Grand Committee
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
My Lords, we are not expecting any Divisions in the Chamber but, just in case there is one while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells ring and will resume 10 minutes later.
Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will also speak to the Representation of the People and Recall Petition (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 and the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023. I ask that the three statutory instruments, laid before the House on 6 July and 4 September, be approved. The changes set out in these instruments deliver on our manifesto commitment to protect the integrity of our democracy, as legislated for by Parliament through the Elections Act 2022.
I will set out the key provisions of the instruments, turning first to the Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. The Elections Act introduced a requirement to reapply for a postal vote at least every three years in Great Britain. This will help electors stay alert about the arrangements that they have in place, ensure that a person’s eligibility to vote by post is reviewed on a regular basis and reduce the risk of redundant postal ballots being issued. To make this transition as smooth as possible, this statutory instrument allows existing long-term postal voters’ arrangements in Great Britain to continue until 31 January 2026, giving those postal voters more time to make a fresh application under the new system.
Existing postal voters will be clear on when and how they need to make a new application, as electoral registration officers are required by the instrument to make those whose postal vote is due to expire aware in advance and outline the new application process. This will then remain an obligation on EROs for future postal voters. I appreciate that this will mean a change for long-term postal voters, but empowering them to stay informed and in control of their vote is a positive step. This measure will also help to prevent voters from being unduly pressured into having a postal vote and using it under duress.
There is concern that, under existing arrangements, electors can be coerced into appointing a proxy to control how they vote. The new arrangements will ensure that the scope for fraud is reduced by limiting the number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy. The instrument therefore introduces a limit to the number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy to four, of which no more than two can be domestic electors—that is, an elector who is not registered as an overseas or service voter. It will update all relevant prescribed forms to make sure that the new limits are set out.
This statutory instrument also introduces an identity check at the point of application or reapplication for a postal or proxy vote. The elector will be required to provide their national insurance number, which will be checked against DWP data, or, where they cannot, they will need to give a reason why as part of the application. Where an individual does not have a national insurance number, the electoral registration officer may request other specified documentary evidence or an attestation to demonstrate their identity. This process is one that electors are already familiar with and has been in place for the register to vote service since 2014.
The success of the register to vote service is an example of how we have made sure that our elections are modern and accessible. We are building on that work with this instrument. It creates a new digital route for electors in Great Britain to apply online to vote by post or by proxy. The digital service for applying for absent votes will be launched when the regulations come into force. I can assure noble Lords that, as was the case for the voter authority certificate service, the user journey and the administrator-facing portal are being carefully developed and will continue to be improved during the public beta phase to ensure that they meet the high standards expected of all government services.
The revisions of postal and proxy rules will apply to all elections reserved to the UK Government in Great Britain, as will the online application service. The proxy voting rules will also apply in Northern Ireland and the digital service will be introduced in Northern Ireland at a later time.
I turn now to the two statutory instruments making provisions specific to Northern Ireland elections. These instruments implement the same proxy limits as set out for elections in Northern Ireland. The Elections Act places a duty on the chief electoral officer to provide lists of dates of birth to polling stations in Northern Ireland for the purposes of checking a voter or proxy’s exact date of birth in specific circumstances.
These instruments ensure the protection of the sensitive personal information that the lists contain so that only the police and the courts may access them. Existing legislation allows the retention of entries on the Northern Ireland register following a canvass. This instrument extends that provision, which will avoid a cliff-edge loss of electors from the register. I assure your Lordships that data checking carried out by the chief electoral officer has given a high degree of confidence that the voters concerned are entitled to remain on the register. The Electoral Commission is supportive of extending the period of retention.
These two instruments will strengthen the integrity and security of our absent voting, while ensuring that our processes remain accessible for voters and in step with modern standards. I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive introduction. We have to think about the context in which we are considering these statutory instruments. I will contain my remarks to the first one, about postal and proxy voting overall.
The context is that, just this month, the Electoral Commission’s report on the May elections noted that there had been a significant exclusion of people who wanted to vote from being able to vote by the process of voter ID. The Electoral Commission concluded that poorer people, people with disabilities and those from minoritised communities were significantly over- represented among that group. The Electoral Commission said that hundreds of thousands of people could be excluded from exercising their vote in the next general election. I note that, like many Members of your Lordships’ House in debates on the Elections Act, the commission made urgent recommendations to allow for a wider list of documents for voter ID and to allow other voters to attest to the identity of a voter who is with them at the time. In this context, can the Minister explain why, in its reflections on the election, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities failed to mention any of the Electoral Commission’s criticisms and described the rollout as “very encouraging”?
That is important in the context of these changes, which I now come to the detail of. First, under Section 3 of the Elections Act, we are looking at a time limit of three years for postal voting, when there is currently no limit. It is possible to look at this in two ways. The first is people being reminded that they have a postal vote. I am sure that some Members of your Lordships’ House have knocked on people’s doors and said, “Have you got a postal vote?”, and they reply, “Oh, I think so. I am not sure”. Obviously, people being reminded of where they are and being reminded to renew is not a bad thing. However, I also think of the many, often but not always elderly, voters who have a pattern: they know exactly what their involvement in elections is and they have been doing it for decades. This is a disruption that could see them lose their right to vote, if they are unable to leave the house to go to a polling station on polling day and they expect their postal vote to turn up, but it does not—and, the day before, they ring the council and it is all too late.
In that context, I have a specific question regarding the operation of Section 3. Will local election returning officers be able to use methods other than post? We all know that, these days, hardly anything arrives in the post except flyers and advertising leaflets. People tend to throw the whole lot in the bin sometimes. Will there be text messages and emails, or will they be encouraged to knock on doors, if they have sufficient capacity? What is envisaged about that three-year reminder?
I come to Section 6 of the Elections Act, about the limit of four on the number of proxy votes. Again, this goes both ways: you can imagine a situation where a family has genuinely sat down and agreed how they want their votes to be exercised by proxy, where this could exclude people from exercising their vote. But I also see the concerns here, so Section 6 is perhaps something to keep an eye on to see how many complaints come in and what the situation is.
Finally, because I do not get to do it very often, I welcome the Government’s move to enable absent vote applications to be made online rather than the current paper process. This is an obvious small piece of improvement. However, will the paper process remain for people who are unable to navigate the online process, as is still the case for many people? I also welcome the digital identity checks for absent voter applications. Again, that seems to be a modernisation.
Introducing the SI, the Minister said that the Government want a modern, accessible system. This SI makes a couple of small steps forward, but we cannot forget the context: hundreds of thousands of people are going to be excluded from voting in the next general election unless the Government change the arrangements for voter ID.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, before I make any comments, I wish my noble friend Lady Scott well since she handles election matters in most circumstances. I think the whole Committee would wish to do so. Although she was not necessarily due to handle this Committee, I think it is appropriate in these circumstances so to do.
I will follow the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in relation to elections by looking at elections in the context of two major changes that we are seeing. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, touched on one: the range of changes we are seeing in relation to elections law as part of the Elections Act, which I broadly support.
The other is that we are watching the development of election events, almost. Historically, people used to register on the electoral roll and that was an ongoing process. What we see nowadays is an immediate massive surge in registration at the point of an election, whether a local or a general election. The implications of that are that EROs and elections administrators face an enormous burden. We should not underestimate that burden, particularly because as legislators we are imposing ever more elections on the system. One thinks of mayors and regional mayors, and we now have environmental plans. Two years ago people in Liverpool went to vote in five different elections; they had multiple votes to cast. That is likely to continue. Therefore, the burden on elections administration is very substantial indeed and seems to be ever growing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to the Electoral Commission’s comments in relation to voter ID. There has been pressure from other directions. The Electoral Commission not only referred to possible qualifications in terms of documents that may be produced but made other recommendations. I would appreciate an indication as to whether the Government intend to work with the Electoral Commission and other bodies to introduce any of the changes that are referred to in its report before a general election or the next local elections. The other day I discussed this with the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Wallace, and the timetable would be very tight, but it is another part of the burden that we are imposing on electoral officers in councils.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is going to raise the burden of overseas voter registrations —which will come at some later stage—but, just in case he is not, I do so on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, while I have the floor. It is a fairly complex matter. I have been in communication with the Government because, with all-party support, I was lucky enough to get the Ballot Secrecy Act through this House and the other—it has become legislation. That is another burden that will be imposed on electoral officers in councils.
I have written to my noble friend Lady Scott about my legislation and she has indicated that there will be an SI at some stage. Can my noble friend indicate when that will come forward, as that will be yet another piece of legislation? When writing to my noble friend Lady Scott, I raised the Ballot Secrecy Act; I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to respond to this, but I questioned whether the briefings provided were accurate and consistent and raised other issues around elections, referenda, recall petitions and the like. I got answers to questions I had not asked, rather than to those I had. In one case, I did get an answer—I did not like it, but I accepted it—but in two others I got answers to questions I had not asked. My noble friend Lady Scott has offered to discuss this further with me. At this point I formally say, “Yes, please”, whether that is with her or another Minister, and with officials.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I want to address the point about the retention on the electoral register in Northern Ireland of the 100,000 electors who would otherwise be removed from the register at the end of the retention period—that is, 1 December this year—but who will remain on the register for a further year under the draft representation of the people and recall petition regulations.
I think the Minister indicated that people were satisfied, the Electoral Commission included, that those people were eligible to remain on the register. I would be grateful if he could just elaborate on how that has been established. If it has been established that they are eligible to be on the register other than by sending in the completed return, what lessons can be drawn from that in terms of people being registered generally? If that can be done easily, and these people can be checked, can we learn something from that process?
I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked the Northern Ireland Office about a more permanent solution to this issue, and the NIO responded that it was working with the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland on a plan to get these individuals successfully re-registered, including engaging with the Northern Ireland political parties, registration drives, writing to the individuals concerned in the latter half of next year, and so on.
Can the Minister indicate whether any consideration has been given to the ideas the Electoral Commission was talking about even in today’s newspapers in Northern Ireland, about providing a means by which, for instance, when people register for new driving licences, and so on and so forth, information can be shared in some way, either directly or indirectly, to speed up the process of registration? Today in the newspapers the Electoral Commission was talking about a fifth of all eligible voters in Northern Ireland—300,000 people—being either wrongly registered or not registered at all, and it suggests that this is one way of increasing the number of people registered. But I note that when the NIO responded to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it did not mention that particular idea among the various initiatives that it talked about. Instead, it talks about
“asking the Electoral Commission … to use all their available communication avenues to encourage anyone who has not recently registered to do so”.
I would be grateful if the Minister, when he comes to respond, could deal with those points.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing and explaining the purpose of these instruments.
To take a step back—the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made these points—the process of registration and indeed now voting with ID is becoming more complicated, both for the voter and for those who administer elections. Some of us have some degree of suspicion about the Government’s motives, which is why it is important to scrutinise these things and ensure that what is being done is administratively sound rather than politically expedient. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, alluded to the concerns raised over the local elections.
We need to be clear that what is being proposed here, first, is fair and objective in increasing efficiency and, secondly, will not make it more difficult for people to register or to vote. Millions of people are not registered. Sadly, Scotland has the lowest number of registered voters at only 81%. Clearly, if being on the register or being a postal voter has to be renewed, for example, that might make it more difficult to maintain that degree of participation. All voters should be encouraged as far as possible to register and to vote; no regulations should be brought in that discriminate against any particular class of voter, if I can put it that way. The feeling at the moment is that this is not the Government’s position.
In passing, on the limitation of proxy voters to four, two of whom could be domestic voters and two overseas, I hope the Minister will forgive me if I say that I sometimes think the Government are more interested in getting votes from overseas people who do not live here than making sure that people who do live here actually vote. To that extent, I am not sure whether restricting the proxies to two domestic voters has practical implications that will effectively exclude people who are currently able to vote perfectly legally and properly. It is a question of whether the bureaucracy is excessive or justified and proportionate.
The proposals seem reasonable on the face of it. However, the Minister said in his introduction that, although we will have an extension for a year, thereafter people will have to renew their postal vote on a regular basis. I guess people will get used to that over time but, with regard to the committee’s report and the quote it got from the Government about the role of the political parties in encouraging people, that is of course a legitimate thing for political parties to do but it is also the responsibility of the state to ensure that people can vote and know how to register to vote.
However efficient political parties are, none of us speaks to every voter, much as we might wish we could, and therefore we require other things. I seem to recall that, years ago, the postman used to be part of the process of registration. That was a standard process; they would knock on the door one day—possibly more than once—and ask to check the register. That is not being done now; door-to-door registration seems to have gone. Online registration is fine, subject to safeguards, but we need to get to a situation in which registration is understood, simple, quick and straight- forward. It is important to eliminate personation, fraud and misrepresentation but, as has been said on a number of occasions, the evidence across the country—although Northern Ireland possibly had problems in the past, and maybe still does—is that the problems are relatively small.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, shakes his head, so let me concur: it is of course important that the procedures are robust, but not so robust that they act as a deterrent and a discouragement. We need people to vote. My parting shot is that the behaviour of politicians has been such that the motivation to vote has been diminished quite substantially. There was an interesting report today by the Institute for Government saying that this Government—not today’s Government but the Conservative Party in government—have pushed the boundaries of our constitution, unwritten as it is, beyond acceptability; I think that is how it expressed it. Some of us feel that is exactly what has been going on—not in these particular instruments but in the backdrop to them.
One other question we are not debating today concerns the rights of EU citizens. We have an extraordinary situation whereby Commonwealth citizens from anywhere in the Commonwealth who are resident in the UK have an automatic right to vote and stand in any election, whereas European Union citizens previously were allowed to vote and stand in local or subsidiary elections to the Westminster on. I note that Scotland and Wales have legislated that that right should continue, but the Government apparently want to reduce their eligibility in England. It is outside the terms of this debate, but it would be interesting to know whether the Government really intend to go with that. It would seem a bit odd if, because they can do so, Scotland and Wales take a different course. The question arises: does Northern Ireland, with an Assembly, have the right to follow Scotland and Wales if it wishes to do so? It may not wish to do so, but does it have the right?
With those comments, I say that, although we can understand the purpose behind this, the Government should recognise that there is genuine concern about where all this might be leading. It is making life much more complicated for everybody. The Electoral Commission has not always covered itself with glory. Indeed, one of my reservations about the Electoral Commission is that, in some ways, understanding of the gritty political process seems to be a little absent.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I too send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who is not here today, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, mentioned. We wish her the best of health. This is a very interesting debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for sharing the intent of these instruments.
We on these Benches support both Northern Ireland instruments, which are uncontroversial implementations of the Elections Act 2022. As other colleagues mentioned, the draft representation of the people regulations would bring changes regarding postal and proxy voting, otherwise known as absentee voting. We do not seek to refight the battles that took place over aspects of the regulations during the passage of the Elections Act 2022. However, we have concerns, particularly about time-limiting absentee voting methods and the confusion they may cause voters who rely on absentee ballots to cast their vote.
We have concerns regarding the implementation of a three-year limit on postal voting, which this instrument helps to bring into force, as set out in the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001. There will likely be some confusion from many who are accustomed to the current voting system. Furthermore, the unexpected lapse could inadvertently result in their becoming disfranchised. The regulations would bring in a requirement to notify the absentee voter about the expiry of a postal vote and when it will come to an end, but that may not be enough. Will the Minister clarify what steps will be taken to ensure that no one becomes disfranchised as a result of the new regulations?
The changes will place an increased workload on election services staff, who do a fantastic job making sure that our elections run smoothly. The Association of Electoral Administrators is already reported to be struggling due to recent changes and the staffing crisis. What action are the Government taking to ensure that electoral services staff are getting the resources they need to ensure that our elections continue to run smoothly?
We welcome the modernisation of the absentee voting system via a new online digital system. This is expected to help increase the accessibility of postal and proxy voting, making it easier for people to take part in democracy. Across the country, this will provide easy access to the absentee voting system. However, there are potential concerns regarding the implementation stage. Will the Minister update the Committee on progress regarding the implementation of the new digital system? When will it be ready to launch? Crucially, what safe- guards are in place to ensure the full security of electoral record data? The media reported in August that confidence in the UK’s electoral regulator has been thrown into question—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce —after it emerged that a hostile cyberattack accessing the data of 40 million voters went undetected for a year, and the public were not told for another 10 months. It is not known who the attackers were. Was it a foreign country or a criminal gang?
I will finish by making a point in relation to the digital process. There is a digital process in Northern Ireland already, I believe. There have been some concerns about people losing their digital number. It is not like resetting a password: if you lose your digital number, you have to make contact with the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. It can take days before your digital number is returned to you. What lessons have been learned from that? Is there any way to make sure that we improve and speed up the process? Ultimately, the concerns raised by noble Lords—
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I know from speaking to colleagues across Northern Ireland that the digital registration number—the DRN—has been probably the single biggest problem in recent elections. It is important to note that concern has been raised at times in relation to the Electoral Commission; again, that is something we are keen not to see repeated. There has also been slowness among those dealing with registration in getting back to people and saying that there has been an error with the DRN or that a DRN has not been supplied. The end result is that, if someone is looking to register relatively close to an election, by the time they realise that something is faulty with their application, it has gone beyond the time. It is important that there is a level of recognition there and that we learn from experience to head off that problem.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a critical point. We have to make sure that these issues are dealt with in a speedy, efficient manner; otherwise, it damages democracy and people lose faith in the system.
Noble Lords have made a number of good points in this debate. I want to touch on what our in-house expert, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said about the idea of repetition. How do we ensure that people are getting their forms in and know whether they are on the electoral register? What are the Government doing to ensure that we can save time, be more efficient and make it easier for people to vote?
That is a number of questions for the Minister. I look forward to his response.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate for their time and incredibly valuable contributions. It is always slightly concerning for a Minister to stand here, having had only 31 years’ experience of working for a political party, when my noble friend Lord Hayward is also in the Room. I am very aware of the level of expertise and knowledge here today.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned regulators, the Electoral Commission and understanding the nitty-gritty of how a political campaign works and how political campaigns operate on the ground. I do not know his former election agent but I am delighted that she will be joining the Electoral Commission.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hayward and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, for passing on their best wishes to my noble friend Lady Scott; I will take them to her personally. I should also put on the record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for welcoming “some” of what the Government are currently looking to do. I am a great believer in small steps, and I am very happy that we are making some progress.
Before I respond to some of the more substantive points made today, let me say this: I believe that everybody taking part in this debate believes in democracy and fair elections. That is why we are here. I know that a number of noble Lords mentioned that in their contributions, but it is an important point to make before I getting into responding directly.
On the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about voter ID, we are pleased and encouraged by the first rollout of voter identification in Great Britain. We are also pleased that the vast majority of voters in polling stations, 99.75%, were able to cast their vote successfully. We are incredibly grateful for the work that local authorities and other partners undertook in delivering this change.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am pleased that the Minister qualified that figure by noting that it is the people in polling stations. What evidence do the Government have, or plan to gather, for people discouraged from even thinking about voting or going to the polling station? Of course, they are not included in that figure.
Lord Mott (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I am going to make some progress in my comments. As set out in the legislation, the Government will be evaluating the implementation of voter identification to understand the impacts on the sector and electors and to aid ongoing implementation of the policy. That evaluation is ongoing and we will publish the first report of our evaluation in November. We will consider the recommendations made by the Electoral Commission as part of our evaluation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also mentioned methods of communication. As I have just moved house and have applied to join a new register, I know that the level of communication from electoral administrators is incredibly strong, with text messages, emails and post in the more traditional way. I think we are seeing electoral registration officers around the country embracing all the different tools available to them but, in the end, how best to manage applications and contacts with electors is a decision for local EROs. From my recent experience, I know EROs have a very good understanding of how best to communicate with voters.
My noble friend Lord Hayward mentioned the burden on administrators. They do a very good job on behalf of us all. Officials have been working and will continue to work carefully and closely with the sector on planning the implementation of this policy. A first new burdens grant payment of nearly £400,000 was provided to local authorities in August for the implementation of the changes to postal and proxy voting, along with detailed methodology of how that funding allocation was made. Further grant funding will be provided in April 2024, once again supporting ongoing delivery ahead of the May 2024 elections. We have completed robust modelling of the policies, but we appreciate that introducing any new service could fluctuate. That is why we already have a process in place through which local authorities will also be able to claim additional new burdens funding retrospectively via a justification-led bid to facilitate them in carrying out new duties. We remain confident in their ability successfully to deliver these changes.
Electors can also check with their ERO if they are registered for a postal vote.
A number of noble Lords mentioned limits on proxies and whether they are necessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, saw both sides of this argument. I have a few comments to make on it. As many noble Lords will know, currently someone may act as a proxy for up to two electors and an unlimited number of close relatives in each constituency or each electoral area at a local election. This means they would potentially hold a large number of proxy votes at the same time, which clearly should not be the case. This could give rise to situations where a number of people could be coerced into appointing proxies who could then use those votes to affect the outcome of a poll. Limiting the number of people for whom someone may act as a proxy, regardless of their relationship, is a proportionate response to concerns about abuse or potential abuse of those votes.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned instruments relating to EU voting and candidacy rights. The instruments dealing with voting and candidacy rights will be debated by the House next month. However, I note that electoral law is excepted in Northern Ireland, while it is devolved as it relates to the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd in Wales.
My noble friend Lord Hayward talked about changes to the timeline for the transition period for existing postal voters. It is true that we originally intended to begin transition to the new arrangements this year. However, we took a decision to allow more time for voters and administrators. All existing postal voters now have until January 2026 to apply.
I turn to the comments and questions from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, although I am very happy to write to him immediately after this debate and have further discussions about them. I note that there are concerns about the effect of the retention measures on the register and agree that the accuracy of the register and ensuring that only persons eligible to be registered are in fact registered is paramount to protect our democracy and confidence in the electoral system. However, as I mentioned, there are no concerns here that the electors being retained on the register are not entitled to be registered.
Representation of the People and Recall Petition (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2023
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 49th Report from Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before Parliament on 18 July, and noble Lords will recall that similar regulations have been debated previously on a number of occasions. The regulations seek to ensure minimal customer disruption as the aviation sector recovers from the pandemic. The regulations will be made under powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, also known as ATMUA. Following the UK’s departure from the European Union, this legislation created a more flexible set of powers for Ministers to implement alleviation measures for airport slots related to the impacts of Covid-19, subject to a vote in both Houses. This allows the UK to adapt its approach to minimise disruption to consumers and best support the recovery of the aviation sector.
Ordinarily, airlines must operate their airport slots 80% of the time to retain the right to those same slots the following year—this is known as the 80:20 or “Use it or lose it” rule. This encourages efficient use of scarce airport capacity. As a result of the impact of Covid-19 on air travel demand, alleviation from current slots rules has been provided since summer 2020.
The department has seen a strong recovery in passenger demand during 2023, but there remains continued uncertainty and lack of resilience in the industry, and demand on some routes remains below the levels seen before the pandemic. These factors are affecting both demand, in terms of returning passengers, as well as supply-side factors, such as aircraft availability and staffing. These are adding to a “long Covid tail” in rebuilding resilience in the sector.
Aircraft that were out of service during the pandemic are spending much longer in maintenance and overhaul than would normally be the case. This is compounded by difficulties stemming from the pandemic in the wider supply chain affecting access to spare parts across the global supply chain. This is having a long-term impact on the resilience of the sector that is attributable to the pandemic. Although the industry has taken steps to address these challenges, they are expected to remain an issue during 2024.
The Government have therefore designed a package of measures for the winter 2023 season that sees the normal 80:20 rule on slots usage stay. However, it is combined with some limited flexibility through a small pre-season hand-back allowance and a continuation of the previously adopted justified non-utilisation of slots measures.
When the pandemic initially struck, the 80:20 rule was fully waived to avoid environmentally damaging and financially costly flights with few or no passengers— so called ghost flights. The Government then offered generous alleviation while travel restrictions remained and demand was uncertain. The Government re-established the normal 80:20 usage ratio for summer 2023 and this will continue for winter 2023.
As required by ATMUA, the Government have determined that there is a continued reduction in demand, which is likely to persist, and consider that further but limited alleviation measures are justified for the winter 2023 season; this runs from 29 October 2023 to 30 March 2024. This package was developed following consultation with the industry and, of course, careful consideration of its responses.
The instrument being considered today applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Aerodromes are a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. As there are currently no slot co-ordinated airports in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive agreed that it was not necessary for the powers in the Act to extend to, or apply in relation to, Northern Ireland.
In this instrument, the Government have focused measures on a return to business as usual. The Government are mindful of the need to balance supporting the sector through sensible and proportionate measures to aid its recovery—and, indeed, to protect consumers from disruption—with offering excessive alleviation, which would potentially distort competition.
There are two key provisions. The enhanced justified non-utilisation of slots provisions were first introduced for winter 2022. These act as a safety net for airlines if new restrictions are introduced and they can justify not using those slots. The second provision is a limited slots hand-back. For this winter season, the Government will allow carriers to claim alleviation on up to 5% of their slots at any airport, handed back before the start of the season.
The Government have offered this opportunity in the expectation that industry will deliver a realistic schedule for winter 2023, thereby minimising last-minute cancellations and delays. These measures will cover the winter 2023 season only. My department is considering whether further alleviation is likely to be justified for future seasons. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. It is a pity that these regulations are now up against such a tight timescale for their introduction. That is, of course, due to delays. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—from which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and I have just run to be here this afternoon—gave adverse reports on the previous presentation of the regulations, not for what they contained in respect of legislation but because they failed to explain it fully. There was a poor Explanatory Memorandum, especially in relation to the consultation responses and the policy background. As this now stands, it gives a clear explanation of a very complex policy; it is a situation with many factors at play.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to make a declaration of interest, although it is not required within the rules. I am a British Airways pensioner, which is a significant part of my lifestyle after 20 years in the industry.
I thank the Minister for introducing this SI. I do not know whether it is something to do with my dying brain, but I found the Explanatory Memorandum somewhat difficult to follow, and I thank my associate, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for giving the EM a good beating on my behalf. I had some difficulty understanding it, but I thank the Minister for ensuring that this time there was a telephone number in the document.
The concept divides into two parts. One is the tools available and the other is the need. As far as I could tell, the tools available are roughly the same tools as we had for this winter. If that is not true, I would be grateful if the Minister could put me right, but if they are not the same, I think they are substantially the same. Are the problems facing airlines sufficiently serious to resurrect this set of tools? Clearly, the department thinks the answer is yes. I am content with the reasoning for winter 2023-24 that this SI should succeed and the tools become available.
However, I think that creates some questions. The principal question is: is the exceptional becoming the norm? If it is, and if the Government concur with me that it is looking dangerously close to that, we need to move to a more permanent arrangement because the notice that operators will get under these systems continues to be very short. It would be much more satisfactory if the industry were able to plan further ahead against a more stable environment or regime. If there is an agreement that it should move ahead, there is a need for a more numerically supported case. For instance, an issue that is brought out is the availability of spares. I am sure that is a problem, but we need to know just what impact it is having.
The reason given for these rules is that the consumer needs stability, volume, frequency and all that. I am sure that is true, but it is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that the application of these rules and the extent to which they allow operators not to operate have an impact on the balance between established operators and potential new entrants. That has to enter the balance between the solution and the extent to which these tools are enhanced or diminished. The question then becomes: how do you determine the right balance? I argue that the right balance is the general good. Having faced the problem in transport of how you define the general good, it is an important question that deserves debate—well ahead of the introduction of the next set of rules. I hope that the Minister will agree that a more in-depth look at this problem, with the possibility of producing a more permanent set of rules, can be considered.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate and for welcoming the regulations in general. I will take a few minutes to go through some of the points raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, started by noting the Explanatory Memorandum. I am now in a situation where I am not sure I will ever get an Explanatory Memorandum right, but we do try, and I hope she will appreciate that. We have them read by a senior civil servant not connected with the policy. The criticism of this one was that it was too light in certain elements, so we added more in. Sometimes they then become too hefty, particularly as noble Lords will have seen these regulations many times previously in different forms. We will continue to do our very best when it comes to the SLSC and keeping everybody happy and, more importantly, informed, both in your Lordships’ House and beyond, about what the Government are trying to do and explaining that position. That is incredibly important. It remains top of mind, and I will continue to try to do my best.
On the point the noble Baroness raised about the aviation industry in general, I do not think it is under- performing as much as she thinks it is. It had a very successful summer. Apart from the issue at the end of the summer, I was not made aware of any issues to make me feel that the industry was underperforming. The major airports were amazing, particularly when I travelled through. I found that there were no queues. Bar the NATS outage, which, as noble Lords know, the CAA is investigating, and the wildfires, which of course are a factor beyond the airlines’ control, the industry performed really well.
The noble Baroness mentioned recruitment. There is no recruitment problem. The aviation sector over- recruited on purpose to ensure that we did not see a repeat of what happened in summer 2022. I will hold the next Aviation Council in a couple of weeks and obviously I will reflect with it on how it felt the summer went, but in broad terms, bar one or two issues—there will always be one or two—it stood up pretty well.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Does the Minister anticipate producing a report as a result of that meeting? If so, can we have it?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not believe that we will produce a report as a result of that meeting because, if we discuss performance, those meetings are very much ad hoc check-ins. We cover more substantive issues, such as airspace modernisation; I believe that the next one might be on slot reform, which might be interesting. The minutes of the meetings are published on GOV.UK, so the noble Lord might wish to look at that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will know that slot oversight and enforcement are done by a third party, ACL, which is entirely separate from government. We do not have any involvement at all—rightly so—in the way in which it oversees and enforces slots. If the noble Baroness is aware of anomalies, I would be grateful if she could let me know; I will raise them with ACL, because that is how it is supposed to do its job. It does a very good job in many circumstances; indeed, it does slot oversight not only in the UK but in many other countries because it is that good.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2023
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2023.
Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 5 September. It proposes an amendment to paragraph 1(a) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to control nitrous oxide under class C of that Act.
After increasing reports of the harms associated with its misuse, the Government commissioned the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in September 2021 to undertake an updated harms assessment of nitrous oxide. The Government also asked the ACMD to recommend the appropriate legislative control of nitrous oxide.
I am grateful to the ACMD for its updated harms assessment, published in March 2023. While the ACMD did not recommend the control of nitrous oxide under the Misuse of Drugs Act in its assessment, it noted concerning health harms including nerve damage. Its assessment also highlighted anecdotal reports about the association of nitrous oxide with anti-social behaviour as well as the widespread use and availability of the drug, particularly among children and young people.
The Government carefully considered the ACMD’s thorough report and considered a range of factors before reaching a decision. Of particular concern is the popularity of nitrous oxide, given that it is the third most misused substance among 16 to 24 year-olds in England and Wales, with approximately 230,000 young people inhaling it in England and Wales in the year ending June 2022.
In addition to the high numbers of young people misusing nitrous oxide, the ACMD highlighted anecdotal reports of an increase in neurological harms. Noble Lords may have heard of a small number of tragic cases in which young people have been paralysed, or died, following nitrous oxide misuse. Neurology units around the country have reported frequent cases of nerve damage. While many cases of this damage can be treated and even reversed though treatment, sadly not all can. Contrary to the belief of some who might argue that this is a perfectly harmless drug that many people use without consequence, nitrous oxide is not safe to use without medical supervision. Beyond the harmful effects on users themselves, there have been several cases that serve as a testament to the devastating consequences of driving under the influence of nitrous oxide.
In considering our approach, we have also reflected on the reports from those working in front-line policing and night-time industries, and from parliamentarians, about the public effects of nitrous oxide misuse.
People have a right to expect public areas and their neighbourhoods to be safe and clean, even quiet, but in recent years the sight of discarded small silver nitrous oxide canisters, and even more recently the oversized canisters seen on our streets, have become more commonplace. To cite a recent example, an estimated 13 tonnes of discarded canisters were collected in the Notting Hill Carnival clean-up operation. It is entirely unreasonable to expect people to sidestep the paraphernalia and mess associated with nitrous oxide misuse. Neither should anyone have to feel threatened by anti-social behaviour associated with its misuse.
The Government are taking decisive action to tackle anti-social behaviour through a comprehensive action plan, and noble Lords may recall that in March we announced our intention to ban nitrous oxide. As a result of the considerations I have outlined, the Government are taking action beyond that recommended by the ACMD and seeking to control nitrous oxide as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. We are doing this to introduce tougher consequences for the supply and misuse of nitrous oxide, and to deter people from harming not only themselves but others.
At present, nitrous oxide is subject to the provisions of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 as it is a psychoactive substance. The 2016 Act contains offences for the production, supply, possession with intent to supply, import or export of a psychoactive substance where a person
“knows, or is reckless as to whether”
it will be consumed “for its psychoactive effects”. It does not, however, contain an offence for the simple possession of a psychoactive substance, other than in a custodial setting.
The control of nitrous oxide as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act would also make it an offence to possess nitrous oxide, unless for a legitimate use. This would mean higher penalties and enforcement provisions. Those found in unlawful possession of the drug could face up to two years in prison, an unlimited fine or both. Meanwhile, those who supply or produce nitrous oxide could face up to 14 years’ imprisonment.
We are conscious that there is a wide range of legitimate uses of nitrous oxide. We are aware of its use in healthcare, including dentistry, industry and catering. To enable legitimate uses to continue, a further related statutory instrument will come into force simultaneously with this order. This would amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, scheduling nitrous oxide under those regulations to provide certain exemptions from the offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, including medical use, and to provide legitimate access to nitrous oxide for legitimate uses, including in industry and catering.
Drug misuse ruins lives and adversely affects society as a whole. The Government have a responsibility to protect the public—their safety and their health—and that is why we are proposing this action. As I have set out, nitrous oxide harms not only people but communities and must be subject to stricter controls. I commend this order to the Committee.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I have a quick question about the overall legislation encompassed here. I am not unaware of the impact of people taking drugs, but at times it seems to me that the Home Office automatically wants to ban everything, with the net result that we drive more and more illegal activities into the hands of criminal gangs. Every time one does that, there is a risk that, rather than feeling better and achieving something, we just enlarge the black market of yet another section of society.
I have had the misfortune of having to nurse back, with friends, people who have become drug addicts. I was also offered nitrous oxide from a large container in the lift on the Elephant and Castle Tube line on 18 June. I have seen groups of people using it and proffering it to me. But while I accept the order as it stands, I wonder whether there should be a broader review of the Misuse of Drugs Act because of the implications of driving so much into the hands of criminal gangs and youngsters. We have debates about county lines and the like, which all seem to point in the same direction: we are quite happy to ban things, but there ought to be other solutions to this and other problems.
Earl Russell (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement, but on this side of the Room we are disappointed with these proposals and feel that they will do little to prevent harm. We feel they will make matters worse, not better, as we believe in a health-first and reduction approach to drug control.
This order will categorise nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas, as a class C drug and make it illegal by the end of the year. As a result, those found in unlawful possession of the drug could face up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine, with up to 14 years for supply or production. The Government already have powers to tackle suppliers of the drug under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, which made it an offence to supply nitrous oxide if a person knows it will be used for its psychoactive effects. The Government now seem intent on using the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to deal with what is mainly a small-scale anti-social behaviour and littering problem. This seems inappropriate. It is the legislative equivalent of taking a knife to a spoon fight.
The Government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs does not agree with their approach. It said:
“Based on this harms assessment, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 remains the appropriate drug legislation to tackle supply of nitrous oxide for non-legitimate use. There is, however, a need for enforcement of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 to be supported by additional interventions designed to reduce health and social harms”.
Based on this harms assessment, their own advisory council does not support the reclassification.
We believe that these proposals are ill thought out and unsupported by the evidence. They have not been properly consulted on and will have negative impacts, pointlessly criminalising many young children. The Government’s impact assessment states that
“nitrous oxide has a large proportion of users aged 17 and under who consume it”,
as the Minister recognised in his speech. For the offence of possession of a class C drug, its high estimate is 16,400 children a year, resulting in 2,000 children being charged, 1,600 receiving cautions and 7,500 being subject to community resolution.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the points he made. Although I do not agree with the central tenet of what he said, he made some interesting points which need an answer. He has started a more general debate which is long overdue.
We support the SI, which brings nitrous oxide under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a class C drug. As the Minister outlined, unlike the 2016 Act, it makes possession an offence. That goes against the advice of the ACMD, but we believe that the Government are correct in their evidence to do so. In fact, in the Explanatory Memorandum, the Home Office helpfully points out that in 2008 the then Government went against the advice of the ACMD when they—one Member of the Committee was in the Home Office at the time—took the decision to move cannabis from class C to class B, which I believe to have been correct, the reasons for which will be evident in what I will say about nitrous oxide.
As the Minister pointed out, 230,000 young people across our country are affected by nitrous oxide. That is an astonishing figure. What are the Government supposed to do in the face of that—just ignore it? I know the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would say, “Of course I’m not suggesting ignoring it, but there are alternative ways of dealing with it”, but the Government have a responsibility. It is good to see a large number of colleagues from Northern Ireland, because this extends across the whole of the UK.
As the Minister said, nitrous oxide is the third most misused drug among young people, and there is increasing evidence of harmful neurological effects. Rereading the comments made in the other place, I was struck that Justin Madders MP highlighted a London Ambulance Service survey that showed a 500% increase in the number of nitrous oxide incidents between 2018 and 2022. Beyond that, as many of us will know, is the impact on anti-social behaviour, as pointed out by many colleagues in the other place, including my honourable friend Alex Norris MP:
“Nitrous oxide causes significant problems in our communities”. —[Official Report, Commons, 12/9/23; col. 851.]
Many other Members of Parliament made the same point.
I am sure the Minister will agree that these communities are fed up with the nuisance and litter—as he pointed out—of the canisters and other materials in our streets and parks. As I said before, the Government needed to act. I believe that 13 tonnes of nitrous oxide canisters and other material were collected after the Notting Hill Carnival—13 tonnes of waste. What sort of impact does that have on young people walking around? What does it say to young children of three or four, or older people, or the majority of people who abide by the responsible way to behave in our communities? I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others would not say that we should ignore that, but somewhere along the line you have to say, “This is not acceptable and we’re going to do something about it”. The Government are quite right. At the end of my remarks, I will come back to this to address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward.
I have some questions for the Minister, as there are some legitimate questions to ask. The Government’s figures say the SI will have an expected cost of £68 million to the police, courts, Probation Service and prisons. There is to be no additional funding to support that. Can the Government say why, and how it is to be funded? For example, their estimate is that there will be a need for 26 additional prison places. How will that be achieved, given the current crisis? Will this just be subsumed within it? Is there an expectation that it will be sorted out?
I agree very much with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about the need to assess the effectiveness of the SI and monitor what happens. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee called on the Government to make sure that that was properly reviewed. I would like to understand exactly what the police view of the SI is and their—or the Government’s—expectation of increased prosecutions.
As Kit Malthouse pointed out, enforcement will be essential; otherwise, this becomes just another meaningless law. Obviously, the police will have guidance with respect to how this law is enforced. I agree that there must be flexibility. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm the following. A police officer on the street will have flexibility in determining how they deal with someone who is caught in possession of nitrous oxide. It is not automatic that they will be arrested and will have a criminal record. That flexibility on the part of a police officer on the street is important—but it is also important that they have the flexibility to arrest on the basis of possession and can deal with the situation on the basis of the offence of possession. That will be an important step forward.
As I said, the ACMD did not recommend a change in the legal treatment of nitrous oxide but it suggested a number of other interventions, such as restrictions on direct consumer sales, smaller canisters to tackle non-legitimate supply, and the need for a public education programme. Can the Minister say a little more about these non-legislative changes that the ACMD said were important? I agree with the thrust of this, that there should be a change to the legislation, and this should be a class C drug. However, it is also important to recognise that the ACMD made other recommendations; it would be interesting to hear the Government’s view on what they will do in respect of those.
The Minister dealt with the question of the SI not impacting on the legitimate use of nitrous oxide. Can the Minister confirm that in the debate in the other place it was raised that the new SI proposed to deal with this will mean that there will not be any sort of policy gap between the new offence and ensuring that dentists and others with legitimate uses for nitrous oxide can carry on using it without any risk to themselves? We think the Government are right to act, but they need to make more of the damage to individuals, the link to ASB and the impact on communities.
As has been pointed out, if you look at where drugs laws have been relaxed, such as in San Francisco or Portland, there is absolutely no evidence that it reduces the harm caused by drugs. On the contrary, it increases the harm in those communities. That is the important point, and it would be interesting to have this debate around what the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said. The Minister, Chris Philp MP, raised this in the other place, but I think we sometimes need to make more of that—
Lord Hayward (Con)
To clarify, I was asking a question, not necessarily advocating that the legislation should be relaxed. I asked whether, instead of banning, you might go for regulation or some other option. I was not putting forward any particular option.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. I did not mean that; I am sorry if I gave the impression that I did. I think there is a necessity to review this. I want to quote Chris Philps, a Conservative Home Office Minister who I thought was absolutely right—“liberal” is not meant in a Liberal Party sense here. He said:
“I do not accept the thesis that we can have treatment only if we liberalise drug laws”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/9/23; col. 868.]
I absolutely agree with that comment. Too often, it becomes a debate between someone who says we should have tough drug laws or someone who says we should have treatment and more diversion. Surely, the question is how we ensure that we have the correct balance between the two. We need drug laws that are harsh and effective in dealing with those who supply drugs, in particular, as well as with possession. However, alongside that we need to have appropriate community action: diversion, youth activity and employment, as well as treatment where necessary. That false dichotomy between the two does not help the debate.
As I say, we support the measures that the Government have brought forward. I hope that the questions I have raised are also helpful. Again, the Government need to do more to show people the evidence about what happens—the harm caused—when you relax drug laws and allow some of the liberalisation that is being called for. It is a false dichotomy to say that you must have either harsh drug laws or treatment. Surely, we need to put both together to ensure that we have the effective drugs strategy that we need.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all three noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. A number of interesting points have been made. I will attempt to address them but, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the Labour Party for their support. Obviously, I regret the fact that the Liberal Democrats are unable to support this important public health and safety measure.
The Government disagreed with independent experts on this matter, as was noted by all the speakers in the debate. Turning to questions about that decision, we are of course grateful to the ACMD for its detailed report. ACMD advice is an essential part of our decision-making and we continue to have complete faith in its quality and rigour. However, the Government are entitled and expected to take a broader view, taking into account other relevant factors, which was necessary in this case. The ACMD referred to reports of increased neurological and social harms, such as drug driving and littering, associated with nitrous oxide misuse. This is alongside its widespread availability for illegitimate use and high usage, including among children and young people; I referred in my opening remarks to the large canisters that are now readily available.
As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, noted, anti-social behaviour and visible drug use are issues of significant public concern, and we know that the harms of nitrous oxide misuse are being felt by communities. For that reason, the Government decided to go further than the ACMD’s advice to protect the public and seek to control nitrous oxide under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a class C drug. This will provide law enforcement with more tools to take action against illegitimate supply and use. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, helpfully pointed out, this is not the first time that a Government have disagreed with the ACMD: in 2014, for example, khat was controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 contrary to the ACMD’s recommendations. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning the 2008 decision that reclassified cannabis as a class B drug against the advice of the ACMD; I applaud his decision then.
The Government consulted on this issue. We fulfilled our statutory consultation requirement to seek the views of the ACMD and considered its report carefully. However, as I just said, the Government are entirely permitted to take a broader view; the reasons for this are set out in our response to the ACMD, published on 27 March, which outlined the clear health and social harms associated with nitrous oxide use that led the Government to control the substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The Government also undertook a public consultation to ascertain the nature and scale of legitimate use of nitrous oxide before formulating this policy, the results of which were published on 5 September. Provisions to enable legitimate drug use will be set out in a following SI that will come into force at the same time as this order, which is the normal legislative process for controlling a substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. So, in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, there will be no gap.
On police support, we have heard from some in front-line policing who welcome these new powers. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is also supportive of this ban.
With regards to the treatment aspect, I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, more. It is never an either/or situation; it is a “both” situation. In relation to access to treatment, I refer Members to the Government’s drug strategy, From Harm to Hope, which was published in December 2021. It is clear about our ambition to achieve stigma-free treatment, providing the full positive effect of treatment services for those seeking help. Through this strategy, we are investing more than £2.8 billion over three years to support people through treatment and recovery; it includes support for those who have used a range of drugs, including nitrous oxide, and are suffering health harms. In the light of the reported rise in harms to individual users and society associated with heavy nitrous oxide use, we believe that it is necessary to take action also to restrict access to this harmful drug and reduce its misuse by, as I said, classifying it as a class C drug.
As regards legitimate use—obviously, those were legitimate questions from noble Lords—we are conscious of the need to ensure that our approach enables the continued use of nitrous oxide for legitimate and lawful purposes, of which there are many. The Government accepted the ACMD’s recommendation to consult on legitimate uses, as I said. We published our response on 5 September. That information is now being used to design the regime that will enable lawful use for legitimate purposes.
The exact proposals are still being drawn up and will be set out in a subsequent statutory instrument, as I said. However, it is worth repeating that the order we are debating today will come into effect at the same time as the accompanying amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, so there will be no gap between the control of nitrous oxide under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and provisions enabling its legitimate, lawful access.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the risk of criminalising young people. That is a perfectly valid concern: will it result in the overcriminalisation of young people in particular given that the drug is so prevalent among those aged 16 to 24? However, we can assure the Committee that the Government seek a proportionate approach, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. We entrust that task to law enforcement agencies, which have a range of powers at their disposal to enforce the law—including out-of-court disposals, which are non-criminal sanctions, where they judge those to be proportionate and effective.
It is also our intention that the ban should have a preventive effect so that, over time, it reduces the number of users, in particular children and young people. We will update education resources for schools, directly accessing the children who may be at risk of becoming users. Those resources will describe the harms of drug taking and will communicate the new law to children. I also talked to the director of communications at the Home Office this afternoon before coming here; he assures me that work on this is well under way and, indeed, innovative.
I finish by saying to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the damage to their life prospects—
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt but the point that the Minister just made is really important; I know that other noble Lords are waiting for the next SI. If you are talking about young people and the director of communications at the Home Office is talking about innovative work, it is no good putting a press release out to the BBC. It must be on all the various platforms that young people look at. I am sure that the director of communications is on top of that but can the Minister ensure that this is on social media, whatever that means now, and is not just a press release to the BBC?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am very happy to reassure the noble Lord on that point because I asked him the same question. He said, “Yes, absolutely, of course it will be. There is no point in shoving something through their letterbox”. I agree with him; we need to find alternative letterboxes, I suppose.
As I was saying to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the damage to children’s life chances is certainly not as lasting as the neurological damage that they may suffer.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Hayward, I do not believe that the ban will provide criminal gangs with an opportunity to profiteer from supply; it will only shrink the space for them to do so. Nitrous oxide is already being supplied illegally for misuse by lone dealers and criminal gangs. These measures will give the police and enforcement agencies greater powers to stop illegal supply.
My noble friend also asked me about a possible review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. There are no plans to conduct a review of that that I am aware of. However, in July 2022, the Home Office launched a consultative White Paper—Swift, Certain, Tough: New Consequences for Drug Possession—which proposed new policies to reform the way the criminal justice system deals with adult drug possession offences, particularly tackling so-called recreational drug use. That consultation closed in October 2022. An analysis of the responses is under way.
The outcome of this analysis and the responses provided will obviously help to inform future policy direction in dealing with low-level position offences. A government response to the consultation will be published in due course. Of course, the Government keep drug legislation under review and will reconsider the status of particular substances where it is appropriate to do so, obviously while continuing to take into account advice from the ACMD.
All three noble Lords asked me about the expected costs of the policy, in particular its effect on prison places. As has been noted, the central estimate for custodial sentences is 200 per year. We are confident that there will be capacity for this potential increase given that prison occupation is already at 99% capacity. When we estimated the impact on prison places, we also looked at the average custodial sentence length and considered that alongside the volume of custodial sentences estimated per year. It results in an annualised estimate of 26 prison places across the UK. We are taking action to reduce the pressure felt on the prison estate, including expanding capacity by an additional 2,400 places beyond the 20,000-place build programme since September 2022, so we will always have the capacity to serve the needs of the courts.
Noble Lords asked about the increasing cost of the policy. I cannot really go into detail on that because there are so many variables in working out impact assessments of this type, as will be obvious. However, there are record numbers of police officers operating in this country now—more than there have ever been before—and I certainly believe that they have the capacity to deal with this.
In closing, I hope that I have answered all the relevant questions. I once again offer my thanks to all who participated. I am grateful for the insights and the challenge that has been brought to bear on this debate. This is an issue that must be confronted and dealt with before it gets worse. Public health and public safety are vital, as is the effort to tackle anti-social behaviour.
Before I commend this order to the Committee, I have just remembered that I have forgotten to say one thing, which is about an ongoing review. On 16 June, we committed to a post-implementation review of the control of nitrous oxide under the 1971 Act, as outlined in the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire’s response to recommendations 2 to 7 of the ACMD’s updated harms assessment. That was published on GOV.UK. I am quite sure that noble Lords will remind me if that is not forthcoming but, for now, I commend the order to the Committee.
Earl Russell (LD)
Will the Minister say a quick word about what else the Government are doing to regulate and stop the sale of these things, particularly to young people? He commented on the number of people who are using this drug. We are now criminalising them. What more are the Government doing to make sure that these things are not sold to children in the first place?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think I have already answered that question with regard to criminal gangs. At the moment, of course, it is freely available through a number of perfectly legitimate channels. Obviously, guidance will be incredibly important. People who are selling it at the moment, particularly to children, need to understand their new responsibilities and the fact that they will be committing a criminal act. The fact is that the penalties for this are quite severe so I suggest that they would do well to pay attention to what they are doing and not fall foul of this law.
Motion agreed.
Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023, which were laid before the House on 4 September, be considered.
The purpose of the instrument before the Committee is to implement arrangements agreed under the Windsor Framework, which was announced by this Government in February this year. This framework fundamentally recasts the old Northern Ireland protocol to restore the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market, safeguard Northern Ireland’s place in the union and address any concerns over a democratic deficit. Importantly, this instrument does not establish those arrangements themselves but provides Northern Irish authorities with the powers to ensure their proper functioning. This guarantees protection for Northern Irish consumers in line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
First, the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme establishes a new sustainable, long-term legal framework for trade in retail agri-food goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The new scheme will allow traders moving agri-food goods destined for the final consumer in Northern Ireland to benefit from a unique set of arrangements. These arrangements enable consignments to move based on a single certificate without routine physical checks. This will be on Great British public health, marketing and organics standards, as well as catch documentation requirements for certain species of fish.
In total, the Windsor Framework secures the disapplication of more than 60 EU regulations on goods moving to Northern Ireland via the scheme. The application of GB standards to these goods ensures a common approach across the UK. The scheme will be available to all such traders, including retailers, wholesalers, caterers and those providing food to public institutions such as schools and hospitals.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, the ostensible purpose of the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023 is to make provision for the enforcement of GB standards rather than EU ones in Northern Ireland with respect to public health, marketing and organic products. That sounds like a step forward in efforts to repatriate powers from the EU to the UK. For reasons that I hope to demonstrate, however, quite the opposite is the case.
These regulations can be understood only if read in tandem with the Windsor Framework (Plant Health) Regulations 2023 and the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Public Health, Marketing and Organic Product Standards and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, to which they make repeated reference and which were also laid before Parliament the week before last. Furthermore, none of these regulations can be understood apart from Regulation (EU) 2023/1231 of the European Union—otherwise known as the “SPS regulation”—which was passed on 14 June this year and without which none of them make sense. That regulation is the sun around which the regulations we are considering today, and their fellow regulations, orbit, such that it is not possible to scrutinise and understand the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023 without also understanding Regulation (EU) 2023/1231.
Before I comment further on the said EU regulation for the purpose of understanding the regulations before us today, I will first set out its centrality to these enforcement regulations. Regulation 3(2) of the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023 states that, in the regulations, reference to “the SPS Regulation” is a reference to EU Regulation 2023/1231. Meanwhile, Regulation 9(1)(b) of these enforcement regulations defines where the enforcement provisions fall, which is subject to
“Article 1(2) and Annex I to the SPS Regulation”.
Moreover, the regulations reference
“Northern Ireland plant health label”
42 times, defining the term on a basis that again takes us in two steps to Regulation (EU) 2023/1231. Regulation 3(2) of these regulations states that
“‘Northern Ireland plant health label’ has the meaning given in regulation 2 of the Windsor Framework (Plant Health) Regulations 2023”.
Regulation 2 of the Windsor Framework (Plant Health) Regulations 2023 defines “Northern Ireland plant health label” in turn by Regulation (EU) 2023/1231, stating that
“‘Northern Ireland plant health label’ has the meaning given to ‘plant health label’ in Article 2(22) of the SPS Regulation”.
Thus, central to the task of scrutinising and understanding the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023 before us today is understanding the SPS regulation, namely Regulation (EU) 2023/1231.
Anyone who has believed government claims to have “got Brexit done” and “taken back control” will be rudely awoken from that particular fantasy by the experience of reading Regulation (EU) 2023/1231. Unlike those EU regulations that apply to Northern Ireland because they apply to the EU as a whole and thus to Northern Ireland, this regulation, which was passed in June, is curious because it applies narrowly and specifically to the Government of the United Kingdom and not to any other part of the EU—even though the legislation was supposedly made some years after Brexit for the UK by the EU legislature, now without any UK representation. Formally, it is designated as this:
“Regulation (EU) 2023/1231 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2023 on specific rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of retail goods, plants for planting, seed potatoes, machinery and certain vehicles operated for agricultural or forestry purposes, as well as non-commercial movements of certain pet animals into Northern Ireland”.
Although it is often said that the protocol/Windsor Framework has made Northern Ireland a vassal state of the EU, this legislation demonstrates that, in touching what people can do in the rest of the UK, there is a clear sense in which the vassal status to which we have been submitted impacts not only Northern Ireland but the whole United Kingdom.
EU regulation 2023/1231 makes provision for some goods to be subject to less exacting SPS border requirements than would otherwise obtain if traders submit to certain restrictions, which it is the purpose of the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023 to enable compliant traders to access.
Specifically, if those in the wider UK bringing goods to Northern Ireland are moving SPS retail goods to a confirmed Northern Ireland consumer with an address in Northern Ireland, and if those goods bear “Not for EU” labels—which are being phased in across a number of stages—and are subject to 10% to 5% identity checks at border control posts, and if the retailers in question have applied to join the trusted trader scheme and successfully obtained and kept trusted trader status, then, and only then, will they benefit from a simplified single SPS certificate.
The implications flowing from this are far reaching. First, contrary to the protestations of the Government, this is not unfettered access, which is the term used for free movement within a single market that, by definition, encounters neither a customs nor an SPS border, nor border control posts. So the first thing we must be clear about is that the alternative border arrangements that the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023 help effect do not remove, in the words of the Prime Minister,
“any sense of border in the Irish Sea”.
What they do is facilitate an alternative border experience in which the regulations before us today play an enforcement role, but it is still a border experience—a border whose function is to uphold the integrity of the separate legal regime that now exists in Northern Ireland, which is the result of our disfranchisement. That is an important point that must never be forgotten. The border is not just a dreadful inconvenience with far-reaching negative economic consequences but the symbol of our disfranchisement and humiliation.
Indeed, the EU has not only gone to great lengths to impose its disfranchisement policy on us but, with the connivance of our own Government—who are supposed to protect and defend us through the “all for one, one for all” covenant that makes any body politic possible—rubbed salt in the wound by having the gall to suggest that, rather than being the source of acute embarrassment, the product of our disfranchisement, which is the different legal regime to which we are subjected, should be dignified such that it is deemed worthy of protection through the provision of a border, cutting our country in two, and upheld through the provision of border control posts.
Secondly, the alternative arrangements that it is the purpose of the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023 to enforce are not transferred to us that we can hold and claim them for ourselves. They are offered by the EU only subject to certain EU regulations that it polices and enforces. In this regard, the most important article of EU regulation 2023/1231, without which one cannot understand the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023, is article 14.
Article 14 defines where the power lies and where the buck really stops. In article 14(5), the EU reserves the right to remove the alternative arrangements and press for its full pound of flesh against the full international border that ultimately remains as in place under Windsor as under the protocol, at which point the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023 will become irrelevant. It states:
“If the United Kingdom fails to comply with the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, point (c), or in paragraph 2, point (a) or (b), of this Article, the Commission shall adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 17 to supplement this Regulation by suspending the application of Articles 4, 5, 6 and 9 to 12”.
In those 57 words, the true sovereignty implications of the Windsor Framework and the Windsor border are exposed and laid bare.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his presentation of these Windsor Framework regulations. I have to declare an interest as a member of two of your Lordships’ House’s committees, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the European Affairs Committee’s Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Last week in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee we considered these regulations.
I come to this debate as someone who supports the Windsor Framework and wants to see it implemented for the good of business development, so that people and businesses can avail themselves of access to the UK internal market and the EU single market. There needs to be a driver for that process. I note rather sadly that we do not have political institutions as per the Good Friday agreement up and running at the moment. I also note an indication on BBC Radio Ulster that the UK Government intend to drive on with the implementation, from their perspective, of the Windsor Framework. Can the Minister confirm that in summing up and whether that indicates that the Government have a little confidence in the resumption or restoration of political institutions?
Although I have indicated my support for the Windsor Framework, there are certain issues with the regulations, which were raised last week in our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. There is a pattern across a lot of these SIs; there is a lack of a proper Explanatory Memorandum in some instances and of a proper impact assessment. The Explanatory Memorandum says:
“A De Minimis Assessment for this instrument has been completed”.
However, the advice given to our committee stated that there was a lack of a proper impact assessment. Maybe the Minister can advise us on why that was the case.
Can the Minister also indicate what consultation took place with stakeholders? We were told that there was consultation with businesses, but what businesses and how many, and who was consulted? I do not think the wider community would have taken part in this consultation. However, I talked to a business representative last Friday and they were most anxious that the simple detail was provided to businesses. When our protocol committee undertook our assessment and evidence-taking on the Windsor Framework in the spring and early summer of last year, and when we published our report at the end of July, there was a clear indication from all businesses that gave us evidence that there was a lack of detail regarding labelling and the implementation framework. That implementation framework enforcement is in these regulations, so it is sad to say that only some six to seven months later do we have the legislative framework. If that had been in place earlier, we would not have had the same level of complaints from the business community. We simply want to get on with proceedings.
Today in our protocol committee we were giving consideration to future short inquiries. One area where there has been a lack of information, and simply an extension of the grace period, is the whole area of the SPS agreement for veterinary medicines to the end of 2025. Can he say, as a Defra Minister, when there will be final negotiations and a final decision on that SPS agreement for veterinary medicines? After all, the agri-food industry is vital to Northern Ireland and our economy. I fully accept and agree with the point that, as regards animal health, Ireland is considered as a single epidemiological unit. I believe in the protection of food safety, so I want to see these regulations implemented as quickly as possible. It is sad that they were not available earlier in the year for businesses to answer their many queries on labelling and enforcement. Perhaps the Minister can also indicate when the permanent SPS infrastructure at the ports of Belfast, Larne and Warrenpoint will be completed.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, with whom I have the pleasure to serve on the Northern Ireland protocol Select Committee, to which she referred. I endorse what she said about the need to get resolution on veterinary medicines. We heard evidence last week, from the Ulster Farmers Union and others, about the serious implications of the failure to resolve that issue. The indications coming out of Brussels are that it is not interested in a solution that would guarantee the continued flow of Great Britain vaccines and other medicines for veterinary purposes to Northern Ireland. I would like a timescale from the Minister of when he expects farmers and the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland to be reassured that that matter will be resolved so that they can continue to access British veterinary vaccines and other medicines in the same way that they do now.
Unlike the noble Baroness who just spoke, I do not regard the Windsor Framework/Northern Ireland protocol as a fair and balanced resolution to our problems with the free flow of trade between parts of the United Kingdom. This is very much a process that has protected certain parts of the Belfast agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement—namely, the north-south arrangement—but that has completely trashed the east-west relationship and the strand 1 relationship at Stormont. We can see that because there are no functioning institutions of strands 1, 2 or 3. People say that the Windsor Framework and the protocol are designed to protect the Belfast agreement, but show me the evidence of that. It has trashed the Belfast agreement and its institutions.
The Windsor Framework is now being implemented by a series of statutory instruments, through both negative and affirmative resolution. The noble Baroness referred to news reports about the Government taking further powers—that may well be. It sometimes makes you wonder why they talk about wanting to get the Assembly back so much, because all they do is keep taking powers from it and devolved Ministers. There is not much regard for the Sewel convention or any of that, and then they ask people to go back and administer less and less of what they should be administering. For vast swathes of our economy and the agri-food industry, no Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly of any party—unionist, nationalist or whatever—or any MP from Northern Ireland has any powers to make any laws in those areas. We are told that the Assembly must get back to administer Northern Ireland, but those powers have been taken away from Northern Ireland and from elected representatives in the other place and this House.
These are fundamental issues; they are not small matters but fundamental constitutional, political and economic issues. That is why we feel so strongly about these areas, and we will continue to expose a Government who claim to uphold the union but continue, as my noble friend Lord Morrow exposed in considerable detail, to implement EU laws over part of the United Kingdom. That is the nub of the problem.
This statutory instrument is one of those related to the Windsor Framework/Northern Ireland protocol, and it requires an affirmative vote in Parliament. The retail movement scheme statutory instrument, which was laid during the Summer Recess, is being implemented under the negative resolution procedure. Other important statutory instruments required to build the Irish Sea border and conform internal UK trade arrangements— I stress “internal”—with EU law are also being tabled by this Government under the negative resolution procedure.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has examined the regulations in front of us, as well as others. They are interlinked, as has been said, yet we have not been able to debate them—so far, that is; I am sure that we will find ways of getting them debated in due course. Up to now, the Government have not sought a debate on some of the most important regulations, including on the retail movement scheme itself. That is deeply regrettable.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my colleagues, my noble friends Lord Morrow and Lord Dodds, in this debate.
One way in which the constitutional importance of the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations before us today is evidenced is in the decision to describe the alternative standards that are, in some cases, to be enforced in Northern Ireland as GB standards rather than UK standards. If that is so, and standards are to be applied across the whole of the United Kingdom that currently operate only in GB, and which would have been applied to the UK as a whole had we left without a deal that sought to dismember our body politic, they become UK standards, not GB standards.
Why then does the Explanatory Memorandum on these enforcement regulations not designate them as UK standards? Instead, it states that the purpose of the regulations is to:
“Ensure that appropriate enforcement powers are in place for retail agri-food goods moved from GB to NI under the Northern Ireland Retail Movement Scheme, which meet GB public health and marketing standards … catch documentation”—
as the Minister has already quoted—
“requirements for certain species of fish, and organics standards (referred to as ‘relevant GB standards’) and are placed on the NI market”.
Given that the EU jealously guards its default right to press for its full pound of flesh against the default full border set out in Article 14 of EU Regulation 2023/1231 to which the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023 are wholly submitted and without which they become entirely meaningless, the EU regulations need to remain in place, at least in some ways. They are not removed, just made non-binding for the duration of the EU’s pleasure. In that sense, the EU plainly does not want the standards to be made to sound entirely natural and thus properly permanent, so they are categorised as GB standards because it implies that even when governance standards are UK-wide, they are still somewhat foreign if they apply in Northern Ireland.
Moreover, this arrangement is also helpful to the Government as they seek to address the challenge of the border control posts under construction between now and July 2025. If the standards were described as UK standards, the use of border control posts for 10% to 5% identity checks and other risk-based checks would be like using border control posts within any part of this United Kingdom. By contrast, defining the relevant standards as GB standards makes the deployment of border control posts seem less controversial because it will enable the Government to claim that these border control posts should not be understood as border control posts in any normal sense as their purpose is actually to give effect to rather than undermine our sovereignty by simply imposing standards that arise from within the United Kingdom Government within the borders of the United Kingdom.
The Government may feel that this presentational approach is to their advantage as they seek to bow to EU demands to disrespect the territorial integrity of this United Kingdom. However, it is also to their disadvantage in creating a new impression that brings two difficult and embarrassing questions into focus.
The Explanatory Memorandum to these Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations is clear that the purpose of the application of GB standards is for protecting the biosecurity of the people of Northern Ireland. Specifically, it states:
“Part 3 of this instrument ensures that appropriate enforcement powers are also available in NI to protect NI consumers in cases where retail agri-food goods, moving from GB to NI under the Northern Ireland Retail Movement Scheme and placed on the NI market, do not comply with the relevant GB standards”.
The first difficult question arises from the fact that this suggested commitment to the biosecurity of the people of Northern Ireland is that it necessarily creates the basis for biosecurity within Great Britain because it implies that even while the goods have either been created in Great Britain or have come into Great Britain, we cannot be confident that they are to Great Britain standards. In making this assertion, the Government are admitting that the UK is failing its citizens living in Great Britain in a most basic way with respect to their biosecurity. That must be of huge concern to anyone living in Great Britain and to all the Members of this Committee and House who represent GB constituencies.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, having listened to my noble friends, it is doubtful that these regulations are intra vires. They are tied umbilically to regulation 2023/1231, which, as we have seen, rather than removing the border down the Irish Sea, bestows on it an alternative set of border arrangements which, while in some ways are less demanding, remain border arrangements—and ones that, crucially, are predicated on Article 14, which gives the EU the default right to press its full rights against the border it has thrust across our country. The EU regulations consequently disrespect the territorial integrity and the essential state functions of the UK, both by dividing it with an international border and asserting the default right to control that border within our country.
This is a hugely important matter for the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023 because Article 1(2) of the protocol states:
“This Protocol respects the essential State functions and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom”.
It is made directly effective in UK law by Section 7A(l)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act, requiring that
“all such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the withdrawal agreement”
are applied.
How can Article 1(2) be applied if attempts are made to implement other parts of the protocol that have the effect of actively disrespecting the territorial integrity and essential state functions of the United Kingdom that it insists on respecting? I can see that, if the regulation-making power were for the purpose of giving effect to certain articles of the protocol and not others, this vires difficulty may not necessarily apply. But the regulation-making power simply references the protocol/Windsor Framework, which means that it must be taken as a whole. That means that any Act that purports to implement it cannot contradict any part of the protocol, including Articles 1 and 2.
Some might say that the power affords the Minister significant latitude. That may be the case, but the power is not a power to do anything; it is constrained by references to the protocol—now the Windsor Framework. Although the Minister may have freedom, this plainly does not extend to directly contradicting any part of the framework, which these regulations plainly do, in acting in direct opposition to Article 1(2).
The Windsor Framework enforcement regulations are also problematic because, unlike most forms of legislation that do not have an impact until they formally come into effect, businesses have been busily restructuring in preparation for the regulations, as part of the retail movement scheme—first announced as the green lane in February. For some months, Asda has started to use “not for EU” labels. This means that, unusually, we can already see something of the effect of these regulations. Moreover, their actual consequence has been plain to see since 14 June, if not before, when the EU regulation 2023/1231, to which they relate and without which they make no sense, came into effect.
Many businesses have made it clear that relying on the retail movement scheme and its enforcement mechanism, as set out in these regulations, is too complicated, and it is too expensive for the retail movement scheme to simply take over from the old and very light-touch scheme for temporary agri-food movements to Northern Ireland—STAMNI—which it replaces, such that supermarkets can continue to function on the basis of the old GB-NI supply chains that attended and defined what was the UK single market for goods until the end of 31 December 2020, giving effect to UK economic nationality.
In this context, big supermarkets I have already referred to, such as Tesco, have been restructuring their supply chains to move as much as possible of what previously came from Great Britain to Northern Ireland so that, after 1 October, it comes from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. One might respond to this by arguing that, to the extent that these regulations apply GB regulations, their enforcement component cannot have a trade diversionary effect. There are two difficulties with this assertion. In the first instance, to the extent that the deployment of these standards is through an SPS certificate—in relation to which one must have an export number and have obtained and kept membership of the trusted trader scheme, negotiated a border control post and provided “not for EU” labels—this all amounts to costs that do not apply to goods movements in other parts of the United Kingdom. This is an increased cost compared to STAMNI.
In the second instance, the impact of the retail movement scheme in terms of enforcement regulations does not simply determine where GB regulations apply. It also determines, by implication, where they cannot apply and where EU regulations, the presence of which was obscured by STAMNI, will now take effect.
The trade diversionary implications of preparing for the Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023, and thus EU regulation 2023/1231, without which it and the other retail movement scheme legislation makes no sense, was brought home with particular clarity in the case of Tesco, through a slide at a recent presentation to retailers. The heading was:
“Packaged Food approach. For products currently moving from GB to NI”.
It said that, under the retail movement scheme, it would be important to restructure to get as many of these goods as possible from the Republic of Ireland to avoid the green and red lanes. Under the heading “Ireland Supply Routes”, the slide said:
“1. More Direct from the EU. 2. Move all common products from the ROI to NI stores. 3. Align some range with the ROI range”.
Of course, this is not to suggest that there will be no use of the green lane but rather that, together with the red lane, the green lane, as defined by various SIs published since August, including the Windsor Framework regulations, is already driving trade diversions. The fact that one can already see that trade diversion is the straightforward result of replacing STAMNI with the retail movement scheme facilitated by the Windsor Framework enforcement regulations, even before they formally come into effect. It demonstrates that, rather than fixing the problem with the Northern Ireland protocol/Windsor Framework, these Windsor Framework regulations have actually helped to call it out, in terms that were always recognised as fatally problematic by the drafters of the protocol/Windsor Framework, such that they justify derogation from it.
Article 16 of the protocol, which is directly effective in UK law, and which many Members of the House of Lords criticised the Government for not triggering ahead of introducing the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, represents the mechanism to use if the protocol is failing. Failure is defined by Article 16 in the following terms:
“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol”.
The interesting thing about the form of words employed here by the drafters is that the diversion of trade is recognised to be such a serious matter that, even if it does not lead to
“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist”,
Article 16 can still be triggered, just because it results in a diversion of trade.
Of course, that is not at all surprising, because trade flows that are definitive of a single market are definitive of the economic nationality that underpins the modern nation state. As such, they are of an entirely different constitutional effect to trade flows between economies. They could not be cut away without shaking the very foundation of the polity in question. The trade diversionary implications of the retail movement scheme, as evidenced by Tesco’s presentation, have had a clear impact on the haulage sector, which has experienced a significant reduction in goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland since the announcement of Windsor, and the replacement of STAMNI with the retail movement scheme that it is the purpose of these regulations to implement.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, the regulations in front of us today deal with one specific aspect—a major aspect—of the Windsor Framework but, in another way, they are symptomatic of the wider problems in terms of the Government’s presentation of the Windsor Framework and the substance of the framework.
Turning first to the Government’s presentation, we have had a plethora of spin since the signing of the Windsor Framework. Indeed, when the England one-day international squad was announced the other day, I was surprised that, given the amount of spin, no government Minister had made it into the final 15. We saw at the time of the Windsor Framework the presentation of a veritable utopia for Northern Ireland. We were very much getting the best of both worlds. Some of that has been echoed by some of the phrases that have been mentioned today. There was no direct reference to unfettered access but we were told that this would create smooth access between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was reiterated that it would remove the Irish Sea border—that was quoted by my noble friend Lord Dodds and I think I am accurately quoting what was said by the Minister today—and that we would have a situation in which there was a common approach to trade across the whole of the United Kingdom. All those things are a level of spin.
The best that can be said in relation to some of the proposals is that, in certain aspects, they may not be quite as bad as the protocol. However, let me draw on an analogy from my own life. About two years ago, roughly speaking, I underwent surgery. There was a certain level of uncertainty going into that surgery and I ended up with a toe being amputated. When I came round, I was ultimately glad that it was not two toes or a foot that had been amputated—what actually happened was clearly preferable to that situation. Was it analogous to the position that I had been in prior to that, with 10 toes? No, it was not. It certainly was not the best of both worlds, seen as some great leap forward. So it is with the regulations in front of us today.
We are told that this measure creates smooth access, and on other occasions unfettered access, with the rest of the United Kingdom—that is, it removes the Irish Sea border. However, as my colleagues have indicated, at best it can be said that it creates an alternative form of border in the Irish Sea. On the reality, let us again take one of the things said by the Minister: that it was a common approach across the United Kingdom. The analogy that was drawn in the Government’s Command Paper at the time of the Windsor Framework was that this would be the same type of paperwork as if you were transporting something from Southampton to the Isle of Wight.
However, anybody who takes a look at the regulations in detail will see, as has been indicated, that there will be SPS forms and an export number will be given. There will be border control posts and there will be a requirement that anybody who is looking to transport goods through this provision will have to be part of a trusted trader scheme. Indeed, if they fall foul of that, they could be excluded from that trusted trader scheme. I ask this genuinely: is this supposed to create a similar position and a common approach across the United Kingdom? Is that the case if we are transporting goods from Glasgow to Carlisle or from Southampton to the Isle of Wight? It is patently not the case. If the Government were to show at least a little bit of honesty and were to say that this is not the same level of burden as would be there under the original protocol, they could make that argument—but that is not what they have been saying and what they are saying is not the reality of the situation.
Similarly, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Dodds, what we have here—we should remember this specific aspect—is not about goods that are moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, to the European Union and to the single market. It is not even about goods that are deemed as being at risk of going into the European Union; then, at least, we could see some reasons for the levels of checks. This is specifically about goods of which it has to be proved that their end destination is within the United Kingdom, yet we have all these new burdens that have been put in place. There is a situation, as was indicated and outlined by my noble friend Lord Morrow, where this is in effect permitted to happen only at the grace and favour of the European Union. What if something that is entirely internal to the United Kingdom should be felt by the European Union not to be working or is in some way not acceptable to it? It could be withdrawn at a later stage on that basis.
Similarly, in terms of the practical realities, it is understandable that my colleagues and I will be deeply exercised about some of the wider constitutional implications of this. However, as has been highlighted by a number of colleagues, this also has deeply practical implications for trade. Mention has been made of the Tesco situation—I suspect that that will not be a unique situation—where the additional burdens that have been put in place by these regulations will lead to a direct divergence of trade. This is not some sort of ghost in the machine or empty threat; it is beginning to happen in reality, as we have seen. It is beginning to happen in reality with regard to haulage firms, where there is that divergence of trade. The reality is that, if you have a large company such as Tesco and if the supply chain is coming from the Republic of Ireland and other parts of the EU, it is a much better way of bringing goods into Northern Ireland. How much more difficult will it be for small and medium-sized firms, which are faced with the same level of bureaucracy but are not generating the same volume of trade? It is actually a much easier route.
That has implications for Northern Ireland, but it also—and this has been somewhat overlooked—has major implications for Great Britain too. If it is felt that accessing goods from the Republic of Ireland is an awful lot easier than accessing them from Great Britain, that will mean that British firms within mainland Great Britain will miss out on trade to Northern Ireland. It will have an economic impact for them as well.
Finally, on the concerns over these regulations, it has been highlighted by the committee that deep concerns have been raised in relation to process in terms of the way that this legislation has been brought forward. Mention has been made of the fact it was laid in the summer at a time when Parliament was not sitting, so there are issues around timing. There are issues around consultation, which does not seem particularly transparent at the very least. If we are most generous and say that there has been some level of consultation, none of us are particularly aware of what consultation has taken place. We are told that at some point in the future there may well be an impact assessment, but it has not been brought forward.
If it was one of those three things, that could perhaps be overlooked, but the combination of all three leads to only one of two conclusions or indeed to a combination of both. Either the Government in their approach to these regulations have been utterly disrespectful to Parliament in disregarding proper parliamentary process, or alternatively, by avoiding an impact assessment and minimising consultation by putting it out at a time when there is not the level of scrutiny, the Government seem to be sending out a signal that they are not particularly comfortable with close examination and scrutiny of these regulations because it would be seen that what is being put forward does not match up to what is there on the tin and what was said in the first few days of the Windsor Framework.
In terms of a positive way forward, it must surely be that the Government need to continue discussions to produce solutions which deliver what they said they were putting forward a number of months ago. That does not seem to be an unreasonable request from politicians in Northern Ireland—the effective removal of the Irish sea border. Similarly, the Government need to find political solutions which both communities can buy into because it is abundantly clear that what is there through these regulations and the wider political context is not bought into by the Unionist community within Northern Ireland.
By contrast, that is the positive way forward and the route which I urge the Government to take. This is why it is concerning—and we know that a lot of games will be played around this—that there is talk of the Government simply jumping in and imposing solutions which simply disregard where Unionist opinion, and indeed wider opinion within Northern Ireland, lies. That is a route of madness, and we need, as we have seen throughout decades in Northern Ireland and perhaps learned to our cost, to get solutions to which there is buy-in by both communities.
The Government are in danger of repeating the phrase that was used about the Bourbons: that ultimately they forgot nothing, and they learned nothing. Let us not see the Government go down that route. Even at this eleventh hour, they should start taking actions which respect all opinion within Northern Ireland and the integrity of trade within the United Kingdom.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, has set out the rationale for this SI. Others have contributed to the debate and given a less enthusiastic reception, to say the least. I regret that my knowledge of the history and the subject matter is far less than that of those sitting opposite me. It would be churlish to suggest that if we had not left the EU, we would not be debating this SI this afternoon. However, this SI will be an improvement for Northern Ireland on the bureaucratic regulations it is currently operating under, although I accept that others will not agree with this.
The Windsor Framework will create the new Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which will enable consignments to move around on the basis of a single certificate, without routine physical checks and on the basis of GB public health, marketing and organics standards. This will apply to agri-foods, wholesalers, caterers, et cetera, including those supplying food to public institutions, such as hospitals and schools. All this seems good to me.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a genuinely fascinating debate and, as ever, shows the complex nature of every issue when we look to our post-Brexit environment. I thank the Minister for his overview of this statutory instrument and for the correspondence I received from his fellow Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
This legislation is vital to the implementation of the Windsor Framework and, as His Majesty’s Opposition made clear in the other place, we support a negotiated outcome with the European Union. For the avoidance of doubt, while the Labour Party does not believe that the Windsor Framework is perfect, we do believe it is a substantial improvement on what came before.
His Majesty’s Opposition supported this instrument when a vote was called in the Commons. Again, this was not a wholehearted endorsement of what the Government have achieved—as we have heard today, important gaps remain—but a reflection of our belief that these issues must be resolved through negotiation rather than threats or unilateral action.
This is why I am so grateful to members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, including my noble friend Lady Ritchie, for their reflections on the recent set of Windsor Framework SIs, and for consistently considering the views of colleagues with divergent opinions. As well as key stakeholders, different organisations and political parties may reach varying conclusions on the Windsor Framework, but we should all be able to feed these into the process and have our views heard.
The Windsor Framework was announced in February and many of the changes within it will be operational in just a couple of weeks, so it is concerning that these instruments have been brought forward for consideration only in this short September sitting. I fear that this is something of a pattern, not just in relation to the Windsor Framework but more generally in the tabling of SIs. Can the Minister advise on why this process has been so delayed in both Houses?
In the debate in another place, my right honourable friend and colleague Hilary Benn asked a number of questions and Minister Spencer committed to following up on a number of points in writing. Does the Minister have a copy of this correspondence, and does he wish to read any of its contents into the record? If it has not yet been sent, can participants in this debate be included in the correspondence?
Northern Irish consumers will soon enjoy access to a greater number of goods than was possible under the old protocol. The lifting of restrictions on seed potatoes and certain pre-packed meat products is especially welcome as that is important for farmers and producers on both sides of the Irish Sea. But it is important to note that restrictions remain on some items, including a number of shrubs and trees, many of which are still under review, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. Can the Minister update us on the timing of the review and when we can expect additional trees and shrubs to be added to the green lane?
This instrument deals with enforcement powers, aiming to provide what paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum describes as
“the pragmatic and proportionate enforcement of GB public health, marketing and organics standards in NI for goods moved”
under the new schemes. His Majesty’s Government insist that there will be
“no impact on traders who abide by the terms and conditions and regulations that govern the scheme”.
Does the Minister really endorse that statement? There may be no enforcement impact, but there is a practical impact on businesses, which have to adjust to new procedures as well as covering new and different costs.
Also, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee notes and as my noble friend Lady Ritchie raised, there has been no formal consultation on these measures, although there has been informal engagement with a range of stakeholders. Given the lack of formal consultation prior to the changes, can the Minister confirm whether there will be any post-implementation review? If so, when? How will that process work?
It is imperative for us all to make this work. While we support the negotiated settlement reached earlier this year and hope it will lead to a marked improvement in the experiences of Northern Ireland businesses and consumers, I sincerely hope that, moving forward, whether on the Windsor Framework or other issues, His Majesty’s Government will make a renewed effort to work with parties and communities in Northern Ireland, rather than imposing policy on them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. A number of questions have been asked; I will endeavour to answer them all. I will start by answering the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, just raised. We want power-sharing to restart and decisions about the lives of people and businesses in Northern Ireland to be taken by people in Northern Ireland. We really do want to see that happen as soon as possible, of course.
I will tackle the points more or less as they were raised, but I apologise if I mix them all up. The Windsor Framework achieves a long-standing UK government objective to restore the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market by pursuing a green lane for the movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland, supporting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK. It restores the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing the unnecessary burdens that have disrupted east-west trade. At the same time, the Windsor Framework recognises the need to protect the biosecurity of the island of Ireland, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, pointed out, has been treated as a single epidemiological unit for decades. It is the case that some checks, such as those on live animals, were required from GB to Northern Ireland prior to EU exit and before the old Northern Ireland protocol was implemented to protect the integrity of this single epidemiological unit. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, that this is about achieving unfettered access for Northern Ireland to Great Britain in trade terms, but this SI is about Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
A number of noble Lords asked about the practical consequences, so let us discuss what would happen if this SI were not taking place or if it were not approved by Parliament. The consequences would be the UK failing to comply with its legal duties and international obligations under the Windsor Framework. This statutory instrument forms part of the Defra Windsor Framework legislation that must be in force by 1 October 2023. It is therefore also required to establish, maintain and support the arrangements agreed under the Windsor Framework.
Specifically, this SI in Defra’s legislative package is required to enable the necessary enforcement of GB standards for goods moving under the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme when placed on the market in Northern Ireland. To protect public health and ensure food safety in Northern Ireland, authorities in Northern Ireland will be able to check and remove non-compliant goods from sale. That will ensure that consumers in Northern Ireland are protected by the same high standards as those in Great Britain. The risk of not proceeding would be insufficient public health and food safety protections for consumers in Northern Ireland, meaning that Northern Ireland consumers were less well protected than those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, severely undermining consumer confidence in the Northern Ireland food system. That risk is significant, and any non-legislative alternatives fall short of addressing it.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Is the Minister implying that until the moment when the checks will be done, Northern Ireland has been at grave risk for many decades as GB goods and agri-food produce flowed into Northern Ireland? Is he saying that for all those years we were at terrible risk?
Lord Benyon (Con)
No, of course not, but we want to have the same measures in place in Northern Ireland that people in Great Britain have. It will also ensure that for certain plants and other objects, which I have already discussed, moving from GB to Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland plant health label scheme sufficient enforcement powers are available in GB and Northern Ireland. Without those enforcement powers, there would be a risk that biosecurity concerns related to non-compliance with the Northern Ireland plant health label scheme would be insufficiently addressed.
Consultation was raised by a number of noble Lords. Due to the timescales for the introduction of this statutory instrument, as conferred by the legal text of the Windsor Framework, to which the UK is a committed signatory, and the urgency of ensuring effective enforcement provisions are in place, it has not been possible to consult on this document. However, the arrangements agreed under the Windsor Framework are based on extensive engagement with industry and stakeholders in Northern Ireland over the past two years.
Defra continues to engage with businesses through regular forums, including the weekly NI-GB Food Supply Chain Forum, frequently attended by over 200 representatives of organisations across the supply chain, alongside ad hoc engagement. In addition, we have published detailed guidance regarding the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme online and are running a series of training sessions for businesses on how to move goods under the Windsor Framework arrangements. We responded to concerns that were raised through this process and we continue to have engagement with businesses, including sharing early versions of guidance with key retailers and consulting businesses wherever flexibilities regarding the scheme, or pragmatic solutions to challenges, are forthcoming. We continue to build our offer to businesses, including: running a fortnightly whole supply chain forum that is regularly attended; a weekly engagement call with retailers; weekly webinars; training sessions; guidance published on GOV.UK; the circulation and regular iteration of a new frequently asked questions document; a dedicated inbox traders can direct their questions to; and, as I say, more engagement besides.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and a number of others talked about the impact assessment. A de minimis assessment has been completed for this statutory instrument, in line with standard practices and thresholds for the evaluation of impacts where these are expected to fall under £5 million. The overall impact of the Windsor Framework is positive, as it aims to ease the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and this statutory instrument is a necessary part of implementing the framework. We have evaluated the specific impact of this SI. There are no significant costs to businesses, no significant impact on charities or voluntary bodies and no significant impact on the public sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, raised a further point on disapplication. Disapplication and derogations from EU law agreed under the Windsor Framework mean that the EU has to change its law, which of course it has to do under EU regulations. This is none the less implementing the bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU. The Windsor Framework takes effect through a range of mechanisms, including amendments to the text of the framework formally known as the Northern Ireland protocol, unilateral and joint declarations, and new UK and EU legislation. The EU has made new legislation to implement its obligations under the bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about the SPS veterinary agreement. We have always been clear that the UK Government could not accept a veterinary agreement that is based on dynamic alignment with EU rules in perpetuity, and the EU has only ever proposed a veterinary agreement that is based on dynamic alignment. Through the Windsor Framework, the UK Government have committed to the construction of SPS inspection facilities. The Secretary of State for my department took powers earlier this year to progress construction of SPS inspection facilities. Permanent facilities will be ready by 1 July 2025 and an additional, temporary product inspection facility at Belfast port has been constructed and will be ready to conduct additional sanitary and phytosanitary checks from 1 October 2023 as the new schemes go live. I know there has been consultation between DAERA and the EU: that was happening last week and I know there was some involvement in that.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked why this SI was not laid earlier and why additional scrutiny was not possible. He mentioned the parliamentary Recess. I just say that it was not possible to lay these regulations earlier. The Windsor Framework was agreed on 27 February. Since then, detailed policy development and further engagement with the EU and with devolved Administrations has been required to finalise the arrangements. As this SI implements these arrangements, it was not possible to lay this SI before finalising the details. Some provisions within the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme) Regulations were required to take effect on 1 September. This was to ensure that traders have sufficient time to register for the scheme ahead of it taking effect on 1 October.
A number of noble Lords mentioned seed potatoes. The Northern Ireland plant health label scheme means that previously banned seed potatoes will once again be able to move to Northern Ireland from other parts of the UK, while remaining prohibited in the Republic of Ireland. The movement of seed potatoes is permitted using a Northern Ireland plant health label, rather than a costly phytosanitary certificate. Great Britain seed potatoes can be moved between professional operators for commercial growing in Northern Ireland. Once seed potatoes have been planted and grown into potatoes for consumption, they can be sold, including into the EU. If the seed potatoes are grown to produce further seed potatoes that meet the requirements of Northern Ireland’s classification scheme, the harvested seed potatoes will be eligible for sale and marketing to consumers and businesses in Northern Ireland and the EU.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the Windsor Framework’s benefits are realised for the benefit of businesses and people in Northern Ireland and across the UK in a manner that meets our international obligations. Therefore, we continue to take forward work to implement the Windsor Framework and engage with Northern Ireland parties as part of those efforts.
A number of noble Lords mentioned trees. The EU’s risk assessment process for the movement of so-called high-risk trees will be expedited. Once approved, they will move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, within the Northern Ireland plant health label. We prioritised removing bans on the movement of the plants and trees of greatest importance to industry: seed potatoes, which I have already mentioned, and the 11 most important GB-native and other commonly grown trees. Since the signing of the Windsor Framework, eight dossiers have been approved, with the ban on movement lifted on privet, hawthorn, apple, crab-apple and four species of maple. Another three dossiers, covering English oak, sessile oak and beech, are going through the process, with votes due imminently. We will continue to work with industry to make the case to lift the ban on other species, where there is a demand to do so. As dossiers are approved, they will be published on the plant health portal.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, and others talked about whether this new arrangement was more burdensome than the STAMNI. The STAMNI was designed and implemented as a temporary measure to give retailers time to adapt to the requirements of the protocol. The Government have taken action to secure a sustainable, permanent exemption from these requirements for retailers. The Northern Ireland retail movement scheme provides a much broader scope than current arrangements in both the businesses that can benefit from these facilitations and the products eligible to move. For example, goods that meet GB public health, marketing and organics standards can move into Northern Ireland under the scheme. Goods that have been subject to additional certification, including certain chilled meat products such as sausages, will now be able to move under the single, per-consignment certificate.
Membership of the scheme is broader, too, covering hospitality, those providing food to the public sector and wholesalers supplying smaller retail outlets in Northern Ireland. Scheme membership can be easily updated, with businesses able to join and leave the scheme as their supply chains evolve.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
These are important matters of detail. Can the Minister set out the trees and plants that are banned after the 11 dossiers have been fulfilled and all the rest of it? This is important because, as the Minister may be aware, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave fairly fulsome assurances publicly on television, even when challenged by journalists, that all these matters would flow smoothly and there would be no inhibitions for plants, trees and so on coming to Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if the Minister set out in writing to me and other Members of the Committee what is allowed and what is banned; what may be sold through garden centres commercially and what may be sent to individual consumers.
On seed potatoes, I think the Minister said that professional companies could sell to other organisations. What is the position with selling directly to consumers so that people can buy these things at garden centres and so on? I know that he has set out some broad-brush things, but it is that sort of detail that really matters to people on the ground.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely understand the need for detail; I want to get the detail right and, therefore, I will write to the noble Lord giving that absolute clarity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about fish. This SI simply ensures that the marketing and labelling standards for fish products in place in Great Britain are also in place and enforceable in Northern Ireland for products moving through the Northern Ireland retail scheme.
I think I have covered as many points raised by noble Lords as I can. I thank noble Lords for their contributions.
House of Lords
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local Authorities: Budgets
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of inflation on local authorities’ budgets; and how many local authorities they estimate will issue Section 114 notices in this financial year.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
The Government recognise the pressures that councils are facing. The 2023-24 local government finance settlement provided councils with a 9% increase in core spending power in total, demonstrating how the Government stand behind councils. Councils are responsible for managing their budgets. Any decision to issue a Section 114 notice is taken locally by the chief finance officer. The Government stand ready to speak to any council that has concerns about its ability to manage its finances.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. The Institute for Fiscal Studies report last month concluded that the current funding system is not fit for purpose. It pointed out stark geographical differences in spending for local government, with the most deprived 20% of areas receiving 9% less than their estimated needs, while the least deprived 20% received 15% more. If the Government are serious about levelling up and the 700-page Bill we have just completed on Report is not ministerial flim-flam, when will the Government set out the timeframe for funding reforms that align local government funding with levelling-up goals?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the existing system for local government funding directs increased resource to those councils with greater need. We understand the desire for clarity on distributional reform. We have confirmed that we will not be proceeding with the review of relative needs and resources, or a business rate reset, in the current spending review period, but we remain committed to improving local government finance in the next Parliament, and we will work closely with local partners and take stock of the challenges and opportunities they face before consulting on any further potential funding reform.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will understand that, due to the cuts that have taken place in local government, some authorities are in real terms said to be not yet back to where they were in 2010. That being so, will the Government consider a major review of the fundamental funding of local government services?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I just set out the position on broader reform to the funding system for local government. The Government recognise the pressures that local authorities are facing. At the spending review 2021, the Government confirmed that councils in England would receive £4.8 billion of new grant funding between 2022-23 and 2024-25 to meet pressures in social care and other services. We also recognised in the Autumn Statement last year that the position on inflation had changed the position for councils, and set out additional funding to respond to that.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, is it not tragic that Birmingham—once the jewel of local government, thanks to Joseph Chamberlain and his son Neville, the reforming lord mayor in the early 20th century—should have been reduced to its present pass? What is to be done about this great council? Should it be split up? Its present position is truly tragic.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as we speak, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up is giving a Statement to the House of Commons on action to be taken on Birmingham City Council. It is the Government’s intention to appoint commissioners in that instance, but there will be a period of consultation, I believe, before that is brought forth.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that the Government have finally recognised that councils are facing financial difficulties. However, the Government have been defunding councils over a number of years, so even with the relatively small increase this year, they are still 25% down on the levels they had in 2010. How does that fit with the levelling-up agenda?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I do not recognise the figures that the noble Baroness has put forward. She will know, having been part of the coalition Government in 2010, that the situation this Government inherited from the Benches opposite required difficult decisions to be taken at the time.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Benches opposite may not like being reminded of their record, but it remains a fact. The reality is that in the recent spending review we have committed more money to local government services, and that was increased further last year at the Autumn Statement in light of the inflationary pressures that councils are facing.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this Government can promise what they like for the next election, but the fact is that they are not going to be in power, so all those promises come to nothing. What this Government have done is to reduce council budgets and make severe cuts. I heard only today from councillors from East Hertfordshire Council that the Government have cancelled four big infrastructure projects. How can councils carry on if this Government do not support them, which they are not doing?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are supporting councils. This is not about what is happening after the next election. In this spending review period, councils will receive £4.8 billion of new grant funding—the largest annual increase in core funding in over a decade—and that was further topped up at the Autumn Statement last year, recognising the pressures that councils face. Councils are doing an excellent job up and down the country, and we support them.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the reasons so many local authorities are in such financial trouble these days is because there is a lack of external scrutiny and transparency since the scrapping of the Audit Commission in 2015?
Baroness Penn (Con)
No, I do not agree. In recent years, a small number of local authorities took on excessive debt through their commercial strategies and investments. The Government have taken action both to bring this practice to an end and to revise the framework by which local authorities can borrow and invest. The levelling-up Bill expands statutory powers to directly tackle excessive risk within the local government capital system.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, the scrapping of the Audit Commission was one of the best functions of the previous coalition Government. The Audit Commission wasted billions of pounds of public money.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend sets out the rationale for the decision that was taken, and the Government have made sure that, in the commission’s place, we have strong controls so that local government spending is done in the best possible way.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, arts facilities will be among the first to go when local authorities have no money. The wonderful Lightbox gallery in Woking, not far from me, is now under threat, as indeed is funding elsewhere for symphony orchestras and much else. I repeat what others have asked: will the Government properly fund our local authorities, which have been underfunded for years, so that all our cultural and leisure amenities are allowed to survive and thrive?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I repeat what I said about the recent spending review being the largest increase to core spending powers for local government in over a decade. Additionally, we have put significant support into the arts and culture sector through not only the culture recovery fund during the pandemic but, for example, support to swimming pools— they face high energy costs during the current period of inflation—in the last Autumn Statement. We continue to provide that specific support.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, have the Government not been fiddling with the local government finance system for years? Do we not now need an academic study to come forward with a plan for local government funding that takes into account deprivation and the need to spend?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I do not agree with the noble Lord’s analysis but, as I said to the noble Baroness in my Answer, our approach takes councils’ relative needs into account. We recognise that this may need to be looked at again but, to provide councils with certainty, that will not be done during this spending review period; it will be looked at after the next Parliament.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, we currently give three-quarters of local councils their grants from the centre. It is a higher figure than for anywhere in Europe, except tiny Malta, hence the assumption on all sides is that the solvency of local authorities is ultimately for central government. Does the Minister not agree that it would be healthier for democracy if local councils raised a higher proportion of their own budgets, so that there was a proper link between taxation, representation and expenditure?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are moving towards such steps—for example, through mayoral combined authorities and other areas where we are devolving both greater control of funding and powers to those areas to act. With that comes greater accountability.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can my noble friend say whether the Government have received any proposals from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on where additional funding for local government is to be provided from?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I have not received any such representations, but they have perhaps gone to the department for levelling up; I will ask it if it has ever received such representations from the Opposition Front Bench.
Minoritised Women: Pay Inequality
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to address the pay inequality experienced by Black, Asian and other minoritised women as identified in a report by the Fawcett Society, Ethnicity Motherhood Pay Penalty, published on 31 July.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think this demonstrates just how many Ministers it takes to do my noble friend Lady Scott’s job. I am sure the whole House joins me in wishing her well.
We are taking a number of steps to tackle unjust disparities in the workplace. We published new guidance in April to help employers measure, report and address unfair ethnicity pay differences. We are taking forward measures to improve access to flexible working, including our commitment to make the right to request flexible working apply from day one of employment. We have also launched an inclusion at work panel to develop resources to help employers achieve fairness and inclusion in the workplace more effectively and efficiently.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister and welcome her back to her old job, and of course I send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. This Question concerns three-way discrimination at play, which this report reveals. Black and minority ethnic women face a gender pay gap, an ethnicity pay gap and, on top of that, a clear motherhood pay penalty. This is particularly so for women of Pakistani heritage. I would like to know how this can be built into the kind of review that the Minister mentioned in the last part of her Answer.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I would agree with the noble Baroness on all fronts of her analysis. I will home in on Pakistani women in particular, who seem to have the worst effects of this—there are of course other ethnic minorities who fare better than their white British counterparts—we do a number of things, including outreach work, linking up with organisations that help women furthest from the labour market that we are talking about to move closer to employment. We have developed a proof of concept that targets Pakistani and Bangladeshi women, among others, who for mainly cultural and traditional reasons have struggled to engage with the labour market. We also have support available in jobcentres to that end.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned flexible working and the right of women returning to work to request it—but it is only a request, and it is in the hands of the employer. Given that over double the proportion of women from black and other ethnic minorities reported that they had no access to flexible working, compared with white mothers, this makes them more likely to drop out of the labour market or even stay locked in very low-paid work. So will she say whether the Government will commit to a duty for employers to include reasonable flexible working options in job advertisements, and to push it through?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. Not only will we make it a duty but we are intending to bring it into force soon, because the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 received Royal Assent in July of this year. It makes changes to the right to request flexible working, to better support those employers and employees that the noble Baroness is talking about.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that some pay and equality are associated with barriers to promotion, particularly in our public services? If so, what plans do His Majesty’s Government have to address improving promotion equity for women from black, Asian and other minority backgrounds?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to say that I think the workplace has totally changed, and that large organisations in particular do not want a homogenous workforce; they want a diverse workforce that actually represents this country and the various people who live in it. I have completely forgotten what the noble Baroness asked me now.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Promotion, absolutely. There should be no glass ceiling, my Lords. We have broken through it and we should continue to do so.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the guidance that the noble Baroness mentioned, which the Government set out earlier this year, on how to collect ethnicity pay data for employees. I note that the equal pay alliance, of which the Fawcett Society is a member, has today published a manifesto arguing for mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, along with mandatory action plans. Could my noble friend say what steps the Government are taking to publicise their guidance, and whether they have any plans to make the reporting of ethnicity pay data mandatory?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, mandatory reporting sounds like the perfect situation, but actually if you look into the granularity of it, as I just spoke about, it can actually be a bit of a blunt instrument that misses certain things: locational differences, regional pay differences and, as I said, there are differences within ethnicities themselves. The gender pay gap was a very simple binary reporting system, because we are talking about two groups. Ethnicity pay gap reporting involves maybe up to 19 groups, which makes it much more difficult, and for firms with small numbers it is less informative than one might think. The guidance that my noble friend was talking about was published on GOV.UK on 17 April and we have promoted it through employer engagement, including asking employer representative bodies to promote it through their networks.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is 50 years since we introduced equal pay law in this country and we are nowhere near equal pay, not just for minority women but women in general. When we care about regulation in a modern, democratic economy, whether it is health and safety standards, food standards or school standards, we give a state agency some responsibility both for monitoring, given the granularity issues the noble Baroness referred to, and enforcement. Is it not high time, as we approach 55 years of this equal pay principle, that we gave an agency such as the Revenue some responsibility for monitoring payroll and enforcing equal pay?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, that is quite complex, in the sense that some organisations have done it and done it very well. I recall doing it back in the day when I was a local authority leader. Some have been less good about it. Of course, equal pay discrepancies can be brought into scope, but I remain to be convinced about handing it to another agency.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, when, at the current rate of progress, do His Majesty’s Government envisage that the ethnicity pay gap will be closed?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend might be interested to know that the ethnicity pay gap between white and ethnic minority employees in England and Wales is actually only 2.3%. It goes back to the point raised by the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which is that it does not show the full picture. We have done a lot but there is further to go.
Lord Bird (CB)
We always leave class out of this issue. I hate this idea of turning white against black by talking about doing something for black people when there are so many white people who are also left behind because of the nature of their class and where they come from.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am not sure whether that was a statement or a question, but actually I agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, some of the recently arrived women care workers from Asian and African countries are being exploited by their employers because they have limited negotiating power. They are not fully aware of their rights, are less likely to join a union and are less assertive of their rights due to the fear of job insecurity and their immigration status. They are verging on modern slavery. Are the Government aware of their plight?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think the Government are aware of the plight of anyone who might be in danger of slavery, exploitation and all the things the noble Lord talks about. I do not think that it is necessary to belong to a union to be protected from such exploitation.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
I very much value what my noble friend said regarding the 2% ethnicity pay gap compared with white counterparts, but, once again, we must not treat all ethnic minority people as a homogenous group. That figure will be better for men, in terms of the differentials in pay gap, and worse for ethnic minority women. So, although I understand that there is variation and that there are lots of groups of ethnic minority women, nevertheless I think that there is merit in having a statutory requirement for businesses to say what those pay gaps are. That would be a start.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
We do not intend to go down that route, for all the reasons I outlined earlier, but my noble friend is absolutely right that there is a big disparity within ethnic minority groups, with some people earning more than their ethnic white counterparts and others earning less. I think that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was trying to get at.
Nursing Courses: Reduction in Applications
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the causes of a reduction of 16 per cent in applications to nursing courses in England compared to last year, according to UCAS data for the 2023 application cycle.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The drop in nursing applicants reflects an expected rebalancing following unprecedented demand for healthcare courses during the Covid-19 pandemic. Nursing is still a popular career choice. Applicant numbers remain 15% higher than pre-pandemic levels. We also continue to see growth in the number of people pursuing nursing apprenticeships. This is not final data; figures are accurate as at the end of June application deadline, but the application cycle remains open through clearing until mid-October.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, but I think he would accept that any drop-off in applications is something to worry about, alongside the current drop-out rate for student nurses in the UK of around 24%. On that basis, surely the NHS workforce plan in relation to nursing is simply not sustainable. If the Minister does accept that, is there not a case for looking at writing off debt run up by student nurses through tuition fees if they commit to working in the NHS for a length of time?
Lord Markham (Con)
We are delivering on a number of routes to recruit nurses. Obviously, the graduate route is one route, which, as mentioned, is above pre-pandemic levels; apprenticeships is another route, which is proving very successful; and associates is another route again. So there are many routes in, and the result is that our applications are 20% up on pre-pandemic levels. We set ourselves a target of recruiting 50,000 more nurses by the end of this Parliament and we are currently on 45,000, so we are going to hit it.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend the Minister said regarding the number of nurses joining; nevertheless, the number of nurses leaving the NHS is higher than we would expect. Would my noble friend say exactly whether we are collating this information and understanding why those people are leaving, because they have a very valued skill?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, absolutely. Clearly, we want to recruit, but we also want to retain our workforce and again that is what the long-term workforce plan is all about—trying to look at a clear professional development path and other things we can help with, such as childcare support and the culture and leadership, and really make nursing a very successful and rewarding career structure. There is a lot to do on it, but I think there has been a lot of good progress as well.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan will make funding available for an increased number of nurse training places, which is of course welcome, but the increase in capacity for the NHS will happen only if there are sufficiently qualified candidates applying for those places and completing the training. Would the Minister be willing to share the assumptions his department made about application and attrition rates when setting the targets in the workforce plan, so that we can compare those assumptions with reality as revealed by the numbers in the Question today?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, my understanding is that all the workings behind the long-term workforce plan are currently being analysed by another body— I am not quite sure whether it is the NAO, the ONS or whoever. The point is that all the modelling and the underlying assumptions are being analysed, and I believe there will then be a report on them so that everyone can see what we are trying to do and how reasonable those assumptions are.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, the University of Salford, where I am chair of council, has seen applications for adult nursing down by 28%, children’s nursing down by 27% and mental health nursing down by 6%, with an overall drop of 23%. From the feedback the university is receiving, the main barrier is that the financial support needed to undertake a highly intensive course, which leaves little time for part-time working, is insufficient to meet the current cost of living. Does the Minister accept that this is a factor in the drop in applications, and will the Government review the financial package of support available to nursing applicants to ensure, as we have heard, that the NHS workforce plan is deliverable?
Lord Markham (Con)
Clearly, as the largest employer in the UK—if not most of the world—the NHS always has to be looking at the whole package that it is offering its staff to make it an attractive place to recruit good talent and retain it. The point that the noble Lord makes is absolutely correct, and those are all things that need to go into the mix. As I say, recent data is encouraging. We have increased the numbers by 45,000 and are on course to hit the 50,000 target, but, as ever, we need to be vigilant because we want to recruit a lot more.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord who spoke about his university, the University of Chichester—in the diocese where I serve—is now developing practice-focused nursing courses, including a new nursing associate apprenticeship scheme, even though the cost of living in the south-east is a disincentive to seeking to work in the healthcare sector. However, the university is finding that the current funding and availability of external placements are restricting the growth of these courses, despite the university’s capacity to take more students. What measures are the Government taking to support education and placement expansion at the pace requested by the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan?
Lord Markham (Con)
The whole long-term workforce plan is supported by a £2.4 billion investment to make sure that we hit our ambitious targets. It takes into account things like apprenticeships: we want to see the proportion of people coming through the apprenticeship route increase from 9% to 28%. On nursing associates—noble Lords will remember that this is a subject close to my heart, because for my mother, who had children when she was very young, nursing was a route for her to get back into the workforce, so this is something that I am glad to see us now picking up again—we have seen nursing associates increase from 1,000 to 10,000 over the last few years. These are all key routes, which we are backing up with investment behind them.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, it appears that the reduction in student nurses was most prominent among mature students. Applications from those aged 30 to 34 dropped by 25%. Out of nearly 49,000 qualified entrants to teaching last year, fewer than 12,000 were over the age of 39. As someone who retrained as a teacher at the age of 50, can I ask what the Government are doing to attract more mature students to both professions—a group of people who might be under less financial pressure and are able to see these professions as the incredibly important and rewarding careers that they are?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I just mentioned, the whole point around nursing associates is to try to attract those more mature recruits as well. As I was trying to show with the example of my mother, there are lots of people who have a lot of value that they can give later on in their life. That is definitely the sense of direction that we are trying to achieve. I repeat that, while people are talking as if numbers are going down, across the field of graduates, apprenticeships and associates we are looking at a 20% increase since pre-pandemic levels.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend consider making it much easier for young people to get work experience in the NHS, so that they can see what a wonderful career it is, rather than having to rely on the chance of someone they know working in that industry?
Lord Markham (Con)
Absolutely. We are trying to adopt a modular approach so that you can have units that can build towards getting in there. For people who go into social care, for instance, there is a modular unit that can add towards going into nursing later on. That is a means of attracting people to nursing by having more routes in and making a career such as social care attractive in terms of career progression.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned the attrition rate among student nurses, but I understand that the attrition rate among student mental health nurses is even greater. That is a particularly challenging specialist course, and one of the problems is that very often the clinical placements are a long way from where the student nurse lives. Is there any programme of support available to make sure that we do not lose the student nurses who undertake this very challenging route to nursing?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite correct that mental health is a particular case in point. When we introduced the £5,000 grant for all nurses each year, we gave additional add-ons, and mental health nurses get an add-on in addition to that £5,000 a year. We also increased the travel and accommodation costs allowance by 50% to cater for those who have to travel far and wide.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the figures on overall declining numbers are concerning, particularly since this is the second successive steep fall, with, as the Minister said, the Department of Health relying on the UCAS clearing system and future nurse apprenticeships to try to make up the numbers. What changes does the Minister consider need to be made to the NHS workforce plan in the light of escalating problems with both the recruitment and retention of key staff?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am sorry to keep coming back to the data, but it suggests a 45,000 increase, which shows that we are doing pretty well. A 20% increase across all the different fields since the pandemic also shows that we are doing a good job on recruitment. Clearly, we cannot rest on our laurels, so we need to look at all those routes in, but I do not understand why people characterise the numbers as dropping when in fact the data shows the overall increase is far greater.
NATS: Staffing
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had had with NATS (formerly National Air Traffic Services) regarding their staffing issues which resulted in delays and cancellations in flights at Gatwick Airport on Thursday 14 September.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government regret the delays caused by staffing issues in the Gatwick air traffic control tower last Thursday. UK airport air traffic control services are a commercial matter in the UK—in the case of Gatwick, between NATS and the airport operator. We continue to engage with stakeholders to review plans for disruption mitigation, and I shall meet the CEOs of NATS, Gatwick, easyJet and the CAA shortly.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, for the third time in three weeks, travellers have faced immense inconvenience due to air traffic control issues, with flights cancelled, delayed or diverted. The latest incident, as the Minister referred to, was only last week, caused apparently by the untimely sickness of one air traffic controller, and a replacement could not be put in place quickly. Given that NATS is a public/private partnership where the Government own 49%, can the Minister outline what staffing resilience measures NATS will put in place as a result of her current or future discussions? The issues include the framework for staff training, current and future recruitment schemes for air traffic controllers, and the number of staff and vacancies in NATS. Further, will she emphasise whether the Department of Transport is directly involved in building sustainability in the new staffing requirements for NATS?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
There are plenty of questions there for me to get my teeth into. I shall focus on staffing and staffing resilience at Gatwick in the tower. Two unrelated operational incidents caused withdrawal pending review, which is a standard safety procedure, and that impacted the flow on that day. However, when NATS took over air traffic control at Gatwick in October 2022, it inherited a staffing shortage. It takes at least 13 months to train an air traffic controller at a specific airport, and as I am sure the noble Baroness realises, 13 months have not yet elapsed. We have reviewed NATS’ plans, we are continuing to do so, and we believe that progress is being made.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, a fortnight ago, I asked my noble friend whether NATS should be liable to pay compensation for its failures in the same way as the airlines are, but she resisted. In defence, she said that NATS’ licence conditions allow penalties to be imposed for its failures. However, in a Written Answer, my noble friend told me that over the past five years, those penalties amounted only to £600,000, whereas this month the airlines have had to pay £100 million for NATS’ failures. Surely NATS should have to pay compensation in the same way as the airlines.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his continued questions on this matter. There are 55 licensed air navigation service providers in the UK. I am not saying that all of them could look after Gatwick, because it is incredibly complicated, but it is a commercial operation, entirely separate and different from what happens in upper air space, which is what I think my noble friend was questioning me about last week. There is a contractual arrangement between the airport and NATS which will include service level agreements and, I am sure, financial penalties, but it is a commercial matter of which the Government do not have oversight.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, as someone who uses the airport regularly to come to this House, I have to say that this is not a one-off. Flights are delayed or cancelled regularly each week. Last Thursday was an embarrassment for the airport—more than 17 flights were cancelled with an equal number of flights delayed. What was annoying was the lack of information—passengers were treated with total contempt when trying to find out what was happening. How many flights have been cancelled or delayed over the past two to three years? That information would be important in finding out exactly what is happening at the airport and who is managing it. When flights are cancelled or delayed, who is responsible for sharing that information with passengers?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The reasons for cancellations and delays in the aviation system are numerous, including industrial action in France, adverse weather, wildfires and airspace restrictions owing to the situation in Ukraine. They are more numerous than I can elicit. The noble Lord asked how many flight cancellations there have been. I can tell him that, so far in 2023, there have been 74 flight cancellations due to tower staffing issues at London Gatwick; that is 74 out of 180,000 flights, so it is fewer than 0.1% of movements. I accept his premise that there will have been cancellations for other reasons and have noted some of them, but those are not within Gatwick’s or the airlines’ control. In those circumstances, we have to understand that the aviation system is complex and that many different factors can impact the flight schedule.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has outlined one way in which the penalties that can be imposed on NATS are inadequate, but that is not the only inadequacy. If things are so bad that flights are not delayed but cancelled then the current legislation ensures, ironically, that NATS will not suffer penalties. It suffers penalties only for delays and not for cancellations. When are the Government going to deal with that important loophole in the legislation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The issue that the noble Baroness raises will be covered when the CAA completes its review of the outage in upper airspace that NATS suffered recently. I will await the independent regulator’s views on that, and we will obviously take action if needed. The noble Baroness said that the penalties are inadequate, but I also want to stress that when it comes to Gatwick tower control, the Government have no oversight of or insight into what those penalties are. They may well be adequate, as they are negotiated on a commercial footing.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Government seem to have a problem with people, because there is a shortage of people in this, as we have heard from many noble Lords already. It is a similar problem to what we will be debating later: a shortage of drivers on the west coast main line. Both those problems involve businesses which the Government say are commercial but in fact, behind the scenes, they make very sure that nobody is allowed to recruit enough people to ensure that there is a contingency. What are the Government going to do about that?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord conflates two of my favourite topics. As he knows, both those companies are privately run and can recruit as many people as they like. However, they suffer the same thing: during the Covid pandemic, it was very difficult to train traffic controllers and train drivers. To a certain extent, there is a bit of catch-up going on. As I say, for train drivers as for air traffic controllers, training takes a very long time. It is at least 18 months before that person is operational.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very complex and almost unique issue. We have the failure of a small unit, with perhaps three people on duty, impacting on the enterprise as a whole. The problem is: what is the adequate reserve? When NATS took over in October last year, Gatwick saw the need to agree staffing levels. As an increase in staff was needed, recruitment and training were put in hand, but it has not yet delivered. That was 11 months ago. It may be that ab initio to on duty is 13 months, but surely more energy should be put into finding a bridging solution to that problem. We also need to worry about who should be financially responsible. I caution against putting the responsibility on NATS on the day, because the runway is the most dangerous part of any operation, especially into Gatwick. But is the present situation equitable and, in the final analysis, is not Gatwick responsible for Gatwick?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
In the final analysis, Gatwick is indeed responsible for Gatwick. As the noble Lord will know, there are numerous London airports which, I am sure, would be happy to provide services. Therefore, there is a rationale for Gatwick management making sure that their operations run very smoothly. The noble Lord mentioned a bridging solution. I agree; I wish there were one. However, the simple fact is that Gatwick is the busiest single-runway airport in the world. Even an experienced air traffic controller still needs that 13 months to train in order to take up their role. Even worse than that, at 13 months the success rate is still 50%, because safety always comes first.
Libya Floods
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister has been focused on the huge disaster in Libya, and of course the situation is incredibly complex. Last Thursday, David Rutley said that
“the UN is … finalising its needs assessment”,—[Official Report, Commons, 14/9/23; col. 1002.]
and that the UK stood ready to assist in is response. I take it that that assessment has now been received, so can the Minister update us on what the UK’s support will be for the disaster response team and whether this includes technical and expert advice and support? Finally, I know the Minister is on his way to UNGA at some point. Can he reassure the House that the UK will be mobilising global support for the disaster relief efforts in Libya?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I am sure I speak for all of us in your Lordships’ House as I extend the condolences of the Government and the whole House to the people of Libya and, if I may, to the people of Morocco. Two absolutely shocking events have taken place and the human suffering has been immense.
I assure the noble Lord that we have been very much seized of the situation. Two days ago, I spoke directly to the OCHA co-ordinator, Martin Griffiths, to understand fully the work of the UN. We are routing our support through the UN agencies on the ground because of the complexity of the situation. Over the weekend, the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary immediately announced £1 million of funding to provide life-saving assistance, based on a needs assessment. I announced a further package of £10 million to bolster UK support in the region to cover the situation in Libya, as well as in Morocco. I can report to the House that the first flight carrying UK-funded support landed in Benghazi on the morning of Monday 18 September, including shelter items, portable solar lanterns and, importantly, water filters.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself with the sympathies from the Minister to the people of Morocco and Libya. Regarding the UK response, the Government depleted the humanitarian relief fund to less than 10% of its previous levels—has that now been fully replenished, to ensure that we can respond to natural disasters such as these going forward? On the specific response to Libya, the Minister will be aware that there have been reports of warnings which could have potentially saved thousands of lives. Which institutions within Libya do the British Government trust to ensure that any reconstruction and humanitarian relief work will be done in a corrupt-free way, to ensure that people do not have their suffering prolonged?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord would acknowledge that the response to the crisis in Morocco and in Libya has ensured that we have stood up funding based on the needs assessment and in line with the conversations we have had through UN agencies and, importantly, with the Libyan Administration. I spoke to the head of the Presidential Council, Mohamed al-Menfi, and extended the condolences of the United Kingdom. His Majesty the King has also sent a note. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Prime Minister Dabaiba in this regard. I am also looking to meet the appropriate Libyan Minister on the ground in New York when I depart for the UN later today.
We have ensured immediate, life-saving funding. As the noble Lord recognises, the situation in Libya is extremely complex. There are two warring sides. I have spoken directly to our chargé on the ground in Libya to ensure there is good co-ordination with all sides. We are hearing some reports, in this desperate situation, of good co-ordination, but so much more needs to be done. The main issues are of access and logistics. On the eastern side of the country, from Benghazi, aid to all the affected areas has been hindered by people who are stopping it being delivered. They are hindering the important humanitarian work as well.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister referenced the role of the United Nations. He will have seen reports that UNICEF says that some 300,000 children have been affected and that the number is rising. Is he able to give the House any more information about this? He will have also seen that UNICEF has launched its own appeal. Can he tell us whether the disasters appeal in the United Kingdom is concentrating on both Libya and Morocco? Is he confident that the aid needed in Morocco is now reaching its desired intentions and purposes at first hand? As the Minister knows, there were complaints about how slowly it was being taken up.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Lord’s latter point, on the Saturday evening and overnight into Sunday I engaged directly with the Moroccan Foreign Minister to ensure we knew exactly what was required. I pay tribute to our emergency response teams, which mobilised overnight to ensure that the required assistance went out on two RAF planes. I am grateful to my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence for their strong co-operation. Those planes landed and the aid got through to the key parts of Marrakesh, which many noble Lords will know well, and the Atlas Mountains. We are also working with key agencies on the ground. I know that the Moroccan ambassador has embraced the NGOs which stand ready to assist, and which are working with local partners.
The UN has launched a flash fund for Libya. There are several UN agencies on the ground such as the World Health Organization and UNICEF, as the noble Lord said, and the World Food Programme has begun delivering food assistance. It is very difficult, particularly in Derna, which has been totally and utterly devastated. Once the assessments that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned are made and materialise, we will be able to stand up further support according to need.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, Libya is an oil-rich country. Surely the problem is not just one of money but of governance and neglect of the infrastructure over a long period. Is there any prospect that this tragedy might bring together the two warring factions in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica? Can the international community bring pressure on both sides and their sponsors at least to recognise the problem and try to reconcile it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I totally agree with the noble Lord and his premise that Libya is economically very rich. Since the disputes broke out, which continue to plague the country, there has been corruption and a lack of co-ordination and administration. Some reports suggest that that led to the collapse of the infrastructure—particularly the two dams which directly impacted and devastated Derna. I can assure the noble Lord that we are working with the UN. Prior to this crisis, I had engaged with SRSG Bathily on reconciliation and bringing the two sides together. I hope to meet him again when I am in New York later today and during the next two days.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the apocalyptic floods in Libya are now estimated to have killed 11,000 people, with 10,000 still missing. Their intensity and impact have been aggravated by global warming. Since 2020, the UK’s aid budget has fallen from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. I implore the Minister to think again, particularly as the original aid budget was set before the world had to respond to regular climate disasters.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
We have talked many a time about the need for aid, and the Government are committed to returning to 0.7% at the appropriate time. I am sure the noble Earl would acknowledge that the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of support in both Libya and Morocco, and we continue to engage in this respect. I am sure the noble Earl has been following media and other reports and will know that this is not just about climate. There are some serious issues around accountability, particularly about the maintenance of the dam. We are awaiting a full assessment in that regard. There is an acute responsibility on the part of those who administer this part of Libya.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that these two things coming together is a terrible warning for the rest of the world? The mixture of climate change and inadequate protection, as well as inadequate dealing with the maintenance of infrastructure, ought to be a clarion call throughout the world, including in this country. Would he undertake to make sure that our adaptation report, which the Climate Change Committee said was entirely inadequate, can be looked at again?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I shall take my noble friend’s suggestion, because I know that he makes it in a very constructive way. Certainly, I think that we need to. The discussions that have taken place in the UN over the past couple of days have been focused very much on climate and the environment. I am delighted that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has been directly involved with this matter. It is important to note that we are only half way towards the fulfilment—or lack of fulfilment—of the SDGs. The performance is very low, and we need a concerted effort to ensure that the SDGs get back on track. I am sure that the report to which the noble Lord referred serves as an important contributor in this respect.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest, as I have had a lot to do with setting up medical schools in Libya. I would be very interested to know whether the Minister has any information on the original construction of the two dams.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can share with my noble friend that the dams were actually constructed by Yugoslavia, which in itself reflects how dated they are. Of course, any infrastructure that was built requires regular maintenance. The early reports that have come out, particularly with the complex situation in the eastern part of Libya, suggest that those dams had not been sustained in the way that was required. There are lots of reports of early warning signals and cracks in the dams, and we will assess those. What is required now is a concerted effort on the ground, and for the two sides in Libya to come together in the interests of the Libyan people.
Online Safety Bill
Tuesday 19th September 2023
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 170-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons - (18 Sep 2023)
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 17A and 17B in lieu.
“(e) the extent to which the design of the service, in particular its functionalities, affects the level of risk of harm that might be suffered by children, identifying and assessing those functionalities that present higher levels of risk, including functionalities—
(i) enabling adults to search for other users of the service (including children), or
(ii) enabling adults to contact other users (including children) by means of the service;”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A and, with the leave of the House, I shall also speak to Motions B to H.
I am pleased to say that the amendments made in your Lordships’ House to strengthen the Bill’s provisions were accepted in another place. His Majesty’s Government presented a number of amendments in lieu of changes proposed by noble Lords, which are before your Lordships today.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for her continued engagement on the issue of small but high-risk platforms. The Government were happy to accept her proposed changes to the rules for determining the conditions that establish which services will be designated as category 1 or 2B services. In making the regulations, the Secretary of State will now have the discretion to decide whether to set a threshold based on either the number of users or the functionalities offered, or on both factors. Previously, the threshold had to be based on a combination of both.
It remains the expectation that services will be designated as category 1 services only where it is appropriate to do so, to ensure that the regime remains proportionate. We do not, for example, expect to apply these duties to large companies with very limited functionalities. This change, however, provides greater flexibility to bring smaller services with particular functionalities into scope of category 1 duties, should it be necessary to do so. As a result of this amendment, we have also made a small change to Clause 98—the emerging services list—to ensure that it makes operational sense. Before my noble friend’s amendment, a service would be placed on the emerging services list if it met the functionality condition and 75% of the user number threshold. Under the clause as amended, a service could be designated as category 1 without meeting both a functionality and a user condition. Without this change, Ofcom would, in such an instance, be required to list only services which meet the 75% condition.
We have heard from both Houses about the importance of ensuring that technology platforms are held to account for the impact of their design choices on children’s safety. We agree and the amendments we proposed in another place make it absolutely clear that providers must assess the impact of their design choices on the risk of harm to children, and that they deliver robust protections for children on all areas of their service. I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Clement-Jones, my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for their hard work to find an acceptable way forward. I also thank Sir Jeremy Wright MP for his helpful contributions to this endeavour.
Noble Lords will remember that an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, sought to require the Secretary of State to review certain offences relating to animals and, depending on the outcome of that review, to list these as priority offences. To accelerate protections in this important area, the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu listing Section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 as a priority offence. This will mean that users can be protected from animal torture material more swiftly. Officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have worked closely with the RSPCA and are confident that the Section 4 offence, unnecessary suffering of an animal, will capture a broad swathe of illegal activity. Adding this offence to Schedule 7 will also mean that linked inchoate offences, such as encouraging or assisting this behaviour, are captured by the illegal content duties. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this matter, for her discussions on them with my noble friend Lord Camrose and for her support for the amendment we are making in lieu.
To ensure the speedy implementation of the Bill’s regime, we have added Clauses 116 to 118, which relate to the disclosure of information by Ofcom, and Clauses 170 and 171, which relate to super-complaints, to the provisions to be commenced immediately on Royal Assent. These changes will allow Ofcom and the Government to hold the necessary consultations as quickly as possible after Royal Assent. As noble Lords know, the intention of the Bill is to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online, particularly for children. I firmly believe that the Bill before your Lordships today will do that, strengthened by the changes made in this House and by the collaborative approach that has been shown, not just in all quarters of this Chamber but between both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very warmly for his introduction today. I shall speak in support of Motions A to H inclusive. Yes, I am very glad that we have agreement at this final milestone of the Bill before Royal Assent. I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues, to the Secretary of State, to the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan, Lady Kidron and Lady Merron, who have brought us to this point with their persistence over issues such as functionalities, categorisation and animal cruelty.
This is not the time for rehearsing any reservations about the Bill. The Bill must succeed and implementation must take place swiftly. So, with many thanks to the very many, both inside and outside this House, who have worked so hard on the Bill for such a long period, we on these Benches wish the Bill every possible success. He is in his place, so I can say that it is over to the noble Lord, Lord Grade, and his colleagues at Ofcom, in whom we all have a great deal of confidence.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I shall contribute briefly from these Benches because it is important for us all to be aware of just how much people outside have been watching the progress of the Bill. Indeed, today in the Public Gallery we have some bereaved parents who have suffered at the hands of things that have come up on the internet. We have been very privileged, all the way through the Bill, to be able to hear from people who have been victims and who have genuinely wanted to improve things for others and avoid other problems. The collaborative nature with which everyone has approached the Bill has, we hope, achieved those goals for everyone.
We all need to wish the noble Lord, Lord Grade, good luck and all the best as he takes on an incredibly important scrutiny role. I am sure that in years to come we will be looking at post-legislative scrutiny. In the meantime, I shall not name everybody, apart from putting the Minister in prime position; I thank him and everyone for having worked so hard, because I hear from outside that that work is greatly appreciated.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his swift and concise introduction, which very carefully covered the ground without raising any issues that we have to respond to directly. I am grateful for that as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was his usual self. The only thing that I missed, of course, was the quotation that I was sure he was going to give from the pre-legislative scrutiny report on the Bill, which has been his constant prompt. I also think that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was very right to remind us of those outside the House who we must remember as we reach the end of this stage.
Strangely, although we are at the momentous point of allowing this Bill to go forward for Royal Assent, I find that there is actually very little that needs to be said. In fact, everything has been said by many people over the period; trying to make any additional points would be meretricious persiflage. So I will make two brief points to wind up this debate.
First, is it not odd to reflect on the fact that this historic Parliament, with all our archaic rules and traditions, has the capacity to deal with a Bill that is regulating a technology which most of us have difficulty in comprehending, let alone keeping up with? However, we have done a very good job and, as a result, I echo the words that have already been said; I think the internet will now be a much safer place for children to enjoy and explore, and the public interest will be well served by this Bill, even though we accept that it is likely to only be the first of a number of Bills that will be needed in the years to come.
Secondly, I have been reflecting on the offer I made to the Government at Second Reading, challenging them to work together with the whole House to get the best Bill that we could out of what the Commons had presented to us. That of course could have turned out to be a slightly pointless gesture if nobody had responded positively—but they did. I particularly thank the Minister and the Bill team for rising to the challenge. There were problems initially, but we got there in the end.
More widely, there was, I know, a worry that committing to working together would actually stifle debate and somehow limit our crucial role of scrutiny. But actually I think it had the opposite effect. Some of the debates we had in Committee, from across the House, were of the highest standard, and opened up issues which needed to be resolved. People listened to each other and responded as the debate progressed. The discussion extended to the other place. It is very good to see Sir Jeremy Wright here; he has played a considerable role in resolving the final points.
It will not work for all Bills, but if the politics can be ignored, or at least put aside, it seems to make it easier to get at the issues that need to be debated in the round. In suggesting this approach, I think we may have found a way of getting the best out of our House —something that does not always occur. I hope that lesson can be listened to by all groups and parties.
For myself, participating in this Bill and the pre-legislative scrutiny committee which preceded it has been a terrific experience. Sadly, a lot of people who contributed to our discussions over that period cannot be here today, but I hope they read this speech in Hansard, because I want to end by thanking them, and those here today, for being part of this whole process. We support the amendments before the House today and wish good luck to the noble Lord, Lord Grade.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very conscious that this is not the end of the road. As noble Lords have rightly pointed out in wishing the Bill well, attention now moves very swiftly to Ofcom, under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, who has participated, albeit silently, in our proceedings before, and to the team of officials who stand ready to implement this swiftly. The Bill benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny. A number of noble Lords who have spoken throughout our deliberations took part in the Joint Committee of both Houses which did that. It will also benefit from post-legislative scrutiny, through the Secretary of State’s review, which will take place between two and five years after Royal Assent. I know that the noble Lords who have worked so hard on this Bill for many years will be watching it closely as it becomes an Act of Parliament, to ensure that it delivers what we all want it to.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, reminded us of the challenge he set us at Second Reading: to minimise the votes in dissent and to deliver this Bill without pushing anything to ping-pong. I think I was not the only one in the Chamber who was sceptical about our ability to do so, but it is thanks to the collaborative approach and the tone that he has set that we have been able to do that. That is a credit to everybody involved.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 20, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 20A.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 22, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 22A.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 81 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 81A, 81B and 81C in lieu.
“(c) the extent to which the design of the service, in particular its functionalities, affects the level of risk of harm that might be suffered by children, identifying and assessing those functionalities that present higher levels of risk, including a functionality that makes suggestions relating to users’ search requests (predictive search functionality);”
“(ca) the different ways in which the service is used, including functionalities or other features of the service that affect how much children use the service, and the impact of such use on the level of risk of harm that might be suffered by children;”
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 148 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 148A in lieu.
“Animal welfare
32A An offence under section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (unnecessary suffering of an animal).”
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 182A.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 349A and 349B.
“(qa) sections 104 to 106;”
“(ta) sections 150 and 151;”
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 391A and 391B.
“(3A) If the regulations under paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11 specify that a service meets the Category 1 threshold conditions if any one condition about number of users or functionality is met (as mentioned in paragraph 1(4)(a) of that Schedule)—
(a) subsection (2) applies as if paragraph (b) were omitted, and
(b) subsections (3) and (7) apply as if the reference to the conditions in subsection (2) were to the condition in subsection (2)(a).”
Non-Domestic Rating Bill
Tuesday 19th September 2023
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023 View all Non-Domestic Rating Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 140-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (15 Sep 2023)
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(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 improvement rate relief until at least 1 April 2029.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is unable to join your Lordships’ House today due to work commitments, so he has asked me to introduce his amendments in the first group as I have added my name to them. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 in this group all relate to rate relief for energy efficiency improvements. Specifically, they allow qualifying energy efficiency improvements improvement rate relief until at least 1 April 2029. That contrasts with the current position of the Government, who have previously made it clear that they intend to offer improvement relief for only one year.
I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, that he has had constructive meetings with the Minister, but that during those meetings she raised two particular concerns about the implementation of his amendments, if the Government were to accept them. First, she raised the issue of the reduction in rates revenue that would come if the amendments were passed. The noble Lord asked me to draw attention to the fact that that would be offset by the increased investment in energy efficiency that would therefore result, including a reduction in the cost of bills, as well as the ensuing energy security and sustainability benefits that would come from the introduction of his amendments.
The second concern the Minister raised was about the classification of energy efficiency measures for valuation purposes when compared with renewables and energy storage. The argument here is that this would mean that almost any building works could potentially qualify: for example, replacement windows and anything to do with the fabric of the building itself. We understand what the Minister is saying about this and why she raised that point, but we would add that, while an insulated extension might have an incidental efficiency benefit, we believe—as does the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale—that it should be possible to distinguish between changes that are mainly or wholly for the purpose of improving energy efficiency and those where the improvement is incidental. We should be able to differentiate between the two. The suggestion the noble Lord made is that the Government could look at tweaking the draft regulations on which they have recently consulted. It would be very constructive for the Government to discuss this further with the noble Lord to see whether this is an option going forward and whether it could actually be achieved.
We support the steps that the noble Lord is suggesting to encourage businesses to carry out energy-efficiency improvements. They are important because that would not only align with the UK’s climate and emissions targets but lead to long-term savings for ratepayers and bring about efficiencies all round. The recent increases in energy bills have created enormous uncertainties —very much so for high street retailers, who have been in a volatile market for some time since Covid—and the Government should explore incentives such as this. I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Looking at those amendments and their context, I think they present a viable option for the Minister to examine and respond to. It is important to consider where the benefit is likely to fall should these amendments be accepted. As I see it, it will primarily benefit SMEs above the small business rate relief threshold. That is not a guaranteed threshold, by the way; it is at the discretion of the Government of the day, from time to time.
For many of those smaller SMEs above that threshold, business rate costs easily exceed energy costs, even in this day and age. Therefore, for many of those businesses, their focus is on getting their rates down and getting the Government to do that, perhaps overlooking the need to make energy improvements, which they perhaps do not see as central to their business operation, nor producing a dividend that they can cash in good time. This amendment skilfully joins those two things. It offers, to those who find the rates burden excessive—and perhaps we could add “Who doesn’t?”—a mechanism for reducing them by investing in energy performance measures. I certainly agree with what the noble Baroness said about the shape of the guidelines, which would obviously be produced if these amendments were passed, and what those energy improvement measures should be and how they might be properly measured.
There is a clear incentive mechanism here, which is clearly needed because there is no doubt that businesses in that sector in particular are lagging behind on energy efficiency—for the reasons I have outlined: they have other business pressures on them and it is certainly not at the top of their to-do list. Also, they probably do not have an ESG policy or a policy statement committing their enterprise to getting to zero carbon by 2050. These are a band of enterprises which are core to the British economy, but they are not exactly headline-making businesses when it comes to developing their social and environmental policies. They need a nudge. To give them a nudge which reduces their rates bill seems a mechanism which merits careful exploration.
The measures in these amendments would be helpful in that hard-to-reach SME sector, often occupying hard-to-improve premises. To join those two things up would be very worth while. We cannot rely on reaching our 2050 targets for the built environment purely on the good will and common sense of hard-pressed SMEs, which have so much else to do.
There is a greater public good to be achieved. If the Government feel that there is any element of giving money away that they do not need to do, I would simply argue that this is, or could be, an important step in delivering that public good, which is reaching zero carbon by 2050—reducing our carbon emissions and avoiding climate extinction. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say by way of response on behalf of the Government.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments. As we are at this stage of the Bill, I declare that I am a chartered surveyor, a registered valuer and a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association. It is some time since my bread and butter was generated from dealing with non-domestic ratings; the concepts are well trod, but I will not claim to have any up-to-date knowledge on some of the finer points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, mentioned some of the concerns that the Minister has put forward. My ears pricked up a bit, as they always do when I hear about ministerial concerns. The first was a reduction in revenue. Let us be clear: we are talking about not making an increase—not actually losing something that was there before. It is the increase created in value that is discounted under the Government’s proposals, for no more than one year. The purpose of these amendments is that the increase should not bite for a longer period. That is important, because the work to improve energy efficiency of buildings is sometimes only really justifiable over quite a long period of time. There is no instant fix. In the meantime, it has to be funded, by a loan or an imputed opportunity cost of money for that period. As I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, one year is simply too short and would be no incentive. The other question about the reduction in revenue is: what is better, not to be able to charge the increase in rates, or someone not to do the work at all because they consider that they should defer the evil day for doing it? There has to be some incentive all round.
The second point that the noble Baroness referred to about what the Minister had said was on the classification of energy-efficiency works in valuation terms. I really do not see that there is any particular difficulty with that. Valuers are dealing with these sorts of things all the time, whether they be tenants’ improvements that are disregarded for rental value purposes, which is actually the nearest open-market analogy to what one is dealing with in business rates valuation, or whether it be for some other purpose—the cost-benefit of some scheme or other. One obviously has to look at these things in the round. If somebody is just replacing the windows and nothing else, clearly they are doing a bit to the U-value to make it more efficient, but it is not a holistic approach. Alternately, if they are part of any type of scheme that one would put forward—that may come out of the further guidance that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell—they will have to look at these things on a holistic basis, because you cannot just put a draught-proof strip on a door and expect your bills to go down. It does not happen like that.
These amendments are very important. I do not see the difficulties that the Minister raised in discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, so I wholeheartedly support this. The Government could afford to be a little more generous-minded over the whole thing. I encourage the Minister, when she is replying, to perhaps apply that metric.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. They give us the opportunity to discuss this important matter again.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this debate and gave their strong support for the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. It is much appreciated.
I feel that the Minister gave the reasons for the Government not doing this that I mentioned at the beginning, when I explained why we thought that they could, so I am not hugely convinced. It is good that the Government are looking at energy efficiency—it is really important and has not been taken seriously enough in the past—but, as the other areas that the Minister mentioned have been included, why not expand this to include the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and what they would achieve? Anything that improves energy efficiency should be encouraged, in a nutshell.
I hear what the Minister has said and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, will look carefully at Hansard, but I think it would be good if the door to discussion could be kept open. On that note, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
“(4) Omit subsections (8A) and (9).”Member's explanatory statement
The intention of this amendment is to remove the prohibition on a billing authority giving relief on a hereditament occupied by a billing authority, a precepting authority or a GLA functional body.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, now that we have begun Report, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I have said previously that there are many good things in this Bill. When we have moved amendments, as we are doing today, the aim is to make it a better Bill. The Government—any Government—face huge challenges with business rates. Inflation-linked rises in the cost of business rates is one challenge, and I think it is generally acknowledged that business rates have simply got too high for many businesses to cope with. Proportionately, when you go back one or two decades, business rates are indeed very high.
A second problem lies with internet sales, which, frankly, are destroying the high street. One-third of retail sales are now online, and that is having a devastating effect. Just two days ago, the British Retail Consortium wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to freeze property taxes in order to prevent further high-street closures. As the consortium said, a rise would have the impact of
“threatening the viability of many shops and hindering the industry’s capacity to invest”.
I subscribe to that view, and I hope that when we come to the Autumn Statement some indication will be given that that will be the Government’s intention.
As I said in Committee, while I welcome revaluations moving to every three years, I would prefer them to be every two years, because valuations that are more up to date reduce costs and confusion and make life easier for lots of businesses. I see this Bill as a staging post to getting to two years—we shall look at that in a future group. I would also prefer locally set multipliers and would like to think that the Government would look at greater fiscal powers for local government over the next two or three years. That said, this Bill makes positive changes, and I would now like to address the amendments that I have put down to make the Bill even better.
In moving Amendment 4, I will also speak to Amendments 16, 17 and 18. The intention of Amendment 4 is to remove the prohibition on a billing authority giving relief on a hereditament occupied by a billing authority, precepting authority or GLA functional body. These prohibitions prevent authorities awarding relief to premises such as markets which they own. This was a particular issue in the 2020 retail, leisure and hospitality relief, where billing authorities found that they could not give relief to premises of which they, or a precepting authority, were the occupier—including, for example, local authority markets. My amendment, which is supported by the Local Government Association and by the National Association of British Market Authorities, would address this problem.
There are in the country some 1,150 markets, of which 84% are operated or controlled by local authorities. They perform a vital role in the retail sector and our community infrastructure, and many have long histories. During the recent Covid pandemic, however, these markets were unable to enjoy the substantial financial help provided by the Government on business rates because of a restriction in Section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 that prevents a local authority giving relief to itself or to a precepting authority. Local authority markets were obliged to bear the full burden of business rates while many businesses and, indeed, markets operated by private and community organisations were able to take advantage of the substantial help provided by the Government.
In 2022, the National Association of British Market Authorities carried out a major survey of our markets. Stall occupation in many markets has fallen significantly from 2018, when the last survey took place. The number of traders continues to fall: five years ago, there were 32,000 market traders; last year, the number had fallen below 30,000. Many local authorities report having to subsidise their markets to enable them to continue operating. With the many demands on local authority budgets, there is a prospect of these subsidies being withdrawn to protect front-line services, which could threaten the continued existence of many markets, many of which are a venue for information on a wide range of public services, making available banking, library and health services where such services are no longer represented at other venues in the area.
The Government have previously changed their position on this general issue as they granted a specific exemption to Section 47, providing that local authority public conveniences should no longer be liable for business rates. This earlier concession provides added support for the amendment now being sought.
Amendment 16 would require the Secretary of State to consult on the benefits and practicality of a system of accreditation for rating advisers. This amendment seeks to explore an avenue to combat the rogue and unprofessional practices of some rating advisers. It is about having a consultation, because the new system defined in the Bill will get more complex, with new reporting requirements and demands for greater accuracy. There will be greater demand for rating advisers. In my view, such rating advisers should be accredited and maintain professional standards if they offer commercial services. Therefore, I advocate a consultation on what steps should be taken.
Amendment 17, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, who is unable to be here today but whom I thank for his support, provides that advertising rights in respect of social infrastructure sites, including bus shelters, other advertising rights granted by contracting authorities and public telephone kiosks shall be exempt from local non-domestic rating. The current business rates system is challenging the viability of advertising-funded social infrastructure and community services. It is now increasingly at risk. Yet these sites return value to local communities through rental payments, service provision, their installation, their very existence, their cleaning and their maintenance, as well as any other social investment, including living roofs, air quality sensors and solar panels, all of which help local authorities meet their net-zero targets. If a business rates exemption applied, it could lead to higher investment directly into local communities. Councils can benefit from rent, revenue and profit sharing currently amounting to around £143 million a year, paid directly to them, but it is claimed that the new legislation that the Bill represents puts this at risk.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I want briefly to address some of the amendments in this group, so ably moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I note that in his Amendment 4—and to some extent in the question of social advertising—he is referring to the purposes for which a hereditament is occupied. We already have this situation in the sense that if a charity occupies a shop for charitable purposes, it gets a degree of mandatory relief. Possibly the only difference is that the charity must have a Charity Commission registration number, and therefore its whole constitution, terms of engagement and memorandum and articles of association are clearly laid out.
The only thing I would say about Amendment 4 is that it is important to make sure that some sort of asymmetry does not come in as a result of using the purposes of occupation approach; otherwise, I can see that there might be accusations of unfair competition. I therefore see no reason to object to the billing authority’s discretion being exercised in its own favour, subject to there being a properly laid out policy that makes it clear to everybody what it is doing and is possibly subject to democratic processes.
I suppose that Amendment 16 should warm the cockles of my heart in terms of the accreditation of non-domestic rating advisers. Of course, I come from the background of being a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which is an accreditation body in its own right. Indeed, a large amount of the edifice of “check, challenge and appeal”, which was put in place by the Government to deal with the huge backlog of rating appeals many years ago, was to do with the fact that unqualified people were putting in blanket appeals and clogging up the system. The accusation was that many of these were totally unmeritorious and were simply wasting everyone’s time—so there is a case for doing it. There was a case for doing it instead of going through the malarkey of “check, challenge and appeal” in the first place, and all the powder and shot and grief occasioned thereby—but we are where we are and if it can help streamline the business so that people are bound by codes of conduct and can be called to account for their actions, all well and good.
I shall comment a bit on Amendment 18, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I sent him today—I apologise to him for not having sent it a lot earlier—the consultation that is going on regarding avoidance and evasion. In that is some business about who does rating work and rogue rating surveyors. I believe that the consultation finishes on 28 September. I hope there will be further discussion with the industry and stakeholders about how it is going to formulate—but the point made by the noble Lord is well made, and I am glad to see that something is in progress.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments and for his clear introduction to them. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his contribution.
As we have heard, these amendments relate to rating agents, anti-avoidance, discretionary relief and viability rights, all of which are really important issues that we need to discuss. Amendment 4 would remove the ban that currently prevents relief being given to certain buildings. We know that the Local Government Association is very supportive of that amendment, because the current rules prevent councils from giving discretionary relief to their own hereditaments. As we have heard, both now and in Committee, this is particularly an issue with local authority markets. It became problematic particularly during Covid-19 because local authorities were unable to give those markets the business rates relief that other businesses were able to benefit from, which meant that many local authorities had to subsidise those rates in order for the markets to continue operating.
I am assuming that the ban is to prevent conflicts of interest; perhaps the Minister could confirm why it is in place. If that is the case, will the Minister consider whether there any added flexibility should brought into this prohibition so that, in times of particular need, councils can be flexible? If the Government are not going to accept the amendment, let us look at what else we could do to help.
Amendment 16 would start the process for accrediting ratings advisers. The reason I want to talk about this amendment in particular is that there seems to be an increasing number of reports of rogue agents claiming that they can help businesses. It seems to be a growing problem. There are concerns that the situation will be further exacerbated when the Government bring in annual returns and the duty to notify in their reforms, partly because that complicates the system.
Our concern is the impact of that on the smaller retail and hospitality businesses in market towns right across the country. They may not be seeing the reductions in their rates bills that they should be in the revaluation from 1 April, making them more vulnerable to approaches by rogue rating surveyors who promise that they will help them negotiate a new revaluation but do not deliver and disappear, leaving the businesses high and dry. That is our particular concern. So do the Government recognise that this is an increasing problem? If so, perhaps we should look at tackling it in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has proposed. We cannot allow this situation to continue and to get worse, because it will affect many small businesses that simply cannot afford it.
Amendment 17 exempts social infrastructure sites—such as bus shelters and telephone boxes—which have advertisements from paying business rates. I am not sure that the Minister will have this figure at his finger- tips, but it would be interesting to know how much is currently generated from this kind of advertising: what impact are we talking about?
Finally, Amendment 18 relates to anti-avoidance. I know that the Government have recently consulted on this, so it would be good to know exactly what action they are looking to take.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively short and interesting debate on a wide-ranging subject. It is good that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has given us the opportunity to look into these matters a little further.
I will go through the amendments, but not necessarily in chronological order, so noble Lords will have to bear with me. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, tabled Amendment 16 based on his concerns regarding the conduct and sharp practices of some rating advisers, as mentioned also by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I sympathise with and recognise the concerns behind this amendment and welcome the opportunity to discuss the work the Government are doing to address them.
I reiterate in the clearest terms that most rating agents are legitimate organisations registered with a professional body. Nevertheless, as my noble friend the Minister has said previously, we know that a minority of agents seek to take advantage of their clients through predatory practices and exploitative contracts, or by actively promoting rates-avoidance strategies. The Government have published a wide-ranging consultation, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on avoidance and evasion in the business rates system. The consultation includes a specific chapter on those rogue agents with whom this amendment is concerned and seeks views on how the Government could address any issues arising from their conduct. While there is no regulatory regime that covers all rating agents, a set of agent standards has been jointly published by the three professional bodies: the RICS, the Rating Surveyors’ Association and the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation.
Recognising the importance of the professional bodies to the system, the Government will, as a matter of course, take the views of these organisations into account and will be engaging with them through the ongoing consultation process. The Government also provide advice on GOV.UK on how to find a reputable agent and the considerations that businesses should take into account when deciding to appoint an agent. Furthermore, the Valuation Office Agency is currently developing a standard for all rating agents, in alignment with existing HMRC agents’ standards.
The Government are keen to work collaboratively with rating agents to tackle poor practice. Our aim is to find a balanced solution that prevents sharp practice but does not impinge on the legitimate work of agents up and down the country.
Amendment 4 would remove the legislative bar which prevents local authorities awarding discretionary rate relief to their own properties. I understand that the concerns of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are primarily with the application of business rates to local authority-run markets. The Government fully recognise the contribution that markets make to the vibrancy and diversity of our communities. We are supporting local authority-run markets with access to the £2.6 billion towns deal programme and the £1 billion Future High Streets Fund. We have also made permanent the permitted development rights which enable markets to be held by local authorities for an unlimited number of days.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which I found very helpful. I shall withdraw Amendment 4. I hope that all the amendments I have put my name to today will form part of a constant review of business and non-domestic rate structures, because the system is showing serious signs of stress. I do not think it can continue as it currently is. As a consequence, Governments of whatever persuasion will have to address the fact that reform of business rates is increasingly essential. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Shipley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require central non-domestic rating lists to be compiled every two years.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I move Amendment 5 in my name, and will speak also to Amendments 6 and 7, which would, in effect, do the same thing. My name also appears on Amendment 15, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I will leave her to speak mostly to that amendment. It is about review and the point I made a moment ago—that we have to keep reviewing business rates and how they operate because of the challenges currently faced.
I have tabled these amendments so that we can hear again from the Government the justification for a three-year review, as opposed to the two-year review which I would prefer. I prefer two years because it has many advantages. It would be more efficient and reflect changes in valuations more quickly. It could reduce work and it would be really good if it could be done.
I understand that there is already a reduction to three years and to reduce it further would be pretty hard to do as quickly as it would have to be done. Therefore, I would probably accept the Government’s advice that they are mindful of the need to move to two years, that there are major advantages to it and that that is the sense of the journey they are following. It would be very helpful. I have tabled Amendments 5, 6 and 7 so that the Minister can respond and confirm again that it is the intention to get towards a system that does a business rates review every two years. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments. This group is all about revaluations and reviews of rates. The first three amendments, which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has introduced, would change the timeframe for compiling non-domestic rating lists. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for his support and encouragement for my Amendment 15, and I support his Amendment 19. Those amendments are looking for broader reviews of the business rates policy. The intention is to look at how frequently we should review our business rates.
One reason we have concerns about the current system—and it is good that the Government have looked at this and reduced it to a certain extent—is that if reviews are done only over a certain period, the rest of the system needs to be fit for purpose. We are concerned that the current system makes it extremely hard for businesses to appeal their assessments. If you have an assessment that is high, it is difficult to appeal and to manage that, which creates difficulties, particularly for small businesses. The whole system needs to be much more fit for purpose if it is to work for businesses and for local authorities.
The Labour Party’s policy is to scrap business rates altogether and to replace the current system with one which works to incentivise investment. We think there should be more frequent revaluations. If property values drop for particular reasons outside a business’s control, there should be the ability to do more frequent revaluations. Where businesses are caught out in this way, bills should be reduced. There should be incentives and rewards for businesses which, for example, move into and invest in empty properties. It is about encouragement. Earlier, we talked about green improvements and energy efficiency and how you encourage businesses to invest in this way. The whole system needs to be a bit more nimble and more effective in supporting small businesses. The Government need to work with businesses, people working for those businesses and public bodies in order to get a system that is genuinely fit for purpose and supports local businesses and local authorities in the way it needs to.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former chartered surveyor with interests in rating. This amendment and the rest of the amendments in this group clearly call for a review of business rates. I am pleased to add my name to the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.
A change which had been promised and which was long overdue is this review of business rates. It is particularly disappointing that the result of the review will be declared so shortly after the end of the progress of the Bill. It is the wrong way around. A redefinition of use classes—not for planning but for non-domestic rates purposes—is certainly required in order to reflect the changes that have taken place in the real world. Should Airbnb properties which are professionally managed as such be subject to council tax or to non-domestic rates? Likewise, one can follow that thought process through to the high street. Some of the changes of use in the high street to non-retail property do have specific use classes, but this needs to be brought up to date.
Should a sole trader with one or only a handful of outlets receive start-up incentives to boost their chances of survival? As Amendment 15 seeks, small retailers really should have the thresholds for relief purposes reviewed urgently. Dozens and dozens are going bust in the high street every month, on the watch of a Conservative Government whose mantra is to support business, and particularly small businesses. I just do not understand why there has been such neglect.
I turn to Amendment 19 in my name. This is one of several amendments requesting a general review of non-domestic rates. As part of this, I support the reference in Amendment 15 to a two-year review. That is taking it at quite a racy pace compared with the current five-year programme, but I think we should see it as the objective in the process of increasing the frequency of reviews.
We also need the Government to address the imbalance of the rates burden between the high street retailers and the big-box dark retailers—the internet retailers. We know, of course, that many smaller high street retailers operate mail order businesses. That is not what I am referring to; I am referring to enormous warehouses, measuring hundreds of thousands of square feet. We all know of Amazon—this is effectively the Amazon amendment. The small retailers in the high street cannot compete, and rates alone create a massive disadvantage to the high street retailer. What are we doing? We are doing nothing, and we should be doing something about it.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I strongly support Amendment 19 from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I too read the article in the Times yesterday to which he referred. The fact of the matter is that, while rents have decreased substantially due to inflation and other measures, rateable values are very high and the rates payable are now no indication at all of the actual rental value of the properties. That is one of the reasons why, in an unstable market, it is very important to have the valuations done as often as possible, to reflect the actual rental value of properties.
The second point on which I very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, relates to what he has called the Amazon amendment. This is the one critical factor that would bring rates into the modern world. Unless we address this critical issue, we are ignoring the reality of modern-day retail life. It is critical that the Government address this Amazon amendment as soon as they possibly can. If one reads the professional press—such magazines as the Estates Gazette—this is always raised by every retailer as one of the greatest iniquities, and possibly the greatest iniquity, of the current rates system.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, particularly on Amendment 19. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on this because it strikes at the heart of what I have always felt about the rating philosophy. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, inferred a few minutes ago that rating is demanding too much of the tax base to which it is applied. I have made the same point myself over many years. I remember one eminent rating surveyor telling me, “You know, once the rate in the pound starts to get near to 50%, things start changing. People’s attitudes start changing”.
I am afraid that HMRC, which has global responsibility for this, has been extremely slow to catch up with what is happening and to realise the paradigm shifts created by the increasing burden of business rates. Leaving aside things such as small business relief and so on, I did a calculation—a few years ago, so the analogy is even more potent now—showing that business rate payers in small premises of between 1,000 square feet and 3,000 square feet were paying materially more by reference to property value and square footage occupied, by some considerable factor, than their residential counterparts. I use that because when I first started working in this area, in what was then known as the Valuation Office, all those years ago, there was a common rating system, and residential and commercial had a common base. That is why I got little old ladies in cottages in Lewes High Street in Sussex complaining that the pub next door, which sold all this liquor, had a rating assessment that was half theirs.
What has happened is that, because of the burdens, markets have shifted. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, referred to traders who operate from industrial estates— I think that was one of his examples. I used to joke about this, because the archetypal online operation was a stockroom that was a van on the motorway somewhere, a showroom that was a glossy website, a till that was an online payment portal and a communications system that was a pocket mobile and an email address—this was how the thing operated. People have got very slick, because now you have a big industrial shed at the front of which is a retail and trade counter, which occupies quite a small part of the footprint, and the rest is a big storage shed. We all know the names they have. They sell plumbing, electrical equipment, household goods, all of which you can order online. This is one of the difficulties, because seeing the opportunities of online, many of these operators have seen that the two operate very beneficially with the physical hereditament they occupy as well: the two have a synergy that works effectively. This is absolutely a moment when the Government need to take stock.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, refers to high streets. I will return to this in a few minutes when I get to amendments of mine. Unless we get this right, the attrition of high streets will continue, and they will change into something that is not a general purpose destination for people wanting to shop for everyday goods. They will become a sort of entertainment centre with restaurants and bars and the night-time economy. That may be a good idea, but there is an area of conflict here. If we want to bring residential property back into town centres, then residential occupiers do not relish the thought of people turning out at eleven o’clock at night, having had a jolly good time at the bar. That is one of the issues. Another issue is that a lot of these places need to be serviced; they need to have their bins emptied. If there is a local authority or contractor refuse lorry turning up at 6 o’clock in the morning, people will get fed up with that.
We have to start getting this right, as to what the complementary uses are and how to deal with them. More particularly, how do we reverse this process of the alienation of people—who are otherwise willing and able traders—from our traditional high streets? This matters because that is how they are designed and built. That is the social construct that led to the buildings being built and appearing the way they are. I shudder at trying to transform them into totally different uses. When I see things like permitted development for change of uses in town centres, I worry about what will happen and whether that is an irreversible change that will produce more of the conflicts that I have referred to.
Although I slightly shudder every time somebody mentions a review of business rates, because we seem to have an awful lot of them, I think that this is a body of work that needs some serious thought from academics, practitioners and particularly from people like valuers and retailers, because that is where this analysis comes in. The valuers are not making the roles; they are simply interpreting how people go about their business and do their trade. The derivative is a value, and whether it is a rateable value, a capital value or for investment purposes, we need not alienate these purposes. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, because he has raised an absolutely fundamental point in relation to non-domestic rates.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their passionate speeches. It is clear to me that we share the same objectives; we may just have slightly different ways of getting there. I hope I can satisfy noble Lords by the end of my speech.
This group of amendments returns to the theme of the effectiveness of the business rates system as a whole. Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and Amendment 19 from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, would require a further review of the business rates system to, respectively, expand small business rate relief or rebalance the tax burden between high street and internet retail. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, concern the frequency of revaluations.
I turn first to whether we should conduct a review of the tax. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill is the product of the Government’s own comprehensive review of the business rates system. That review was delivered in around 18 months in 2020 and 2021, which allowed us to do justice to the significance and complexity of the exercise. The review considered a wide range of evidence and reached clear conclusions about the effectiveness of a tax as a means of funding local services and the limited evidence in support of a fundamental overhaul, but also the opportunities for reform.
The Bill seeks to deliver more frequent revaluations and to enable the abolition of downward transitional relief—two of stakeholders’ key asks—alongside other measures. Making these revaluations more frequent, as we are doing with the new three-yearly cycle, will make the tax more up-to-date and therefore fairer. We agree with noble Lords. I accept that some would like us to go further, but a majority of respondents to the review supported a three-yearly revaluation cycle. Moving from every five to every three years is a major reform of the system, and to do this we must implement significant changes to how ratepayers and the VOA interact, which will take several years to bed in.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I might clarify something I said that, I think, might have been misunderstood. In the context of Amazon—I am sorry to use a particular company, but we all know what I mean by it—I did not say that I wanted to redefine the way in which the non-domestic rating system works; I simply want to redefine the use of the property. A property such as an Amazon warehouse is being used for retail and should therefore be described in the rating register as retail property in some form, not as warehousing: it bears no relation to warehousing use.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
As the noble Lord will probably appreciate, I am not an expert in this area, unlike him. But I will contact the team and make sure that he has a thorough answer in writing. I believe that some of these issues have already been addressed in this review, but I will confirm that in writing to him.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, and I was pleased to hear her say that we share the same objectives. I very much hope that we do and that we can continue to do so, because there are some fundamental issues here. Theoretically, I do not regard business rates as a good tax, in the sense that I think there are other ways in which taxation could be raised from businesses. However, it is the system that we have, and altering it would take a large amount of time: it would take several years to get movement on that. For that reason, I ask the Government to look very carefully at some of the suggestions that have been made in your Lordships’ Chamber this afternoon. The point that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is very important. A warehouse should not be counted as a warehouse for business rates taxation if it is delivering a retail function. That is my first point.
My second point is on Amendment 15, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. It relates to the possibility of reducing the small business rate relief threshold. I take the point the Minister made about the number of properties that have already qualified for business rate relief, but I think the Government ought to look at that being increased. I thought the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, was hugely material: business rates used to be half the rental level but have now become almost 100% of the rental level. This is simply not tenable: we cannot go on with that. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton said, we are witnessing the continued attrition of our high streets and something has to be done about that.
The third point I make on what the Government could do urgently is not to increase business rates by the current level of inflation. I think the Government may well be willing to consider that—I hope the Chancellor would. All these things matter because business rates have got out of balance. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton
“(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), V must disclose the information to P if V considers it is reasonable to do so.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to reinforce the need for a reciprocal duty of disclosure on the VO by making disclosure mandatory save for the exceptions in sub-paragraph (4).
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 9, 10 and 11 at the same time. All of these cover slightly different things, and I will try and skate through fairly quickly. In each case, I am simply looking for some reassurance from the Government Bench that these matters are in focus and that certain things will be done.
The first is the question of disclosure of information between the Valuation Office and a ratepayer’s surveyor. It may well be that practices have grown up because of these rather unsatisfactory, unqualified surveyors, who have been going around for some time. There are many fewer of them than there used to be. It may well be that the Valuation Office has somehow built a defensive carapace against this, faced with representations that might not have been all they were cracked up to be. But at the end of the day, there is this question, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, will understand, of equality of arms: there has to be some common sharing of information and data relating to the value of the hereditament, otherwise negotiations really are in a pretty pickle and, in many cases, will get into worse level of dispute than is absolutely necessary.
As my explanatory statement says, Amendment 8 would reinforce the need for a reciprocal duty of disclosure on the valuation office by making disclosure mandatory, except for the exceptions in sub-paragraph (4), which is basically a data protection exception. I would very much appreciate comment that this will happen and there will be guidance within the Valuation Office Agency to deal with this—to improve transparency and to reinforce confidence.
Amendments 9 and 10 relate to the question of an annual return or confirmation requirement on ratepayers, which is a new provision that the Government are seeking to insert. I had to check my notes from the previous stage of the Bill, but according to the information I had, this would result in some 700,000 hereditaments having to make an additional return or being at risk of making an additional return. The point that was made to me, and that I continue to make, is that this is potentially excessive. In discussions with the Bill team and the Minister, we were given reassurances that there would be piloting and that they would not roll this out unless it was running smoothly and the online system for reporting was robust. I would simply like to have reassurance on that point and that the results of the pilot will be a matter of discussion with stakeholders, so that we do not just have a one-sided arrangement on that. The truth of the matter is that many ratepayers do not understand the terminology because they are traders; they are not people who are involved in getting to understand what a “hereditament” is—as I may have said at an earlier stage of the Bill, it is not a word easily conjured with. There is a great deal that they do not understand about making returns as they are at the moment, so there is a need for a process of general simplification. That deals with Amendments 9 and 10, which are connected.
Amendment 11 relates to something slightly different, which is consequential on this whole reporting business, and that is that, when a business ratepayer advises the Valuation Office Agency that there has been a change, the matter is dealt with promptly, whether it is a reduction or an increase. An increase obviously affects the income from the rating scheme as a whole, but a reduction is something that directly affects the ratepayer. At the moment, I understand there is still quite a considerable backlog within the Valuation Office Agency. The concern is that, unless the backlog is cleared and unless there is better funding and resourcing within the Valuation Office Agency, these things will be held up. The idea here is that ratepayers in particular should not receive retrospective increases in their rating liabilities unless the valuation office acts promptly on receipt of ratepayer-provided information. This is to give an incentive to the valuation office to make a prompt approach and deal with it, but it is all to do with speed of turnaround of necessary changes. Not everything that is advised to the Valuation Office Agency will be relevant, but quite a lot of it may be. If we are going to get into this new era of reporting 60 days after an event has happened and at the end of the year, then we need some reciprocity in relation to that. That is the gist of those amendments.
I just add that, although the Minister has not spoken to them yet, I support government Amendments 12 and 13. They are necessary and appropriate. I have no real views on Amendment 20 either way; it is an administrative consequence of other amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 8, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and particularly the reciprocal duty of disclosure by the VOA apart from for data protection reasons, to which the noble Earl referred—although I object to the latter myself. However, I think it is repugnant that, in this country, where we so treasure transparency in the law and all its constituent parts, the government department responsible for non-domestic rates does not have to reveal its evidence to an applicant, which may be a small business struggling to survive, unless the rates are challenged formally. To challenge a rating assessment formally inevitably requires that small business, possibly teetering on the edge of survival, to instruct a rating specialist to advise it at a fee. Only when there has been a challenge is the valuation office required to reveal its evidence. Why on earth do we tolerate this opaque behaviour on the part of a government agency? It is fundamentally wrong, and I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on raising this very important issue. If it did not involve cost in this way and impact those vulnerable smaller businesses particularly—we are talking not just about shops but about businesses, offices and small industrial properties—it would be less sensitive. But I think this is very important, and I hope the Minister will be kind enough to give us a full response.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Ideally, it is worth avoiding appeals. Appeals can be avoided only if there is confidence that you have the material available. That presupposes a sharing of information that is open and transparent. One of the criticisms that is often made is of the time taken in appeals, the obscurity of the role adopted by the valuation office and its failure to disclose information. It seems to me that it is in everybody’s interests, economically and in terms of management time and stress, to avoid appeals by an early disclosure of information where requested.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and others for speaking to these quite technical amendments. As the Minister said previously, I would not say that I am an expert on these issues, but it is very important that they have been raised. It is particularly important with valuations and penalties that we properly understand the implications of the Bill.
I have one question for the Minister on government Amendment 12, which limits the daily penalties that are applicable. I wonder where the figure came from and whether the Minister thinks it will be a sufficient deterrent.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has tabled a number of amendments related to the provision of valuation evidence to the Valuation Office Agency. I am grateful for the opportunity to address this again, following the earlier debate in Committee, and to explain how the Government have listened to the suggestions heard in that debate.
As has been noted previously, these reforms are essential to securing the sustainable delivery of more frequent revaluations, which I know noble Lords support. Clause 10 consists of a power to allow the VOA to share valuation information with ratepayers. Amendment 8 would make this power a duty, and I will explain why the Government cannot support this. The Government are absolutely committed to providing greater transparency about how rateable values are calculated. The VOA has recently consulted on how, in practice, they intend to use this clause. It is an important part of the reforms and a key plank of our commitment to ratepayers. However, as that consultation reflects, we cannot overstate the importance of privacy rights. The information relied on by the VOA in establishing a valuation will, in some cases, include personal and sensitive data, so it is right that we take an approach which is common among other data gateways; namely, that the gateway is permissive: it permits the VOA to disclose information rather than placing a requirement to do so. This approach safeguards the interests of ratepayers and their data, but I am clear that within the necessary constraints of the clause we are committed to the transparency of valuations.
Amendments 9 and 10 from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seek to remove the requirement in Clause 13 for rate- payers to submit an annual confirmation as well as a notification to the VOA when there is a notifiable change related to their property. On this amendment, the Government are mindful of those concerns. Of course, we should not burden businesses where we do not need to. However, we have a safeguard in place for that very purpose. The Bill provides that the annual confirmation can be brought into force later than the other parts of the VOA duty, and the Government have been clear that we will not bring it into force until we have ensured that it will be sufficiently straightforward for ratepayers to complete. We intend that completing the annual confirmation should be a matter of only a few minutes for those who are already up to date with the duty. Moreover, the annual confirmation will serve a valuable purpose for ratepayers, as well as the VOA. By providing a further opportunity to ensure that they have complied with the duty, the annual confirmation will act as a safety net.
Amendment 11 seeks to prevent the VOA backdating changes to the rating list after a certain period. We are aligned on the importance of the VOA acting promptly and accurately on information received about a property. The VOA takes this very seriously and is performing well—it meets its own targets for processing checks within 12 months and challenges within 18 months in 99.9% and 98% of cases respectively. Of course, as we develop these new systems for the VOA duty, we will review the VOA’s operational targets accordingly, but in light of the VOA’s performance on its existing targets we do not see the need for primary legislation in this space. Furthermore, we hope the noble Earl will recognise that the information provided under the duty may vary considerably by type of property. In the view of the Government, that does not point to a one-size-fits-all approach being appropriate. Instead, it requires effective and transparent performance monitoring, which we will continue to provide under the new system.
I shall explain the steps the Government are taking through government Amendments 12 and 13 to improve the penalties regime for the VOA duty following proposals made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in Committee, for which I am grateful. Amendment 12 deals with the daily penalties which the VOA may apply where a ratepayer continues not to comply with the valuation notification requirement 30 days after being served an initial penalty notice. Its purpose is to encourage timely compliance with the duty. However, it has been noted that in the similar provision for the separate duty to provide HMRC with a taxpayer reference number, a cap on daily penalties equivalent to 30 days of the maximum penalty is applied. The Government have decided to extend this protection for ratepayers to the valuation notification duty. Of course, it is vital that the VOA can secure the information it needs to deliver more frequent revaluations, and to do this it needs effective compliance tools. Nevertheless, the Government have reflected on the points raised in Committee and accept that placing a cap on the total amount a ratepayer may be fined is appropriate. I have a note that I hope helps the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman: this is equivalent to 30 days of penalties, each being £60.
Amendment 13 alters the burden of proof that the valuation tribunal should apply when deciding whether to uphold a penalty decision. The penalty decisions with which this is concerned are for the criminal offence of knowingly or recklessly making a false statement. The Bill prescribes that, for a higher penalty to be applied, the VOA must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the ratepayer has made the false statement knowingly or recklessly. That is the correct standard of proof for a criminal offence.
However, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, identified an issue with the procedure where a ratepayer appeals such a penalty decision to the valuation tribunal. The tribunal would have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the ratepayer had not committed the offence. The Government wish to amend this to ensure that the proper burden of proof is applied, to the benefit of ratepayers.
Finally, Amendment 20 is a minor and technical change that we think we should make to the 1988 Act as a consequential effect of the provisions in this Bill concerning business rates multipliers. Clause 15 makes changes to the multiplier rules and separates the multiplier provisions relating to England and Wales. Section 140(2)(b) of the Act refers to Ministers making separate estimates of rateable value for England and Wales. As the provisions relating to England and Wales will now be separate, that section is obsolete and can be deleted. This is simply a drafting correction to improve the clarity of the statute book and the Government do not foresee any practical effect.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his scrutiny of this area of the Bill, which has allowed us to make important improvements. I hope, with those reassurances and our amendments, he will be prepared to consider not pressing his amendments.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, there is something that I probably should have asked her about earlier in connection with her Amendment 12, which is the figure of £1,800. Discussions with her noble colleague and the Bill team made it clear that it is intended to be an aggregate figure. I do not know whether she referred to that but I did not hear; if she could confirm that that is so, just for the record, I would be very grateful.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
What I can confirm is what I have written on my note, which says that this is 30 days of penalties, which are £60 per day, which comes to the figure of £1,800 that the noble Earl referred to.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments. I am not going to add much to anything that has been said. On Amendment 8, there is clearly a significant issue in terms of transparency. I had thought that the wording
“V must disclose the information to P if V considers it is reasonable to do so”
was a sufficient get-out-of-jail-free card, but I take it that the Government do not feel able to accept that.
I am grateful to the Minister for her reassurances on how the making of returns will function, particularly her comment that one size does not fit all. We have been a bit subjected to one size fits all in some aspects of rating valuation and I am very glad to hear that that will not always be the case. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 8.
Baroness Swinburne
P’s total liability under sub-paragraph (3) may not exceed £1,800.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would limit the daily penalties that a person can be liable to under new paragraph 5ZD(3) of Schedule 9 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (inserted by clause 13(5) of the Bill) for a continuing infringement of new paragraph 5ZC(1) of that Schedule (inserted by the same clause) to a maximum of £1,800.
“(3A) On an appeal under this paragraph the valuation tribunal must remit a penalty arising under paragraph 5ZC(3) unless it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that P knowingly or recklessly made a false statement (within the meaning of that paragraph).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the valuation tribunal to remit a penalty imposed on a person under new paragraph 5ZC(3) (inserted by clause 13(5) of the Bill) unless it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person knowingly recklessly made a false statement (instead of the position under the current drafting which merely permits the tribunal to remit such a penalty in circumstances where it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not knowingly or recklessly make the false statement).
The Earl of Lytton
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I regret to say that in this amendment I am obliged to refer to a rather contentious matter. As I have made clear, I am not going to divide the House, but a serious question needs to be answered. I tabled the amendment to delete Clause 14 because of my concern that what the Government claim Clause 14 does is at material variance with the wording, as I see it, of the Bill. It is also at serious variance with what I understand to be the current assumptions regarding the, as it were, state and condition of the hereditament for valuation purposes not in terms of its individual condition as to the fabric but where it sits in its economic and practical environment.
As I understand it, the Government claim to be restoring matters to those understandings that prevailed previously, but the proof of the pudding shows that is not so or we would not have this clause before us because it would then be unnecessary. In my view, an earlier measure to remove the status of Covid as a material change of circumstances—which is what this is all about—was legitimate. It was deliberately circumstance specific and affected the whole country and so could rightly be described as a pan-national economic event. But the Government now seek to extend that principle to any change affecting the physical enjoyment of the hereditament as a consequence of what is described as an “economic” matter and that that should be disregarded as a material change of circumstances. In other words, it should not be possible if that change occurs for somebody to challenge their assessment.
I dispute that this approach has ever been the test of a material change of circumstances hitherto. Copious cases—Addis Ltd v Clement (VO) in particular—have clarified this. There is an obvious reason: where a public authority takes steps that deny or degrade the benefits of enjoyment of a hereditament, it is offensive that a tax unadjusted to reflect this fact should continue to be levied. This is not just a modern confection but goes to the heart of fair and just administration, the rule of law, confidence in government and the certainty and security of process that affect investment, productivity, and commitment to medium and long-term partnership. It is an essential part of a social and economic contract—unwritten it may be but there all the same. Any Government would be wise to observe these obvious and potent economic factors in administering the needs of the nation. We are talking about an ancient principle.
The Government make a distinction in relation to an economic matter affecting society at large but then go on to define this as any matter directly or indirectly attributable to a “relevant factor”. In fact, these are not economic matters at all but the fiat of some authority exercising powers that are not of general economic application to the nation at large or a significant part of it. The definition of “relevant factors” is set out at Clause 14(l)(d) in new paragraph 2ZA(3)—near the bottom of page 32 for those noble Lords following this astutely. In effect, it means that any legislation, regulation or advice of any country or public authority or steps to comply with these is to be disregarded in terms of what amounts to a material change of circumstances—so much for being ruled by our own laws. It also does not clarify the status of pronouncements from organisations such as the WHO, the UN or International Monetary Fund. So, in future, if a local authority alters the entire geometry of the use and enjoyment of a business premises through, let us say, planning powers, it will not count as an MCC, regardless of how severe the impacts may be. This provides a perverse incentive to disregard negative effects of sudden policy decisions which, as I say, may be nothing to do with economic choices.
I wonder whether when formulating these measures the Government ever considered the growing mistrust of their handling of the business rates regime generally and the effect, along with others no doubt, on high streets from trader and investor confidence, or ever paused to consider off balance sheet indications in any of these respects. The Government in seeking to differentiate general economic changes from direct physical enjoyment at hereditament level do not seem to be able to make a tidy distinction between the two, so they take a line of least resistance and bundle them together. That is Clause 14.
By way of further explanation, there are of course two poles to consider: first, those matters which affect the economy as a whole to be dealt with on revaluations—there is no dispute about that; we accept that as we accepted it in Covid. Then there are other more rapid and acute physical changes to the hereditament itself. Again, there is no dispute on that because they will continue to be treated as material changes of circumstances. In between, there are those immediate and localised regulatory and other measures affecting an individual property or those in a defined location and not shared with the wider economy of a town or a region.
I wanted some further clarity on this, so I sent some examples of queries to the department. I hope it received those and that, in replying, the Minister may be able to throw some light on them. The first one was where a local authority reduces the hours of operation of certain licensed premises to provide better amenity for nearby residents and as a result business is curtailed— I referred to the conflicts earlier today. Secondly, an important town centre car park is closed due to concerns about the concrete frame and as a result footfall for traders in that part of town declines substantially. Thirdly, a small corner convenience store is affected because the large residential block next door is ordered to be evacuated over fire safety concerns and the occupiers are dispersed into other accommodation elsewhere. Fourthly, an authority in a popular holiday area makes licensing of holiday let premises mandatory but then limits or conditions the licences it issues to reduce the impact on local housing availability and as a result the income to certain operators is significantly affected. Finally, a biosecurity exclusion zone is declared in a defined area due to an animal disease outbreak. The public are advised to stay away and traders in the area suffer a sharp downturn in business. As I understand it, every one of those would be ruled out as being a material change of circumstances by virtue of Clause 14. The only qualification is on the last one. Does the geographical extent of the biosecurity exclusion zone alter the degree to which the effects fall to be disregarded as an MCC or does it make no difference?
Let me give an extreme example of what the effects might be. A metropolitan mayor decides to ban all petrol and diesel sales in his or her area under some statutory or regulatory power or perhaps on the advice of health officials concerned about air pollution, but by virtue of Clause 14—and maybe for up to three years until the next revaluation—petrol filling stations in the area would have to continue paying business rates as if nothing had happened. If that is not what the Government intend, they need to revise Clause 14 because that, on the best authority I know, is what it will do. The best authority I have—Members of this House, particularly learned Members, excepted—is rating counsel Luke Wilcox, who provided me with a note which says
“my main concern with clause 14 as it is currently drafted is that its effects will be much wider than the Government’s stated intention. The Government’s intention appears to be to treat general legislation as part of the general market conditions affecting revaluations, rather than as matters capable of being MCCs”.
He goes on to say that
“the phrase ‘indirectly attributable to’, as it appears in para 2ZA(2)(a), is so wide in its scope that matters affecting an individual property or class of properties, such as a planning or licensing decision, will cease to be MCCs (because they are made under a general legislative provision). Such an effect would appear to be beyond the Government’s stated intention. If such a significant alteration is to be made to the established law of rating, then it should be made following proper deliberation, rather than as an unintended consequence of a provision aimed at a different policy effect”.
In all this, there appears to have been little or no discussion with ratepayers or their professional advisers, nor any wider consultation with that class of stakeholders. It is undoubtedly a major departure from what is known as the “reality principle”—namely, that rating should reflect the real circumstances of the hereditament in assessing it for rating purposes. The Valuation Office Agency’s own rating manual does not use the approach now suggested. Whether it is going to be amended, I do not know—I suppose it will be—but, as it clearly states the situation that has commonly been understood for many years, that rather suggests that the Government’s claim of restoring what they say were the previous understandings is unsupported.
Many will feel that this is getting us towards the realms of no-appeals regulations—in other words, “Let’s not have any appeals at all and dispense with them, and the whole thing can be dealt with through by the arbitrary exercise of power through the Valuation Office Agency”. But that would have profound implications for the rules-based system—something that I have referred to before in relation to several government Bills.
This clause cannot go unchallenged. Although I am not proposing to press the amendment, I think it warrants a detailed comment from the Government as to how they think it will work fairly and equitably in the context of the rating system. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I support the point of view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He has raised this very issue, I think at Second Reading and certainly in Committee, and I have given him support because I have grave doubts about the definition in the Bill of a “material change of circumstance”.
The noble Earl has given a list of possible examples of where there should be a material change of circumstance because of what happens in the area as a whole—perhaps a planning change or a licensing change undertaken by a local authority. When it comes to the Minister’s reply, it would be extremely helpful if there could be a letter to all of us who have taken part in the debate, but addressed to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, explaining the Government’s view on each of the examples that the noble Earl has given.
I have another one to add to his list. As it stands, Clause 14 means that material changes of circumstance should relate to physical changes only to a property. That is how I interpret it. However, as the noble Earl has demonstrated, there can be many ways in which that physical property can be impacted upon and have a material change of circumstance because of what somebody else does. My example is that a local authority decides that a bus route will no longer come down one road but will go down a different one. The patronage of the shop—if it is a shop—goes down as a consequence. Is that a “material change of circumstance”? I suggest that it is and that it should qualify. I do not think that Clause 14 can apply only to a physical building. That is my position.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will say very little, other than to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has said. The noble Earl raised this issue in some detail in Committee, but we have not had the answers that he asked for. He is not satisfied that Clause 14 is necessary or designed to do what it wants to do. He has great experience in this area and we need to listen carefully to the concerns that he has raised. We very much support the fact that the noble Earl has brought this back to the House’s attention and look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for this short debate, which has been fascinating. He has quite rightly gone into some detail on this issue, and I hope I will be able to explain part of the thinking behind our inclusion of Clause 14 in the Bill. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, suggested, once I have read Hansard I will ensure that, if we do not feel we have not gone far enough in explaining our thinking, we will write to the noble Earl, making that available to all noble Lords and placing a copy in the Library.
Amendment 14 gives us the opportunity to consider the reasons behind Clause 14, and I believe the House will have found this debate useful. Where I trust we have agreement is on the role of revaluations, as they have been the main subject of debate on the Bill. Revaluations allow us to reflect in rateable values changes in economic factors, market conditions or the general level of rents for a property. These are familiar terms for describing a revaluation, not just because we have been using them throughout the Bill but because they appear in judgments when the courts have considered this matter.
Clause 14 will therefore ensure that changes in legislation, guidance and advice from public bodies are considered among the economic factors and market conditions for a property and should be reflected at a general revaluation. The noble Earl is concerned that the clause will go further into matters that should not be left until a revaluation and do not concern the general market for a property. However, our view is that the framework of legislation and guidance within which a property is used is in fact a central part of the economic factors and market conditions for that property.
As the noble Earl remarked, he kindly sent a list of examples to the department, and I shall deal with that point now. He raised a number of examples and considered how they should be treated under Clause 14. I hope noble Lords will understand that it is not possible to provide a case-by-case analysis during this debate on these examples, as each will depend on facts. Whether a particular event would result in a material change in circumstances, under the new law in the clause, would depend on whether it was attributable to the relevant factors listed in the clause.
The Government published a technical consultation in 2021 which explained how they intended the law of material changes of circumstances to operate. We also included a section on this in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. The Valuation Office Agency will of course publish guidance on material changes to circumstances in its rating manual and, as always, it will work closely with professional bodies, with which the noble Earl is familiar, in ensuring that the rules are explained and understood. If, as has been suggested, we allow the matters listed in Clause 14 to be assessed between revaluations as a material change in circumstances, the impact on the rating system may be considerable. It would amount to the Valuation Office Agency conducting a non-stop real-time revaluation, revising large sections of the rating list as and when there were changes in the legislation, guidance or advice concerning how properties can be used.
Such an exercise would jeopardise our objective of moving to more frequent general revaluations. It would also mean some ratepayers benefiting from a set of more favourable economic factors in their valuations than others. The clause will ensure that all ratepayers are assessed against the same economic considerations at a set date—the valuation date for the revaluation—and that is updated for all only at the following revaluation. Clause 14 will therefore maintain the stability of the rating system, and it is not surprising that it is supported by the Local Government Association.
As my noble friend explained in Committee, there are safeguards in the clause. I shall not repeat them but, for example, the clause does not apply to changes in the physical state of the property, which will continue to be reflected as and when they occur.
This is not a step we have taken lightly; we consulted on our intentions in the technical consultation in the business rates review. It is a necessary step, to which I hope the House will agree.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment and the noble Earl for his response. He said that it would depend on the change of rollout of the relevant factors. Let me remind your Lordships what those are; they are in four categories in new paragraph 2ZA(3):
“(a) legislation of any country or territory;
(b) provision that is not within paragraph (a) but is made under, and given effect by, legislation of any country or territory;
(c) advice or guidance given by a public authority of any country or territory;
(d) anything done by a person with a view to compliance with anything”—
covered by the preceding paragraphs. I paraphrase, of course.
I struggle to see what actions would be taken by a municipality or authority dealing with something that makes a substantial change that would not be covered by those criteria and thereby excluded. The noble Earl referred to the difficulties of non-stop revaluation. We have a situation that everyone has been happy with for quite a number of years, and it has not resulted in non-stop revaluation. The noble Earl also referred to the equality of valuation approach, but the tone of the list—the general levels of value, to put it simply—would not be altered; it would simply be that by reference to that general pattern of values, a particular hereditament, if there was a material change of circumstances, had taken a hit. That is what we are trying to deal with.
With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, I find his explanations unconvincing, as I found the explanations of his noble friend when we met her unconvincing, and as I found the explanations of the department officials unconvincing. Although I will withdraw the amendment, I do so with a sense of profound disappointment that the Government have not been able to come up with a better narrative—a better explanation. There is a point behind what they say in getting at what we might call general economic changes, but to extend that to the microcosm of what happens in a locality stretches my credulity beyond breaking point. It does not add up, and I hope that the noble Earl will go away and make it clear to the department that that is what I believe, what a lot of ratepayers believe and what a lot of professionals believe.
For the time being, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Courtown
“67A In section 140(2) of the Act (separate administration in England and Wales)—(a) omit the “, and” at the end of paragraph (a);(b) omit paragraph (b).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would omit section 140(2)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 which is no longer needed as a result of the provision being made by clause 15 of the Bill, which makes separate provision about the calculation of multipliers for England.
Schools: RAAC
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, the number of schools known to be affected by the safety crisis is rising, but it is not just the number of schools affected by RAAC that matters: it is the lost learning, lost opportunity and disruption to pupils. Can the Minister confirm how many children’s education has been disrupted and how many of these are in their exam years? How will lost learning be made up for to ensure that children are not left behind?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has focused on exactly where the Government are focusing, namely face-to-face education. I take this opportunity to thank all the head teachers and school leaders who have worked tirelessly to make sure that children can, wherever possible, be in face-to-face education. As the noble Baroness knows, this morning we announced an updated list of schools: the number of confirmed cases of RAAC had risen from 147, reflecting the data as of 30 August, and what we published today, which reflects the data from 14 September, shows 174 schools. I am pleased to say that with the exception of one school, all children are either in full face-to-face education—in 148 settings—while 23 are in hybrid education, one is fully remote and one is a very new case which we are triaging at the moment.
In terms of lost learning, there is access to the Government’s national tutoring programme, and we will of course talk to schools and responsible bodies. There are disruptions to the school year; it is not exceptional, sadly, that children miss a few days’ learning but, happily for most of these children, it has been just a few days. If there are extended periods, we will look at that with the responsible bodies concerned.
Lord Storey (LD)
The Minister may recall that one of the first acts of Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Education was to cancel Building Schools for the Future. I well remember the impact it had on the city where I live. Also, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord was part of that Government.
Lord Storey (LD)
The noble Baroness is right, to our regret. I have not been heckled before—it is quite impressive. Under the then Chancellor, there was a plan to build 200 new schools, but the funding for only 50 was provided. Parents are worried; how do we bring transparency to this issue and how do we reassure them?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Just to be clear on the Building Schools for the Future programme, there are schools today where we have found RAAC that would have been in that programme and were among those cancelled. There are also schools that got funding through it where we found RAAC, so it is not fair to say that Building Schools for the Future would have solved this problem. We are dealing with a number of cases that had funding through that programme which did not remove the RAAC and where we are now dealing with that.
The noble Lord is right that the department argued, as every department does, for as large as possible a settlement from the Treasury. We are very proud of our school rebuilding programme, but I also draw the House’s attention to the amount of capital that has been spent over the last 10 years both on condition funding and on building new school places. During this Administration, there has obviously been a bulge in pupil numbers which has led to around £2 billion a year, on average, being spent on building new places for pupils by either extending existing schools or building new ones. In the last spending review, the budget for condition funding—maintaining our schools—was increased by 28%.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, are there many leisure centres used by schoolchildren as part of the school curriculum that are impacted by RAAC?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware whether there are leisure centres. The decision that we took in relation to schools reflected a number of factors. One was, obviously, the safety of pupils being paramount. Secondly, there was the speed with which we believed we could remediate most cases and, thirdly, the capacity and capability in estate management within the education sector. I am not an expert on leisure centres, but I assume that many will have dedicated expertise or have access to it.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister enlighten us as to whether the Government have looked at whether specialist classrooms have been taken out as a result of this, and what effect that will have on the curriculum? For instance, science labs would be an obvious example. Also, in the creative subjects, if you have lost a theatre or an arts room where you were doing ceramics, you cannot complete the course. If the Government are finding this out, what process do they have to try to get some of that information in and, if they cannot do that, what arrangements will they make for people taking those exams?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We have very good information on those issues. The noble Lord is right: it is extremely important that we establish that, and the Secretary of State was extremely clear in taking this decision that our operational response to support schools, which have been presented with a difficult decision at a difficult time in the school year, should be really well supported. For every school, we have a dedicated caseworker who co-ordinates all the strands of work that are going on to mitigate the RAAC. Then every school has a project director who is a technical expert; they will visit the school and work out with it the quickest mitigation plan. We have access to specialist classrooms and temporary classrooms for science. We have worked with the utility companies to ensure that the necessary energy, water and so on can be accessed, but there are some difficult cases. I am going on Monday to see a special school for children with profound disabilities. There are very significant requirements to make sure that those children also get access to the best education possible.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, RAAC was actually a popular building material in Europe and North America, Australia, New Zealand and Mexico, yet those areas do not seem to have had the same kind of problems. The Financial Times quoted the head of engineering at the University of Alabama, who helped to bring the product to the US in the 1980s, as saying that there seemed to be
“specific issues in the UK … with design, production and construction”.
Clearly, we are going to see a large amount of new buildings coming into schools, while there have been systemic problems in the long-term past. Is the Minister confident that the buildings coming in to replace them will be adequate and reliable for the long term? What is the Government’s standard length of building life when constructing a new school?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Baroness says, there have been suggestions—I think they are no more than suggestions and that it is a hypothesis—that what I call the recipe, which is probably not a very technical term for its technical specifications, for the RAAC that was manufactured in this country was potentially slightly different to those in other countries or that the installation of it was. There are questions about whether the overlap at the ends of the planks has been sufficient in all cases, but I would stress that those are just hypotheses as to why we face these problems.
The other issue is, genuinely, that we have been extremely proactive. We have spent the last 18 months working with schools. We were made aware in 2018 of the first plank failing at a school. Guidance was produced at that time and it has been updated regularly since. We have engaged with every school—98.6% of responsible bodies and schools in the country—to understand whether they have RAAC in their buildings, how they are managing it and whether they were mitigating the risk. It is through that proactive work that we identified these cases. On the design and production standards, we have been working closely with our chief scientific adviser in the department, who in turn has been working across government with CSAs in other departments, to ensure that our research and understanding of this building material and others is as high quality as it can be.
West Coast Main Line
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question in the other place given by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport Decarbonisation. The Statement is as follows:
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you may be aware, the Minister of State continues to represent His Majesty’s Government in Poland to support UK train companies, among others, at a major international trade fair. I will be replying on his behalf.
The department has awarded a national rail contract, an RNC, to First Trenitalia, or FTI, to continue to operate the west coast partnership, providing west coast train services as Avanti West Coast, or AWC. The NRC will have a core term of three years and a maximum possible term of nine years. After three years, the department can terminate the contract at any point with three months’ notice.
In October 2022 and March 2023, the department approved the award of short-term contracts for First Trenitalia, operating as Avanti West Coast, to continue to operate services on the west coast main line. Awarding short-term contracts allowed the department to monitor progress by AWC in improving performance, following the withdrawal of rest day working, before considering whether it would be appropriate to award a long-term contract. Avanti’s performance has improved during this time significantly and, taking into account other relevant considerations, the Secretary of State has decided to award a longer-term contract, as announced in today’s Written Ministerial Statement.
Over recent months, Avanti has made significant progress in recovering from the poor reliability and punctuality delivered in the first half of last year. In line with its recovery plan, and since the introduction of its recovery timetable in December 2022, performance has steadily improved, with cancellations attributed to Avanti West Coast falling from 13% in early January 2023 to as low as 1.1% in July 2023. Over 90% of trains now arrive within 15 minutes of their scheduled time—an improvement from 75% in December 2022”.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very prompt letter, which she sent today, setting out the details of this contract. But I am sure that beleaguered passengers on the failing west coast rail services must have been baffled to see the companies that run them being rewarded for that failure with lucrative government contracts.
The latest ORR rail performance stats from August 2023—only a month ago—confirmed that Avanti West Coast is the second worst performing operator in the country for punctuality of rail services, with only 48% of its services on time. It also had the most complaints of any operator. CrossCountry, which has also seen its contract extended, was the fourth worst performing operator, with only 51.4% of its services on time in August 2023, compared with the national average of 70%. Can the Minister tell us what has been built into these new contracts to ensure that Avanti and CrossCountry do not continue to fail passengers and yet see themselves and their shareholders continue to be rewarded?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course, there will be various elements that are set out in the contract and are a commercial matter. I felt that the noble Baroness did not give quite enough credit to Avanti for the amount of improvement we have seen since the removal of rest day working with no notice back in July 2022. But let us not look at the industry performance scores; let us ask passengers. The net advocacy scores for Avanti have improved enormously, from minus 42 in January to plus 17 in April and plus 10 in August. Passengers and the Government are seeing the improvement in Avanti and that is why we awarded it this contract.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, what is not a surprise about this is that the Urgent Question and announcements about train services have come on the last day the House of Commons is sitting before a recess; that is a pattern. My concern about these two contracts is that, although there has been an improvement with Avanti, as the Minister has said, there has been every incentive for it to improve in the short term in order to save its skin—if I can put it that way. Now it has this contract, there will be effectively no incentive for it to keep up that level of improvement, because Avanti has shown over many months that it finds it very difficult to deliver.
So what incentives are there within the contracts to these two companies, Arriva and Avanti, to maintain their improvements? These contracts seem to leave all the financial risk with the Department for Transport. Have the Government built in any additional safeguards for improvement, given the history behind this? Is there any chance that in future the Government will review the way in which they give contracts, so that we do not have this approach, which enables companies to underperform over such a long period?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am content that the Avanti contract has gone through all the relevant processes. It has been structured such that there is an initial three-year period, which I think is right, to enable Avanti to provide the investment that is clearly needed. That investment is in driver training and rolling stock. I am sure many noble Lords have noticed the upgrade in Avanti trains when they have travelled on them recently; I find them very comfortable indeed. There is an ability after three years for the Government to give three months’ notice. Within that intervening period, senior officials from the Department for Transport will meet management on a weekly basis to make sure that the recovery plan and all the elements the new management has put in place are being followed.
There are also enormous incentives for Avanti to improve—£14.3 million-worth of incentives. That is what the performance-based fee is; if Avanti does not hit its targets, it will not get that fee. It is absolutely right that that is there, it will incentivise Avanti and we will work alongside it so that it can continue to improve its performance.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister accept that I am one passenger on Avanti trains who is completely baffled by this decision? I do not wish to rain on the noble Baroness’s parade, but when you have been at the bottom of the league table for punctuality and cancellations for as long as Avanti trains has, the only way is up. Could the Minister tell the House which other train operating companies expressed an interest in this particular franchise? Is it the case—as I suspect—that none of them did, largely because most rail managers are fed up to the back teeth with the micromanagement by her department or, even more likely, by the Treasury?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Actually, this is exactly what this contract is trying to achieve. By giving a three-year horizon for Avanti management to properly plan, it will not be necessary to micromanage Avanti. The Department for Transport will continue to support it and, as I said in my opening Answer, the net advocacy scores show that customers are supportive of Avanti. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not, but the numbers speak for themselves—and these are customers speaking and not the Department for Transport.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness appreciate that Avanti avoided cancellations and late running on the north Wales coast to London line this summer by cancelling and changing the timetable and only running trains from Holyhead to Crewe? Will she ensure that Avanti’s performance is measured in future on a dual basis—between Holyhead and London on the one hand, and the rest of the service on the other?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will certainly take that back to the department. I think the noble Lord will also be aware that Avanti made some timetable changes over the summer. They were very short-term and over a fixed period. That was due to industrial action—sadly—and the annual leave burden.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, does the contract place any requirement on Avanti to close station booking offices or will it be expected to take proper account of the vast opposition raised in the consultation process?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Avanti, like all train operating companies, is working with its stakeholders and Transport Focus and London TravelWatch on the responses to the consultation to its proposals. The results of that will be forthcoming soon.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, there have been many reports of quite severe overcrowding on some of the CrossCountry services to the south-west in recent months. Can the noble Baroness explain whether any extra capacity is planned? I believe quite a few of the trains have been scrapped. What kind of new rolling stock will there be and will there be more capacity? This is a very important route. It is the only intercity route that does not go to London and one begins to suspect that, because Ministers do not take much notice of it, it gets the worst rolling stock. I hope the noble Baroness can give me some comfort.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The department is well aware that there is some overcrowding on CrossCountry routes. We are considering options, with CrossCountry, on the size of its future fleet. This will be balanced with the interests of taxpayers, given the financial pressures.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the Great Western Railway stakeholder board. GWR is of course a FirstGroup member, so it is proper that I should declare it. I thank the Minister for the letter she sent earlier today. In that letter, there is no reference anywhere to Great British Railways. How does the new contract for Avanti fit in with the Government’s plans for Great British Railways, or is it the case that GBR is not going to happen?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Many national rail contracts are already in place. Eventually, in due course, the Government would like to move to a different sort of passenger service contract. There is nothing out of the ordinary with this contract. It compares well to those of other train operating companies.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in response to questions from my noble friend Lady Taylor and other noble Lords, the Minister talked about passenger satisfaction statistics. Can she say a bit more about the datasets behind these? What is the dataset? Who collected it? What was the sample size? I find these are often very small. I appreciate that the Minister may not have the information with her, but perhaps she could write to me and to other Members of the House with these details.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will happily write to the noble Lord and to all Members of the House with an interest in this to set out how the net advocacy scores are calculated. Unfortunately, I do not have the information to hand.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in the other place, the Government were asked about the criteria for the contract decision. The response was that it was a commercial matter. Does the Minister acknowledge that this is a major problem with our privatised railways if we cannot know what is happening because it is all hidden behind commercial confidentiality? I have another question, which perhaps the Minister might be able to answer more positively. What consultations did the Government have with the Scottish Government, local councils and mayors of places along the routes affected? What input did they have into this decision? I should declare my position as a vice-president of the LGA.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
At the end of the day, we have to be able to balance the need to get the best contract and the need for parliamentary scrutiny with the need to protect some elements of contracts because they are commercial matters. We try to publish as much as possible. We believe in transparency. Where we can, we make some information available without it being commercially sensitive. One of the best outcomes of scrutiny is performance. This has improved over time and will continue to do so. I believe this is the best way to hold the operator and the Government to account.
High Speed 2
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, is it not an unmitigated failure of Conservative rail policy that, yesterday, in the other place, its own chair of the Transport Committee commented on the false economy of what is supposed to be the fast rail network that delivers against levelling-up goals, but which will reach neither the great cities of the north or central London? He said that HS2
“would not realise the full benefits of the line and communities will have been enormously impacted for no great benefit”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/9/23; col. 1109.]
Back in March, when reports of a delay emerged, I told the House that this chronic indecision was benefitting no one. Now, through a photograph published in the Independent, we learn that the route could be scaled back even further. Given that, in January this year, the Chancellor said that he could not see any conceivable circumstance in which HS2 would not end at London Euston, can the Minister confirm that the line will not terminate at Old Oak Common and when, if ever, it will reach Manchester?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
There has been an awful lot of media speculation and hypotheticals. As noble Lords will know, the Department for Transport, and indeed every single government department, will periodically look at major infrastructure projects, which in this case includes HS2. We are committed to keeping the House updated, as we have done for many years. There will be a regular six-monthly report on HS2 to keep the House updated in due course.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this is death by a thousand cuts for HS2, if I can be excused the pun—cuts to the route and cuts to the funding. Each time the Government shave another slice off the route, it further undermines the purpose of the whole project, and each time this happens it marginally reduces the total cost but increases the cost per mile and fatally undermines the purpose of the scheme. Earlier, the Minister conspicuously failed to confirm that Great British Rail is still in the Government’s plans. If that was a mistake, she may like to take this opportunity to put this right. Is she not embarrassed to be here, week after week, trying to defend this Government of dither and delay? Can she tell us whether the Government have done any calculation as to the adverse economic and reputational impact of their failure to deliver on HS2 on the ability of cities in the north of England to attract investment?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course, a vast amount of analysis on HS2, and indeed on all infrastructure projects, goes on all the time. There are many elements in attracting investment to northern cities, or indeed to cities anywhere. Schemes such as the city region sustainable transport settlements put billions of pounds into Manchester, which the mayor can spend on local transport schemes. There is the opportunity for local partnerships to improve local train services as well. That is a key part of GBR. I can reassure the noble Baroness that the GBR transition team still exists and is doing the work; GBR is making very good progress indeed. Obviously, I cannot second guess what will be in the King’s Speech, but there is a lot of work going on in GBR and many reforms are being put in place. I hope that the noble Baroness is content with that.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister knows very well my views on this worthless, scandalous, vanity project—which I think most of the country now share. In January 2017, I put to this House the opportunity to stop it, but we decided to go ahead. Reliable sources now say that it will cost £150 billion. Is it not the case that, even if we have spent £5 billion, £10 billion or £20 billion so far, sensible accountants always say you do not pour good money after bad? Surely now is the time to put right what we have got wrong, save the money and spend it on areas of the country which badly need their railway networks improved.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am aware of my noble friend’s position on HS2. It demonstrates that there is a wide range of views. As I said earlier, the Government will update the House as part of their regular six-monthly reports on HS2.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, about six to nine months ago, the Government said that they would pause all work at Euston. Has that happened? My impression is, as reports I get suggest, that there is a great deal of work going on there. Can the Minister tell us how much work has gone on even after it was paused?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not able to give an update on the physical work that is going on. My understanding is that the position at Euston has not changed. Again, that will be in the regular six-monthly update.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Transport for the North. Yesterday, in the Commons, the Minister said:
“The benefits of HS2 for Birmingham are already being realised”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/9/23; col. 1107.]
He is correct. The simple fact is that this is a huge project—a project not about speed but about capacity. If we are to see more people and more freight using our railways, capacity is desperately needed. This project was started 14 years so. We should see it finished and serving the nation.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out the enormous benefits that Birmingham is currently seeing. All across the route of phase 1, there are shovels in the ground, with 350 active construction sites and 29,500 workers. The focus is on delivering high-speed rail services between London and Birmingham.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister go further in acknowledging the common-sense view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin? Will she also reflect on the fact that, so far, almost a third of the around 140-mile line between London and Birmingham is either through tunnels or on viaducts? We are spending a vast amount of money trying to please people who oppose the project and who have opposed it right from the start. Is it not about time we took a leaf out of the book of the French railways? At the time they built their high-speed line across France, they said: “When we are draining the swamp, we do not consult the frogs”?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very interesting point. It is right—and this is not only for High Speed 2 but for many major infra- structure projects—that local interests can sometimes cause the cost of projects to increase. I need only mention, for example, Chesham and Amersham, where I think there is a Liberal Democrat Member—and they are deeply behind HS2, apart from any candidate who wins a by-election. Sometimes, to please certain groups of people, additional expense must be had, and sometimes that is absolutely valid. That is the difficulty with building major infrastructure. But the planning permission that goes into it and the DCO process—or in this case the hybrid Bills—have to reach the right balance, and sometimes one has to question whether it is in the right place.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister recognise the risks that we are going to run? First, the country will be seen as a laughingstock if we can no longer build a railway. Secondly, the expectations of people in the north and the east Midlands will feel betrayed.
It is very difficult to persuade visitors to this country that Old Oak Common is any part of central London. I hope that we will bear in mind also, despite all that has been said in the argument that has raged over the years, that speed is at the very heart of the human psyche. People want to do things faster than has been done before—and that still exists today.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
We are already building a high-speed railway. Phase 1 for HS2 is well under way. We expect services to commence by 2033. Before the noble Lord completely dismisses Old Oak Common, if any of us is alive in 20 or 30 years’ time —I look at myself in this regard—that whole area will look completely different. It is 1,600 acres, and there will be 40,000 homes and 65,000 jobs. That is something that I think we should be proud of.
Tata Steel: Port Talbot
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Noble Lords will understand that there is deep concern about the loss of as many as 3,000 jobs in south Wales. It is important to remember that, for many communities, this is not happening for the first time. The areas of the country where steel making is still a significant industry are scarred by decisions made in the 1980s in the name of progress by Conservative politicians without any thought to the economic devastation or the need for alternative investment, and no understanding of the damage to community pride, sense of place and even long-term health of the people affected. Doing deals over the heads of local people and then presenting as a success an outcome that costs £0.5 billion of taxpayers’ money and 3,000 jobs, leaving us with only one blast furnace site in the UK and diminished capacity to make virgin steel, shows how arrogant, out of touch, lacking in strategy and blasé this Government have become.
There are some serious questions that the Government have so far failed to answer. First, why was this deal done behind the backs of the workforce and their representatives? Secondly, the electric arc furnace uses scrap steel, but this will not work for Trostre and Llanwern, so where will that steel come from in future? Will it come from India or Turkey? Thirdly, when will a grid connection for the arc furnace be provided? Fourthly, what specifically is the intention for the site? Fifthly, what is going to be done to support the workforce?
Green steel is something that we all support, including workers and trades unions, so the Government need to do much better in planning for transition because, if this mass job loss model becomes the norm, workforce and wider public support will vanish. Transition requires trust, detail, openness and the involvement of all interested parties, and the Government have failed Port Talbot. The most important question that the Government need to answer is simply this: do they accept that the ability to make virgin steel for our national security is strategically important and must be sustained? Will they guarantee that the UK will retain its ability to make virgin steel in future?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing us to debate this Statement. The noble Baroness from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition made some important points, and I associate myself with her remarks. I have some additional questions.
The agreement to fund the installation of new arc furnaces for steel making will have a positive effect on emissions, and that is good news. However, as the noble Baroness said, the package could mean as many as 3,000 job losses in the UK, and in one area of the UK. That is a terrible outcome.
Tata is reported as warning that there would be a
“transition period including potential deep restructuring”
at the plant. I am not sure that I understand what that means. Can the Minister please translate it for your Lordships’ House in real terms and real lives? Those jobs are being shed. What plans do the Government have to support those people and that local economy when the jobs go? What are the plans for retraining, for example? What are the realistic expectations for a concentration of new and different jobs in that area?
As we also heard, the electric arc furnaces deliver different grades and qualities of steel compared to what we get from a blast furnace site. What is the Government’s assessment as to how the new capacity in this country as a result of that will affect the profile of steel we need to import? To add to the point that the noble Baroness made, what is the assessment on resilience in this country as a result of this change?
The new coal mine in Whitehaven that was last year partially waved through by Michael Gove is also a factor here. West Cumbria Mining said that the coking coal that it would produce would be used for steel making in the UK and Europe. As the Minister knows, electric arcs do not use coke. Yesterday’s announcement removes at a stroke a large proportion of the domestic market for that mine, meaning that the mine will be almost solely for export only, which even further removes the legitimacy of that venture.
The Statement mentions that the British industry supercharger, aimed at assisting electricity prices and helping to make them competitive for energy-intensive industries, will be applied here. His Majesty’s Government responded to the consultation on this only on 5 September, so I suspect that this is its first outing. I really do not understand what it is, but it is cited in reports. Can the Minister please write to us outlining what it is and what it means? I saw the consultation on the British industry supercharger and the response to it, and it is cited as being applied here. How is it applied? What are the terms of that application and what does it mean in energy terms for this business? What other businesses are now in line to benefit from it—not least Scunthorpe, where the Chinese owners cited energy costs as the reason for their shutting down of its coking ovens?
I have a couple of other points. Tata expects to release land at Port Talbot for transfer or sale following the closure of the blast furnaces. This land presumably hosted high industrial activity for decades, so who will be responsible for the not inconsiderable costs of decontaminating and remediating this land before it becomes useful and valuable for anything else? Who will be stumping up these costs?
In conclusion, we have seen a number of government interventions, including the also Tata-owned Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, BMW and perhaps, going forward, British Steel. It has been said by some that these are foreign investors who are masters at extracting subsidies. We understand that there is an international subsidy competition going on here, but how does the Minister respond to that charge? The Chancellor has said that he was not prepared to go toe to toe with the US and EU in the subsidy bidding war, but this looks like the Government reacting to things when they settle in their in-tray. A patchwork of deals is a poor substitute for a coherent industrial strategy. Where is His Majesty’s Government’s plan? What are the Government seeking to cause to happen, or should we expect further examples of sticking plaster activity?
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
Apologies, my Lord. I think I have the opportunity now to respond to the two opening speeches and then I will answer questions one at a time, if I have the order correct.
I greatly appreciate the debate we have had so far over what I believe is a pretty sensational recovery of an extremely difficult situation. Noble Lords will be aware that these conversations around Port Talbot have been going on for many years—some say even more than a decade. Certainly, from my own experience in the private sector, I regarded the situation with a great degree of pessimism, to be frank, and I am surprised that the tone of the debate is not more positive. That does not negate the realities of saving the situation and the transformation that will result in the locality.
I will go through the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I am happy to answer them one by one because we have a strong and coherent policy response to each of the very important points raised. This is a very serious issue. We are not playing politics here; we are dealing with people’s lives and the important commitment of, I believe, all of us in this House to maintain steel production in Port Talbot and to guarantee a future for those communities. What we have ended up with is a powerful opportunity for this country to reshape its industrial base in terms of producing steel and reducing emissions. Noble Lords will be aware of the astonishing level of emissions that Port Talbot alone produces; I think it is 1% of our entire national output. If we are serious—and I think, collectively, we are—about reducing carbon emissions, to reduce one site that produces 1% of the emissions by 80%, which is what this outcome will produce, is significant for the collective challenge we are presented with.
I also find, if I may say so to noble Lords in this House and to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that there is an opportunity to shift. This is a business case—so it is subjective and perfectly reasonable to raise it—for virgin steel, whereby we import the ore, at great cost to emissions and national resilience, and recycle the nine or 10 million-plus tonnes of scrap. This presents an opportunity to us, to Port Talbot, to the people of Wales and to the whole country to realign our steelmaking industry—to rightly make the most of this scrap steel, which otherwise is being exported to Turkey or the US to be recycled. We were losing out on an enormous opportunity to be part of the circular economy.
Let us look at the prima facie business case for what the Government have done, to work in partnership with Tata. I put on record my personal thanks to the leadership of Tata for the extraordinarily good tone of the negotiations that I know it engaged in. From my first meeting with the chairman of Tata a year ago—although I was not involved in these specific negotiations —there was a very clear signal that Tata felt it was important that it reflected its family ownership in terms of commitment to the community of Port Talbot and the United Kingdom. I hope all noble Lords will join me in expressing thanks for the intense amount of good will demonstrated.
The Government have been extremely brave and forward-footed in bringing forward a proposal that will enable us to transform this site, reduce our emissions and, through the transformation to the Celtic freeport projects and the work we shall do—the noble Lord, Lord Fox, rightly raised this—in releasing land that is currently either potentially contaminated or has risk around it, create up to 16,000 new jobs. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is right to call back some of the policy decisions taken in the 1980s, when there probably was not enough sensitivity paid to the transformation process, which affects people but ultimately makes us safer. That is why the Government have been extremely aware of and sensitive to this crucial point that affects people’s lives. Working with Tata—again, a private enterprise—we have created, or are in the process of establishing, a £100 million fund specifically to look after the communities and the people affected. I am aware that specific task forces are being set up to ensure that the process can be properly handled.
There is a reasonable case to be made by noble Lords, although I do necessarily agree with it, about the process by which this announcement was made, but I am sure all noble Lords who have been involved in sensitive and complex commercial negotiations will be aware that the specific terms cannot be entirely public. It was quite right that we got to a good decision, rather than one jeopardised by too much general community discussion. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, will know well, as will her colleagues on the Front Bench, these discussions have been going on for a very long time. Indeed, the announcement of electric arc furnaces at Port Talbot really should have brought great relief to many people, because the worry in the air was that a far more jeopardous decision would be made.
This gives us an enormous opportunity to restructure our industry and reduce our emissions, which is a core commitment of all sides of this House and this Government. It gives us an opportunity to reinvent a huge site with great potential, creating tens of thousands of jobs. I have tried to take a much more positive view of what is a wonderful partnership between the Government, private enterprise and the community that will safeguard thousands of jobs, when the risk of losing those jobs was so significant.
I am aware that both the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked me specific questions, which I am sure other noble Lords would like answers to. If the noble Baroness will allow me, I will just cover those points I did not cover in my main speech. There is an issue over virgin steel. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, suggested that we guarantee always to have a capacity for virgin steel.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I apologise. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, asked whether we would guarantee to make virgin steel strategically important. It is not my place at this Dispatch Box to make such industrial guarantees. However—again, I am happy to take advice from experts—the arc furnaces being installed at Port Talbot are far more sophisticated, I am told, than current arc furnaces in scale, sophistication and the quality of the steel they can produce. They will produce, even on the current plans, steel very close to the quality that we require for all our steel needs.
Think of the automotive sector. Port Talbot provides half of all sheet metal for the automotive sector in the UK. That can still be provided. Think of railway track. That, I am told, can still be provided using these processes. We will be importing the necessary steel to produce cans and other specific steel that requires virgin steel, but we believe that over time—this is where the technical debate comes into play—we can produce the same quality of steel that is hoped for to enable us to ensure that we have resilience in that area.
I was asked about the supply of green energy. I assume that linked to that is a question about connectivity and pace of change. We are in discussions with National Grid, Tata and other agencies to ensure that can be done as soon as practically possible. The process that has led up to this very celebratory announcement has been going on for some time and there has been a great deal of planning. I do not have a specific date but the assumption is that everything will go on track in terms of the supply of green energy, grid connectivity, the decommissioning of the blast furnaces and the introduction of the electric arc furnaces.
I believe there was a question about support for the workforce, which I hope I have covered. In his comments the noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised the situation of the Whitehaven mine. There was never an indication by Tata that it was going to use the coking product from that mine, so I cannot answer further than to say that that was never in the expected plan, whatever the outcome was. I am happy to look further into the export possibilities of the mine, but I do not think that is necessarily relevant today.
The British industry supercharger is a follow-on policy to support energy-intensive industries and make sure that they can compete. I am happy to write to the noble Lord on the specific number of companies that qualify. It is not a huge number; it is quite a specific number of heavy energy users that we are supporting to make sure that they can compete on an international scale. I think all noble Lords would agree that it is very important that we continue to provide that type of support.
I have two final points. I have covered the decontamination point briefly; one of the very important elements of the decision-making around this process was why we could not simply sell the site to a third party. I asked that question myself. The reality is that there are so many complexities around the site, including decontamination and the liabilities that the Government would have had to undertake, that this is genuinely the most effective way to retain as efficient a support level from the Government as possible—not to oversubsidise or oversupport—while at the same time ensuring that the company is viable and can be successful. I mean this in a heartfelt and sincere way. We can deal with the significant issues that those sites present, and at the same time it will have the knock-on effect of using the land for the amazing regenerative opportunities of the Celtic port plan.
On my last point, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for raising some of the great successes over the last few months. I have been proud to be part of the department that has delivered these successes, such as the announcement a few months ago of the Tata gigafactory, one of the largest buildings ever to be built in the history of this country, maybe even the largest, and one of the biggest investments ever in the car industry; the announcement that Stellantis are going to build Fiats, Peugeots and Citroëns in Ellesmere Port after significant consideration of whether or not it wanted to base their production facilities in the UK; and the announcement last week that BMW is going to—again, after significant consideration—build its electric Minis in this country. Further announcements from companies such as Nissan on its capacity to build cars will ensure that this country has a strong industrial base.
I am very proud of what we have managed to achieve. They are true public/private partnerships. We are asked whether we have a strategy. The strategy is: we want a strong industrial base in this country and, if I may say so, we are delivering it.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, can I press the Minister on the point of process and communication that he has touched on? When I had the privilege of being the Secretary of State for Wales, I went to Port Talbot steelworks on many occasions. On those occasions, I saw a very close relationship with the trade unions and the representatives of the workforce. It seems to me that they have been completely left out of making the case for changes in Port Talbot. After all, 3,000 jobs have been lost—a terrible price to pay for what the Minister referred to as a “triumph” in ensuring that we keep the steelworks in Port Talbot. Can he tell me whether any attempt was made to deal with the trade unions before this announcement was made? Can he tell the House whether the Welsh Government were involved before the announcement was made? Can he also tell us what effect this will have on the steel plants in Trostre and Llanwern?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his points. I think it would be very unfair to suggest that at any point the Government or myself—I would say this personally—are somehow triumphant about people not having their employment. I think that is very unfair of any noble Lord in this House to suggest that there is triumphalism over an important transformation.
However, it is right to celebrate the saving of many thousands of jobs, and the opportunity to repoint our steel industry, which the noble Lord cares about with his heritage and history. We are surely working as one here in solving an extremely complex problem for the better. I could not think of any other outcome that could be as optimised as this. That does not mean that every outcome does not have an element of compromise. In the short term, there have been very difficult decisions to make, but I have made it very clear that the Government take this incredibly seriously. A huge number of lessons have been learned over the last 40 years in terms of industrial transformation. That is why we are committing £100 million specifically to the transformation fund, to ensure that people are insulated to some extent from the effects, and so that we can service communities and assist individuals who may find themselves without employment in that specific job in the future. We also hope that we will create tens of thousands of jobs for the communities of Port Talbot through this act.
There is a question that has come up often and with which I have sympathy, and I hope the noble Lord will give me credit for that. I understand there is frustration about the consultation process that led to the announcement last week. I am sure that many people would have liked to be consulted, but it is very difficult to engage with a broad group on specific commercial transactions such as this. Having said that, as far as I am aware, there has been a huge number of engagements and consultations with all the unions involved—the three unions at Port Talbot—and with the Welsh Government. It is very important that we have some clarity now that this deal has been announced. The people of Port Talbot and the staff of the plant can now know what the future is, when last week they did not. From my point of view, that is one of the most important flags for the future. It gives us the opportunity to have the structure around which to have proper consultation, which the company is obliged to take part in and would want to do so in any case. So some of these questions will be answered in the near future and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, as the only person present who lives in the area and knows the decades-long dependence of Swansea Bay city on the steel industry, I say that it is sad that it is the local community that is now likely to pay the price of green steelmaking. How many jobs will be lost? Is it accepted that it will be 3,000? Can we be assured that there will be an attempt to synchronise those job losses and any incoming jobs at a time when there are few large investments in prospect and increased competition? Finally, is there a danger that the transformation will lead to increased imports from countries not subject to the decarbonisation process?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. On the last point particularly, we are very aware of the need to ensure that our carbon border pricing mechanisms are properly implemented. In this House, we are all aware of the situation of competitive imports that we face in this country, which the noble Lord alluded to. We have been particularly forward-footed in ensuring that our World Trade Organization tariff processes are well deployed in order to protect our economy.
On the question asked by the noble Lord on the synchronicity of the Celtic port investments and the transformation of Port Talbot, we are doing everything we can to ensure that that would be the case. Clearly, it is very difficult, but this is a long-term process. The noble Lord was absolutely right to raise it. It is our intention, through this extraordinarily forward- footed and bold investment partnership with Tata, and working with the freeport and the ports companies operating there, to truly transform this area that the noble Lord has such affinity with into the most astonishingly vibrant, advanced manufacturing and industrial hub.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the process, as the Minister acknowledges, will involve redundancies. Those redundancies will have huge community impact, as will the change in the nature of the plant at Port Talbot. Many of those community impacts will fall under the powers of the Welsh Government: education, retraining of the staff involved and huge environmental impacts—some of them for the better. But it will be a period of transition.
That will mean that it is absolutely essential that the UK Government work closely with the Welsh Government. I have been struck by the Minister’s unwillingness to refer to the Welsh Government and the vagueness of his answer about the role of the Welsh Government so far. Can we have a commitment from him now that, in future, there will be full co-operation, joint working and confidence between the UK Government and the Welsh Government to help these people as the transition occurs?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments—I “hear, hear!” them too, although I would push back slightly on the point that I have been vague in my comments about working with the Welsh Government because I have not mentioned them so far, but I am now given the opportunity to do so. It is extremely important that we engage very closely with the Welsh Government. I can, very comfortably, commit to all sides of this House that we will engage as much as possible with the Welsh Government to ensure that we have good outcomes.
For those noble Lords who question the power and value of the union, this is one of the greatest examples I can give them of the power of the union in recent memory—the UK Government nationwide serving the interests of the people of Wales and the Welsh Government. This is a partnership between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, and one that could not be more powerfully written than in the sheer financial, emotional and strategic support that we are all giving to this incredibly important transformation.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chapman, at the end of her remarks, asked about the national security case for steel-making and the national security concerns about making our own steel. I do not think that the Minister answered that point at all—the words have not passed his lips so far—so I would like to give him another chance to answer my noble friend.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to repeat myself, because I thought that I was quite clear that I am not able, at the Dispatch Box, to make industrial commitments on that scale—and he would not expect me to. We still have one steel mill in Scunthorpe operating with blast furnaces that can produce virgin steel. I am not a technical expert, but I hope that noble Lords will bear with me when I say that the processes are now close enough to being able to produce the steel almost to the quality that we need for all the uses that we require it for. We are not quite there yet, but we expect to be, and work is being undertaken to ensure that we can do that in the future.
What we have been able to do is make us more resilient. The noble Lord talked of national security, but I never felt that we were particularly nationally secure by having to import, in effect, all our ore in order to make the steel that we then roll. So here we have the opportunity, at last, to be secure, to take advantage of the circular economy and to use the scrap currently going abroad—totally bizarrely, in my view—to mill it in this country. That will allow us to have the circular economy that will give us far more security than a necessity to produce virgin steel on our own simply through imported ore.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend asked for confirmation of the number of job losses. I think that the number of 3,000 was mentioned, but it would be helpful for your Lordships to have confirmation.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
Again, I appreciate very much the questions on this extremely sensitive and complex area. It is not the Government who run Port Talbot steelworks or Tata Steel, so I am not able to give a specific figure. We are projecting that at least 5,000 jobs have been saved through this move, and we think that tens of thousands of other jobs will be created through the release of land and the transformation of Port Talbot and the freeport area. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness some security.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I misunderstood, but the Minister seemed to suggest that it was not possible to engage with the workforce before this announcement because there was some sort of commercial sensitivity. What commercial sensitivity would have been at risk from telling the workers that there were to be substantial job losses? Following the comments made by the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Minister has now engaged on working with the Welsh Government. Do the Government have a specific package of proposals that they intend to put to the Welsh Government to work in partnership to find new and alternative employment for the people who will be made unemployed in that part of Wales?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for a point well made. The Welsh Government and the UK Government are working together on a transformational transition board. Forgive me for not having the specific nomenclature for it, but it is a collective group led by the UK Government, with participation from the Welsh Government, to ensure that there is strong transition for the people and communities most affected. That includes £100 million, with a substantial contribution from Tata, to ensure that there is money available for that transformation and the transition for the affected individuals and communities. That is a very important commitment. As I said, if we look back 40 or 50 years, it was perfectly reasonable for the charge to be raised that there was not enough done to allow communities and individuals to transition properly from one industrial position to another—that is something that we will not allow to happen. It is absolutely essential that we work closely with the Welsh Government; I see this as a partnership between the two Governments of the UK and Wales. As I responded to the noble Baroness, this is the exact benefit of a strong United Kingdom and a strong union.
I will return again to the point raised about the consultation process on this commercially sensitive and complex arrangement. It is impossible to know what the ramifications of a transformation will be until you have decided what the funding and financing behind it will be. Tata is investing over £1 billion in this transformation programme and the UK Government are putting in £500 million. Until that had been confirmed, it would have been impossible—noble Lords must surely realise this—to know what the future of the site and its industrial capability would be, and, as result, what the projections on the consultations for employment would be. I have great sympathy with both the Government and Tata for making sure that there was a high degree of confidentiality around the specific deals. But make no mistake: this discussion has been going on for a decade and the outcome is no surprise to anyone in this House or in Port Talbot. What is a delight and to be celebrated is that we have come to a decision; people no longer have to worry about a decision that has not been taken. Now we can get on with the job of delivering a transformed Port Talbot steelworks, a strong partnership with Tata and a very strong partnership between the UK Government and the Welsh Government.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the great interest from his colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero about offshore wind farms in the Celtic Sea. A number of us have been attending meetings about where these would be located and where the shore stations would be, if we can call them that. I live in Cornwall and felt fairly miserable that they could not be built there because there is no flat land big enough for those enormous great tanks to be built—although that is fair enough. Obviously, Port Talbot comes top of the list for having a large number of flat areas and decent quays and, until now, the right steel-making facilities. Is anyone, between the Minister’s department and the energy department, talking about how those facilities could still be built at Port Talbot, even with a new electric arc furnace? Is it the right type of steel, and is there enough space? Presumably, it will create some jobs, which I hope will be welcomed.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I am afraid that I was not entirely clear on some of the points he made, but, as I understood it, he was looking for clean energy supply to the Port Talbot facility. There have been a number of discussions on that, and I share his view on, and enthusiasm for, offshore wind—particularly floating offshore wind—and I believe that all these options are being explored. They will create a huge amount of inward investment, a huge number of jobs and an enormous amount of innovation. The UK is leading the way, as noble Lords know, on the provision and building of offshore wind capabilities.
Post Office Compensation
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for attending today to discuss yesterday’s important Statement in the other place concerning compensation for victims of the Post Office’s Horizon IT system failings.
What took place after the installation of Horizon accounting software started in the late 1990s has been referred to as one of the greatest scandals of modern times. The installation of the accounting software led to recorded shortfalls in cash at many branches. The truth is that, instead of questioning whether the software was working accurately, the Post Office instead believed that the shortfalls were caused by postmasters themselves, leading to dismissals, recovery of losses from the individuals concerned and, of course, in some cases criminal prosecutions.
The lives of decent, honest postmasters were ripped apart, with some cases resulting in prison sentences but, for all, a long and difficult wait for years to get justice. The consequences for some of those victims are just too awful to contemplate. The wait for resolution of compensation claims has only added to the intolerable burden so many have had to face.
We can all be grateful for the work done by Ministers and civil servants to make progress on this important matter, and I acknowledge the commitment and dedication of Members in both Houses continuing to work with victims through the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance to sort this mess out.
We agree that there is logic in the proposals for compensation outlined in the Statement and welcome the clarification given in yesterday’s Statement by the Minister, Kevin Hollinrake. He acknowledged that 86 convictions have been overturned and that over £21 million has been paid out in compensation. However, due to the complexity of some claims, especially for personal damages, progress on full and final settlements has been slow. The proposal outlined is to offer a fixed sum of £600,00 for those who received an overturned conviction. Can the noble Earl tell us what specific methodology was used to arrive at this figure? Will he commit to publishing it for the sake of transparency?
I also seek clarification on a few factors. First, how many people does the noble Earl anticipate will take up this offer? What assurances can he give that the compensation being offered to those 86 individuals whose convictions have been overturned will be made up to a sufficient level? What can he say in response to the point that, if people go through the full scheme, the compensation will be much higher? I would be grateful if he addressed what he thinks the balance is between the figure of £600,000 and what others might expect to get. Importantly, what is the estimated timescale for compensation completion for those he considers eligible and not yet fully compensated? Finally, can the noble Earl explain why it has taken so long for evidence from key stakeholders—the Post Office, the Government and Fujitsu—to be presented to the public inquiry?
The Post Office is a national institution, but its reputation has been severely damaged by this scandal. I finally ask: what steps are being taken to ensure that this can never happen again?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl for repeating this Statement. I recognise the good faith that the Under-Secretary of State in the Commons and the noble Earl have in trying to move this forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said, this scandal is deeply shameful—one of the most deeply shameful incidents in public life, certainly in our lifetimes. It has involved lying, cover-up and deceit on an industrial scale and, to date, only the innocent have been punished.
Nevertheless, as I said, this announcement is a sincere attempt to inject some forward movement. As media reports have indicated, and as the noble Baroness set out, since the announcement, some of the victims will be freed from the need for an extensive claims assessment process through this offer. Others, some of the most egregiously harmed by this scandal, will rightly decline in anticipation of more appropriate compensation via a full assessment and, clearly, the Government have recognised this right, which is the right thing to do.
I sense and understand the Government’s frustration that only 86 out of an estimated 600 people who were damned by Horizon evidence have so far come through the process. Perhaps this new announcement will attract some people out, but I ask the Minister: what is plan B and what else are the Government going to do to try to inject further forward motion in this awful scandal? The process is grindingly slow and presents imposing challenges to people who have already been burned by their contact with the courts and the authorities. These are people who have been psychologically harmed by the system and now have to re-enter it to get recompense. Some element of psychological understanding has to go into coaxing these people to cross that line.
In the Commons, my honourable friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked a very pertinent question regarding subpostmasters who were dismissed but not prosecuted. In his thoughtful answer, Kevin Hollinrake MP highlighted the complexity and difficulty of processing claims. This is the nub of the problem and why things are grindingly slow. It is complex and difficult, and things are taking so long. Already, people have died and more will die before they find justice. I understand that this announcement is driven by a desire to move things forward, but can the Minister please undertake to carry back to his department your Lordships’ frustration and plea for greater urgency and more energy to make this move forward?
I have a question, which perhaps the Minister can explain now or write to us. Do the victims in this process, which is complex, have to prove themselves innocent, or is the assessment the other way around? It seems to me much harder to prove innocence than to refute guilt. Perhaps one way of moving this forward is to change the bar that people have to clear in the assessment process, and make it clear to them that it has been lowered and made easier. Perhaps we are applying too rigorous a standard for people who were so unrigorously prosecuted in the first place.
The elephants in the room in this inquiry are the roles played by the Post Office and Fujitsu, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said. Here, I think the Government have been found wanting. The Government moved on the issue of senior employee bonuses, for which they deserve some praise, but, seemingly unchastened by this overall story, the Post Office is still taking an obfuscatory stance with respect to providing evidence to the inquiry and moving things forward, and it continues to be allowed to do so. Secondly, can the Minister confirm that Fujitsu remains commercially untouched by this and continues to bid and win government contracts—and can he tell us why?
This is a welcome announcement, but it is one step and there is a long way to go, so please can the Minister, who I know is working with us in good faith, work with his colleagues to find new ways to speed it up and find resolution and at least some end to this sorry story?
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their speeches, which were both very powerful and raised some extremely salient points on what I think everybody must agree is one of the most atrocious commercial situations that this country has experienced. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are quite right: this is an extremely complicated situation and of course it goes back over a very long time now. Memories are fading and some of the financial data, which is critical to sorting out some of the issues, is not as fresh as it was and, of course, we have the terrible situation of individuals being not only prosecuted but jailed—and unfortunately some have even taken their own life, which is just beyond belief.
This is one of the very worst incidents in commercial history. When it comes to trying to support the victims wherever one possibly can, the Government are increasingly taking steps to not only get an appropriate amount of compensation into their hands but to encourage people to come forward, which seems to be one of the hardest things to do. For one reason or another, people who have been so badly affected by this situation are unwilling to come forward. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made the extremely interesting point that it could be that proof of innocence is harder than proof of guilt, which of course is completely the wrong way round. I will certainly ask what the Government can do in relation to that, but this is an increasingly difficult situation to get to the bottom of.
Having said that, the offer of £600,000, free of any tax and with legal support if so required, for the individuals involved where their conviction has been overturned is a genuine attempt to make things much simpler and easier for those who find the whole process of going through the established claims procedure too challenging. This is an offer that is not conditional upon anything. My honourable friend Minister Hollinrake said “no ifs, no buts”—it is £600,000 tax free, and of course it is a full and final settlement. The clarity of it is absolutely simple. I hope that will appeal to certain people who may want to bring financial closure where possible. There is no doubt that it will not appeal to everybody. I am sure we have all read in the press this morning a number of stories of people who are talking about numbers which are considerably higher than this. It is right and proper that they should continue to press their case through the compensation channels that they have.
I will address some of the issues raised. I am afraid I cannot give a clear answer to every single one of them; some of them are extremely subjective and probably need a little more thought. I will certainly write where I have not addressed the issue.
The question of personal damages is a tricky one. The Government have already made interim payments of £21 million to 86 postmasters who have had their convictions overturned.
On how the £600,000 figure was reached, I am not absolutely clear. It is a huge step forward from what was available previously, but I will follow that up. From the point of view of the pecuniary amount, it is a significant amount of money. The offer that anybody who has already settled and who got less than £600,000 through the existing channels will be made good up to that figure is an honourable way of going about it. It is extremely important—I quite agree.
As to how many people will take it up, that again is a very difficult question to answer. As I am sure the noble Baroness knows, there are a number of these unfortunate individuals who have already employed lawyers and who are already into the process. I guess they have to be confident that the legal advice they receive will either allow them to pursue what they have started or take this offer. I am not certain that it is the Government’s role to get involved in that; I do not think that is the case. As far as the total amount goes, if everybody were to take it up, obviously that would be £600,000 per claimant, but my suspicion is that it will end up being a bit more than that.
As for the timescale, this offer is to make it simple and fast, for all sorts of reasons. As the noble Baroness said, this has been going on for an unacceptably long time. The attempt to make it transparent and simple is a genuine attempt to bring closure for as many people as possible.
The point about the Post Office, the Government and Fujitsu is very well made, and I will address that later, if I may.
Finally, on the point about it never, ever happening again, I do not think anybody would put their hand on their heart and say that something like this could never happen again, but one of the collateral benefits of a situation such as this is that it raises awareness. One has to go back a long time, but, as noble Lords may know, I was a retailer in my commercial life and the level of faith that one put in electronic point-of-sale equipment and the systems behind those front-facing things was, in the early days, at times ill-founded. One would think now that there are enough checks and balances within any form of automated stock control and management system that anything that does not look right would be flagged up—that is certainly my experience. I do not think that something as specific as what we have had to face through the Horizon scandal is likely nowadays with the advances in technology.
I will refer quickly to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I am entirely with the noble Lord; this is a deeply shameful situation. I have stood here before and talked about the way that the Post Office runs itself; I do not think anybody can be in any doubt as to what I think some of its commercial failings have been. We have to look only at the extraordinary situation around the bonus payment, which has now been fully repaid; the chief executive has paid back more than he had to—slightly too little, too late, in my view, but at least it is an acceptance of failure. The Government are acutely aware of those issues.
As for damages through the courts, that is really a question for the courts. As I understand it, the legal advice that you get when you make a claim through the court—I referred to this earlier—is such that it is always an estimate. I imagine that, for some, it is absolutely obvious that they will continue to go through the courts, whereas for others that is not the case. The fact that the Government will make up the difference is certainly an honourable way to address that.
The question of those dismissed but not prosecuted is something that we need to address. I am again surprised, as I imagine are a lot of people, by the amount of people who have not applied and put their names forward. However, on the group litigation order, as of 15 September, 461 registration forms had been received and 32 full claims. Seven offers had been made and accepted. It shows that all these different opportunities are starting to gain some traction. It would be nice if we could get through them as quickly as possible.
I think that is probably it, apart from the elephants in the room—Fujitsu and the Post Office. The Government are keen to get this out the way and settled, before we see where we stand with Fujitsu. It is a core participant in the inquiry. It must now know what went wrong; well, it certainly did before we knew. Once the independent inquiry is complete, I am sure there will be a robust conversation with Fujitsu and, no doubt, its insurers.
I might finish on that. This has been a horrifying experience for a large number of people—well over 2,500—and the Government continue to do what we can.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I start by acknowledging that the House owes a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, who has pursued this indefatigably over years. I am very sorry to see that he is not in his place today, but I am sure he is well apprised of this settlement. A lot of credit goes to him for continuing to raise this scandalous saga.
The Minister says that he is slightly surprised by how few people have come forward. It is well recognised that, if not the majority, large numbers of these people were from ethnic minorities, many of whom were first generation. They had to navigate the system to find a defence and to defend themselves—to deal first with the legal process and their convictions and then, if they were not convicted, to continue to seek compensation or a settlement for their wrongful convictions; it is not surprising that those people did not have the financial and social capital to do that. They were and are a very special category.
I agree with the Government that this is a generous settlement, but I have two brief questions to ask the Minister. I could not see in the letter he wrote whether the dependants of those who died will be offered any compensation. Perhaps I missed that somewhere but it is profoundly important. There were those who, unfortunately, took their own lives and others who died because of the passage of time.
Secondly, what efforts are the Government making to ensure that these minority communities are aware of this and provided with sufficient information to pursue their claims?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. Yes, the estates of deceased postmasters are able to bring a claim on their behalf. Not only that, but they will get the tax-free status on offer.
The noble Baroness’s point about minorities was extremely well made and it certainly came out in some of the interviews that I listened to yesterday. Unless this piece of paper will tell me, I am not aware of the absolute number; no, I do not have that data here. A Citizens Advice helpline has been established and the Government have written to 600 people in an attempt to get them to come forward. The noble Baroness’s point about ethnic minorities, some of whom are first generation, and their reticence in coming forward is well made and I will certainly take it up.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for his very full replies. Of the 600 convictions, only 86 have been overturned so far, so progress is slow. The Statement refers to a number of postmasters having not even sought to appeal their convictions yet. Among the reasons for this are issues such as increasing age and infirmity, because this has been going on for so long. Indeed, some of those affected may well have died without the Government being aware.
My question therefore is about exactly what work the Government are doing with the families of those affected, as well as those directly involved, to ensure that every possible avenue is taken, not only to trace and contact them but to take every possible step to encourage them to claim what is rightfully theirs.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I am entirely in tune with what the noble Baroness said. It is incumbent on the Government to use every channel that we can to reach out to these people. It has not been easy and we continue to try as hard as we can. I will write to tell the noble Baroness exactly what the Government are doing directly and through the Post Office.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this is the most appalling scandal. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, should be congratulated on the work that he has done, pursuing this point for years. I wish he were in the House today. It is important that, when the inquiry concludes, people are held to account for what they did and did not do or know. The appalling suggestion is that people knew that something was wrong and allowed people to be prosecuted and convicted. Can you imagine being accused of theft, taken to court, convicted and sent to prison, when you were totally innocent? That is what has gone on here. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, also made a point about people who were just fired.
We talked about why people have not come forward. It may be that they are older or from minorities. They also might be very scared. Will they be believed? They have gone through this nightmare, this trauma, and they have moved on and are worried about bringing it all back. We have to understand the difficulty that people may find themselves in here and do something about it. It is absolutely appalling, and I do not know how people can live with themselves if they knew something but then allowed people to have their lives destroyed. People have died.
I am sure the Government are very sincere about what they are doing when they say that they are going to do this, try that and make this happen, but they have the power to sort this out. They can sort this out; nobody else can. They can find these people and assure them that they will make a difference. They have the power —they should use it and use it now.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I entirely agree. It is only the Government who can do this. The Post Office prosecuted nearly 700 people; other agencies prosecuted another 200. We have had 86 convictions overturned, which is not a lot, and we have contacted more than 600 postmasters who were prosecuted. There is an absolute will and intention to get this sorted out. What is very difficult is to define exactly how one reaches the parts that we have so far failed to achieve. All I can really say is rest assured; it is an extremely high priority. More and more funds and resources are being allocated and we will continue to push until we get to the bottom of this.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I want to pursue that point. The noble Earl said that people have been contacted. How have they been contacted? Is it a letter? Is it a phone call? Have you knocked on the door? Have you gone back again? We need to know what that contact is, because if people are not coming forward from that contact, then it has failed. People need to know that we accept that a great injustice has been done to them and we want to sort it out. The noble Earl may not be able to answer the point now, so will he write to me and to other noble Lords in the House to say what the method of contact is and what they are going to do when they have not got a response?
Lord Fox (LD)
Before the Minister answers that, it is important to bring home and build on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. A strategy to communicate with certain communities is different from a strategy to communicate with the mainstream community. It involves community leaders, different media and different things. Do the Government have a proper media communication strategy of the sort that was just mentioned that involves using community leaders as intermediaries for those people to give them the confidence to step forward?
I talked about the Post Office being obfuscatory. Among the things it was obfuscatory about were appalling racial slurs that were used to characterise those people. At the heart of this is a racial element, and we should not forget that. Many of the people who were punished may well have been singled out because of their classification within that process. I think the Government owe it to them to double down on this communication.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I entirely agree. The Government really do owe it to them to double down on it and I will find out exactly what the situation is. I know that telephone calls, letters, victim meetings and all sorts of things are going on, and it is extremely important that we get to the bottom of it. I will write to noble Lords with the details and let them know exactly how we are proceeding.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I do not wish to detain the House, but can the Minister give the House—perhaps in writing if he does not have the figures now—an assessment of how many other government contracts Fujitsu currently holds?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I do not have that detail now, but I will certainly write and let the House know.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I think the mood of the House is very much to put pressure on to get some answers about when the three main stakeholders are going to be in front of the inquiry. We cannot wait any longer. Some of those people will be retiring; some of the people involved will not be with us anymore. The clock has been ticking for so long. If the noble Minister cannot answer now, will he come back and give us a very clear picture as to when those people will be held to account and what we can expect from the process to make sure that everything that needs to be is brought to light and exposed for what it is?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I certainly commit to doing that. I hope the House would agree that the step taken by the Government, and announced yesterday, is a genuine attempt to push things forward. It is a very significant amount of money and I hope it may encourage some of the people who have been reticent to come forward and help us get to the bottom of this. The inquiry is of course independent, the chairman sets the timeline, but it is certainly something that I will address.
Afghan Resettlement
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
With the permission of the House, I will repeat a Statement made today by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs:
“Mr Speaker, since June 2021, around 24,600 people from Afghanistan have been safely relocated to the United Kingdom. We owe them a debt of gratitude— and, in return, our offer has been generous. The UK Government have granted all Afghans relocated through safe and legal routes indefinite leave to remain, including the immediate right to work, alongside access to the benefits system and vital health, education, and employment support. Given the unprecedented speed and scale of the 2021 evacuation, we warmly welcomed our Afghan friends into temporary hotel accommodation until settled accommodation could be found. However, bridging hotels are not—and were never designed to be—a permanent solution.
Indeed, in a Statement to this House in March, I made it clear that it was unjustifiable for around a third of those relocated from Afghanistan to still be living in costly bridging accommodation up to 18 months after arriving to safety in the United Kingdom. Long-term residency in hotels prevented some families from properly putting down roots and was costing UK taxpayers £1 million a day. This was not sustainable. That is why, at the end of April, we began issuing notices to quit to the 8,000 individuals who remained in bridging accommodation, making clear that access to costly hotels would end following a minimum three-month notice period, and encouraging moves into settled accommodation.
I am pleased to confirm that, as of 31 August, the Government have successfully ended the use of bridging hotels for legally resettled Afghans. We estimate that over 85 per cent of those who were in bridging accommodation at the end of March 2023 have been helped into homes or pre-matched into settled accommodation. Ending the provision of bridging accommodation was the right thing to do for our Afghan friends, who can now get on with rebuilding their lives, and represents a fairer deal for the British taxpayer. Indeed, it was not right to continue to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for costly bridging hotels when—as we have demonstrated—settled accommodation could be found for the overwhelming majority of guests. This required a considerable national effort and represents a significant national achievement. I therefore want to extend my thanks to colleagues across central government, as well as to local authorities and third sector partners, who have all played a part. Without dedicated caseworking teams and councils, in addition to the £285 million funding package I announced in March, this mammoth task would not have been possible.
Not only are we on track to deliver 1,200 homes for Afghans through the local authority housing fund, which will help to build a sustainable stock of affordable accommodation for the future, but we have mobilised the generosity of the Great British public by creating an innovative new Afghan housing portal, which enabled conscientious landlords to offer their rental properties directly to families. Furthermore, each local authority that receives an Afghan family can access £20,500 per person over three years to provide wraparound integration support, as well as additional funding for English language classes. I urge local authorities to continue taking advantage of this generous funding offer that the Government have put in place.
As I told the House in July, the Government have made time-limited interim accommodation available to a minority of families. This is available only to those for whom a move would disrupt ongoing medical treatment at a specific hospital, and those who have been pre-matched to a property that will be available before the end of December. As of 31 August, over 80% of those in time-limited interim accommodation were already matched to a property. We have already seen over 200 people move out of interim accommodation and into settled accommodation since, with more leaving every week.
As I have set out, the overwhelming majority of Afghans have now moved into settled accommodation or been pre-matched to a property. This is a testament to the significant central government support that has been put in place. Despite this support, however, some families have moved into temporary accommodation under local authority homelessness provision. This is less than 5% of the 24,600 people who have relocated from Afghanistan, and of those families in temporary accommodation around a quarter have a property to move into over the coming weeks.
Others in temporary accommodation have, regrettably, turned down suitable offers of accommodation, and I have been clear and honest from the outset that, where this happens, another government offer will not be forthcoming. At a time when there are many pressures on the taxpayer and on the housing market, it is not right that people can reject perfectly suitable offers of accommodation and expect to remain in taxpayer-funded hotels. However, in recognition of the pressures that councils may face as a result of housing Afghans in temporary accommodation, an additional £9,150 per household has been made available to councils by central government. This is in addition to the wider £2 billion available over three years to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.
Let me be clear: we have not left Afghan families without a roof over their heads. I continue to work closely with central and local government partners to help the small minority of families in local authority-provided temporary accommodation to find settled accommodation across the UK. But we must all continue to play our part in delivering a helping hand to our Afghan friends, to whom we owe so much. I encourage those who can to offer private rented accommodation, or to speak to their local council, or list their property on the Government’s Afghan housing portal, which remains operational.
We also take seriously our commitment to resettling Afghans yet to arrive in the UK, including those eligible for our schemes who are still in Afghanistan. But our efforts to move people out of hotels has shown how vital it is that they are moved directly into long-term, settled accommodation, where they can put down roots in the community. That is why we are taking forward plans to source suitable accommodation ahead of facilitating new arrivals.
Welcoming people who come to the UK through safe and legal routes has always been, and will always be, a vital way in which our country helps those in need. In this spirit, I look forward to welcoming more of those who loyally served alongside the UK’s Armed Forces in Afghanistan, as well as those who stood up for British values, often at great personal risk, in the months ahead. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for reading the Statement delivered in the Commons earlier. I encourage noble Lords to go back and read, or perhaps even watch, the full debate. I found it quite moving in places, particularly when Members from across the House talked about some of the cases they had been dealing with. I will refer just to one, where a man who had come here from Afghanistan was trying to allow for his daughters to come. It was so urgent to him: he showed a photograph of one of his daughters who had taken her own life, such was her fear over what would happen to her at the hands of the Taliban. He was trying to get his other four daughters to be able to join him in the UK. The point that was being made was about the slow progress and lack of response from the Home Office and the inability, it would seem, to be able to assist in making this happen. I very much encourage noble Lords to look back at that debate and to understand, perhaps better than we sometimes can do, the very real impact this is having on people’s lives.
Our nation promised those who put their lives at risk to serve alongside our Armed Forces in Afghanistan that we would relocate and settle them, give their families safety and help them to rebuild their lives. Now it seems the Government want a pat on the back for what they have done, at a time when we still have thousands of people stuck in limbo in Pakistan, some of whose documents will expire in the coming months, who will then risk being returned to Afghanistan or making treacherous and illegal journeys to safety.
Here in the UK, there are families with children who have been stuck in hotels for 18 months. This is not helping them rebuild their lives; this is neglect. Can the Minister tell us whether any more new arrivals will continue to be placed in this bridging accommodation? If so, how long will that be allowed to happen for?
Ministers have acknowledged that serving notices to quit in the way that they have has put Afghans at risk of homelessness, so can the Minister tell us how many Afghans in the UK are now accessing homelessness services from local authorities as a result of the Government’s approach? How many of them are children?
I pay tribute to all those involved in Operation Pitting. Can the Minister tell us why, after two years, there are still 600 people who are eligible for ARAP in Afghanistan, waiting for their applications to be processed? What are the Government doing to make sure these people get to safety and out of reach of the Taliban?
It is all too easy to forget the horror of what happened in Afghanistan and what is still happening to those who risked their lives to serve alongside us. The consequences of UK government delays are severe, so will the Minister urge her colleagues at the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office to do all they can to resolve the status of all those to whom we owe a debt of gratitude, as she says, and make good on our united national promise to support them? We are all united with the Government in our ambition, but ambition alone will not save lives or protect anyone from torture. It is the detailed, careful execution of a plan that matters now, with humanity and urgency at its heart.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I agree wholeheartedly with many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, about the debt we owe to the Afghans who served with us, which is noted in the Statement that the Minister just repeated. We need to reiterate that, because the Statement in many ways is almost like a Home Office document: “Right, we’ve got this issue, we’ve relocated people. Maybe this is the end”.
In the other place, the Statement was given by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Johnny Mercer, so there was a very clear link to veterans. That is important, because the people we are talking about and their families are people who served alongside the British Army. We still owe them a debt. Operation Pitting was fantastic, but we left so many people behind.
I pay tribute to the Government for relocating 24,600 people, but that has to be the start. While it is clearly right that we are not using bridging accommodation for anything other than very temporary care, what accommodation will be available for those many people who are in Pakistan awaiting moves to the United Kingdom—a safe and legal route, in the Government’s language? What is being done to support those people who are still in Afghanistan?
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, mentioned a case that was talked about in the other place this afternoon. There are still many Afghans living in fear of their lives. They have not become more secure since 2021; they have become less secure. They have been in so-called safe houses and moved from one safe house to another. In the final paragraph of this welcome Statement—well, parts of it are welcome—there is a commitment still to welcome those eligible to come under ARAP. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to help people get out of Afghanistan? Some of those people who are eligible for ARAP—or would have been eligible had the terms not changed—are now being told they can be considered under the ACRS. Here I am talking very much about the British Council teachers and contractors. What is being done to help them?
If they get out—if they find people who will smuggle them out of Afghanistan—will His Majesty’s Government actually give them indefinite leave to remain and all the benefits that entails if they make it to the United Kingdom, or are they going to be told, “Sorry, you would have been eligible if only you had risked your life a little bit longer in Afghanistan, but now you’ve come here illegally and unsafely you’re no longer eligible”? That is what very many people fear.
In terms of accommodation, clearly it is right to move families into permanent accommodation. But there are cases of young people who have been out of school. Part of the pledge to our Afghan friends is that there will be education. Can the Minister tell us how many Afghans under the age of 19 are out of school and how far the relocation from temporary accommodation to permanent accommodation in other parts of the country is impacting on the education of young people, particularly young women?
I would also like to know whether those Afghans who have allegedly rejected “suitable” accommodation have really understood that the accommodation is suitable. Is it affordable? Does the Government’s offer really enable them to take up those offers? It goes back to one of the questions that my noble friend Lady Falkner asked in the Statement on the Post Office: does everybody understand the bureaucracy? Are people giving up suitable accommodation because they have not really understood what is available?
It is good that we have rehoused 24,600 people. It would be better if we had a clear road map for others who would be ARAP-eligible. My final question is: can the Minister tell us how many Afghans are homeless in the United Kingdom and how many of those are vulnerable and on the streets today?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses opposite for their comments. We are united in our vision here and a lot of the things we are discussing today have very wide support. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, I watched some of the debate in the other place and I was struck not only by the individual cases but also the support given for the work by local authorities, by the Government for the funding that has been put in and, of course, by the total commitment of the brave Afghans who worked alongside us so well.
I turn to the specific points that have been raised. Perhaps I can first tackle new arrivals, including those in third countries. We have been clear, as I said in the Statement, that we need to solve the problem here, so that those from overseas can go straight into settled accommodation, with all its advantages. We will be making further announcements in due course about this, but I emphasise that our policy is to house Afghans in settled accommodation so they can work—they have the right to work—so they can integrate into communities, so they can send their children to local schools and embed them, and so they can become rooted in their new homes and communities.
In relation to homelessness, our promise was to ensure that no Afghans were sleeping rough, and as a result of our efforts the vast majority are now settled in permanent accommodation, with fewer than 5% of families receiving homelessness support. The noble Baroness asked for a specific figure. It is 188 households; I do not have a breakdown by adults and children. The homelessness system also acts as a safety net and no family will be left without a roof over their heads. There is funding of £9,150 per family available to support councils with homelessness costs, as well as £28 per person per day for up to six months if they are placed in temporary accommodation. Of course, that is on top of the £2 billion towards dealing with homelessness and rough sleeping, which is not the subject of this Statement but is a very important priority as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made a number of points which I very much agreed with, and she mentioned the education issue, which is incredibly important—and what a horror the contrast is between the attitude to the education of women in Afghanistan and our approach here.
Although I do not have the numbers of underage Afghan children out of school, I can tell the noble Baroness that the system we have initiated had a special focus at a time when children could move into new schools in the new autumn term, which I thought was very good. There is also an educational rule that local area school places have to be found within 20 days. So we are aware of the needs of education. I should also say that in every hotel there has been help from the DWP, the Home Office and so on because we understand the importance of these issues.
Funding is also important. The Statement made clear that we have tried to be generous and to help local authorities. In addition to the £250 million expansion of the local authority housing fund, which I think is a game-changer, we have also found £32.5 million—that is £7,100 per person—for the flexible housing fund. That is both capital and revenue, which is important because it means that there may be money available for families to have a deposit on a rented house or for capital to be used to flex a house—for example, when there is a large family. The work that has been done by DLUHC and others has been innovative. There has been money for voluntary and community sector caseworkers, which I have already mentioned. That is in addition to the resettlement allowances that come from the Home Office: there is £20,520 per person integration tariff funding for resettlement, and other money is available for things like English language training, which—to go back to the point of about education—is incredibly important. We know that these brave people will be able to integrate well if their children are in school and they can move forward.
The point about bureaucracy was close to my heart. I want to make the point that pamphlets have been made in English, Pashto and Dari, so there has been a real effort to explain people’s needs. The availability of officials in hotels has also been good for that. That is something of a model, although there is of course more to do and we need to go further.
I am so grateful for the support from third countries. It has been mentioned that some people under the ARAP and ACRS schemes are still principally in Pakistan, but we are grateful to the third countries concerned for that. By moving through the existing families and getting them into permanent accommodation, it is going to be a great deal easier to get those schemes up and running properly again.