 seeks to alter the burden of proof which the valuation tribunal should apply when deciding whether to uphold a penalty decision. Of course, when considering a higher penalty for a ratepayer who has provided false information, the VOA must in the first place be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the information was provided knowingly or recklessly. There is considerable protection for ratepayers already.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for raising questions about the appeals process. We will of course review the relevant text. I hope that, given that I have explained why the system of penalties is designed as it is, noble Lords will agree the amendments are not necessary.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman, for their contributions on this group of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to the necessary balance here, and I agree. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, queried whether the application of criminal charges is properly introduced here, whether the Valuation Office Agency is the right outfit to make that call and whether it will be given the necessary guidance and assistance to make consistent rulings in that respect.
It seems to me that the question is about the discretion of the VOA to do things—its ability to do or not do—as opposed to a legal duty. It seems to me that some sort of duty on the VOA is part and parcel of its overarching statutory duty to, for instance, maintain a correct valuation list. It also seems to me that those duties should mirror the obligations and penalties imposed on the ratepayer, otherwise it is a very asymmetric situation. That is, to some extent, what I was trying to deal with in Amendment 16.
The Minister has given various explanations of the Government’s position here. On Amendment 22 and the question of “reasonably be expected to know”, she said that this covers the guidance given and therefore the amendment does not add anything of substance and that there is a right of appeal. I think I will have to consider carefully what she said. With regard to Amendments 23 and 25, I felt that I had detected a series of typographical errors, but I understand the Minister to have said that they are not errors and that the Bill is deliberately worded that way. I am not sure that on a fair reading that is likely to be the case, so I hope they may be looked into at some stage or other.
On the cap or no cap, I have already pointed out that there is a degree of asymmetry between the approach that has been adopted in the Bill in this respect and what happens with failure to deal with the form of return. I appreciate that there is the “knowingly or recklessly” test, but we have a rather circular argument here because, if the VOA is again the sole arbiter of “knowingly or recklessly” and the thing then proceeds to a tribunal that says something different, I would hope that we could have got to a situation well before then where the ground rules were understood. Is the Minister saying that the wording of the Bill is in all respects what was intended and that there are no typographical errors in it as I had supposed? Will she please clarify that point?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, there are no typographical errors in the Bill. I think the noble Earl asked that question earlier, and there were none.
Just to be clear on criminal offences and why they are necessary, there is already a criminal offence for providing false information in response to a request for information by the VOA. So we are not putting in a criminal offence—there is already one there as it stands now. It is interesting that criminal charges will be only for “knowingly or recklessly” giving false information. If it is just a false statement, for whatever reason, that would still be a civil penalty.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I see a point here, and I shall have to reflect further on what the Minister has said in this respect and may well need to return to the issue at a later stage of the Bill. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton
Member's explanatory statement
This would delay the commencement of the alteration to the reality principle until the 2026 List enters force.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I must admit that this amendment is something of a stalking horse—a bit like asking a Prime Minister on a Wednesday morning what is in the diary for the coming week. What I am really saying is that Clause 14 should be deleted and I thought that, rather than moving that the clause do not stand part, it was better to seek an explanation. That is why it has been done this way.
The amendment relates to material changes in circumstances of hereditament. This is not the same as physical alteration to the hereditament itself. A standard alteration to its extent, and an extension to or improvement of the physical fabric, will continue to be taken into account, as I understand it, as and when it occurs. There is no attempt in the Bill, as I read it, to fetter that—rather, this is to do with matters that do not change the measurable physical attributes of the hereditament itself but none the less patently affect its physical enjoyment.
I am particularly indebted to Luke Wilcox of Landmark Chambers for some very pertinent guidance on this issue. I have a note from him that he has given me permission to share with other noble Lords, and I may well do that, as it goes into more detail about what I am trying to explain.
In non-domestic rating, there is a hypothetical landlord and tenant and a hypothetical lease between the two as well as an assumed obligation for certain states of repair, none of which necessarily mirrors the actual state of affairs relating to the property. However, the hereditament itself is real, measurable and a physically determinable entity, and how it is to be regarded has always been subject to what in legal jargon used to be referred to as the rebus sic stantibus principle. In simple terms, that means that one had to value the hereditament and its environment as it physically is. That is in essence what is now known as the reality principle.
There are two legs to the reality principle. The first is the physical extent—the construction, age, layout and other physical characteristics, fixtures and fittings and general suitability and fitness of purpose of the hereditament for its intended or actual use. The second relates to the local circumstances affecting the area where the physical hereditament is situated. Put another way, it is the local business environment that underpins its physical enjoyment, as distinct from its physical extent. This could be location in relation to other complementary trades, whether there is or is not good customer accessibility, the relevance of parking restrictions, proximity to public transport, levels of shopper footfall and all those sorts of things, which are not related to the physical nature of the hereditament itself but are part of its market environment and, therefore, its rental value.
The current position is that, where there is a change in a matter affecting the physical enjoyment of the property, such as a regulatory change to its planning status or a change in a matter which is physically manifest in the locality—in the past, Government Ministers referred to changed bus routes; I would add a change in road layout to that category—those matters, to the extent that they are evident and quantifiable, are material changes in circumstances, or MCCs, and can trigger a mid-list change in rateable value. Such factors are a part of the reality principle, which is one of the most fundamental concepts in rating law and, to my certain knowledge, has been so for over five decades.
What is proposed here is that Clause 14 would amend the rules that govern when a mid-list alteration to a property’s rating assessment is permitted by changing the definition of what may constitute “material changes of circumstances”. Under the Government’s proposals, those matters, even though manifestly affecting physical enjoyment, would no longer be MCCs, wherever and whenever they are directly or indirectly attributable to legislation or official guidance. Under the relevant portion of the Bill, new paragraph 2ZA(2)(a) of Schedule 6, inserted by Clause 14, an MCC is something that is
“directly or indirectly attributable to a relevant factor”.
New paragraph 2ZA(3) goes on to say what the relevant factors are:
“legislation of any country or territory … provision that … is made under, and given effect by, legislation of any country or territory … advice or guidance given by a public authority of any country or territory … anything done by a person with a view to compliance with anything within paragraph (a), (b) or (c)”.
New paragraph 2ZA(5) states that
“‘legislation’ includes any provision of a legislative character … ‘public authority’ includes any person exercising functions of a public nature”.
This, to my mind, is a substantial change to what has long been understood. What is proposed here is that this category of what has always been understood to be a material change in circumstances should be removed.
It appears that this is a response to matters that arose during Covid. The various Covid lockdown regulations significantly altered the way in which occupiers could occupy their premises. This in turn gave rise to a number of requests for mid-list alterations, since the regulations affected the ability of occupiers physically to enjoy their properties. The Government considered that general legislation should be part of the general market conditions considered at revaluations—this is the case being made—and so should not count as MCCs. However, the Government’s view in this regard differs not only from their own internal guidance, which I checked only yesterday on their website, but from that of the Valuation Office Agency, which regarded, and still regards, legislative changes as MCCs where they are physically manifest. That much is evident from the paperwork.
The Government passed the Coronavirus Act 2020, which prevented matters directly or indirectly attributable to the coronavirus regulations from being MCCs. This was a very specific and nationwide response to an emergency situation and was promoted as such. Clause 14, however, seeks to extend that principle to all events arising from legislation or regulation of all kinds and in all normal times, which is a very different construct.
The Government claim that Clause 14 is intended to restore the law to its originally intended state and condition and that its purpose is to require general legislation and guidance to be treated as part of the general market conditions which are thought to be considered only when a new list is compiled—which, under the Bill, would be every three years. However, under Clause 14 we are considering not necessarily nationwide or even emergency situations but much more mundane changes, often of a local or per-property specific nature. Some are harmless and insignificant but others would have significant effects on individual businesses and the physical enjoyment of the premises. These measures could deny a beneficial use which underpins the operation being run from a hereditament. Clause 14 is not the same thing at all as restoring the situation to what was always understood in rating practice but, in fact, a material departure from it.
The audit trail of legislation that brought in what is now Section 2(7) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 does not support the Government’s claim either. In fact, it reveals quite a different narrative, and an examination of Addis Ltd v Clement (VO), which has long been and remains the benchmark legal decision that the 1988 Act sought to enshrine, demonstrates this. Not only that but its antecedents go back to the 1920s and have been reaffirmed at senior judicial level as recently as 2020. I repeat: the Government’s guidance on their website and the guidance issued by the VOA make it clear that changes which affect the physical enjoyment of the hereditament, as distinct from changes to the physical hereditament itself, are indeed in scope of material change of circumstances.
This means that Clause 14 will have a far wider effect than the Government’s stated intention. That is because, if something can be so loosely defined as being “indirectly attributable” to a change in legislation, and thereby no longer treated as a material change of circumstances of the relevant type, this opens up a vast array of circumstances in which the causative measure and the non-MCC status may apply. Many things would come into play which affect perhaps only one property or a discrete group, such as a change in planning permission, a premises licence or a road layout change. These are changes which in many cases—in fact, almost invariably—can be made only by dint of legislative authority but none the less would henceforward be “indirectly attributable” to legislation, and thus no longer material changes of circumstances.
There is no sense in which a change in, say, the planning status of an individual property or the exercise of administrative authority resulting in something which patently affects the physical enjoyment of a single property or a locally identifiable property type, can be regarded as part of general market conditions, falling to be dealt with only at revaluation, yet those changes will be excluded under Clause 14 as currently drafted. I do not think that such an approach could ever be justified even on an annual revaluation basis. They are not general market shifts but the result of specific, conscious measures by an authority exercising powers.
Why is this a problem? If the planning or licensing position of a property, or its accessibility or commercial standing in its locality, have changed early in the life of a list, under Clause 14 the ratepayer will continue to pay rates on what would be an incorrect valuation, possibly for almost three years. This gives rise to clear unfairness and inequity. On my reading of the Bill, a billing authority would presumably be in no position to require the rateable value to be reviewed if it implements a scheme under a statutory power which could increase the rateable value of a hereditament in like circumstances.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I think the wise course of action now would be to listen to what the Minister has to say. I am very supportive of what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has said. He called this amendment a stalking horse; we clearly need a definition of the Government’s intention and there is clearly a legal question that must be sorted out. I said at Second Reading that I had concerns about material change of circumstances being altered in the way the Government are proposing, not least to exclude legislation such as licensing laws and guidance from public bodies. As a layman, in legal terms, in this area, it seems to me that legislation can cause a material change in circumstance, particularly if licensing or planning laws are altered. There is a case for that to be considered. These Benches would very much like to hear the Minister’s justification for what is being proposed. If that requires a letter to explain the legal issues involved, that would be helpful. The noble Earl has raised a set of very important questions.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has laid out his concerns very clearly and in great detail. At the least, we need clarification. We have talked about the problems around licensing conditions; the hospitality sector in particular is very concerned about the implications of being stuck with a valuation for three years that, bluntly, may not be correct. It would be very helpful to hear what the Minister has to say and for her to give reassurances to the licensing sector that its circumstances will be taken into account.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for their amendment. I understand the concerns around this clause; I will take the opportunity to explain why we consider this measure to be necessary and to set out the limits of its application.
As we have heard throughout the passage of the Bill, more frequent revaluations and the measures we are introducing to support them are central to the reform of the business rates system. It is through those revaluations that the rating system is able to track and reflect changing economic circumstances. In property valuation terms, rateable values are updated at revaluations to reflect changes in economic factors, market conditions and changes in the general level of rents.
Of course, that does not mean that rateable values never change between revaluations. It would hardly be fair if, for example, a ratepayer demolished part of their property but this was not reflected until the next revaluation, or if a new property were built but escaped rates until the next revaluation. Therefore, some changes are reflected in rateable values as and when they happen. Examples include changes to the physical state of the property, the mode or category of occupation of the property or matters affecting the physical state of the locality. These matters, reflected as and when they occur, are called material changes of circumstances—MCCs.
The MCC system has been operating in this way for many years, but, during the coronavirus pandemic, we found that it was not working as intended. Large numbers of challenges were made, seeking reductions between revaluations for the effects of the pandemic, which by their nature were part of the general market conditions. Such general market matters should be considered at general revaluations.
Therefore, the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 clarified the law to ensure that coronavirus and the Government’s response to it were not an appropriate use of MCC provisions. Specifically, that Act ensured that anything done to comply with legislation, advice or guidance given by a public authority and attributable to coronavirus should not be an MCC, subject to some exclusions. The principle in that Act was approved by both Houses, and it received Royal Assent on 15 December 2021.
Clause 14 of the Bill merely takes that principle, clarified and accepted by this House in the 2021 Act in relation to coronavirus, and applies it more generally to all legislation, guidance and advice from public bodies. Changes in such matters are part of the economic factors and market conditions for a property and should be reflected at a general revaluation. This clause will protect the integrity of the rating system and ensure that more frequent revaluations can proceed smoothly. It will protect the system not just for central government but for local government, which relies on the revenue from business rates. The Local Government Association supports this clause and agrees that these matters should be reflected at general revaluations. But this does not mean that these matters are not reflected in rateable values; it just means that they are reflected only at the set date of each revaluation, along with all other economic and general market factors present at that date.
Furthermore, we have limited the scope of Clause 14 to three aspects of the MCC system to ensure that it operates fairly. This is to ensure that physical changes to the property or the state of the locality are still reflected. Therefore, Clause 14 will bite on only three types of MCCs. First, it will catch matters affecting the physical enjoyment of the property but not the physical state. This might include changes in how the property can be used following new legislation or guidance. Secondly, it will catch matters that are physically manifest in the locality but not matters affecting the physical state of the locality. This might include changes to traffic flows and bus or transport services. Thirdly, it will catch the use or occupation of other premises in the locality, which might include the change in use of a nearby property where, for example, the original use has been prohibited by new legislation.
Clause 14 will ensure that matters such as physical changes to a property or to the state of the locality continue to be immediately reflected in valuations, even if they are a result of new legislation or guidance. Clause 14 will also not bite on whether the property is non-domestic or domestic or whether it is exempt. Overall, Clause 14 will preserve a long-established principle by ensuring that matters that go more to the market conditions and general level of rents of a property belong in the general revaluation process. Of course, with more frequent revaluations, these factors will still be updated more often than ever before.
The clause will provide important stability and certainty to the rating list and, therefore, to the vital revenue for local government that flows from the list. Therefore, it would not be prudent to delay the introduction of the clause, as this amendment seeks. I know that the noble Earl will be disappointed that we are unable to agree to this, but I hope that I have set out the basis for taking this measure and also given him some assurances regarding its scope. I will look at Hansard tomorrow and will write to noble Lords with further explanations if I feel that they are required.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for their support in connection with this. Although I understand what the Minister says is the intention of Clause 14, having been taken through it in some detail by more than one expert, I am bound to say that I do not agree with her about the effect of the clause. There is a difference in understanding, and I wonder whether it could be dealt with by a further discussion—the Minister is nodding, which I am grateful for. It is very difficult if somebody reads this in one way and says, “This could cover a multitude of things that could be excluded”, and the Minister says, “Actually, it is not intended to do that and these are the safeguards that we have built in”.
All I can say at this juncture is that I will certainly return to this on Report. I hope that there can be a meaningful dialogue on this in the meantime. It would be wrong for me to go into a detailed unpicking of what the Minister said at this hour and given the other pressures on us. To that end, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Threshold for small business rate relief adjustment: impact assessmentWithin 90 days of this Act receiving Royal Assent, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of reducing the threshold for small business rate relief on the future of the high streets.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is intended to probe the possibility of reducing the threshold for small business rate relief.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 29 was tabled just to probe the possibility of reducing the threshold for small business rate relief, particularly in consideration of our high streets. We know that business rates remain one of the largest fixed costs for retailers and that they fundamentally impact business planning and investment decisions; for example, the convenience sector’s business rates liabilities are over £274 million, despite the small business rate relief. We also know that retailers are facing a particularly difficult time at the moment: we have increased commodity prices, skyrocketing energy bills and structural changes to the labour market—there is an awful lot going on and a lot of instability.
We are concerned that the current revaluation of business rates, which was implemented in April this year, will hit smaller high street stores in particular. They struggled during the pandemic and afterwards, and, combining that with a winter ahead with higher energy bills, we have particular concerns. We have called for short-term support through an increase in the threshold for the small business rate relief. We suggested that the current threshold of £15,000 be increased to £20,000 in order to give SMEs a discount on their business rate bill for 2023-24.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 30, 32 and 35 are in my name in this group. They cover two issues. One is reform and the other is review. The reform amendment is Amendment 30 because, as many of us said at Second Reading, we are tinkering at the edges of business rate reform and change. What is needed is, in fact, what the Conservative manifesto promised in 2019—a fundamental review of the system. Amendment 30 asks for a review and reform of the non-domestic rateable value system between different parts of the retail sector. It focuses particularly on the retail sector.
In Amendment 30, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of proposed new subsection (3) identify the different sectors: single-shop businesses in high streets,
“chain stores with multiple premises in city centres and out-of-centre shopping malls”
and “mainly online operations” by global businesses, which do not pay their fair share of taxation in any case and seem to be taxed very lightly in business rates compared to the sectors mentioned in proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b).
I would like the Government to agree to the amendment, as they already recognise that the system is not fair and equitable. For example, the current system acknowledges that small businesses are overtaxed by the existing system of assessment and responds to that by creating a plethora of business rate reliefs, such as small business rate relief, charitable relief and so on. The Treasury funds those reliefs, but how much better would it be if the system was designed from the outset to be more equitable between different parts of the retail sector? It would encourage more activity on our high streets, which benefits local businesses and the communities that they serve, and would also extract more money from those who have most and who have avoided taxation the best—global online retail businesses.
At this point I shall say, for brevity, that Amendment 36 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is an excellent expression of what I have just tried to achieve with my Amendment 30, so I obviously totally support that and look forward to the noble Lord describing exactly how it will be achieved.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
That was an impressive introduction. I apologise for bringing this up so late. I was not going to table it, as it was too difficult, but I just could not not do so. I give great thanks to the Table Office for drafting and help.
This group is listed as reliefs and reviews, and I feel strongly that we should dwell more on reviews than reliefs. While injustices should be addressed in the short term with financial relief, the non-domestic rating system is broken, and it seems that the attempts to fix it have become too difficult and it has become easier to throw taxpayers’ money at reliefs than to review it. I believe that the attempts to resolve the injustices in the system have simply been considered too difficult—as I did until last night, or Friday—and have been kicked into the long grass. I would like nothing more at all than to hear from the Minister that action is expected very soon.
One particular injustice, perhaps the most trumpeted, is that of the small high street retailers we have heard about, struggling to survive against the onslaught of internet shopping. In ordinary business terms, the free-market economy dictates the survival rate of businesses, but in this case there is an important further dimension—so much more important—which is the public interest case for healthy high streets. They provide a social necessity to our communities, a valuable asset in the social fabric. We know the subject is complex. A number of high street retailers and major supermarkets have websites; some SMEs may rely on them. These and other good reasons simply complicate the matter; they do not make it impossible.
There is a fiscal irony here. The growing turnover and profitability of internet retail is directly felt in the high street by falling demand. Falling demand translates as falling rental value. It follows that the rateable value will fall. Without this amendment or something similar to it, net tax receipts will also fall. Introducing fairness to the rates paid by internet retailers will go some way—possibly a very long way—to making up for the loss of high street rate contributions.
The solution lies in a new property use class for the purposes of assessing NDR—not to overlap with use classes in the planning Acts; I would run a mile from that. This would be purely for rating. It would correct the current major imbalance between retailers paying warehouse rates and high street retailers paying high street rates. Warehouse rates are a fraction of high street equivalents. Internet retailers know this, and their profits swell by the artificial discount the system supports.
The amendment proposes that the Government conduct a review to make recommendations for a new rating use class. It would harness expertise from the commercial property sector. The amendment gives the Government 12 months to bring a new Bill before Parliament with recommendations to correct this widely recognised injustice.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. At one of my meetings with the Minister and her Bill team I was told that it was not HMRC—or they may have said Treasury—practice to produce an impact assessment as such, and I was directed to a series of notes in lieu. But business rates have an impact on business, employment, entrepreneurial activity and the health of our high streets, and have long seemed a substantial tipping point in decisions about taking on premises, where the tax levied is 50% of the determined market rental value. That puts into shade the collective cost of things such as insurance service charges and other occupational outgoings.
There is a basic imbalance here; I have said so on many occasions in the House and elsewhere. Upfront impact assessments and post-legislative review are exactly what is missing here. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that small business relief and small business exemptions are almost an admission of the failure of the system we have.
Turning to Amendment 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I totally agree with its underlying principle that the tax base for local government finance needs to be broadened, with proportionately less of a burden falling on what we might call the traditional business rate payer. This is becoming an impediment. What are termed fundamental reviews have been a great deal less fundamental than they ought to have been. The system has been creaking for some time and one should take notice when things start to creak; it usually means that something is wrong. I very much relate to these amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name appears on two of the amendments in this group. Underlying the whole group is a major issue: the Treasury now sees business rates as a source of general income to government, but many small businesses see them as a contribution to local services. That has got out of balance.
I strongly support Amendment 36, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who has just spoken. He talked about the impact of online shopping on small high street outlets and said that there was a public interest case to be made. Indeed, Amendment 29, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, probes the possibility of reducing the threshold for small business rate relief on high streets. A number of us raised that issue at Second Reading.
A number of issues are raised in this group. I have an amendment on the hospitality sector. It is not clear to me what reason there would be for not having a hospitality sector review, as I propose. It is about assessing the consistency of approach; we have spoken a lot about high streets, but this applies to the hospitality sector as well. There needs to be an assessment of whether there is a consistent approach for setting non-domestic rateable values between hospitality businesses occupying premises of similar size and trading style. I cite public houses, restaurants, live performance theatres and exhibition spaces as examples. This is the kind of thing that government should be doing anyway, but there is a huge policy issue now around what business rates are for and how we make sure that they are being fairly charged.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, group 6 covers several amendments probing the Government’s support for high street businesses and the wider impact of the Bill. I am grateful for the useful discussions that I have had with noble Lords on what are, undoubtedly, significant issues.
Amendments 30 and 31, from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek a review of the effect of business rates on the retail and hospitality sectors. I recognise that the conditions for businesses in town centres and high streets are concerning for many noble Lords. The Government take these concerns seriously and recognise the impact that increased competition from online businesses, changing consumer behaviour and Covid-19 has had on the fortunes of some high street businesses.
That is why the Government have taken decisive action to ensure that business rates are manageable for ratepayers on the high street. First, 720,000 properties, including many smaller retailers, pay no rates as a result of small business rates relief. Additional support has also been provided for those that do have rates bills: at the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced a package of business rates measures worth £13.6 billion. This included a general freeze of the multipliers for all properties, as well as increased support—from 50% to 75% relief—for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which is worth over £2.1 billion. As we heard, the Government also scrapped downward caps and, as we move to more frequent revaluations through the Bill, we will see a business rates system that better reflects real market values, which was the leading ask of businesses in our review.
I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, tabled Amendment 26 to encourage the Government to more actively intervene in how different types of property used in the retail sector are valued. Valuation is, of course, conducted independently by the VOA. All properties subject to business rates are assessed to the same standard of rateable value, which is, broadly speaking, the annual rental value. Properties are valued by reference to the evidence on the level of rents, which is agreed by landlords and tenants for that specific property class. If, at the most recent revaluation, the evidence shows that those open market rental values have increased, rateable values will change with them. Nevertheless, in all cases, the method must result in the common standard of rateable values.
In our review of business rates, the Government sought views on many different ways in which the valuation system could be changed. However, there was strong majority support for retaining the existing basis of rateable value. Therefore, we do not support significant changes to the industry-recognised valuation methodology, as was suggested.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for the debate we have had on this, and I thank the Minister for her thorough response to the debate. I thank her particularly for her assurances regarding the impact of the revaluation on local authorities. It is important that that is taken into account. There are still outstanding issues in this area, particularly around the impact on the hospitality industry and other specific groups that will be affected and how we manage online versus high street and get an equitable position. I should have mentioned in my opening speech that we support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and I thank him for his introduction to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Kerslake
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, on Saturday 1 July. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Drax Biomass Power Station
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which Drax biomass power station has complied with sustainability requirements; and whether they are reviewing subsidies to it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, this is a matter for Ofgem. The regulator is the administrator for monitoring compliance with the sustainability criteria within the renewables obligation scheme. It has opened an investigation into whether Drax Power Ltd is in breach of its annual profiling reporting requirements related to the renewables obligations scheme.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply. It is estimated that we will have given Drax some £11 billion in subsidies over the different renewable energy schemes. Is the Minister concerned that Drax’s claim to be using sustainably sourced wood from Canadian forests currently lacks any detailed full-cycle carbon accounting and the audit trail that we have the right to expect for that level of subsidy? Why did Ofgem commission the technical consultancy Black & Veatch to advise on this even though the company is already working for Drax? Finally, does the Minister accept that, in order to get to the truth, independent advisers and scientists should go to Canada to check that 70% of the wood biomass being imported is actually sustainable offcuts, as our rule requires, and not from virgin forests?
Lord Callanan (Con)
A couple of points for the noble Baroness. First, the renewables obligation legislation was originally introduced by the last Labour Government. Secondly, Ofgem is investigating these matters. The noble Baroness is jumping to a lot of conclusions there. If it is proved that Drax is not in compliance, of course some of the value of the certificates that it has received will be withdrawn.
Lord Birt (CB)
Speaking of proof, has the Minister had a chance to view the devastating “Panorama” on Drax? Drax’s claims have been fatally undermined. Ancient forests have been cut down and indiscriminately turned into pellets, transported 12,000 miles by ship and incinerated in Yorkshire, emitting more CO2 than coal did before and at gigantic cost to the taxpayer. This is not the route to net zero.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord should be careful of jumping to conclusions. I have not seen the programme, but my officials have. They have engaged extensively with forestry experts and Canadian officials following the programme, and the officials’ conclusion is that the “Panorama” programme provided an inaccurate representation of practices by the forestry and biomass sector on the ground.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, looking at renewables more broadly, does my noble friend have a view on the efficacy and morality of taking electricity that has been generated offshore in the Yorkshire and Humber region and transporting it all the way down to the West Midlands, when we could actually use that electricity locally, particularly to power up electric cars, for which there are so few charging points in rural areas?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I have to say that I am really not sure what the noble Baroness is talking about. There is a national grid. Electricity is transported from all parts of the country to other parts, as demand varies. That is the whole principle of a grid.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
The emissions that occur as a result of Drax burning mature trees are not counted as CO2 emissions; only emissions from transporting trees from forests to furnaces count. When are the Government going to wake up to this ridiculous accounting fraud and stop giving Drax green subsidies?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Again, the noble Baroness is jumping to conclusions before the investigation has proceeded. Based on the evidence reviewed to date, Ofgem has not established any non-compliance with the scheme. But the investigation is continuing and I would caution noble Lords to wait for the outcome from the independent regulator.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, transporting this woodchip from a forest somewhere in North America by truck or train, loading it on to a container ship, taking it to the Mersey, taking it across the Pennines in another train and then discharging it into Drax—how can that possibly be green?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is because the sustainability criteria say that the biomass has to come from sustainable sources. Most of it is by-product from normal sustainable commercial forests.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, a few years ago when this Question came up in the House, the noble Lord assured the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that if Ofgem found Drax not to be meeting its sustainability criteria, the subsidies would be immediately removed. Since then, we have had the “Panorama” review and, while I accept the noble Lord’s point that the jury is still out, I would like to know whether he is still prepared to make the same commitment to the House today.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, you have to admit that the “Panorama” programme had some interesting facts. In fact, a lot of that information comes from Canadian environmentalists who are on the spot and see the ancient forests being destroyed for those wood pellets. So why on earth does the Minister still persist in saying that we are jumping to conclusions when he is just burying his head in the sand?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As somebody famous once remarked, recollection of facts may vary. Forgive me if I do not necessarily take as absolute fact the statements of some Canadian environmentalists. Officials have looked into it. Ofgem is investigating whether the biomass is sustainable or not. Let us wait for the outcome of that investigation.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend said in his original Answer that it was matter for the regulator. Are the Government wholly satisfied with the way regulation is working at the moment, with questions around the regulator Ofgem? Who regulates the regulators?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord was probably in the other place when the regulations and laws for Ofgem were passed. It is an independent regulator; that is the whole principle of it. Until I see any evidence that it is not carrying out its job satisfactorily, I will continue to have confidence in it.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, when Ofgem opened its investigation into Drax’s biomass sustainability reporting a month ago, it made clear it would act if it found breaches of the rules—the right approach, surely, to a single case. However, what assessment have the Government made of wider compliance with reporting requirements and what steps are they taking to improve monitoring, particularly with regard to the origin of fuel sources?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I refer the noble Baroness to the answers I have given to previous questions. There are other biomass operations that fulfil the sustainability criteria. If any evidence is produced and if the noble Baroness has any evidence, I would be delighted to pass it on, but until then we should trust what they say.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in answer to the excellent question from the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, the Minister said that officials had looked into this and that Ofgem was satisfied. But, as far as this House is concerned, it is the Minister who is responsible. What has he personally done to look into this since the programme aired so that he could have answered the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, properly?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I have answered the Question properly. Ofgem is an independent regulator and takes these matters extremely seriously. I have spoken to the chief executive of Ofgem about it and I have spoken to officials who have investigated it, so I feel that I have discharged my duties on this one.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The Minister was very dismissive to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on the issues around the national grid and the use of sustainable energy. We had long debates about this, and about community energy, in the Energy Bill. Does he not accept that there is a possibility, with some of the large onshore wind turbines we now have, that we could almost avoid grid connection and go to direct supply for developments that are important?
Lord Callanan (Con)
That was not the question I was asked, but let me tackle the question from the noble Baroness. Of course, it is perfectly within anybody’s rights to set up a private wire supply and their own community generation if they wish, but I think the noble Baroness will find that the vast majority of those schemes also want to be connected to the national grid for cases where it does not work.
Nuclear Submarines: AUKUS
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Walney
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure the United Kingdom meets the increased demands to produce nuclear submarines entailed by the AUKUS agreement with the United States of America and Australia.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is stepping up to meet the opportunities of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, a multidecade undertaking that will create thousands of jobs. We are investing an extra £3 billion over the next two years in our defence nuclear enterprise, including support for AUKUS. Rolls-Royce plans to almost double the size of its Derby site, creating 1,170 skilled roles and demonstrating our commitment to the expertise embodied in British industry.
Lord Walney (CB)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I should add that my declared interest for the Purpose Coalition includes advising Rolls-Royce on how to meet that production challenge. AUKUS is great news for our global security and for the UK submarine industry, but does the Minister accept that it requires a step-change in Whitehall departments working together on a genuine national endeavour, which has long been promised but has not been delivered across Whitehall?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the role he is playing and wish him well in his advisory capacity to Rolls-Royce. This is a very important project. It is probably one of the most important we have entered into in the post-Second World War period. He is absolutely correct that there is a need for cross-government co-operation and consultation. That is happening. As he is also aware, one of the big challenges is in relation to skills. We are very cognisant of that, and activity is under way to try to increase nuclear sector engagement with young people and attract talent from a more diverse background.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that increasing the number of submarines armed with nuclear weapons invites less responsible countries, like Russia and China, to do the same? This increases the possibility of their accidental or malevolent use, leading to horrendous suffering.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I can simply clarify to the Chamber that the AUKUS programme’s SSN-AUKUS submarines are nuclear-propelled, not nuclear-armed.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the first AUKUS pillar 2 autonomous weapons and artificial intelligence trial took place in April. On 27 June, the White House Indo-Pacific co-ordinator, Kurt Campbell, said that there would be co-operation with all three countries on artificial intelligence and quantum computing, and that other allies and partners would be invited to join this development. That is quite a significant development, although not unexpected, given the elements of AUKUS. Is there any possibility that we will get a ministerial Statement on this matter?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
What I can confirm to the noble Lord is what is already in the public domain. We have always said that, as progress is made with the three countries on pillar 2—which is distinct from the original pillar, which is trilateral—other critical defence capabilities will then seek opportunities to engage allies and close partners. As the noble Lord correctly indicated, the trial held in April was most encouraging, and a two-minute video was released by all three nations. We have to take one step at a time.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, while AUKUS is clearly very important, Europe and our neighbourhood remain the closest security partners and allies for the United Kingdom. Could the Minister confirm that working with AUKUS will not reduce our commitment to our neighbourhood? At the same time, if there will be increased skills and work for developing the nuclear-propelled submarines, could some of that expertise be used to ensure that the development of other equipment, under the MoD’s auspices, is fit for purpose the first time round?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
On the first point, it has always been acknowledged that, although AUKUS is intended to do two things—to augment our Indo-Pacific tilt and to provide us with our new class of AUKUS submarines and succession to Astute—it will also enable the UK and its partners to develop capabilities that will, for example, not only reinforce NATO but help the states in the Indo-Pacific bolster their own security. On the noble Baroness’s latter point, we already have a huge base of skills in the UK, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Walney. That, quite simply, is why AUKUS is a trilateral agreement with the United States, the UK and Australia. We are building on that; we are not complacent. We need to expand that skills base. I agree with the noble Baroness that, once we do that, we will see a fanning out of other benefits to the broader defence enterprise.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, for the aspirations set out in my noble friend Lord Walney’s Question to be achieved, we need to ensure that the United Kingdom provides the capital impetus for us to participate fully in the construction and development of the submarines. Will the Minister tell us what steps are being taken by His Majesty’s Government to ensure that the United Kingdom is a full participant in the construction programme?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I respond to the noble Lord by reminding the Chamber that, in March this year, the Prime Minister announced that we are investing an extra £3 billion over the next two years in our defence nuclear enterprise to support AUKUS and other areas. Other financial contributions will be coming from Australia; for example, at the Rolls-Royce base in Derby plans are under way for a significant expansion of its Raynesway nuclear reactor manufacturing site. That will create 1,170 skilled jobs. We expect this tandem of co-operation to produce not only a contribution to the project itself but a financial contribution to the endeavour.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the AUKUS programme is extremely good news; it is very good news for the UK and for stability. Looking to the future, does the Minister agree that this will allow us, in the longer term, to increase the number of SSNs we have—because we have too few—and that that will be good for the north Atlantic and the Arctic as well as the Far East? They can move from one place to the other in a matter of three or four weeks, so does she agree that this is a potential for the future?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It give me great pleasure to agree with the noble Lord—it is refreshing and, I hope, a recurring experience. The noble Lord makes a very good point. As he is aware, we currently have Vanguard that will translate into Dreadnought in due course. On the Astute class, the final two submarines are still being built: boat six, “Agamemnon”, and boat seven, “Agincourt”. They will make an important contribution, but as we move on to the Astute class, the noble Lord is correct. We are aware of diverging maritime challenges, not least in the high north and the Arctic. The MoD is cognisant of that. I referred to the fact that we have published our Arctic strategy to his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, on Friday.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench fully supports the AUKUS programme. As the noble Lord, Lord West, has pointed out, it will make a huge contribution to global security in the decades to come. Returning to the point a number of noble Lords have mentioned, there are already thousands of unfilled vacancies in skilled engineering in our defence industries. There will need to be a step change with respect to skills if we are to fully utilise all the opportunities that are available under the AUKUS scheme. The Minister mentioned some of the initiatives the Government are bringing forward, but I ask her—as a matter of urgency—to look at whether that needs refreshing. So far, all our efforts in that have not delivered the results we want.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I can share with the noble Lord that additional apprenticeship and graduate bursary schemes have been implemented across the enterprise, and significant further increases are planned to build the capabilities to increase the cohort of apprentices and new graduate opportunities by 2029-30. Importantly—and it refers to the point the noble Lord, Lord Walney, was making—the MoD, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and employers in the nuclear circuit are all working together as part of the Nuclear Skills Strategy Group to address common challenges. The noble Lord is correct to allude to the challenge: it is there but we are not complacent about it, and we have a number of initiatives designed to try to address it.
Lord Peach (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that moving from the step change we have all agreed this afternoon will require an integrated approach? That will then leave the question of command and control. Who will lead on AUKUS for the whole of the Government to make sure that, end to end, we deliver this important programme?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I hope I can reassure the noble and gallant Lord that the Cabinet Secretary has asked the MoD’s Permanent Secretary, David Williams, to be the UK’s AUKUS principal. That is a very significant position. He will have overall responsibility for the programme in the UK with support from the Director General Nuclear, the Deputy Chief of Defence staff, military capability and senior civil servants from a number of relevant departments from across Whitehall. He will be at the very top of the chain, the essential co-ordinating presence.
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the balance between (1) the duty of local authorities under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to secure expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular traffic and pedestrians, and (2) the imposition of low traffic neighbourhoods and low emission zones.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the department has made no such assessment. It is for local authorities to ensure they manage their roads in such a way as to fulfil the duties placed on them. They have a wide range of traffic management tools to support them in this.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I declare a type of interest in that I drive an all-electric car and I have a clear conscience.
Does the Minister want people to return to work and productivity to increase? I am urging the Government to stop any government inducement to obstacles placed in the way of normal life in pursuit of ideology and fines, not science. Studies prepared for Oxford show that pollution is simply displaced from the centre and the same amount goes to the ring road where poorer people tend to live, and they are the ones punished by fines.
There are about 100 empty shops in Oxford. Businesses near the low-traffic neighbourhoods are folding with great losses, and they are often owned by ethnic minorities. There are tussles in the streets over the barriers, ambulances take longer and the once beautiful Broad Street is filled with industrial crates. Working people are having great difficulties, the consultations are ignored and the scientific evidence is withheld. Most important of all, the traffic blockades discriminate—even the blue badge is not exempt. Will the Government enforce the protection of the rights of elderly, pregnant and disabled people?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
There was a fair amount in that statement. The noble Baroness mentioned Oxford, and it is important to understand that all the issues she mentioned should be taken up with the local authority. The Government have never been in control of local roads and are not now. These issues are devolved to the local authority, and I encourage her to raise those issues with her local council.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
Speaking of convenience and safe movement of traffic, can the Minister say what is happening with autonomous vehicles, be they cars, lorries or buses, particularly with the trials going on in this country and stretching right across Europe?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government believe that there is a huge future for autonomous vehicles, and we will bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister agrees that we must get this right. The Transport for London web page tells us the details about the scrappage scheme changes and the full eligibility criteria for small and micro-businesses and charities. The new grace period will be available on the discounts and exemptions page at the end of this month, but the scheme is to be implemented in August. Does the Minister think it is acceptable that people struggling with rising costs should have only a few weeks to find out if they are eligible?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The scrappage scheme in London is of course under the remit of the Mayor of London, and the Government have no recourse to have any influence over it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised an important point. Would it not be sensible for the Government to have some conversations with these local authorities? Oxford, with a bereft high street, is not the Oxford most of us know and love, and it is important that we get this thing in perspective. The Government surely have an overall duty here.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, one-way streets, traffic calming and pedestrianisation have been used for decades. In some circumstances, they have been put in and are not working, and in those cases it is for the local authority to be held accountable by the local electorate. The Government do, however, provide various bits of guidance, both statutory and non-statutory, to assist local authorities to come to the right decisions.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on low-emission zones, can Ministers identify any research showing that vehicles travelling over a given distance at a constant 20 miles per hour in a low gear at high revs emit less carbon monoxide than vehicles travelling at 30 miles per hour in a higher gear at low revs? When I asked for the evidence in 2021, this Minister gave the following answer:
“The Department does not have specific results for the situations outlined”.
How can the public throughout the UK have confidence in a speeding regime which lacks detailed assessment?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
It is up to local authorities to decide on local speed restrictions, which they are encouraged to evaluate. As the noble Lord will know, in most circumstances 30 miles per hour is the limit, but some local authorities have chosen to make some streets 20 miles per hour.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
The noble Baroness’s Question raises the important issue of the safe movement of pedestrians. My noble friend the Minister may be aware that the danger to disabled pedestrians posed by the irresponsible use of e-bikes and e-scooters in the centre of London’s low-emission zone was the focus of a recent Policy Exchange paper, A Culture of Impunity, to which several noble Lords contributed. Can my noble friend write to me with a formal response to its recommendations and place a copy in the Library?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will certainly look into that, but I am not entirely sure that I will be able to do as my noble friend asks. The safety of people on our roads is critical, and one of the elements of traffic management is the reduction in killed and seriously injured people which I am sure all noble Lords would want to see. It is not just about journey time changes but increasing the number of people walking and cycling, and looking at modal shift and levels of car ownership.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I was brought up in Oxford. It was known then as the “city of screeching tyres” and the college buildings were blackened by pollution. Surely the best way to promote the city is to continue with the huge environmental improvements that are taking place there.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I said earlier, that is a matter for the council.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, local authorities are still having to rely on outdated guidance from 2007 for the design and modification of residential streets. In a debate in the other place in November last year, Minister Richard Holden referred to the Department of Transport publishing a revised version of the Manual for Streets early in 2023. Can the Minister please give us update on when we can expect that new manual?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Yes, I can indeed. The Manual for Streets is an important document on which we have engaged closely with stakeholders. That engagement is still under way but I can commit to the noble Baroness that the document will be published soon.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I was invited to a speed awareness course for travelling at 25 mph on Park Lane. Can my noble friend explain how Park Lane, with three lanes and a bus lane, can possibly be a 20 mph zone?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
It is a 20 mph zone because the Mayor of London has decided that it should be.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I am biased but the question from my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, on the emission levels associated with a 20 mph limit and a 30 mph limit, was splendid. I did not catch whether the Minister answered that question, which is presumably a pretty precise one, on which there can be scientific evidence. Can she try to answer it now?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not aware of any research in that area but I will take that question back to the department and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have enjoyed the Minister’s answers, batting away some of the silly questions she has had from her own side. I just wonder whether the explanation for shops shutting is not that people are working from home now but simply the cost of living; and perhaps people are not travelling as far and are shopping locally.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that there are no silly questions in your Lordships’ House. As I mentioned earlier, many of these schemes are put in place to enable local economic growth. I cannot conceive of my local town centre still having cars in it: it is a hugely thriving town centre because it is pedestrianised. However, what is really important is that local councils need to get it right. If they do not get it right, they need to listen to local communities and remove any interventions.
Cybersecurity
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations on cybersecurity made by Sir Patrick Vallance in his report Pro-innovation Regulation of Technologies Review: Digital Technologies, published in March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, in the Government’s response to the review, we set out that the Home Office is taking forward work to consider the merits and risks of the proposals made. We have created a group that includes law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, the cybersecurity industry and system owners to consider these issues and reach a consensus on the best way forward.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, Sir Patrick made a very clear recommendation to amend the Computer Misuse Act to include a statutory public interest defence for cybersecurity researchers and professionals carrying out threat intelligence research. This has been extremely long awaited. We finally had a review, which started in 2021 and reported this year; we had a consultation, which concluded in April; and now we have the steps that the Minister talked about. What conclusion can we expect at the end of the day? Progress on this has been totally glacial given the importance to innovation and growth of this change to legislation.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I agree that there is an enormous necessity to get this right, but that is part of the problem of why things are perhaps not happening as fast as the noble Lord would like—progress is far from glacial. These issues are incredibly complicated because, as the noble Lord noted, the proposals would potentially allow a defence for the unauthorised access by a person to another’s property, and in this case their computer systems and data, without their knowledge and consent. We therefore need to define what constitutes legitimate cybersecurity activity, where a defence might be applicable and under what circumstances, and how such unauthorised access can be kept to a minimum. We also need to consider who should be allowed to undertake such activity, what professional standards they will need to comply with, and what reporting or oversight will be needed. In short, these are complex matters, and it is entirely right to try to seek a consensus among the agencies I mentioned earlier.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out on the register. Does my noble friend accept that it is very difficult for Governments to keep up with the speed of change of technology in their legislation? The Computer Misuse Act is now 33 years old. If progress is not glacial, please could we have an injection of urgency into the changes to it that we need?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that it is difficult for Governments to keep up with the pace of technological change, but I also reflect on the fact that much of the legislation going through your Lordships’ House at the moment contains many efforts to future-proof it in this area. As I said, I do not agree that this is glacial. I know that the Act is old. The report was delivered only earlier this year and the discussions are very complicated, as I just highlighted.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, if it is not glacial, it is very slow. The point we have heard from both noble Lords is that Sir Patrick Vallance made nine recommendations; the Government have accepted them. We know that cybersecurity is a real problem—the Government accept that—but what everybody is waiting to hear is what the Government intend to do and the timescale.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am trying to answer this question. Sir Patrick Vallance reported in April; it is now July. I do not think that is glacial or particularly slow. The fact is that these are complicated matters that need to be considered very carefully. They involve all sorts of different implications for us all.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in addition to the amendment to the 1990 computer Act and the opportunity the Minister will have to address that in due course, will he reflect on what Sir Patrick said about international harmonisation and the need for regulation of significant emerging technologies to reflect what other countries are doing, as well as what we are doing?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point, and one I inquired about this morning. There is a considerable exchange of information with our friends and allies and other interested countries across the world. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the Department of Justice in the States has just reissued guidelines for prosecutions only. Guidance and prosecutorial discretion are major features of the American way of doing it; we are going a slightly different route and seeking consensus, but of course we will consult.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister may be aware of reports out this morning that Barts Health NHS Trust has been hacked, potentially by a ransomware group of thieves—I suppose that is the right word—and that 7 terabytes of data may have been taken control of, which of course may well involve confidential personal medical data. Does the Minister agree that it is really important that the NHS workforce plan includes and considers the NHS’s IT needs and IT skill needs? Is that something the Minister is talking about with the health department?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have not spoken about it directly with the health department, but I note from other debates that we have had in your Lordships’ House over the past few months that a skills shortage in the area of computers, data and whatnot is a problem across all economies, not just ours.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his colleagues in the Home Office, and those in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence, for the excellent and detailed briefings they give us on security issues, which are really helpful. What precautions are taken to make sure that this information is not passed, either deliberately or inadvertently, to representatives of the Government of Russia?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I have no idea; I will find out.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. We are currently conducting an investigation into ransomware and cybersecurity, which are very much at the heart of this Question. I agree with the noble Lord opposite who said that the Computer Misuse Act is now 33 years old—it is. Heaven knows the world has changed since then. I agree with the Minister that an enormous amount of co-ordination has to be done within government to get this right. Can the Minister provide some future opportunity in government time to have a more general debate about the issues involved? Otherwise, knowing what this House is like, it will take a year or more before the report that the committee eventually introduces can be debated here.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Viscount makes a good point. I am obviously unable to comment on the scheduling of parliamentary business but, when the group that I referred to in my initial Answer has finished its consultations and considerations and come to a consensus, we will of course report back to Parliament. I imagine that will include a debate.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, does not everything that has been said on this Question today demonstrate the importance of fresh intelligence work and, therefore, the importance of changing the Computer Misuse Act?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I do not think that anybody disagrees with that. I am just saying that we need to get it right and do it properly.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the Vallance report talks about the fact that, under the Computer Misuse Act, professionals conducting legitimate cybersecurity research in the public interest currently face the risk of prosecution. It asks us to look at the examples of France, Israel and the United States. Is my noble friend the Minister aware of any possible unintended consequences of modifying the Act to align it with the changes in those countries?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Yes; one of the considerations that is being looked at is the various potential unintended consequences of making some of these changes. As I say, they involve a fairly significant invasion of privacy—I suppose that is the right phrase. There may well be circumstances in which that is appropriate but, obviously, who does it and how they do it are incredibly difficult.
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 3rd July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 148-III Third marshalled list for Report - (3 Jul 2023)
15:17 - Division on Amendment 15 - Ayes: 204 / Noes: 168 - Amendment 15 agreed.
15:27 - Division on Amendment 37 - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 147 - Amendment 37 agreed.
15:40 - Division on Amendment 51 - Ayes: 230 / Noes: 152 - Amendment 51 agreed.
15:52 - Division on Amendment 57 - Ayes: 230 / Noes: 151 - Amendment 57 agreed.
16:24 - Division on Amendment 64 - Ayes: 226 / Noes: 152 - Amendment 64 agreed.
17:05 - Division on Amendment 66 - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 163 - Amendment 66 agreed.
18:02 - Division on Amendment 89 - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 158 - Amendment 89 agreed.
18:14 - Division on Amendment 95 - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 150 - Amendment 95 agreed.
18:26 - Division on Amendment 96 - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 96 agreed.
19:32 - Division on Amendment 130 - Ayes: 187 / Noes: 139 - Amendment 130 agreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, before the House resumes consideration of the Illegal Migration Bill on Report, we come to two Divisions that the House agreed to defer after the failure of the pass reader Division system on 28 June, beginning with the deferred Division on Amendment 15.
Baroness Mobarik
“(2D) Detention under sub-paragraph (2C) is to be treated as detention under paragraph 16(2) for the purposes of the limitations in paragraph 18B (limitation on detention of unaccompanied children).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others to Clause 10 in the name of Baroness Mobarik, would retain existing limits on the detention of unaccompanied children (24 hours).
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 51 in my name seeks to retain existing statutory time limits for the detention of unaccompanied children put in place by a Conservative Government. I am grateful for the significant support from these Benches and across the House during last Wednesday’s debate. Although we have received some verbal reassurances throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have yet to put in place the necessary safeguards in time limits to protect children from the harms of detention under the Bill. Therefore, I have no alternative but to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if Amendment 51 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 52 to 54 because of pre-emption.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(2L) The Secretary of State may not exercise these powers to detain a person under section (2C) where they fall within section 21(3) of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Baroness Mobarik
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain existing limits on the detention of children (72 hours or one week with ministerial approval).
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I have thought long and hard about calling another Division from these Benches, this time on retaining our current statutory time limits on detention of accompanied children or children who are with their families. These children are likely to be much younger. The psychological harms of detention on young children are significant and likely to impact them for the rest of their lives. For that very reason, I ask that we retain the statutory time limits put in place by a Conservative Government. I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this is consequential and I beg to move.
Baroness Mobarik
“(2B) Detention under subsection (2A) is to be treated as detention under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 for the purposes of the limitations in paragraph 18B of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (limitation on detention of unaccompanied children).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others to Clause 10 in the name of Baroness Mobarik, would retain existing limits on the detention of unaccompanied children (24 hours).
Baroness Mobarik
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others to Clause 10 in the name of Baroness Mobarik, would retain existing limits on the detention of unaccompanied children (24 hours).
Member's explanatory statement
This is a technical amendment that is consequent on the amendment in my name to Clause 10, page 17, line 32. This is because section 10(10) as currently in the Bill is consistent with the exclusion of pregnant women from section 60 protection, and should therefore be removed as a consequence of the other amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I move Amendment 64 and will introduce Amendment 65. One is consequential to the other so I will take them together. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Gohir, for their invaluable support, and Women for Refugee Women for all its work on the amendments.
The amendments do no more than restore the status quo ante by limiting the detention of pregnant women to 72 hours, extendable up to a week with ministerial authorisation. This aim is supported by the JCHR, Children’s Commissioner and many organisations.
The existing time limit represented a compromise put forward by the then Home Secretary Theresa May in response to your Lordships’ House voting time and again for the absolute exclusion of pregnant women from detention, as recommended in the government-commissioned review by Stephen Shaw, former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. Shaw based his recommendation on what he considered to be the incontrovertible evidence of detention’s deleterious effects on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children. His verdict was referenced in a recent letter to the Times from, among others, the CEO of the Royal College of Midwives and the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, calling on us to oppose the removal of the detention limits.
I still await an answer to the question I posed in Committee, citing an unanswered letter from the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody to the Home Secretary. Has the Home Office
“carried out a full assessment of the risks linked to the indefinite detention of pregnant women”?—[Official Report, 7/6/23; col. 1494.]
Given that the limits on detention for pregnant women were introduced only seven years ago, and it has been admitted that very few have come over in small boats, there must surely be strong grounds for this change in policy. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, exposed so skilfully in Committee, we have been given the flimsiest of justifications, lacking any evidential base. For example, in Committee the Minister declared that he was
“happy to repeat … that we must not create incentives for people-smuggling gangs to target pregnant women or provide opportunities for people to exploit any loopholes”.—[Official Report, 7/6/23; col. 1504.]
Could the Minister explain what the Government have in mind here? Are they suggesting that women might deliberately get pregnant to avoid unlimited detention or that people smugglers will be scouring refugee camps for pregnant women?
To be fair to the Minister, he tried to persuade us that pregnant women would be treated well on a case-by-case basis. But let us remember what Theresa May said in 2016:
“This new safeguard will ensure that detention for pregnant women will be used as a last resort and for very short periods”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/4/16; col. 679WS.]
For a safeguard to be effective, it needs the backing of law. Discretionary case-by-case consideration is simply not enough to ensure the protection of women in very vulnerable circumstances. We can see this from what was happening before the time limit was introduced. Previous Home Office guidance stated:
“Pregnant women should not normally be detained”.
However, under this guidance, nearly 100 pregnant women were detained in 2014, with one-third held for over a month and four held for between three and six months. The gulf between policy and practice has been closed only with the implementation of the statutory time limit.
The Minister also insisted that pregnant women will be protected through categorisation as adults at risk level 3. Yet during the passage of the 2016 Act, the Government ultimately recognised that this approach provided insufficient safeguards. Why are they now arguing the opposite? The Minister further tried to reassure us by pointing out that
“it will be open to pregnant women to apply to the First-tier Tribunal for immigration bail after 28 days”
or that
“a writ of habeas corpus”—
which, as pointed out in Committee, is very limited in its application—could
“be made at any point”.—[Official Report, 7/6/23; col. 1505.]
But these are women who are likely to be very stressed and may already be traumatised by what they have been through, with damaging effects on their unborn baby. Twenty-eight days in detention is a long time, particularly in the context of a pregnancy.
How realistic is it to expect them to have to engage with the legal system for protection that they receive automatically now? If they did so, why would the Government want to spend time and money on what should be unnecessary legal challenges? This is all in the context of what the JCHR has described as a severe restriction on judicial supervision.
When we debated a similar amendment in Committee, not only did all those who spoke give it unequivocal support but I was aware of a number of noble Lords sitting on the Government Benches and the Cross Benches who were supporting the amendment in silent solidarity. That was quite something, given that it was well past midnight. While I feel passionately about the amendment, it is a very small cog in the wider wheel of the Bill. It is one which the Government could easily concede without undermining the Bill’s objectives, as much as I disagree with them. I very much hope that the Minister will remember what is at stake for pregnant women and their unborn children and will do the right thing today. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who expertly outlined why the amendment is needed.
I will not repeat all the points made, but this is an issue of dignity for a highly vulnerable group. I will highlight one or two things that have been said. There is no evidence to suggest that the current 72-hour time limit on their detentions resulted in lots of pregnant women making the crossing. The Government have previously conceded that the adults at risk policy would not adequately safeguard pregnant women, and, in response, the 72-hour limit was brought in. We have research from prior to the introduction of this time limit that highlighted the inadequate healthcare for detained pregnant women. It is hard to believe that any healthcare arrangements would therefore relieve the stress of detention and the damaging impact on both a pregnant woman and her unborn baby.
We have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the number of medical organisations and people who are opposed to removing the 72-hour limit. I join with them by strongly supporting this amendment, and I urge noble Lords to do likewise.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have added my name, because this Government are compromising the safety of pregnant migrant women and their babies.
To date, the Minister has not provided evidence that the numbers will increase if women are not detained. I wrote to the Minister and last week he acknowledged that, since January, no pregnant migrant women have arrived in this country illegally. Evidence has also not been provided that housing a few handfuls of migrant women, who have probably arrived over several years, will provide a danger to our society. For those reasons, I urge the House to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I support the cross-party amendments in this group. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his engagement, which I have truly appreciated, but I regret to say that I have yet to hear an argument as to why this amendment should not be accepted.
This is a very narrow and focused amendment that simply maintains the current protection on the detention of pregnant women. There is a clear medical case, which is why it is supported by the royal colleges, medical professionals and over 140 groups representing women. It will not create loopholes. It will not incentivise pregnant women to make a dangerous crossing across the channel. It does not exempt women from the rest of the provisions of the Bill, such as removal. It will not create a pull factor, and there is really no way it can be exploited by the criminal gangs who arrange crossings. There cannot be false claims of pregnancy, as the time limit starts only once the Home Office is satisfied that a woman is pregnant.
Some have said that pregnant women are unlikely to be removed, given fitness to fly, but that is not the case, as NHS guidelines say that women can travel safely well into their pregnancy. That argument also misses the point, as this narrow amendment is not about removal; it is about detention. If it is the Government’s case that pregnant women may not be removed, it is even more important that this amendment be accepted, so that pregnant women are not detained for lengthy periods of time.
The amendment does not undermine the Bill. It is not a wrecking amendment; I have been very careful to try to avoid those. It impacts just a small number of women, but it will have a big impact on those women’s health and futures.
My noble friend the Minister is sincere when he says that the Government do not wish to detain pregnant women for any longer than is strictly necessary. Sadly, however, before this protection was in place and in legislation, women were kept in detention for weeks and sometimes months. We should not return to that. This narrow amendment is designed to ensure that that does not happen and that no women can slip through the cracks. Even at this last minute, I sincerely hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment. If he does not, however, and the amendment is pressed, I will, with regret, vote against the Government and in support of the amendment.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches are pleased to support both amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I recommend that the Minister take note of the request she has made time and time again in this House for some form of impact assessment in respect of pregnant women.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I have not spoken earlier on the Bill, but I hope the House will forgive me for speaking for a couple of minutes now.
This debate takes me back 25 years to when I chaired a hospital trust. Pregnant women prisoners from Holloway were brought in wearing handcuffs and were chained to beds when receiving treatment and giving birth. We fought a battle with exactly the people who are supporting this amendment to stop that practice. It left me with an overwhelming long-term view that, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, pregnant women should not be in prison in the first place—and those were pregnant women who had been convicted of crimes. Here, we are talking about the detention of people who have not been convicted of crime in that way: they are migrants who are extremely vulnerable. It would be a terrible, retrograde step to take away the protections they have at the moment, so I support the amendment.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, enforced equality, no matter where, cannot be right. To say that everybody must be treated precisely the same under this Bill—which is the only substantive argument that has been advanced—is something that I just could not accept.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister and the others who have signed these amendments, which we fully support. At its heart, there may be debate and disagreement with respect to this Bill. It is certainly contentious and sometimes we have large disagreements. Despite that, however, whatever the disagreements, we should do the right thing. That is why we support the amendments from my noble friend Lady Lister—because they seek to do the right thing by pregnant women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, with these amendments we return to the issue of detention time limits in relation to pregnant women. As I explained last Wednesday, holding people in detention is necessary to ensure that they are successfully removed from the United Kingdom under the scheme provided for in the Bill, which is designed to operate quickly and fairly.
However, our aim is to ensure that no one is held in detention for longer than is absolutely necessary to effect their removal. The duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for the removal of all illegal entrants back to their home country or to a safe third country will send a clear message that vulnerable individuals, including pregnant women, cannot be exploited by the people-smuggling gangs facilitating their passage across the channel in small boats on the false promise of starting a new life in the UK.
Under the Bill, detention is not automatic. The Bill confers powers to detain, and the appropriateness of detention will be considered on a case-by-case basis. As regards pregnant women, we expect that anyone who is in the later stages of pregnancy and who cannot be removed in the short term will not be detained but would instead be released on immigration bail.
For women who are detained in the earlier stages of pregnancy, we already operate our adults at risk policy, where pregnant women are recognised as a particular vulnerable group. In all cases in which a pregnant woman is detained for removal, the fact of her pregnancy will automatically be regarded as amounting to level 3 evidence under the adults at risk policy, and thus the pregnancy will be afforded significant weight when assessing the risk of harm in continued detention. This means a woman known to be pregnant should be detained only where the immigration control factors that apply in her case outweigh the evidence of her vulnerability—in this case, the evidence of her pregnancy. Such control factors at level 3 are where removal has been set for a date in the immediate future or where there are public protection concerns.
The detention of a pregnant woman must be reviewed promptly if there is any change in circumstances, especially if related to her pregnancy or to her welfare more generally. Examples of specific welfare considerations that may need to be taken into account include the stage of pregnancy, whether there have been complications in the pregnancy, any known appointments for scans, care or treatment, and whether particular arrangements may be needed to facilitate safe removal. While in detention, pregnant women will receive appropriate healthcare.
I assure the House that, as now, the enforced removal of a pregnant woman must be pursued only where it can be achieved safely and there is no suggestion that her baby is due before the planned removal date. Additionally, pregnant women will not be removed from the UK if they are not fit to travel based on medical assessments.
Given the safeguards we have already built into the arrangements for the detention of pregnant women, the Government remain of the view that these amendments, however well-meaning, are not necessary. I am very grateful to those who have spoken in this debate for outlining their—I am sure—well-held concerns and for their thoughtful contributions. However, in light of what I have just said, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to withdraw her Amendment 64. If, however, she is minded to test the opinion of the House, I invite noble Lords to reject the amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who spoke, and to the Minister as well. Unfortunately, I do not think that he really heard, or listened to, the arguments put. He says he does not think that the amendment is necessary. I am sorry, but countless health organisations, Members of this House and many others think that it is. It is not enough simply to give us assurances here. I have no choice but to test the opinion of the House.
Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is that section 60 of the Immigration Act 2016 (which limits the detention of pregnant women normally to 72 hours under existing powers of immigration detention) will apply to the new powers of detention created by Clause 10 of the Bill.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
“17A(A1) This paragraph is subject to section 11(7) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 66 to 76, which stand in my name, and in support of Amendments 77 to 79. The substance of my amendments is in Amendment 76. What I apprehend will happen, if the matter is brought to the opinion of the House, is that we will vote on Amendment 66 and, if it is carried, Amendments 67 to 76 will be moved formally. That seems the correct procedure to me; I have not been contradicted in that.
The amendments I have tabled are designed to confirm that the lawfulness of immigration detention is not simply put in the hands of Ministers but remains subject to the principles established in common law. All the amendments in this group would reinstate the existing Hardial Singh principles and be consistent with the conclusion and recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights at paragraph 202 of its report. What did it say? It said:
“The common law approach to immigration detention, established in the case of Hardial Singh, currently operates to ensure that immigration detention complies with Article 5 ECHR”.
Before we possibly hear criticism from some quarters of the House about the use of the European Convention on Human Rights, I remind your Lordships, as a parenthesis, that it has recently been cited by the Government in support of their case in the High Court. They cannot have it both ways; they have had it the way of wanting to support the convention in court. The Joint Committee goes on:
“This recognises that it must be for the courts to determine the legal boundaries of administrative detention … We are extremely concerned that this change would result in an immigration detention system that is not consistent with Article 5 ECHR. The Bill should be amended to ensure that there is independent, judicial oversight of individual liberty and compliance with Article 5”.
What are the Hardial Singh principles? Before I come to them, I will cite a dictum from my noble friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who—very sadly for the rest of us on this side of the House—retired recently. In 2012, in the case of Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department in what was then the House of Lords, rather than the Supreme Court, he stated:
“Freedom from executive detention is arguably the most fundamental right of all”.
That has been adopted, repeated and uncontradicted.
The four limbs of Hardial Singh, which were created by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf in his judgment in that case, have been identified and described in more detail by Lord Dyson as four propositions governing the legality of Immigration Act detention emerging from Hardial Singh:
“i) The Secretary of State must intend to deport the person and can only use the power to detain for that purpose;
ii) The deportee may only be detained for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances;
iii) If, before the expiry of the reasonable period, it becomes apparent that the Secretary of State will not be able to effect deportation within that reasonable period, he should not seek to exercise the power of detention;
iv) The Secretary of State should act with … reasonable diligence and expedition”.
Those are magnificent principles, created after repeated cases following our common-law tradition of creating sound precedent when there is not statutory law in place that is lawful.
The court makes its own judgment when applying the Hardial Singh principles and is not limited to reviewing the jurisdiction that has been exercised by a Secretary of State. It can examine “incidental questions of fact”, some of which
“the court may recognise that the Home Secretary is better placed to decide than itself, and the court will no doubt take such account of the Home Secretary’s views as may seem proper”.
Those are the words of Lord Justice Toulson in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2007.
That is the legal basis for these amendments. I will now leave the world of reality and the law and take a short trip into cloud-cuckoo-land. If any of your Lordships wishes to have a quick cup of tea, they can hear a shorter version of this by simply going into iPlayer and listening to last weekend’s edition of “Dead Ringers” on Radio 4, which tore this Bill to pieces in about 35 seconds. We keep hearing from the Minister something that is not based on reality. He seems to have forgotten that the Government lost a case in the Court of Appeal last week. We hear their plea in mitigation that it was a 2:1 decision, but every day in this House we have majority and minority votes. Verdicts of juries by 11 to one or 10 to two are no less verdicts of juries than verdicts by 12 to zero, so that argument has no power whatever.
Above all, we in this House are entitled to expect the Government to obey the law. They cannot send anyone to Rwanda; it is unlawful. The Court of Appeal found that the risk of unlawful refoulement from Rwanda meant that the Rwanda scheme was unsustainable. Furthermore, when the statistics for June—which I mentioned in the House last week—were recalculated yesterday, they showed that the number of people coming on small boats has reached record levels. So it is not exactly the deterrent that the Minister has been calling for repeatedly, unless they are going to change their approach and say, “Come to Britain in your small boats; it’s the quickest way of getting to Rwanda and to the two-star hotel accommodation that is being supplied there”.
We are not in a realistic situation, because they can send nobody to Rwanda at the moment. The appeal to the Supreme Court will not be heard and adjudged upon before October at the earliest. We will probably be into the next Session of Parliament. It is a little bit of an insult to this Parliament that the Government have not obeyed the law as found in that case, withdrawn this Bill and said, “We’ll start again when we have a decision from the Supreme Court”.
We have to be careful that we are the antidote to oblique motives. There are oblique motives based on the assumption, and not on any good grounds, that the Government will be able to send people to Rwanda—maybe they will, maybe they will not, but at the moment they have lost. My request and submission to your Lordships is that the only decent thing this House can do—Members on all sides, and I hope that the lawyers will not contradict this—is support the Hardial Singh principles and back Amendments 66 to 79.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 76 which, in my view, sets out in the clearest possible terms the principles that should be applied to the power of detention presently under discussion. Indeed, if I have correctly understood the law—of which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, reminded us—Amendment 76’s principles are principles that are currently being applied by the courts, and will be applied unless this Bill is enacted in its present form.
It is perhaps worth reminding the House of the strategic purpose of the Bill: to deter would-be migrants by the prospect of deportation to their country of origin or to a safe country. In my view, that is a perfectly legitimate objective; nation states are entitled to regulate the flow of migration. However, I also think that, in the modern world, that can be done only by the collective action of countries working together. That may require—I think it probably will—the substantive amendment of existing international agreements and conventions. I think there is very little prospect of unilateral action succeeding, save on the margins of the problem. The policy that underpins this Bill will fail because it will not be possible to deport migrants in sufficient numbers to constitute an effective deterrent.
Given that, I am extremely concerned about the ability of a Secretary of State to use a power of detention to reinforce, rather than to implement, the policy of deterrence. That would be an improper use of the power of detention. I am also deeply concerned that the power of detention as contemplated by the Bill will be used as an administrative convenience: detention without obvious limits of time in the hope that some possible prospect of deportation in respect of an individual will turn up. In my view, that would be highly objectionable.
I come to the four detailed provisions in Amendment 76. They should be considered individually. I will not repeat each one, because the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has read them out, but just take the first and ask a sensible question:
“the Secretary of State must intend to remove the person being detained and can only use the power to detain for that purpose”.
That seems to be a very fair statement of the law, and we are entitled to know from my noble friend the Minister what the principled objection to such a statement is. The same question applies to each of the remaining three provisions. I will not read them out because the noble Lord already has. Each one of them seems to me to be wholly right as a statement of principle, and this House is entitled to know the principled objection to them if there is one.
As it happens, I think I know the principled objections—at least I know the objections—because they are set out in paragraph 95 of the Explanatory Notes. The Government wish to give the Secretary of State, rather than the courts, the right to determine the length of time deemed to be reasonable for a period of detention. Moreover, when early deportation is not practicable, the Bill will give the Secretary of State the power to detain for such a period that the Secretary of State deems reasonable. That is a huge enlargement in the discretionary powers of a Secretary of State, and I do not want to give any Secretary of State, least of all the present Home Secretary or her immediate predecessor, such additional powers. In my view, the judgment of the legality of detention should be left to the judges and the courts, in applying the principles that are so well set out in Amendment 76.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I have been asked by my Front Bench not to speak at all and, if I break that, to speak in the shortest possible terms. I can do that, because I completely support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in the speech that he just gave and most particularly in his admonishing the Government for not withdrawing this Bill. I have read the two court judgments and can say only that, until or unless the Supreme Court takes a different view, Clause 2 is a nullity, and that is the heart of the Bill.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I shall be even briefer. I listened with great interest to our two lawyers. They spoke with the fluency and knowledge that one simply has to respect. However, I point out that we face a very difficult policy problem, with serious effects on public opinion towards immigrants and arrivals in Britain. We face a situation in which, so far, what the Government have done has had no or very little effect. If this continues for some months or longer, there will be a serious impact on the authority of this Government and, possibly, the successor Government. I ask the lawyers and other Members of the House to bear those aspects in mind.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Ludford, who cannot be in her place today, I will speak to Amendments 77, 78 and 79, which are in her name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. Those three amendments are intended to tackle the same issues as those tackled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, albeit with a different approach. If the noble Lord wishes to press his Amendment 66 to a vote, we will support him.
It is critical that the decision about the reasonableness—we have just heard that word from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—of the length of immigration detention remains a matter for judges, not for the Secretary of State. Incidentally, those who read the judgment of the Appeal Court last week will have noted subsection (5) of paragraph 264, in which the Appeal Court questions
“whether the culture of the Rwandan judiciary will mean that judges are reluctant to reverse the decisions of the Minister”.
This very much puts the separation of powers between the courts and the Executive in Rwanda under question. Here we have virtually the same process, in which the courts of this country are being denied the principles on which they have operated. Set against that is a decision that is down to the reasonableness of the Secretary of State.
It is critical to preserve the Hardial Singh principles to ensure that the most vulnerable people do not have their freedoms curtailed unjustifiably. When the Secretary of State deprives someone of their liberty, there must be a clear avenue for the person to seek independent review of the legality and necessity of their detention. Detention should be for only a short period pending removal. We know now from the judgment that that will be much more unlikely. With no viable agreements in place, save with individual countries for individual persons who belong to those countries, it is highly likely that the 28 days that people will be detained on arrival in the UK will not be pending removal but will be purposely and purely to deter others.
We will be building up more and more people in detention or in some form of curtailed liberties. That is wrong, and it is why the judiciary needs to maintain oversight. This is critical, given that the Bill intends to detain everyone, regardless of age, ill health, disability and trauma. I am pleased to speak to these amendments and, as I say, these Benches will support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, if he wishes to press his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we will support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, when he presses Amendment 66, and we would expect the subsequent amendments he mentioned to be consequential to that. He clearly and helpfully set out the four Hardial Singh principles and gave their legal basis and history, and I thank him for doing so. As he pointed out, the Government themselves recently cited those principles in a High Court case. I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who succinctly summed up the Opposition’s view on the Bill. He said that there is little prospect of unilateral action succeeding, and we agree. He deplored the Secretary of State’s using the power of detention to reinforce the message of deterrence, rather than speaking of the need to implement the Bill, and we agree with that as well. He said that the power should not go to the Secretary of State rather than the courts, and he cited the Explanatory Memorandum. We agree with that too, so I thank the noble Viscount for summarising our view of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Green, said that what the Government have done so far has not had much had effect. The Government are asking us again to support them to do more, yet they have been unsuccessful in the various Bills they have introduced in recent years to try to address this problem. It is a real problem, and there needs to be a different approach to reduce the numbers. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord German, as well. For all those reasons, we will be happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as we have just heard, Clause 11 clarifies the time period for which the Secretary of State may detain individuals by placing two of the common law Hardial Singh principles on to a statutory footing. As we have also heard, the principles provide that a person may be detained only for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances, and if it becomes apparent before the expiry of the reasonable period that the Home Secretary will not be able to examine, effect removal or grant leave within a reasonable period, the Home Secretary should not seek to continue the detention.
As my noble friend Lord Hailsham noted, the Explanatory Notes published with the Bill make it clear that it is the Bill’s intention expressly to overturn the common law principle established in R on the application of A v the Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2007, and that henceforth it will be for the Secretary of the State rather than the courts to determine what constitutes a reasonable time period to detain an individual for the specific statutory purpose. In this regard, these amendments seek to preserve the status quo and leave it to the courts to determine the reasonableness of the period of detention. I put it to your Lordships that it is properly a matter for the Home Secretary rather than the courts to decide such matters, as the Home Office will be in full possession of all the relevant facts and best placed to decide whether continued detention is reasonable in the circumstances.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
If my noble friend is right, he is effectively saying that people who are detained will be released if there is no prospect of deportation. If that is right, the policy of deterrence is entirely without merit.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My noble friend is right, in that it is one of the Hardial Singh principles that, if there is no reasonable prospect of removal, that person should not be detained. But I cannot agree with him that the policy of deterrence is not right, because it is clearly the Government’s intention to remove any illegal entrants to a safe third country. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I add that the Court of Appeal unanimously agreed with that being lawful as a matter of principle.
We recognise that circumstances can change. Where that is the case, detention must be reviewed. If it is considered that the anticipated period of detention is not reasonably necessary, the individual will be bailed. This reflects the existing legal and policy position on the use of detention.
It remains the Government’s view that the provisions in Clause 11 provide an appropriate balance between the respective roles of the Home Secretary and the courts. Accordingly, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Viscount and others who have spoken on the Bill, including the noble Lord, Lord German. I now come to this place for my daily dose of disappointment. It seems to me that the Minister is deliberately missing the point. He cannot be failing to see it, and I very much regret having to say that.
Who do noble Lords trust to make these decisions: a Minister or the courts? I will tell them something about the latter, in case they have never seen any of these cases in court. Judges sit day after day in the Administrative Court, hearing case after case involving asylum and refugees, and they make decision after decision about whether a period of detention is too long, too robust or unreasonable in some other way. They have built up a corpus of law which has become reliable and admired not just in this place but throughout our jurisdiction and the common law world.
Make your choice. I am going to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why our courts, and our officials acting under their duties, reach such different decisions from the courts and officials on the continent? Why do we reject only 25% of claims for asylum, whereas France rejects 75%?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, this is Report and that intervention is not appropriate, I am afraid.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Whether it is appropriate or not—and I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on that subject—it seems to me that the noble Lord who just intervened has made a very selective judgment without analysing the continental cases that have taken place. I have given a fair description of what happens in our jurisdiction; it is the one that I regard well, and I hope that your Lordships will too.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
“(c) section 11(7) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.”Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
“(7) None of the amendments made in this section permit detention that is inconsistent with the following principles—(a) the Secretary of State must intend to remove the person being detained and can only use the power to detain for that purpose,(b) the person being removed may only be detained for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances,(c) if, before the expiry of the reasonable period, it becomes apparent that the Secretary of State will not be able to effect removal within a reasonable period, they must not seek to exercise the power of detention, and (d) the Secretary of State must act with reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would confirm that the lawfulness of immigration detention remains subject to the principles established in the common law. It would reinstate the existing Hardial Singh principles in a single amendment and would be consistent with the JCHR’s conclusion and recommendation at para 202 of the Report.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, the first amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 71, line 22 and the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 71, line 25 have the effect that the reference to a person in the care of a local authority in the definition of “appropriate adult” in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 is replaced with a reference to a person in the care of a relevant authority as defined by that paragraph.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the second amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 71, line 22 have the effect that the reference to a social worker of a local authority in the definition of “appropriate adult” in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 is replaced with a reference to a registered social worker as defined by that paragraph.
““local authority” —(a) in relation to England, means a county council, a district council for an area for which there is no county council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(b) in relation to Wales, means a county council or a county borough council;(c) in relation to Scotland, means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994;”Member's explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 71, line 9.
““registered social worker” means a person registered as a social worker in a register maintained by—(a) Social Work England,(b) Social Care Wales,(c) the Scottish Social Services Council, or(d) the Northern Ireland Social Care Council;” Member's explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 71, line 12.
““relevant authority” —(a) in relation to England and Wales and Scotland, means a local authority;(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, means an authority within the meaning of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)) (see Article 2(2) of that Order);”Member's explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 71, line 9.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
““voluntary organisation” —(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989 (see section 105(1) of that Act);(b) in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (see section 93(1) of that Act);(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (see Article 74(1) of that Order).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines “voluntary organisation” for the purposes of the reference to a person in the care of a voluntary organisation in the definition of “appropriate adult” in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2.
Lord Scriven
“Children Act 1989(1) Upon entry or arrival into England, every child to whom section 3 of this Act applies must have afforded to them all rights under the Children Act 1989.(2) Nothing in this Act may require any act or omission that conflicts with or undermines the obligations, duties or responsibilities of the Secretary of State under the Children Act 1989, in particular the principle that the child’s welfare be a primary consideration and that particular regard be given to the child’s wishes and feelings.(3) This Act must not cause any delay in ensuring that unaccompanied children become looked after as soon as the child's age has been determined.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures all children who enter or arrive in England under section 2 are afforded the rights available under the Children Act 1989. It also provides that well-established duties under that Act are not undermined by the requirements of this Bill.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 87 is in my name, and I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for adding their names to it. We on these Benches support all the amendments in this group. With the exception of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who wishes to remove Clauses 15 and 16 from the Bill—that would be the ideal solution but is unlikely to win the day—they try to fully understand the relationship between the Home Secretary’s new powers as indicated in Clauses 15 and 16 and the obligations and duties of local authorities to children as laid out in the Children Act 1989.
The statutory scheme for looked-after children has been carefully developed over many decades, with safeguards added in response to learning from systematic failings and research into different aspects of child well-being. Empowering the Home Secretary to radically change that statutory scheme and the provisions around it on the basis of how a child arrives in a local authority area is both radical and untested; it restructures England’s child welfare system.
Where there was total clarity on the interests of the child, the clauses bring ambiguity and confusion. I am confused, as are many other noble Lords, about how the powers given to the Home Secretary in Clauses 15 and 16 are in line with the duties and obligations of local authorities. Unaccompanied children seeking asylum are children in need under the Children Act 1989, and local authorities have specific duties to them and specific powers—for example, under Sections 17 and 47. Under Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Act, certain activities have to follow.
Section 22C of the Children Act sets out the ways in which local authorities are to accommodate and maintain children. Section 23ZA requires local authorities to regularly visit looked-after children. Sections 25A and 26 place a duty on local authorities to appoint an independent reviewing officer for looked-after children and to make arrangements for independent advocates for them.
The first question I wish to tease out is: when children are removed—either put into the Home Office accommodation initially or removed at the request of the Secretary of State—do they still have looked-after status? If so, how will provision be made for local authorities to carry out the duties they have to looked-after children? The significant question is: what happens when the local authority deems that the Home Office accommodation is not in the best interests of the child, as the statutory scheme suggests? Under this provision of the Bill, can the local authority override the Secretary of State’s request to move a child into certain accommodation and move them into accommodation that is in their best interest? It is a key question that was asked in Committee which the Minister did not answer. The Minister said that he would write to noble Lords on this issue, and I am very pleased that at 12 pm today a letter dated 3 July arrived in our inboxes.
However, that letter creates further confusion and does not answer the following central questions. How will local authorities be able to conduct all their duties under the Children Act 1989? Why does the Secretary of State’s new power lie in the provisions of that Act in terms of where a child shall be put, particularly in terms of the best interests of the child? We really need clarity to be able to understand the interrelationship and how local authorities can carry out their full legal duties under the Children Act 1989 to put the interests of the child first. The Minister was unable to clarify this in Committee and it is important that those issues are now clarified on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I was President of the Family Division and tried endless care cases involving local authorities. I am extremely concerned about Clauses 15 and 16 and their interrelation with the Children Acts, particularly the Children Act 1989. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has already pointed out, the Secretary of State does not have parental responsibility for children.
I pointed this out to the Minister several times in Committee. So far, and I do not mean to be impolite, I am not sure that either he or—more importantly—the Home Office have put their minds to the implications of parental responsibility. I have not seen a copy of the letter that apparently was sent. It would have been helpful if I had seen it before I came to this House, because since I have been here I am afraid that I have not been looking at my emails.
The local authority is, under the Children Act, the only corporate parent and no one else can be. If the local authority goes to the court and seeks a care order under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989, there will be a court order requiring the local authority to keep the child and place the child in appropriate accommodation. I ask the Minister: has the Home Office has reflected on what Clause 16 is saying—that the Home Secretary can take a child away from local authority accommodation and put that child somewhere else? Is it intended that this Bill is to override the Children Acts and create a new situation where parental responsibility is of no significance if the Home Secretary considers that a child should be dealt with by the Home Office and not a local authority?
This is a very serious legal situation for children. Although there may not be all that number of younger children, there are certainly some. Even a child of 16 is entitled to the care of a local authority. I just wonder whether the Government have thought through the implications of this. I do not believe that this matter will be taken to a vote, which I am rather sad about in a way, because I would like the Government to put their minds to the existing law—which, I have to tell noble Lords, a Conservative Government passed in 1989, and I was one of those who played a part in the legislation. I am extremely sad to see these two clauses.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 87. Like the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I do not support the other amendments, which would get rid of these clauses entirely.
I had hoped not to have to put my name to that amendment, particularly as I hoped there would be a government amendment because of the clarification by the Family Division of the High Court during Committee on 9 June, in a case brought by Article 39, which was trying to make missing unaccompanied asylum-seeking children wards of court. It is interesting to note in that case that the lead submissions from the Government were not from my noble friend the Minister’s department but from the Department for Education, which holds the responsibility for the Children Act.
I have a simple question to my noble friend the Minister. As a Conservative, I believe it is important that every child has a parent. While the children are accommodated by the Home Office when they initially come into the country, who has parental responsibility? From my reading of the Bill—I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—we are changing a fundamental principle in our law and children may not have a parent, without due consideration of the consequences. It might just be for two days, two weeks or four weeks, but it is really important.
I can foresee, even on my cursory glance at this, at least three cracks in that foundation. First, if a child who is being accommodated in these hotels or hostels ends up at A&E and needs an operation but there is no parent to consent to that surgery—so to do that surgery would be an assault—then precious NHS time would be spent contacting the Home Office and not caring for patients.
The second healthcare situation is that children can be detained under the Mental Health Act. That Act gives important powers, duties and safeguards to the statutory nearest relative—and there is a list of those. Again, if a child is under a care order, under the Mental Health Act the corporate parent is the nearest relative. If the child has no parent and is detained in a secure mental health unit, who will be the nearest relative? Again, precious NHS resources will be, in my view, ill-used.
The most worrying crack—which I hope I am wrong about; I remind noble Lords that I am not a criminal lawyer, and I have done my best when looking at this piece of legislation—is that, when child protection functions under Parts 4 and 5 of the Children Act, such as Section 31, are exercised, there is then a very important exemption for local authorities or public authorities from criminal liability under Section 7 of the corporate manslaughter Act 2007. I would be grateful to hear my noble friend the Minister’s view on that statute. It defines senior management. That perhaps includes the board, civil servants in the department, as well as Ministers and, potentially, the Secretary of State. Giving evidence to public inquiries and appearing before Select Committees is commonplace for civil servants; what is not commonplace is being called as a witness to a Crown Court trial for such a prosecution of the corporate body, the Home Office, which is included under Schedule 1 to the corporate manslaughter Act. If there were to be a change of Government next year, it might be the right honourable Member for Pontefract going to the trial, and it would not be good enough for her to say, “We had only been in office for two weeks before the child fell out of the hotel window”.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships for many minutes and will not do so, but I will speak in support of Amendment 87. It will probably not be pushed to a vote, but, if it were, it would help us to regain our self-respect as a nation that cares about the plight of unaccompanied migrant children.
When I spoke in Committee on 5 June, I highlighted the fact that 4,500 unaccompanied migrant children have been placed in Home Office-run hotels and not in the care of a local authority, as prescribed by Section 20 of the Children Act 1989. Some 200 of those children have gone missing. A whistleblower working at the hotel in Brighton said that he believed that they have just disappeared. Perhaps they were trafficked—who knows?—but they have not been found. Some of the children are as young as 10; they are put into hotels, unaccompanied and unsupervised, at the age of 10.
I pressed the Minister in Committee—as I did before and after—to explain which Act of Parliament allows the Government to place these children in the care of the Home Office and not local authorities. In his reply, he did not directly answer my question, but what he said is important:
“The present position will change when this Bill passes”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; col. 1174.]
I am not trying to put the Minister on the spot—he has enough woes trying to take through this awful piece of legislation—but, from his answer, I must deduce that the Government are acting unlawfully. They know that they are acting unlawfully and that they are not properly caring for these unaccompanied migrant children. All children arriving in this country should surely be afforded the rights under the Children Act 1989. Let us ask ourselves: who among us, if, God forbid, it was one of our children facing this perilous situation, would not want them to be properly cared for?
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register. I will speak to Amendment 89, and I am grateful to my noble friends from differing Benches—the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic—for their support. It is a damning indictment that an amendment of this nature is even required, as it proposes such a basic safeguard to ensure the well-being of unaccompanied children. It requires that, if a child is to be transferred from local authority child protection systems, a justification should be provided as to why it is in their best interests to be looked after by the Home Office rather than the local authority.
It is reasonable that councils should not be mandated to follow a child transfer direction, regardless of any safeguarding or protection concerns. If the Government are unwilling to accept this point, can the Minister say how they will enable the appropriate scrutiny of a decision to move a child out of the formal child protection system and ensure the highest level of safeguarding consideration? These questions deserve full and detailed answers, since the Bill does not set any standards, safeguards or protective obligations for the Home Office when providing accommodation for children. It is even more pertinent given the Home Office’s own record on accommodating unaccompanied children.
The Minister was pleased to share, during the passage of the Bill, that no children are currently accommodated in hotels, but let us not forget that this does not mean that all unaccompanied children are therefore in the care of local authorities. Up to April this year, 186 children remained missing, and it should keep us all up at night, including Ministers, when we think about whose care those children may now be under.
Regardless of the power that the Bill gives to the Government to accommodate children, two things remain true—both of which have already been explained well. First, the Children Act applies to all children, regardless of nationality, ethnicity or immigration status, and therefore any child under the care of the Home Office should have access to the same level of care and protection as any other child in need. Secondly, as recent legal judgments have shown, the Home Office does not have the expertise, knowledge or experience to look after children.
Therefore, it is only right and just that the power to remove a child from the well-established care system should be exercised only when a child’s well-being will be served by doing so—I suspect that that would be very rare. I share the fear of the Children’s Commissioner that accommodating children outside of foster families or children’s homes will be harmful and unsafe; we have no evidence to the contrary. Fundamentally, the care of children is, first and foremost, not an immigration matter, and safeguarding cannot be allowed to be a casualty in pursuit of the objectives of the Bill. Thus, I also support Amendment 87, for all the reasons already laid out. Neither amendment should be regarded as controversial, as, frankly, a child’s life, security and future are too important for them to become collateral damage. Therefore, I support Amendment 87 and intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 89.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support most strongly the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss and the other powerful comments already made from the Conservative Benches, the Bishops’ Benches and elsewhere.
My amendments propose that Clauses 15 and 16 should left out of the Bill in their entirety. These clauses, for the first time, provide the legal power for a central government department to take responsibility for extremely vulnerable unaccompanied children and to provide so-called care, protection and support, both while they are children and as adult care leavers.
I understand that the Home Office has recently been housing unaccompanied children in hotels, without the legal authority to do so. But, according to the Immigration Minister, Robert Jenrick MP, no unaccompanied young people are currently in hotels. The Home Office has recently reopened a hotel in Eastbourne, and another in Brighton and Hove, in anticipation of the Bill becoming law. The local authority in the second case is threatening legal action, and I anticipate that it will be successful.
Ofsted has described the housing of unaccompanied children in hotels as utterly unacceptable. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child called for the urgent repeal of the provision in the Illegal Migration Bill, describing this practice as violating children’s rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the refugee convention 1951. Seven organisations responsible for protecting children have written to us, arguing that they consider Clauses 15 and 16 to be such a danger to unaccompanied children, and to our child welfare system, that they must be removed from the Bill altogether. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services makes the point that unaccompanied children seeking asylum are fleeing desperate situations; they are extremely vulnerable and should not be placed in hotels, where they are open to further exploitations and abuse.
Clauses 15 and 16 are ill conceived and discriminatory in principle. They give the Home Secretary wide powers to house unaccompanied children of any age in any type of accommodation for any length of time—housing a one year-old or 18 month-old in great big ex-Army barracks, or whatever. The clauses direct that a local authority stops looking after an individual child irrespective, it appears, of the child’s needs, characteristics, experiences and legal status. They legitimate and potentially make lawful arrangements that hundreds of non-governmental organisations have contended are unlawful for nearly two years.
I know that Amendments 87 and 89 might help a little. However, bearing in mind the powerful comments from his own Bench from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and from other parts of this House, I appeal to the Minister to seek within himself his humanity and to withdraw Clauses 15 and 16 from the Bill.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I do not support Amendment 87. It would undermine the purpose of the measure to prevent and deter illegal and unsafe routes. It would require that all children who enter this country, and are subject to Section 3, be afforded the same rights as afforded to children under the Children Act 1989, as noble Lords have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. That Act includes that the child’s wishes and best interests are taken into account. However, that could undermine Clause 3, which gives the Secretary of State discretionary powers to remove unaccompanied children who enter illegally, albeit with exceptions. Clause 3 is also concerned with returning children to their parents, and there is provision for that where it is safe to do so.
Moreover, Amendment 87 could and would give families across the world an incentive to try to get their children into this country. For the cost of a modest traffickers’ fee, they would be more likely to make a dreadful gamble to get their children here to be educated, housed, looked after and supported at a cost to our taxpayers. Is there any reason—and I think it is important to ask this question—why taxpayers should be asked to pay sums for those who break the law in this way when there are safe and legal routes for entering this country?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
This amendment would provide an incentive to send children by these very dangerous routes. It is the very opposite of the purpose of the Bill, which is to deter people from using unsafe and illegal routes.
Noble Lords may not like what I say, but I cannot put from my mind the dangers occurring to children and women and even men on these unsafe routes. Only two weeks ago, we heard of the trawler which left the Libyan port of Tobruk and sank off the Greek coast. According to reports, over 700 people were on that boat. The women and children were in the hold: not one of them survived.
It is incumbent on this House to avoid giving any possible incentive to people traffickers to continue their unlawful and fatal trade. Anything we can do to stop it, we should do. This scheme is the first practical scheme that I have heard proposed which will deter people trafficking and the smuggling of children into the country by that route. The impact assessment has shown that the Australian scheme worked as a deterrent. For these reasons, I would prefer a practical scheme which deterred the use of these dangerous routes. Your Lordships should give the Bill a chance if we want to stop these fatal crossings.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. The amendments before us do not seek to punish children who are in a situation that many of them have no choice in. We have a duty to them as a humanitarian country with proud traditions. We have a duty to protect children, and that is what we seek to do. We need to remember that we are talking about children here. Whatever we do, I do not want to punish children for however they may have arrived here.
We fully support the amendments of the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly Amendments 87 and 89. Amendment 89, of course, is in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and it is one to which I have added my name, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and the noble Lord, Lord German.
I do not want to speak for long, but the point that was made is significant, especially when one looks at Clause 16. The Secretary of State can decide on the transfer date that an unaccompanied child be moved away from the local authority. The point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, goes right to the heart of the issue: the local authority acts as the parent. If you move a child away from that situation, you are effectively making them an orphan. There is nobody responsible for them by law. Is that really what we want? Is that really what we are trying to achieve? We all agree that there is a problem, but we should not make children pay the price of trying to resolve it. That is not the right way of going about it.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham pointed out, the Secretary of State can direct the local authority to cease providing accommodation. There is no discussion between the Secretary of State and the local authority to view what is in the best interests of the child. The Secretary of State can compel the local authority—as the parent—to cease providing accommodation for a child, which will then take them into Home Office-provided accommodation. Within that Home Office accommodation, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, we still have 186 children lost. They are missing. We have no idea where they are. I say it time and again but if the Home Office was a human being and a parent, that human being—the parent known as the Home Office—would be prosecuted. We would not tolerate losing children. We would not say that we are doing all we can. We would ask what on earth is happening that children are being lost. The local authority provides the best solution to looking after unaccompanied children in these circumstances.
The Home Office can demand that of the local authority with no justification. It can demand it with no idea of where these children are going to go and with no idea of the standards to be provided for them. They are simply to be housed in Home Office accommodation or wherever. That is not acceptable to the people of this country, irrespective of the fact that they understand there is a problem with the boats, and irrespective of the fact they understand that something needs to be done. They do not want is to see migrant children, or any child, having to pay the price for that. The Government need to sort it out in another way and ensure that all children in this country are properly protected.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 87 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, seeks to ensure that all children covered by the duty in Clause 2 have the protections afforded to children under the Children Act 1989. No one can disagree with the sentiment behind his amendment. However, in a sense, it misses its intended target, as the 1989 Act does not impose obligations, duties or responsibilities on the Secretary of State but rather on local authorities. There is nothing in this Bill that alters those duties or responsibilities, particularly as regards an unaccompanied child—a point well made by my noble friend Lady Berridge.
That said, Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 already requires that the Home Secretary carry out her functions in a way that takes into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the United Kingdom, and I can assure noble Lords that this will continue to be the case.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause brings me to the provisions in Clauses 15 and 16 which were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. She seeks to remove those clauses; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham seeks to amend them with Amendments 88A, 89 and 89A.
Clause 15 makes provision for the accommodation of unaccompanied migrant children in scope of this Bill. This clause confers on the Secretary of State a power to provide, or to arrange for the provision of, accommodation and other support to unaccompanied migrant children in England. While the clause contains no time limit on how long any child spends in Home Office accommodation, as I have said previously on a number of occasions, our clear intention is that their stay be a temporary one until they transfer to a local authority for a permanent placement. This is not detained accommodation, and the support that will be provided will be appropriate to the needs of these young people during their short stay.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
The problem is Clause 16, because the Home Office can remove the child from the otherwise permanent care of the local authority. How on earth is what the Minister is saying compatible with Clause 16?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is obviously necessary that the Bill contain a power to allow for such a transfer, in order to ensure the appropriate removal of a child on attaining their majority, for example, or for any other purpose that might be necessary to ensure implementation of the scheme. The Government expect local authorities to meet their statutory obligations to unaccompanied children from the date of their arrival in the United Kingdom, and that the Home Office step in only sparingly and temporarily. Indeed, an unaccompanied child in scope of the scheme may enter local authority care without first being accommodated by the Home Office under this power. However, it is important that there be legal certainty about the ability of the Home Office to step in to ensure that an unaccompanied child arriving on the south coast can immediately be accommodated and supported.
As we have just discussed, Clause 16 then makes provision for the transfer of an unaccompanied migrant child from Home Office accommodation to a local authority in England. The clause provides a mechanism for the Secretary of State to decide that a child is to cease residing in Home Office accommodation and to then direct a local authority in England to provide accommodation to the child, under Section 20 of the Children Act, after five working days of the direction being made. As was the subject of the intervention a moment ago, the Secretary of State may also direct a local authority in England to cease accommodating an unaccompanied child and to transfer the child into accommodation provided by the Home Office after five working days of the direction being made. This power is the subject of the right reverend Prelate’s amendment.
I suggest, with respect to the right reverend Prelate, that this amendment is unnecessary given that protections are already in statute in Section 55 of the 2009 Act, which I have already referred to. The Secretary of State is required to have regard to the interests of children as a primary factor in immigration decisions affecting them. Let me be clear: best interests are not the only factor that must be considered; other relevant factors, such as close consideration of individual circumstances, must be taken into account. In making decisions and devising policy guidance under this Bill, the Home Office will continue to apply the Section 55 duty.
We are working through the operational processes relating to unaccompanied children and the circumstances in which we will use this power. This includes engaging with stakeholders to understand the concerns they might have about the power to transfer unaccompanied children into Home Office accommodation. We are working very closely with the Department for Education, as we want to deliver the objectives of the Bill while being mindful of the needs of children and young people. I hope this provides some reassurance to noble Lords.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I refer my noble friend back to his point about legal certainty and the very narrow question I asked: is it correct that while the Home Office is accommodating these children before they go into local authority accommodation, they actually have no parent?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is clearly right that in the situation that arose with the rush of people crossing the channel—which gave rise to this legislation—consideration had to be given to the legislative arrangements. The situation in law is clear and is as my noble friend set out. The Home Office is able, in extreme circumstances, to exercise this power on behalf of local authorities. As I say, the purpose and intention of these provisions is to look after children only for as short a time as possible before transferring them to the care of local authorities. I want to stress that the Home Office is having to accommodate unaccompanied children out of necessity.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that he will put in the Bill that these children would not be in the so-called care of the Home Office for more than, let us say, 48 hours —some very limited period of time? If that is the Government’s intention, can the Minister assure the House that this will be in the Bill and that it really will be for a very short time?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
No; I am afraid I cannot provide that assurance, and the reason for that is obvious. We are dealing with a situation in which we have thousands of people crossing the channel, and we cannot tie the hands of the Home Office in dealing with this great problem that we all face. I say again that we are having to accommodate unaccompanied children out of necessity. My noble friend Lady Lawlor highlighted in her brave speech the Hobson’s choice that we face here. These children will not all immediately enter the care system on arrival in a small boat, simply because the Home Office does not have the powers set out in Clauses 15 and 16. It is right that we take steps to ensure that there is clarity, and I suggest to noble Lords that it is in the best interests of these children that we put in place these measures, which recognise the reality of the current situation.
On the basis of my explanation and the assurances I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will be content to withdraw his amendment, and if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham is minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 89, I invite noble Lords to reject that amendment.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that, like everyone who has listened to this debate, I am now more confused than when it started. Clarity has not been brought. I thank all noble Lords for taking part in the debate, including the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who I completely disagree with; she really does not understand the concept of what safeguarding and the rights of the child are once the child is in the UK. That is the issue, and there is no evidence in any impact assessment or anything that the Government have done that says that protecting and safeguarding children under the Children Act 1989 is a pull factor. But I welcome the noble Baroness’s intervention and understand that she starts from a position that is, I am sure, very different from that of nearly everybody else in your Lordships’ House.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
“(4A) But the Secretary of State may not make a decision under subsection (4) unless to do so is necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to transfer a child out of local authority care and into accommodation provided by the Secretary of State, by providing that they may only do so where to do so is necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
It is my wish to test the mind of the House because the Minister has not answered some of the questions, and my concerns remain. Some of us have not seen a copy of the letter that was circulated to some noble Lords, so can the Minister undertake to ensure that it gets circulated to those who have been involved in these debates? We really need the local authority to have the say in this, so I beg leave to test the mind of the House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
“(b) that person is or may be a modern slavery survivor, save where the exceptions set out in section 21(3) apply.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
“(d) a person has been identified by a First Responder as appropriate for referral into the National Referral Mechanism;(e) a decision by a competent authority regarding reasonable grounds is pending;(f) a decision has been made by a competent authority that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking (a “positive reasonable grounds decision”), and has not yet received a conclusive grounds decision;(g) the person is in the course of challenging a negative reasonable grounds decision;(h) the person has received a positive conclusive grounds decision;(i) the person is in the course of challenging a negative conclusive grounds decision.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“(3A) Subsection (2) also does not apply in relation to a person if the relevant exploitation took place in the United Kingdom. (3B) Where subsection (3) or (3A) applies in relation to a person the following do not apply in relation to the person—(a) section 22,(b) section 23, and(c) section 24.(4) In this section—”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to exempt people who have been unlawfully exploited in the UK from provisions which would otherwise require their removal during the statutory recovery period and prohibit them from being provided with support during the recovery period or being granted limited leave to remain.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
“(10A) A person falling within section 2(1) or section 3(2) will not be treated as a threat to public order solely on the grounds of meeting the conditions set out therein.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to clause 21 in the name of Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to Clause 21 in the name of Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 101 pre-empts Amendment 102.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seeks to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, this amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Morrow, who sends his apologies. He is unable to attend today and has asked me to move it in his place. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to Clause 21 in the name of Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 104 pre-empts Amendment 105.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seeks to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Baroness Brinton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to exclude children from the provisions of Clause 29.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ludford is unable to be in her place today. I am introducing her Amendments 114 and 116 in this group, which remove children from the effects of the loss of citizenship pathways under the Bill. On these Benches we welcome the government amendments removing the original Clause 30(4) from the Bill, which would have barred British citizenship children born in the UK after 7 March 2023 if a parent had entered the UK illegally. We also welcome the amendment that removes bars to citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981—the settled route and the 10-year route. I thank the Minister for the helpful meeting regarding British national (overseas) citizens. I look forward to hearing from him, perhaps on Wednesday, that BNO passport holders will get clearer and correct information from immigration officials in the future.
However, despite the Government’s amendments, there are still key risks for children who the Government admit will rarely qualify for citizenship under Clause 2. That is why Amendments 114 and 116 remove children from the loss of routes to UK citizenship. The fundamental problem that needs to be resolved here is that, as we discussed in the debate on the previous group, as children arrive in the UK they are put under the responsibility of a local authority. As minors, our state decrees that these children cannot make decisions for themselves, so the logic must also be that when they were brought into the UK they were not deemed to have the capacity to make that decision. We noted that the Minister said that there is a potential safeguard under Clause 35 if a decision were to breach the UK’s obligation under the ECHR, but it was just reported again, on Saturday in the i newspaper, that the Government want to remove the UK from the ECHR.
The Government’s intention to prevent these children obtaining British citizenship would close off all the major routes to citizenship if their parents were irregular entrants: the discretionary route, the settled route and the 10-year route. On these Benches we believe that children who are deemed by the state not to be able to make decisions about themselves should not be penalised by the Bill, particularly because they are in the care of the state. On these grounds, I beg to move Amendment 114.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 115 and 117 to 125 in this group, all standing in my name. They have a similar approach to that set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but the focus is rather different, as I shall explain.
I support the general thrust of the Bill; the argument for the Bill is that it creates a number of deterrents to people arriving in this country illegally. The principal deterrent is of course that of immediate, or at least rapid, removal to another country. But the Bill goes further than that and also seeks to deprive those who have fallen foul of the tests in Clause 2 of their subsequent right to apply for naturalisation as a British subject or, more crucially and to the point of my amendments, their right to apply for registration as a British subject at any point in the future.
Noble Lords are well aware that there is a great distinction between naturalisation and registration. Naturalisation is a concession by the state to those who are not British, to allow them to become British. It is perfectly natural that there should be conditions attached to that, and those conditions very often can and do include good behaviour conditions—such as, perhaps, if the Bill passes, not having previously arrived illegally in a small boat.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing back these amendments, but I am disappointed that he had to do so given the strong case that he made for them in Committee. They are important from the perspective of both citizenship and the rights of children. I once again declare my interest as a patron of the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens.
From reading the exchanges in Committee, it seemed to me that the Minister was not really listening to the arguments put but simply responded by trying to justify what, in our view, is unjustifiable. Once again, children are the main victims, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose amendments I also support. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, it was welcome that the Minister, when challenged on this point, did not impute any culpability to children. However, the fact remains that children are being punished for the actions of a parent, which is contrary to the refugee and other conventions, as has been pointed out by the UNHCR, JCHR and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, among others. This is yet another instance of where we need to see the child rights impact assessment yet, despite the Government Chief Whip promising it for today “if possible”, there is still no sign of it.
It is not an indicator of strength to refuse to countenance any amendments in pursuit of the mythical god of deterrence, regardless of the force of the argument. The main losers are, again, children, whose best interests are being ignored and trampled on. I hope the Minister will think again today.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, these amendments relate to the bans on re-entry, settlement and citizenship which are a key part of the deterrent effect of the Bill and send an important message that, if you enter the country illegally, you will not be able to build a life here.
Amendments 114 and 116, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and spoken to so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seek to remove from the scope of the bans those who meet the duty in Clause 2 but who are under the age of 18.
As the Bill is currently constructed, anyone, including children, who meets the criteria of the duty also becomes subject to permanent bans on obtaining leave to remain, settlement, citizenship and re-entry. The application of the bans is irrespective of whether the child was complicit in the act of entering illegally. I hope that addresses the points noble Lords have raised in that regard.
The inclusion of children is to ensure that there is no perverse incentive for parents or others to put children in harm’s way by forcing them on to small boats or other dangerous methods in an attempt to gain entry to the UK. We want to send a clear message that children cannot be exploited and forced into making dangerous attempts to gain entry into the UK for the purpose of starting a new life here. Instead, the only way to come to the UK for protection will be through safe and legal routes. This will take the power out of the hands of criminal gangs and protect vulnerable people, including children.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Could he update the House, in light of what my noble friend Lady Lister said, on where we are with the child rights impact assessment?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I was saving that until the end of my remarks, which I will do, if I may.
Under our proposals, anyone who has entered illegally will be removed, so it is unlikely that they will qualify for settlement or citizenship on the basis of long and lawful residence. I therefore take my noble friend Lord Moylan’s point, in that regard. However, the powers in the Bill provide the Secretary of State with the discretion to waive the bans in specific circumstances, as we discussed in Committee. In practice, these powers mean that the Secretary of State retains the discretion to waive the bans on obtaining settlement as well as to consider an application for citizenship where they consider that failure to do so would result in a breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the ECHR.
The Bill also provides additional discretionary powers to waive the bans on limited leave to remain and re-entry. The Secretary of State may waive the ban on re-entry if they consider that other exceptional circumstances make it appropriate to allow someone to return; these would include to ensure compliance with international agreements to which the UK is a party. Similarly, in the limited leave to remain area, there is a power allowing the Secretary of State to waive the ban where it is appropriate to ensure compliance with the ECHR or other international agreements to which the UK is a party, as well as where an individual who is seeking to remain in the UK has been allowed to return on the basis of other exceptional circumstances.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for again raising these interesting issues in the amendments he has tabled. They seek to change provisions in Clauses 30 to 36 so that the citizenship ban applies only to naturalisation and not registration routes. I am grateful to my noble friend for meeting me to talk about this. We had a useful discussion, although we did not quite reach agreement on these topics.
Our view is that registration is not just about recognising a person’s claim to British citizenship that they do not have the documents to demonstrate. Instead, a number of the registration routes within the British Nationality Act have requirements based on residence and many have good character requirements. It is not a case, as my noble friend has suggested, of merely acknowledging a status that a person already holds, but an opportunity for a person to demonstrate their suitability to become British.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the Government Chief Whip promised that it would be published well before Report concludes. Does the Minister really think that tomorrow is well before Report concludes on Wednesday?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is clearly not the case. I accept that the Government Chief Whip did not exactly say that it would be put before your Lordships’ House today, but the expectation was that it would be. We have reached 7 pm; we are debating children’s issues and have done so all the way through Report, and we have not got the children’s impact assessment. It is utterly unacceptable for the Government to run a contentious Bill in this way. All the impact assessments were late, by and large. This is particularly late; it is no way to carry on. I can understand my noble friend Lady Lister’s upset and anger at this, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy raised it last week. The Minister knows, frankly, the anger and disappointment there is about this. I do not know what else to say, other than: what does “tomorrow” mean? Is it first thing tomorrow morning, or will it turn up at 8 or 9 pm, just before Report finishes? Perhaps the Minister can clarify what tomorrow means, and register the deep anger and upset in this House.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Before the Minister answers, I will add to what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said. Throughout our consideration of the Bill, I have been particularly concerned about children. As far as I can remember, there are no more amendments of any significance in relation to children in the final part of Report. All I have said has been without sight of the impact statement. For me and many other noble Lords who are concerned about children, it is quite simply too late.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I have looked into the history of child rights impact assessments, and they are a rare document. Tomorrow, when the assessment is provided, noble Lords will see an explanation of the background to these documents. There is an element of opportunism about the timing; clearly, these are difficult documents that need to be prepared with care. I say that it will be published tomorrow, so it will be published tomorrow, and at this point I cannot give any more detail as to the precise timing.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief because many of the points have been made by others during the debate. Yet again the Minister has not answered the speakers’ questions. Yet again we are having a discussion, to discover that the impact assessment on child rights will be with us tomorrow after we have debated some key amendments. He did not respond to the issue I raised about why, if a child is in care when they arrive in this country, they are deemed to be able to make decisions. This is going to end up in the courts if the Government will not listen. Every single part of the response to this group has been an embarrassment and a real shame for children’s rights. I will not press this to a vote but the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, may wish either to bring something back at Third Reading or to communicate directly with the Minister.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the name of a “factual suspensive claim” to a “removal conditions suspensive claim”.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the definition of what will become a “removal conditions suspensive claim” so that it includes any claim that a person does not meet the removal conditions.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations which amend the definition of “working day” in clause 37(8).
Lord Etherton
“Serious harm suspensive claims: interpretation(1) The definitions in subsections (2) and (3) have effect for the purposes of section 37, this section and sections 39 to 51.(2) A “serious harm suspensive claim” means a claim by a person (“P”) who has been given a third country removal notice that the serious harm condition is met in relation to P.(3) The “serious harm condition” is that P would face a real risk of serious harm if removed from the United Kingdom under this Act to the country or territory specified in the third country removal notice.(4) The following are examples of harm that constitute serious harm for the purposes of this Act—(a) death;(b) persecution falling within subsection (2)(a) or (b) of section 31 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (read together with subsections (1) and (3) of that section) (Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention: persecution) where P is not able to avail themselves of protection from that persecution;(c) torture;(d) inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;(e) onward removal from the country or territory specified in the third country removal notice to another country or territory where P would face a real risk of any harm mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d).(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)—(a) protection from persecution can be provided by—(i) the government of the relevant country or territory, or (ii) any party or organisation, including any international organisation, controlling the relevant country or territory or a substantial part of it;(b) P is to be taken to be able to avail themselves of protection from persecution if—(i) the government, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) takes reasonable steps to prevent the persecution by operating an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution, and(ii) P is able to access the protection.”Member's explanatory statement
This revised version of Clause 38: (1) removes any reference to “the relevant period”, (2) removes any reference to irreversibility of harm, and (3) removes examples of harm that do not constitute or are unlikely to constitute serious and irreversible harm.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, this amendment relates to serious harm suspensive claims, and it is important because the Government intend that suspensive claims are the only way that removal notices can be challenged. The point I have been concerned with from the beginning is the position of people who are served with a removal notice in respect of a country in which they have a well-founded fear of persecution if removed there, and they would fall within Article 1A(2) of the refugee convention. In other words, vis-à-vis that country, they would be regarded as refugees. Do they have to show in addition, as required by Clause 38(3),
“a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and”—
this is the critical word—“irreversible harm” to succeed on a serious harm suspensive claim? That would be not only novel but against all principle, and the meaning, intent and wording of the refugee convention.
The point has been illustrated—I have tried to illustrate it, and the Government have taken it up—in the particular case of LGBTQ+ claimants. The decision in the case of HJ (Iran) and HG (Cameroon) was that, in order to qualify as a refugee under the convention, it is sufficient that, if they would wish to live openly as LGBTQ, they would face persecution, even if they would not suffer such persecution if they acted discreetly. The question was, if they or somebody from that community were served with a removal notice and it were to a place where members of that particular social group, within the meaning of the convention, would have reasonable fear of persecution, would they have to show in addition that they would suffer irreversible harm, and within a specified period? I urge your Lordships to accept that that would be entirely wrong.
Throughout this debate on the Bill, my understanding has been that the Minister has said that, yes, such a group would have to show in addition that they would suffer irreversible harm. That seems inconsistent with Clause 38(4)(b), which states:
“The following are examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of this Act … (b) persecution falling within … Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention … where P”—
the refugee—
“is not able to avail themselves of protection from that persecution”.
My heart therefore leapt with joy last Wednesday when I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, who stood in as Minister, say:
“The point I am making is that the serious harm suspensive claim in connection with Clause 38 makes it clear that persecution and onward refoulement are examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of such a suspensive claim.”—[Official Report, 28/6/23; col. 767.]
However, I received a letter sent at 2pm this afternoon from the Minister which seemed to indicate that he was still insisting that, in addition, one would have to show irreversible harm. All I wish to receive from the Minister to avoid a vote on this is an assurance that, where it is clear that there would be persecution of a recognised category within the convention regarding the country specified in the removal notice, that fact alone is sufficient to satisfy the requirements for a serious harm suspensive claim, and that the principle laid down in HJ (Iran) regarding LGBTQ people will continue to apply.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I will speak first to Amendment 131, which would survive even if the amendment to which my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton has spoken were carried and Clause 38 rewritten.
I am seeking to make a very simple point: the power in Clause 39 to
“by regulations amend section 38 to make provision about the meaning of ‘serious and irreversible harm’ for the purposes of this Act”
is unqualified and wide enough to enable the Secretary of State to remove some of the instances of serious harm set out in Clause 38 as it is or as it may be amended. The examples of serious harm given there are absolutely obvious, and they are indeed very serious. It would be a great misfortune if, by some misadventure, the Secretary of State were to remove one or other example from that list for some reason. I would have thought that the Minister could accept the amendment as a sensible qualification of the otherwise unqualified power in Clause 39. I am simply repeating a point I made in Committee, but it is rather important to have clarity on this. The Minister can give an assurance—no doubt he will—that there is no intention to remove examples from Clause 38, but that is not really good enough. It needs to be set out in terms in Clause 39.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, for the reasons that both noble and learned Lords have explained, we support all the amendments in this group. Should the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, not get a satisfactory answer from the Minister, we will support him if he divides the House.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, the House will be aware that I support the direction of travel of the Bill quite strongly. It represents a serious effort—it may be a vain one, and will certainly be so if the Government accept all the loopholes in the amendments we have discussed this afternoon—to address an issue of considerable concern to our fellow citizens. But, although I support the direction of travel, that does not mean that I think it perfect in every sense. I will therefore take a minute to support Amendment 131, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—to which he has just spoken—and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
I do not want to add to the background as the noble and learned Lord has obviously explained that very clearly. However, this does come under the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I tried to draw to the attention of both Houses when we chaired the Delegated Powers Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee respectively: the way in which power has been slipping through the hands of Parliament, with extensive and wide powers being taken by means of secondary legislation. Some might say that their use is improper, but let us say “extensive” for the purposes of this afternoon. Too often, these issues should have had a degree of scrutiny appropriate for primary legislation, and it is not satisfactory to introduce major issues of policy without that scrutiny.
We have to remember that we do need secondary legislation. Without it, the Government’s machine would gum up completely. But we need to make sure that its use is restricted to what it says on the tin—namely, issues of secondary importance. In my view, Clause 39, entitled
“Meaning of ‘serious and irreversible harm’,”
is of pretty fundamental importance.
I agree with the need for regulation. The world moves on much faster than the rather stately pace of primary legislation. That is why I could not support Amendment 132 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Paddick, because it seeks to delete the whole clause. We need some regulatory power. In much the same way, I am concerned about Amendment 130, because it opens up a whole series of other loopholes that impede the impact of the Bill as a whole.
In response to the wider powers that the Government are seeking under the present formulation, Parliament is entitled to ask for some limits on future ministerial power. Let me use the analogy of driving down a road. The Government are entitled to drive down the road, but in turn Parliament is entitled to ask for guard-rails—guard-rails that will ensure that a future Minister cannot swerve off into parts of—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and for all his remarks thus far. Would he agree with me, in the light of the Companion, that this would be a good moment to hear from his noble friend the Minister?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
If the noble Baroness had given me another two sentences, I would have finished. I was going to say we need guard-rails to make sure that future Ministers do not swerve off in directions hitherto undreamed of. It is because I think Amendment 131 represents those guard-rails that I support it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we support the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and, in particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. Were the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, minded to test the opinion of the House, he would certainly find us supporting him on Amendment 130.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, it was remiss of me not to say a little about Amendment 126 and the other government amendments in this group, so I will do so now. These amendments, as I am sure Members of the House have realised, replace a “factual suspensive claim” with a “removal conditions suspensive claim”. Clearly, I and the department listened carefully to the contributions from noble Lords in Committee on these topics about these suspensive claims, in particular those helpful contributions from the Cross Benches. The changes in the category of suspensive claim are a direct reflection of what was said during those debates.
Currently, a factual suspensive claim can be raised where a mistake of fact has been made in deciding that a person meets the four removal conditions in Clause 2. This definition would prevent a claim being raised where a person had been incorrectly identified as meeting the four removal conditions due to a mistake of law. A removal conditions suspensive claim will instead provide for a claim to be raised where a person who has been given a removal notice informing them that they are subject to the duty to remove does not consider that they meet the removal conditions in Clause 2. The Secretary of State’s or Upper Tribunal’s consideration of a removal conditions suspensive claim will be on whether or not the removal conditions were met. I trust these amendments will be welcome, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who queried the scope of these claims in Committee.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Etherton and Lord Hope, for setting out the case for the other amendments in this group. A serious harm suspensive claim is a claim that a person would, before the end of the relevant period, face a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm if they were removed from the United Kingdom to a country other than their country of origin. The serious and irreversible harm test is designed to be a high threshold and reflects the test applied by the European Court of Human Rights when considering whether to indicate an interim measure under Rule 39 of the rules of court. “Serious” indicates that the harm must meet a minimum level of severity, and “irreversible” means the harm would have a permanent or very long-lasting effect. These amendments seek to change how Clause 38 of the Bill defines the risk of harm, lowering the threshold for a serious harm claim to succeed.
Amendment 130 would remove the requirement for the harm to occur in the period it will take for any human rights claim or judicial review to be determined from the safe third country. I suggest it is reasonable to expect the harm to occur over a defined period. The very purpose of the suspensive claim process is to prevent those persons subject to the duty to remove suffering serious and irreversible harm during the same period that their human rights claims are considered. Without this requirement, it would be difficult for decision-makers properly to assess the likelihood of any risk materialising. It would also risk abusive suspensive claims being made on the basis of a risk of harm that does not currently exist or that may not materialise until months or even years after a person has been removed from the United Kingdom.
Amendment 130 would also remove the requirement for the risk of harm to be irreversible. This would significantly lower the threshold for a serious harm suspensive claim to succeed and undermine the purpose of the Bill to deter illegal entry to the United Kingdom. Again, I would point out that the test applied by the Strasbourg court when considering applications for Rule 39 interim measures is one of serious and irreversible harm. So, the serious harm condition and requirement for the risk of harm to be both serious and irreversible reflects that test.
Lastly, Amendment 130 would also remove specific examples of harm that do not or are unlikely to constitute serious and irreversible harm. Setting out a clear approach regarding the interpretation of serious harm on the face of the Bill will, I suggest to noble Lords, ensure that decision-makers and the courts take a consistent approach in their consideration of what amounts to a risk of serious and irreversible harm. The examples in Clause 38(5) reflect existing case law and go no further than how we currently approach the consideration of these issues when raised in protection claims.
Amendment 131 would prevent amendments to the examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm set out in Clause 38(4), as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, so eloquently set out. I assure the House that the Government do not intend to diminish or remove the examples of harm listed in Clause 38(4).
Amendment 132 would remove the regulation-making power in Clause 39 to amend the meaning of “serious and irreversible harm”. This would result in the Secretary of State being unable to make amendments which reflect developments in case law. It is worth again pointing out that the Delegated Powers Committee raised no issue with this power in its report on the Bill.
Amendment 133 would alter the requirement for a serious harm suspensive claim to include “compelling” evidence of the risk of harm that a person would face if removed to a third country and replace it with a requirement to provide evidence that is “reliable, substantial and material”. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks on the clarity of those three words, which, of course, will be available in Hansard should any questions arise as to what might amount to “compelling”.
However, although evidence that is compelling may also be defined as evidence that is reliable, substantial and material, a requirement for evidence to be compelling is more appropriate and succinct, given that it is the overall impact of the evidence provided, not any particular element or feature of it, that is relevant. The term “compelling” is sufficiently clear and well understood by decision-makers, and should remain unaltered. It is a term that has use in this area of the law. For example, evidence provided by people raising suspensive claims may differ dramatically in terms of volume and substance, but it is the overall impact of such evidence that is crucial when determining whether any claim has merit. For those reasons, the term “compelling” is more appropriate, providing decision-makers and the courts with the right degree of flexibility when making decisions on suspensive claims and appeals.
Finally, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, seek to extend the claim and decision periods provided for in Clauses 41 and 45. We consider the periods specified in the Bill to be fair and equitable, affording sufficient time to submit and determine claims, commensurate with the Bill’s objective to remove people swiftly from the United Kingdom. However, I remind the noble Baroness that, where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so, it will be possible to extend both the claim period and the decision period.
For the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully ask that the noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am afraid he has not answered my request for an assurance at all, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Etherton
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to amend section 38 by regulation by making provision about the meaning of “serious and irreversible harm”.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
“(a) that the person does not meet the removal conditions, or(b) that the person meets the removal conditions.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 3.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 3.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“(b) in the case of a removal conditions suspensive claim, the person does not meet the removal conditions,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1 and page 41, line 3.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
“(b) in relation to a removal conditions suspensive claim, whether the person meets the removal conditions.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1 and pageusb 41, line 3.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 3.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I suggest that Report be adjourned until not before 8.24 pm.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has suggested that the House adjourn now. We normally have our dinner break around 7.30 pm, I accept that, but I wonder if it would be convenient for the House to continue with the next group, which is a voting group, and then all sides could release their Members.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we had Agreement with the usual channels. I know the Labour group often wants to break at 7.30 pm. I do not wish to have a dispute at the Dispatch Box but I ask that the noble Lord stick with the agreement that we had earlier and return no later than 8.25 pm.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, if the noble Baroness wants to have the dinner break now, that is fine, but I think we should move a Motion that allows that if the business finishes a bit earlier then the House could come back a bit earlier, rather than a rigid arrangement.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that sometimes the dinner break business finishes a bit earlier, and if it does then I am happy that Report resumes then. But the time given for a Statement is usually 40 minutes, and that is exactly what I am giving for the Statement today. That is in the Standing Orders.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I entirely accept the point that it is normally 40 minutes. However, if it finishes earlier then we should move a Motion that will allow us to come back a bit earlier, rather than saying “no earlier than”.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I suggest that we have been arguing for two minutes. Can we just do the Statement in the normal way and leave 40 minutes for it?
Mental Health In-patient Services: Improving Safety
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the announcement in this Statement that the inquiry to investigate the deaths of mental health in-patients across Essex between 2000 and 2020, chaired by Dr Strathdee, will now be given vital statutory powers. This is an important and long overdue development. Not only have the grieving families suffered the pain and anguish of bereavement, and how they have felt in their fight for answers over so many years, but all of this has been compounded by an inquiry that lacked the necessary powers to seek the truth. It would be helpful for your Lordships’ House if the Minister could shed some light on why it has taken so long to allow the inquiry to do its job thoroughly.
More broadly, and connected with this issue, are repeated scandals in in-patient mental health settings involving abuse, dehumanising behaviour and needless loss of life, such that more than one in three people say they do not have faith that a loved one would be safe if they needed mental health care in a hospital. How will the Government seek to restore essential public confidence?
The situation set out in the Statement is against a backdrop of some 1.6 million people on waiting lists for mental health treatment. Their condition is deteriorating and can reach crisis point. At the same time, the incidence of poor mental health continues to rise. Those in poverty or financial difficulty are particularly at risk, to mention just one group. With the cost of living crisis continuing unabated and children from the poorest 20% of households four times more likely to develop serious mental health difficulties by the age of 11 when compared with the wealthiest 20%, this is an upward and unequal trend that the Government have to tackle. I hope the Minister can comment on how this will be properly dealt with.
I will pick up some particular aspects. Families of patients in Essex will welcome the news that this inquiry will be put on a statutory footing, but across the country those failed by inadequate mental health services are in desperate need of answers and need change. In March 2022 the CQC released its Out of Sight report to identify what progress the Government have made in addressing the culture, behaviour and design of services for patients in mental health in-patient settings. Will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations in full?
If we are to bring about change, it is very important that the rapid review of data in mental health in-patient settings translates into action and the report does not simply sit on a shelf in the department. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House when the Government’s response to the review will be published and whether he will set out a timetable for when the recommendations are to be implemented?
Over the past year there has been a flurry of reports, as we know only too well in this House, of patients being failed in the care of mental health trusts around the country. Have Ministers actually met the leaders of those trusts to find out what has gone wrong? If not, do they plan to meet and when?
The Government have shelved the 10-year mental health strategy and, despite promises first made in 2018 to reform the outdated Mental Health Act, legislation has repeatedly been delayed. The Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill published recommendations for improving legislation in January, but thus far Ministers have still not responded to the report and the Bill is yet to be introduced to the House of Commons. Will the Minister please update the House on when it can be expected?
When it comes to mental health, taking a preventive approach would mean fewer patients needing to use in-patient services in future. Have the Government considered shifting the system towards prevention by providing mental health support in every school, for example, and a mental health hub for young people in every community? Ensuring that there are enough staff to provide adequate services is vital to improving patient outcomes, so can the Minister say some more about what plans the Government have to retain staff, to recruit new staff and to expand access to mental health treatment? I look forward to hearing from the Minister on these points.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to have an opportunity to discuss mental health provision, and my comments will very much follow on from those of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. We are also interested in the Government’s latest thinking about the draft mental health Bill. Now that the workforce plan is out—we will discuss it tomorrow—our new refrain may be, “When will the Government get on with the mental health Bill?”. It is long overdue, and a huge amount of work has gone in that is clearly fundamental to trying to deal with some of the structural issues.
Turning to some of the issues raised in the Statement, I first want to ask about people’s journeys when they are in need of mental health support. The Statement said that 111 will now provide mental health advice, which is very welcome, but can I ask the Minister for his thoughts on what is happening in primary care? My understanding is that at the moment mental health nursing provision is not a requirement of all general practices—some offer it and others do not. Can the Minister, who I know cares about joined-up, seamless services, give us some insights into the Government’s thinking on ensuring that people who present with mental health problems to general practice—which is the first port of call for many of them, before they even get to 111 or 999—see more consistency of support available at that level?
Thinking about the review—a major part of what is in the Statement—a significant proportion of providers of mental health in-patient services are private sector, which has been the case for some time. Can the Minister confirm that they will be included in the review and comment on whether the inspectorate’s powers will be applied equally to the private and public sectors? That is critical to understanding what is happening in all settings.
Will the Minister also talk a little about the input the review may get from related services? Again, we know that the police, local authorities and accident and emergency departments often pick up the pieces where mental health provision has not been made available. Can the Minister assure us that the review will also look at all those other parties to this journey of care that people require? Can he also comment on the data questions? I have seen evidence from freedom of information requests to the Office for National Statistics asking about deaths of people in mental health in-patient settings. My understanding is that the data is not recorded consistently. If we are to have a review and to understand what is happening in the mental health sector, it would be helpful to know what measures the Government will take to improve the consistency of data collection so that, when someone unfortunately suffers a tragic incident, we know where they were at the time and have the data available to build up the national pattern.
The final issue I want to ask for the Minister’s comments on is out-of-area placements. Will he acknowledge that it remains a serious issue that many people with serious mental health conditions are able to get treatment only in places that are far from home and therefore far from their families and support networks? I note from the Statement that the Government are providing three new hospitals. This is of course welcome, but I hope the Minister will also be able to confirm that there is a locality-based strategy, with the Government thinking hard about matching local facilities to local need so that we can end the situation in which people at a time of extreme distress are sent very far away from home, which can only add to the crisis they are facing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their questions and their general welcome for the Statement. On timing, we had hoped that doing it on a non-statutory basis would have been sufficient. The advantage is that you get the results that much quicker; you can often get them within a year, versus three years. We have many examples of where it has worked quite well, such as the Kirkup report. To answer the question of why it is taking so long, in the first place we had hoped that doing it on a statutory basis would not have been necessary. There was a course correction in January, when we were not getting the response we needed and not enough staff were making themselves accessible. There was some improvement at that point, but it was felt by the chair that it was not sufficient, hence the decision now.
We believe that we can build on the work that has been done so far, so we are not starting again from zero. However, there are some lessons. On a number of occasions, trusts and staff have responded well to a non-statutory inquiry, but we have learned from this that sometimes it needs to have the teeth of a statutory inquiry so that it is taken seriously enough. Somehow, there was an impression that, because the inquiry was not statutory, it was not seen as serious enough to trigger that. There is a key lesson to learn from all of that.
How we can seek to restore confidence is absolutely the right question to be asking. We believe that the additional investment of £2.3 billion that we are putting into this space is a key part of that, and the increase of 27,000 staff is another. We are learning from the reviews that we are doing, and we are quickly learning from the rapid review. We are working fast, so I cannot give an exact date for those results. We asked for it to be a rapid review so that we could get on with it and make the most of the findings.
The other key part of this is the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch. We are asking it to look into a number of questions, one of those being out-of-area in-patients and the impact that has. I think we all agree that it is best if people can have in-patient services locally. That is one of the key parts that it will be asked to review. On the timing of that review, it will start in October and should be able to conclude within a year. We should get results back quite quickly.
On the timing of the mental health Bill, we are working through the parliamentary calendar now. We do not know the timings yet, but the scheduling is being looked at.
The noble Baroness mentioned the prevention agenda. I completely agree that care in the community and the training of staff in GP settings and schools are vital to this. As noble Lords have heard me say at the Dispatch Box before, we are making good progress: about 35% of schools are trained up in mental health support. Last year it was only 24% and next year we think we will be pushing 50%. Those are big increases, but I freely accept that 50% is not 100%. A lot of progress is being made in that area but we accept that a lot more needs to be done.
As for the private sector being included in the review, I have every reason to think that it should be and that there should be equal powers, but I will check that. I am talking off the top of my head now as it seems perfectly sensible, but I will come back properly on that.
I will do likewise with the comments on the recording of and use of data. Again, one of the rapid review findings was that we do not have enough real-time data. That is very much the direction of travel but, again, I will come back with more detail. As ever, noble Lords will know that I like to bring all these things together in a lengthy letter where I hope I am able to cover any points I did not cover here.
There are steps in the right direction, and the investment I talked about is another step in the right direction. I completely agree with the emphasis that it is vital we restore confidence in this area.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I would like to begin the questions, as chair of the recent Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill. I say to my noble friend the Minister that we accept—I accept, certainly—that this Government are committed to improving mental health care across England. However, there is a strong sense of disappointment. Having published this report on 15 January, after a huge amount of work—I am proud to say it was an incredibly collegiate cross-party committee, across both Houses, and we came up with 55 recommendations with great care—we have had one short note from the Minister in another place, Maria Caulfield MP. It said that there was much consideration going on, and obviously both the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice are involved. The note said the response was in an advanced state and that we would be hearing from her in due course. However, we are now in July.
I believe it is hugely important that the Government demonstrate, rather more than they have so far, their commitment to improvements across the piece in mental health care. We are in a good place on support, but that support will wane unless the Government can really show commitment. I know there is an issue with the parliamentary timetable and so on, but the Government could at least respond to our 55 recommendations.
In addition, I have suggested to the Secretary of State a couple of things that could be done prior to legislation—in fact, a number of things in our report could be implemented without primary legislation. For example, on 26 February, I was actually quite unwell but I still met some civil servants at the Department of Health to discuss an incredible app that has already been developed for the palliative care world to support people in crisis. This app could be easily translated at very reasonable cost to support people having a mental health crisis. I was accompanied by—
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
A question is coming. I was accompanied by a brilliant consultant, Julia Riley. She has not even had a cursory note of thanks from those civil servants. Could the Minister therefore please respond by giving a little more detail on the timing? Could he also let me know whether there has been any progress on developing that particular app? I would also like to know about the implementation of safe places, where people can go when they are in crisis.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her tireless work in this space. We believe that a number of constructive points were made in the committee report, which I know Maria Caulfield is working on and looking to get a timely response to. Maybe that is something on which we can meet up and discuss later.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I raise the issue of the mental well-being of men from black and Asian backgrounds. I particularly raise the issue of the care they are receiving at the hands of very poorly qualified, untrained, unsympathetic people, who do not adequately understand the complexity not just of mental health and well-being but the way that they should be operating. They are not working in tandem with the families, which is one of the requirements. There have been suggestions from a number of community organisations that black and Asian men are four times more likely to be detained, and sometimes it is more than likely that there has not been any consultation with their families, which is one of the prerequisites. Can the Minister assure this House that any formal forward-thinking and examination of these issues is looking at the disproportionality of the effects and the causes of very poor services, particularly for men from black and Asian minority backgrounds?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, we are very aware of the points made very well by the noble Baroness, including some of the stats on the community treatment orders and the fact, I believe, that if you are a black male, you are eight times more likely to be detained. I know that that led to some of the recommendations from the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. I can give an undertaking that that will be fundamental to what we are trying to do here.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement, but I will raise two issues. First, it seems that several different bodies will look at what the problem is, yet the ombudsman has just said that it is absolutely imperative that
“The Department of Health and Social Care should commission an independent review of what an effective set of patient safety oversight bodies would look like”.
Could the Minister comment on how that will be considered in tandem with the proposals outlined in the Statement?
Secondly, will the proposals look at a safe staffing model for all in-patient mental health services? In fact, in-patient services are really looking after only those people who have severe mental health problems; they are almost the equivalent of an intensive care unit in a general hospital. Increasingly, staff do not have time for proper continuity of handover when they leave shifts, and that needs to be examined. It is relatively easy to describe somebody’s blood pressure and blood stats in an intensive care unit as you hand over in a general area, but to describe the complexities you have been working with, for example with somebody who has severe schizophrenia and is deluded and paranoid, takes a good 10 minutes in a handover. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on how we will look at ensuring that that is considered when measuring safe staffing.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. The points she rightly makes are exactly what we believe is the remit of the new HSSIB review starting from October. One of the specific points is about developing safe therapeutic staffing models for all mental health in-patient services. I think and hope that the exact points raised by the noble Baroness will be addressed by the review.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s draft mental health Bill proposes—and I and the Joint Committee support this—the banning of prisons as a place of safety and the transfer of patients within 28 days of the mental health assessment to a safe mental health secure unit. Will the Minister ensure that this is included in the national review, so that there are sufficient local safe secure facilities to implement the 28-day recommendation and that these patients are cared for in genuine places of safety?
Lord Markham (Con)
I understand the concern brought, quite rightly, by the noble Lord. It would be best for me to write on that, so that I can give the specific position and he can have the detail he requires.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee. We heard compelling evidence from the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody that, although there is always an inquest into an unexplained death, there is the unique situation where if you die detained, in effect, by the state but in a secure mental health institution—as opposed to a prison, police cell or immigration detention centre—there is no independent investigative body to investigate the circumstances around your death. Given that this independent inquiry will look at a series of deaths over 20 years, will it be within its remit to look at whether or not, had there been some kind of independent investigation of those deaths, the themes and problems faced by the trust might have been spotted earlier?
Lord Markham (Con)
We see that as being very much in the remit of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. In fact, the first thing we are asking it to do is to consider how we can learn from those unfortunate deaths, where they have taken place, in terms of their care. The intention is that it will report back. It will start in October and will report back on that within a year, so that we can get some rapid findings.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister return to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins? I note that the HSSIB has been asked to look at and develop a safe staffing model for in-patient services, but I re-emphasise the point made by the noble Baroness: you cannot look at in-patient services only; you have to look at the whole spectrum. Surely, he accepts that. For instance, with young people, the huge waiting times for CAMHS services, which eventually lead to some of them being out-of-area placements, is shocking. Surely, HSSIB should be looking at the whole picture. Can he also say how this will relate to the workforce plan? In other words, will the conclusions of HSSIB’s report go forward into the workforce plan, so that for the future we are developing enough people in the mental health field?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the second thing that the HSSIB is being asked to look at is exactly the point about how people are cared for as in-patients and how we can improve that approach. On staffing—again, we will debate this more tomorrow night following the Statement repeat—it is vital that there is a feedback loop in terms of the long-term workforce plan. That feedback loop, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, is built into it, so that when new data comes along, as will potentially be the case with the HSSIB, there is a way for that to feed back in again.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I will follow on from the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. Until 2015, I chaired the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody, which covered the more high-profile areas of deaths in police and prison custody. However, the largest number of deaths under the care of the state was in mental health institutions. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, asked about independent investigations and the Minister said that the review will look at what lessons can be drawn. The point is, however, that over the last 20 to 30 years, there have not been independent investigations into the individual deaths, so how will there be an evidence base to decide whether proper lessons were drawn at the time and whether those were acted on?
Secondly, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath talked about the difficulties with CAMHS. There is a gulf at age 18 between people being treated under CAMHS and then going into adult mental health services. What are the Government doing to bridge that gap? People who may have received some support from CAMHS then lose it when they go into the adult sector.
Finally—I know I should not ask three questions, but I want to—one of the striking things about the number of deaths that occurred in mental health institutions is that many arose from physical causes. It was not about people committing suicide or their mental health crisis; it was the fact that in a hospital, a place of medical provision, they were not getting adequate physical healthcare. What are the Government doing about that?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his commitment in this area over the years. With regard to the first question about past evidence, clearly the HSSIB will be looking at what evidence exists. As the noble Lord said, some investigations go back 30 years, so there will not always be circumstances where it can pick out that evidence, unfortunately. However, where there is that information, we are trying to make sure that we pull it out and learn from it. That is very much the direction of travel. Clearly, if part of the HSSIB’s findings is that we need to make sure that every death in such circumstances is investigated under a certain pathway, then I am sure that will come into its recommendations. In terms of the other questions, I think it is best that I write to the noble Lord, if I may.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement includes a number of themes which it is expected the new Health Services Safety Investigations Body will consider. Not included in that list, however, is the growing role of private provision in NHS mental health care services. This is something that patient groups and others are expressing considerable concerns about. Take, for example, the Priory, where the Care Quality Commission reported that the number of deaths at its sites rose nearly 50% from 2017 to 2020. One of those was the tragic death of 23 year-old Matthew Caseby. An inquest jury concluded that his death was contributed to by neglect, and the coroner issued a prevention of future death report because of continuing risks.
The Priory Group earns more than £400 million from the NHS, and much more from social services. It is now owned by a Dutch private equity firm after it was sold by its former owner at a loss and is financed by a sale and leaseback deal of 35 properties with rents subjected to annual inflation-based escalators. Through the mechanisms in this Statement or others, are the Government going to consider the risks presented by private ownership—particularly private equity ownership—of mental health care services?
Lord Markham (Con)
As noble Lords are aware from some of my previous answers, I think the key thing is the quality of output rather than the ownership of an institution. Around the House, we have very good examples of where we believe the Government need the help of the independent sector to increase supply and capacity. That always needs to be done with the right quality of regulatory regime, and that is what we have put in place. From my point of view, I am always going to be looking at the quality of the output and not the ownership of a company.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, on the Minister’s last observation, I think there are a number of noble Lords here who would say that the quality of the output has not been that great from some private providers. It is just an observation.
However, the question I want to ask will take us back to the original observations by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe—I was also a member of the Joint Committee. The Minister gave a very brief reply to her questions about what has happened to the many recommendations, the vast amount of evidence and a great deal of hard work that went into producing that report. He even mentioned that it was going to be responded to in a “timely” manner. I think the moment for that has passed. Will the Minister have another go at explaining what has happened to the report and when there will be a response to it?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am afraid I do not have the timing of a response on that. Minister Caulfield is very engaged in this area. A number of things have been mentioned. I mentioned the community treatment orders, where we are very mindful of the point made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, about black males being eight times more likely to be given one, and the recommendation that they should be abolished altogether. Those recommendations are very much in our thinking and our knowledge base. I know that Maria Caulfield is working on them, but I am afraid I cannot give the noble Baroness an exact time yet.
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 3rd July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 148-III Third marshalled list for Report - (3 Jul 2023)
20:41 - Division on Amendment 152 - Ayes: 153 / Noes: 128 - Amendment 152 agreed.
Baroness Chakrabarti
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, the rule of law requires that Ministers are subject to the same rules as everyone else. This includes the possibility of discretionary interim relief in circumstances where courts believe that irreparable harm to one side in any litigation needs to be prevented while both parties await the final determination of an issue. Some noble Lords, including businesspeople and their lawyers, are perhaps more familiar with commercial than human rights litigation. However, the same principle applies. If I propose to dump or destroy the precious cargo entrusted to me because of alleged breaches by my customer, a court must obviously have the power to delay such drastic action pending crucial determinations of fact and law.
However, Clauses 53 and 54 would, first, completely oust the ability of UK courts to issue interim injunctions temporarily preventing a person’s expulsion to potential peril. Secondly, they would allow Ministers to ignore interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights, of the kind issued in the Rwanda case and those currently in place to prevent Russia executing Ukrainian prisoners of war. My Amendments 152 and 153 would remove these clauses, so as to respect domestic courts and the Strasbourg court. They are in no way wrecking amendments, as these courts only very rarely issue such measures against trustworthy, law-respecting jurisdictions such as we have been historically.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ludford, who is unable to be here today, has her name to these amendments so I am speaking on her behalf, as it were, and on behalf of these Benches.
I make the general point that interim relief is an intrinsic and sensible part of our law. Injunctions are generally to prevent something happening, to maintain the status quo until there can be thorough consideration of a case. It is that way round because the person who wants to prevent that something happening is at risk of an action which would have a major effect on him—the other way round does not work in the same way. In this case, the action—removal from the UK —would effectively be the end of the story for the claimant and, if not that, it would at least make pursuit of claim from outside the UK very difficult indeed. That is quite different from the depiction we heard last week of a witness on a video link from another room or another building with all the normal support and access to his representatives.
This afternoon, I received an email from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law—I stress “Bingham” and “rule of law”; noble Lords will note that title—with quite a long summary of a report on this subject which I understand is to be published tomorrow. It concludes that although improvements could be made to the process in the European Court of Human Rights, they do not affect the court’s jurisdiction to indicate binding interim measures. It makes the point that, when states signed up to the European convention, they expressly accepted that:
“In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide”.
So as not to detain your Lordships from making another trip to increase your steps through the Lobbies this evening, I will not read the whole of the summary. However, I make the point that the UK Government have proactively promoted the binding force of interim measures, advocating that other states, such as Russia, treat them as binding and comply with them. Given the provenance of that advice, I take it—and I hope your Lordships take it—very seriously.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I hope that the Minister when he speaks in a moment will explain what this is intended to deal with. It is only specific to these circumstances; is it that a certain number of lawyers are making a certain amount of money and he thinks that that is not helpful to the policy that the Government intend to put forward?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti in her defence of the rule of law and interim relief in cases involving the alleged expulsion of people to unsafe places. The Government were happy to support the court’s decision not to grant such relief in the current Rwanda cases, but now they want to take away this jurisdiction, forcing more applicants to Strasbourg pending a final UK judicial determination. If the Government are right that Strasbourg interim measures are not binding, Clause 54 is unnecessary. If the European Court of Human Rights is correct that they are binding, our amended Clause 1 should be enough to safeguard international law. With respect to those comments, I urge my noble friend if she is so minded to test the opinion of the House on her Amendment 152, which we would support rather than Amendment 153.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, the Bill establishes a bespoke claims and appeals process which provides for a person subject to the duty to remove to challenge their removal to a safe third country. The duty to remove will be temporarily suspended while consideration is given to any suspensive claim or appeal resulting from the refusal of that suspensive claim. That is of itself an effective remedy for those subject to the duty to remove, and these measures will ensure that all suspensive claims raised in response to a removal notice under the Bill will receive full judicial scrutiny.
Clause 53 is critical to the success of the Bill in preventing the United Kingdom’s domestic courts from granting interim remedies in relation to legal challenges which would prevent or delay the removal of a person who meets the removal conditions under Clause 2. Were other human rights claims and legal challenges to be made, they would be considered after a person has been removed. Clause 53 provides a necessary and effective safeguard against the endless merry-go-round of legal challenges that those with no right to be here use to thwart their removal.
Amendment 152 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would incentivise people to obtain injunctions or submit judicial reviews to delay or prevent removal, negating the carefully crafted and balanced provisions we have set out in the Bill, which I have just described. We cannot allow that to happen. The amendment would substantially undermine the Government’s ability promptly to remove those who enter the UK illegally, and our overall objective of stopping the dangerous small-boat crossings.
Amendment 153 similarly seeks to weaken the Bill by striking out Clause 54, which relates to interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights. Let me be clear: it is not the Government’s intention to ignore a Rule 39 interim measure. Indeed, Clause 54 provides a clear framework for a Minister to exercise discretion where a Rule 39 interim measure is indicated. That will mean that a Minister may suspend removal in response to a Rule 39 interim measure but, crucially, is not bound by UK law so to do. This will be dependent on the facts of each case.
As I have said before, the Government take their international obligations very seriously. Nothing in the clause requires the Government to act in breach of international law. I reassure the noble Baroness that reflections within the Strasbourg court are ongoing, and we are closely following the process. We are confident that they will lead to meaningful change.
The inclusion of Clause 54 in the Bill reflects our concerns about the interim measures process. We believe that there needs to be greater transparency and fairness in the process to ensure the proper administration of justice. We cannot allow our ability to control our borders to be undermined by an opaque process which does not give the United Kingdom Government a formal opportunity to make representations or appeal the decision. This process risks derailing our efforts to tackle the people smugglers and stop people from making the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary journeys across the channel.
For the reasons I have set out, I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and, if she is minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 152 or 153, I strongly urge noble Lords to reject the amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am so grateful to all noble Lords who have stayed. I say to all noble Lords that the length of debate does not indicate its importance. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his indication that productive discussions are still in train between His Majesty’s Government and the Strasbourg jurisdiction; I take from that a suggestion to reinforce my suspicion that Clause 54 was always a negotiating position to attempt to improve the due process position in relation to interim measures in the Strasbourg court. On that basis, I want to allow the Government more time to proceed with those negotiations before Third Reading.
However, in relation to Clause 53 and my Amendment 152, on depriving His Majesty’s domestic judges of the inherent jurisdiction to grant interim relief, that jurisdiction does not come from any government or party statute; it comes from the common law. To deprive His Majesty’s judges of the ability to grant interim relief is anathema to our common-law system. With gratitude, again, to all noble Lords who stayed—perhaps even more to those who did not speak than to those who did—I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bellamy
“(6) The Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. 10)) is amended in accordance with subsections (7) and (8).(7) In Article 14 (decisions about provision of funded services), after paragraph (2A) insert—“(2AA) But paragraph (2A) does not apply to a grant of representation for the purposes of—(a) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal mentioned in paragraph 2(ic) of Schedule 2 (proceedings under or for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023),(b) proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under or by virtue of section 2AA of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (jurisdiction: appeals in relation to the Illegal Migration Act 2023), or under rules under section 5 of that Act made for the purposes of that section, or(c) an appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in respect of proceedings mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) or (b).”(8) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 (civil legal services: exceptions to excluded services), after paragraph (ib) insert—“(ic) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal under any of sections 43 to 48 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, or under Tribunal Procedure Rules made for the purposes of any of those sections,(id) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal on an application for judicial review within the meaning of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (see section 4(6) of that Act), where the application relates to that Act,”(9) The Civil Legal Services (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R. (N.I.) 2015 No. 195) are amended in accordance with subsections (10) to (14).(10) In regulation 2 (interpretation), in the definition of “representation (higher courts)”, in paragraph (f), after “2(ib)” insert “, (ic) or (id)”.(11) In regulation 31 (applications for advice and assistance)—(a) in paragraph (1), after “Subject to” insert “paragraph (1A) and”,(b) after paragraph (1), insert—“(1A) An application for advice and assistance may be made to a supplier by an applicant by telephone where the applicant is being detained under paragraph 16(2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention under authority of immigration officer for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023) or section 62(2A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention under authority of Secretary of State for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023).”, and(c) in paragraph (3), after “except where” insert “paragraph (1A),” (12) In regulation 32 (extensions)—(a) in paragraph (1), for “paragraph (2)” substitute “paragraphs (2) and (2A)”, and(b) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) No extension shall be required under paragraph (1) if the advice and assistance is advice and assistance mentioned in regulation 4(1)(n) of the Financial Regulations (advice and assistance relating to removal notices under the Illegal Migration Act 2023).”(13) In regulation 41 (applications for certificates)—(a) in paragraph (2), after “Subject to” insert “paragraph (2A) and”,(b) after paragraph (2), insert—“(2A) An application for a certificate under this Part may be made to a supplier by an applicant by telephone where the applicant is being detained under paragraph 16(2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention under authority of immigration officer for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023) or section 62(2A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention under authority of Secretary of State for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023).”,(c) in paragraph (3), after “The applicant shall” insert “, except where paragraph (2A) applies,”, and(d) in paragraph (3)(b), after “met” insert “(where they apply)”.(14) In regulation 43 (determination of applications for certificates)—(a) in paragraph (1), for “paragraph (2)” substitute “paragraphs (2) and (3)”, and(b) after paragraph (2) insert—“(3) But paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to an application for a certificate in respect of—(a) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal mentioned in paragraph 2(ic) of Schedule 2 to the Order (proceedings under or for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023),(b) proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under or by virtue of section 2AA of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (jurisdiction: appeals in relation to the Illegal Migration Act 2023), or under rules under section 5 of that Act made for the purposes of that section, or(c) an appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in respect of proceedings mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) or (b).”(15) In regulation 4 of the Civil Legal Services (Financial) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R. (N.I.) 2015 No. 196) (exceptions from requirement to make a determination in respect of an individual's financial resources)—(a) in paragraph (1), after sub-paragraph (m) insert—“(n) advice and assistance provided to an individual who has received a removal notice, in relation to the removal notice, and such advice and assistance—(i) includes advice and assistance in relation to a suspensive claim relating to the removal notice, and an application under section 45(4) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 as regards such a claim, but(ii) does not include advice and assistance in relation to an application for judicial review within the meaning of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (see section 4(6) of that Act) relating to the removal notice;(o) representation in respect of—(i) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal mentioned in paragraph 2(ic) of Schedule 2 to the Order (proceedings under or for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023), (ii) proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under or by virtue of section 2AA of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (jurisdiction: appeals in relation to the Illegal Migration Act 2023), or under rules under section 5 of that Act made for the purposes of that section, or(iii) an appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in respect of proceedings mentioned in paragraph (i) or (ii).”(b) in paragraph (3), at the appropriate places insert—““removal notice” has the meaning given by section 37 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023;”““suspensive claim” has the meaning given by section 37 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about legal aid in Northern Ireland for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, Clause 55 will ensure that individuals who receive a removal notice under the Bill have access to free legal advice. The clause at present applies only to England and Wales. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, properly asked what the position is regarding Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government advise that legislative provision is not required to ensure persons issued with a removal notice can access free legal advice in Scotland. Legislative changes are required, however, in Northern Ireland. Amendment 154 ensures analogous provision in Northern Ireland to that already applicable to those seeking legal advice in England and Wales. It is simply an extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Bill. That is the content of government Amendment 154. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has an amendment in this group and I defer to him at this point. I beg to move.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 155, which is in the same terms as it was in Committee. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Prashar, and of course to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for putting their names to this amendment and adding some lustre to it. I am also grateful for a superb briefing note from Bail for Immigration Detainees, ILPA and the Public Law Project.
In my view, ensuring that those who are detained have legal advice at an early stage is of fundamental importance. Obviously and above all, it is important to the detainees themselves, but it is also important to the reputation of our much-vaunted legal system. I ask the House to think about it for a moment: the proposition that, in our country, any person, whether adult, child, pregnant woman or victim of trafficking, can be deprived of their liberty and, at the same time, of proper legal advice is horrific, unconscionable and unconstitutional.
Clause 55 provides for insufficient access to civil legal services. It is concerned with free legal advice and representation only in relation to removal notices. It makes access contingent upon receipt of a removal notice and does not ensure that the necessary services will be made available shortly after a person has been detained. I remind the House that there is no set timeframe in the Bill for the Home Secretary to serve a removal notice under Clause 7. It is therefore not unrealistic to suggest that an individual could be left to linger in detention for days and even weeks before a removal notice is served by the Home Secretary and thus before they are able to access legal aid under Clause 55. Accordingly, the Bill does not provide for people trapped in its provisions assurance of access to free civil legal services before a removal notice has been served on them.
Clause 55 also does nothing to address the reality that it is practically impossible for many people to access legal aid under existing entitlements. There are, as I think the House knows, vast numbers of unrepresented individuals seeking asylum and in detention due to the current unsustainability of and lack of capacity within the immigration and asylum legal aid sector.
Our Amendment 155 introduces a new clause—a duty to make legal aid available to detained persons, which would address this issue in England and Wales by supplementing what the Government intend to achieve in their Clause 55. It would place a duty on the Lord Chancellor to make civil legal aid available to detained persons in relation to already in-scope judicial review and immigration matters, and suspensive claims, within 48 hours of their detention. This is crucial, given that the Bill gives the Home Secretary wide powers to detain families indefinitely, to detain children who are alone and to detain vulnerable people such as pregnant women, while also placing a duty on the Home Secretary to remove them, with short timeframes to make suspensive claims with compelling evidence to prevent such removal.
I hardly need to remind this House of Parliament that the provision of legal aid is a key component of ensuring the constitutional right of access to justice—itself inherent in the rule of law. The courts have repeatedly upheld the principle that a failure to provide legal aid can amount to a breach of fundamental rights. Legal aid is essential to ensure that people without means can secure effective access to justice and redress.
So why is this amendment needed? As I think the House knows, legal aid was, in effect, decimated in this area of law by the legal aid cuts of 2013. Most non-asylum immigration matters are excluded, which has damaged the entire immigration and legal aid sector and the ability of everyone, including individuals seeking asylum and those in detention, to access reliable, quality legal aid immigration advice. Immigration law is highly complex and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to navigate without a lawyer.
It is unrealistic to believe that individuals seeking asylum, who have just arrived in the UK and who may be traumatised or vulnerable and who may speak little or no English, can understand our complex laws and make effective representations without professional legal assistance. As stated by Lord Justice Underhill in last week’s decision on the Rwanda scheme, cases where decisions are fair and where there has been no access to legal assistance are “likely to be exceptional”. I pray that in aid of this amendment. Amendment 155 would help to secure timely access to legal assistance, which is crucial to the fairness of decision-making.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who moved this amendment with great skill. I am not going to make a long speech in support of him, because he does not need it. My observation, from refugees and asylum seekers whom I have met in a particular role during the last year, is that many complain that the legal advice they were able to obtain locally, wherever they were placed, was often not accurate, and they had to go through a second round of legal advice.
It is essential that people have access to competent, accurate and correct legal advice, or at least legal advice that might be correct, to enable them to challenge the case made against them. Many of the cohort of people we are talking about are numbed by the experience they have had. They did not expect to be treated as they have been by the United Kingdom. Perhaps, as the Government claim, one might argue that there are some good reasons for their being treated in that way, but to deprive them of the most basic legal advice will cause offence not only to lawyers in your Lordships’ House but to many others.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ludford has put her name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, which he explained very fully, and these Benches support. One often hears that immigration law is too complex for non-lawyers to understand—I have long held the view that it should not be—but, frankly, it is too complex for many lawyers as well. You need to be a specialist, and that is recognised by the system, but one still hears some horror stories.
The realities of legal advice for anyone in detention in the immigration system have long been bleak. There may be advice sessions but they are 30 minutes long, and it takes a long time for the client to be brought to meet the solicitor, which eats into the 30 minutes. Even with the most articulate client, it can take quite a long time to take instructions. I was a practising solicitor for many years and this cohort, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, consists of individuals whose English may be inadequate. Interpretation is therefore required, which is cumbersome and difficult for everyone. In any event, they have a story that takes support to tell, and that requires a lot in the telling.
Given the relentless speed of the processes under the Bill, this amendment is very necessary. The Government have recognised that legal aid has a place here, given what they have done so far in the Bill and the consultation on the rates. Raising concerns about legal aid became even more relevant with last week’s impact assessment, which drew attention to the problems of accessing legal aid and legal aid services, especially outside London and the south-east. We are very happy to support this amendment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am a Member of this House whose memory of legal aid probably goes back to before others were here. I was called to the Bar in 1963 and took an active part in legal aid, being not only a recipient of legal aid cases but sitting on legal aid committees. I view it as one of the great social achievements of the Labour Government ending in 1951, and it has been a matter of great sadness that its extent and benefit has been so diminished over the years.
We have here a very important need for legal aid. Most if not all of those needing legal aid will not be able to speak English, will have no knowledge of English law and will be left isolated without that assistance. For that reason, I strongly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Bach—although, most regrettably, he is not putting it to a Division.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I think the 1949 measure was a good measure following the Rushcliffe report. It had cross-party support then, and legal aid continues to have cross-party support.
I agree in principle with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that it would be a very good thing for us to be able to revisit the legal aid budget and ensure that many of the cuts, both to scope and to litigants, could be reviewed with a view to being more generous and trying to revisit the consequences of both the 1999 and the 2012 Acts. I am with the noble Lord there.
However, because we have seen such cuts right across the board and a reduction in scope across the board, I have concerns about this particular amendment for these cases unless and until we can grant similar support to many of the cases in this country that are left without support as a result of what has happened over more than 20 years. I know that noble Lords would say that this is a different case, but many of these cases are claims of great merit, but Governments have to make decisions. For my money, I would prefer to have a fair redistribution of the legal aid budget between people who have been cut out of it—many of whom would have been eligible right throughout the 20th century—and other cases that noble Lords have mentioned.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I open by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for moving government Amendment 154, which, as he said, includes Northern Ireland for the purposes of this Bill.
Regarding my noble friend Lord Bach’s Amendment 155, I agree with every word he has said. He introduced it by saying that legal advice is a fundamental right for the asylum seekers themselves. To address the point the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, made, it is about the way we should see ourselves as a country: making sure that people in the most desperate situation can avail themselves of the right to access our laws. The only way of doing that is with appropriate legal aid. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on the point he made, as well as with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Access to high-quality legal aid within 48 hours would increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the immigration and asylum system. With adequate legal aid, people would be better able to make timely claims, increasing efficiency within the Home Office and the justice system. They would know what evidence they needed to produce and understand their prospects of success to enable them to make an informed decision regarding whether and how to proceed with their claim.
Amendment 155 would build on current legal aid arrangements. I understand that a good precedent for this is the facility for people detained at police stations. When a person is taken to a police station and it is decided that there is no criminal element to their case, they are allowed to access an immigration lawyer to obtain immigration advice. The police call the duty solicitor call centre, and there are lawyers on a duty rota to take up the case, provide immigration advice and decide on the merits of the case. A new 48-hour system would involve allocating a solicitor to an individual upon them entering detention.
For these reasons, I support my noble friend Lord Bach and believe that his amendment is a necessary measure to ensure access to justice for those in the immigration and detention system. I urge the Minister—who has particular expertise, it has to be said, in the field of legal aid in the civil courts—to consider this as favourably as he can. I understand that there is a review under way, but the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Bach goes to the heart of the way that we, as a society, should treat the most vulnerable people when they come to our shores.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, clearly, the Government entirely accept that legal advice is fundamentally important in the present context. That is why we introduced Clause 55. The Government are well aware that, if the procedures for obtaining legal advice under the Bill are not appropriate, legal challenge will follow. That is constraint enough to ensure that those procedures are sufficient to ensure the system works as fairly as possible. That is the approach of the ministry and, as I will say in a moment, that is how we are developing procedures to ensure that appropriate legal advice is available, and why the Government, while entirely understanding the points that have been made, respectfully feel that Amendment 155 is not the correct way to achieve the desired result, which is certainly one that is shared by everyone: that there should be appropriate legal advice.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his comments on the importance of legal advice, and to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for the reservations that she expressed. In the longer run, the whole area of legal advice, not just on immigration, is for review, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, just said. The Government regard this as being at the heart of a fair justice system.
However, on this particular amendment, we already have established procedures, both at Manston and immigration removal centres, for individuals to access legal advice. I understand that, at Manston, there is scope for unlimited free phone calls to be made. There are notices and other bits of information about how you contact a lawyer: the names are given and the rotas change. Those procedures are there. Similarly, at immigration removal centres there is already a procedure similar to the police station procedure. It is not exactly the same, but there is the detained duty advice scheme, under which solicitors provides immigration advice on a rota system. That will be expanded as necessary. I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, say that people have sometimes been misadvised; I hope that will not happen in the future, because the Ministry of Justice is determined that the system to be introduced will be coherent, joined up and, above all, fair. That is what the House and the country would expect.
We are engaging closely with legal aid providers, and we believe that our proposed capacity-boosting measures will enable us to attract sufficient providers. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, observed, we are out to consultation on increasing fees for this kind of immigration work. An ongoing Legal Aid Agency tender has been out since March, I think, which I understand has had an encouraging response so far. We are seeing an uptick in providers coming forward. Those procedures remain to be completed and it remains to be seen exactly how that works out, but that is at least encouraging. Other key areas of focus include the provision of remote advice—that might well go some way towards addressing the problems in Lincolnshire, Norwich or wherever it happens to be, but I am given to understand that there will be on-site advice at immigration removal centres—paying for travel times for providers, and various options for signposting and connecting up individuals to ensure that they actually receive appropriate legal advice.
The Ministry of Justice is working very closely with the Home Office on the detail of this. It is a ministerial responsibility to follow closely and ensure that these measures cut the mustard, if I may use that expression, and come up to proof—to mix my metaphors somewhat dramatically. In that regard, and for those reasons, I invite the House to accept that Amendment 155 is not necessary because we are thoroughly on the case and our objective, which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, rightly drew attention to, is shared.
“Duty to make legal aid available to certain detained persons(1) The Lord Chancellor must secure that civil legal services in relation to—(a) a suspensive claim within the meaning of section 37(2) of this Act, and(b) any of the matters set out in paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 31A, 31C, 32 or 32A of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012are made available to any person who is detained under a relevant detention power within 48 hours of the day on which they are first detained under that power.(2) The Lord Chancellor may make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under subsection (1).(3) The duty under subsection (1) is subject to—(a) section 11 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (qualifying for civil legal aid) and any regulations made under that section, and(b) section 21 of that Act (financial resources) and any regulations made under that section.(4) In this section—“civil legal services” has the same meaning as in section 8 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012;“relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—(a) paragraph 16(2) or (2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal),(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation),(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by Secretary of State), or(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to make civil legal aid available to certain detained persons in relation to judicial review and immigration matters within 48 hours of their detention.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, as far as Amendment 155 is concerned, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this fairly short debate. The person who took much the longest was me, and I am not going to make any apology for that because this is an important subject in the context of the Bill.
Still, I thank everyone for their comments, not least the Minister himself, who I personally believe is quite sympathetic to the ideas put forward in this debate. I do not want to embarrass him unduly by going on, but he has been very helpful in discussions outside the Chamber. His contribution today was a little harsher than I had hoped, but we will see what the consultation does. I must say that much more active work will be needed by the department, perhaps over a period of time, before we get to a satisfactory position.
On parallels with other, existing schemes, it is important to realise that, as I understand it, many of them involve half-hour telephone conversations. It will not surprise the House to hear that half-hour telephone conversations are not satisfactory for people who do not speak good English and are perhaps extremely vulnerable at the time. Such conversations are not really enough and, as I say, many of them are on the phone rather than face to face.
Something the Government will have to think about is that the new establishments that we hear will house many of those who are detained, if and when the Bill becomes law, will be quite strange places, such as barges and places like Scampton. Getting legal advice into those places—and face to face is pretty important here —will cause quite a lot of problems for the Government. It will involve extra resource, as I think the Minister understands.
Tempted as I would normally be to test the opinion of the House, I appreciate that we are here pretty late after a full day, and I do not think the House would thank me for dividing it at this stage. That is not to say for a moment that the issues we have been debating for the last few minutes are not crucial to what sort of country we are. Detaining individuals—the state depriving people of their liberty—is an issue that this House has always taken incredibly seriously. Even though I am not going to press the amendment, and while I will not say that I am warning the Minister, he will not be surprised to hear me say that we will be coming back to this issue and watching very closely over the next few months to see how it develops.