House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s proceedings, I would like to draw the House’s attention to the new shield commemorating our late colleague Sir David Amess, which was unveiled earlier today at a small gathering of his family. Sir David was a dedicated constituency MP and a powerful advocate for Southend-on-Sea, which was granted city status last year in his honour. He was a committed campaigner for the causes he believed in—most notably, animal welfare—and a highly respected and valued colleague, known to Members in all parts of the House for his kindness, his generosity and, of course, his friendship to all. He is sorely missed.
Hon. Members
Hear, hear.
New Members
The following Members made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law:
Sarah Siena Edwards, Tamworth.
Alistair Luke Strathern, Mid Bedfordshire.
Business before Questions
City of London (Markets) Bill
Ordered,
That the promoters of the City of London (Markets) Bill, which was originally introduced in this House in this Session on 30 January 2023, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill from the day on which the current Session ends in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bishop’s Stortford Cemetery Bill [Lords]
Ordered,
That the promoters of the Bishop’s Stortford Cemetery Bill [Lords], which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in this Session on 23 January 2023, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill from the day on which the current session ends in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Mr Speaker
Thank you, Chairman of Ways and Means; that was very effective. May I say, I would expect nothing less?
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
The Government introduced fairness into school funding. Under Labour, we got disproportionately inflated school budgets in places such as London, while constituencies such as mine were underfunded for over a decade. It was the Conservatives who introduced the national funding formula, which funds schools fairly, objectively and, most importantly, based on the needs of pupils, not political ideology. Not only that: this year, school budgets are up by over £3.9 billion, and next year schools will be funded at their highest level in history, at £59.6 billion.
Mark Garnier
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Worcestershire County Council languishes among the weakest 10 local authorities for funding per pupil. As a result, a lot of pressure has been put on other budgets, including the high needs and special educational needs and disabilities budget. Worcestershire now faces a deficit of more than £20 million in those budgets. Can she do something to help counties such as Worcestershire to meet those important demands for our young people?
Gillian Keegan
I am conscious of the pressures that many local authorities have faced on their high needs budgets. Nationally, high needs funding is set to increase by 60% between 2019-20 and 2024-25. Next year, Worcestershire will receive more than £89 million for its high needs budget. The Department is also supporting individual local authorities to tackle financial sustainability through two programmes: the Safety Valve programme for those with the highest deficits, and Delivering Better Value in SEND, which will help local authorities, including Worcestershire, to develop plans to reform their systems to reach a sustainable footing.
Kerry McCarthy
The recent accounting error by the Secretary of State’s Department will mean a cut of more than £2.5 million for schools in Bristol. That money could have been spent on breakfast clubs, SEND provision, mental health support, or even such basics as paying the energy bills. The Prime Minister said in this conference speech that his main funding priority in every spending review from now on will be education, but he is cutting school budgets now. Does the Secretary of State not realise the impact that will have on schools, whose budgets have already been cut to the bone?
Gillian Keegan
I take the error in the July notional national funding formula figures very seriously, but it is important to note that schools do not receive notification of their actual budget until February-March. The Department acted quickly to correct the error—well before schools set their final budgets. There is no cut: £59.6 billion, which I have talked about many times from this Dispatch Box, is the number that schools will be funded at next year. At my direction, Peter Wyman, the chair of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, will lead a rigorous independent external review of the Department’s quality assurance processes.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I am grateful to the permanent secretary for writing to the Committee as soon as that recent funding error was identified, and for her apology for the concern that it caused. Although no actual money was lost to schools as a result, it reflects the complexity of the current system. We have promised a fair formula for funding, which will flow directly to schools. When do Ministers expect to be able to legislate to put that in place?
Gillian Keegan
It is our intention to legislate, but I cannot give a date for that at the Dispatch Box. I will keep my hon. Friend informed.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
Despite North West Leicestershire delivering consistently the highest economic growth in the country, with the resulting tax revenue benefits to the Treasury, my constituents have been blighted by very low per-pupil funding for a long time, as Leicestershire has bumped along the bottom of the funding table for decades. Does the Secretary of State have any words of comfort for my constituents?
Gillian Keegan
The introduction of the NFF will direct resources according to need. That has meant that funding has been redistributed to catch up with these changes. Those with the highest number of pupils with additional needs will also be targeted via the NFF.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
This year and last year, the Government have provided £94 billion of cost of living support in England. In education, more than a third of children get free school meals. University tuition fees have been frozen and we have provided £276 million of student premium to help the most disadvantaged students.
Rosie Duffield
During my latest meeting with student leaders in Canterbury, they told me that, often, new students will visit the food bank, the Campus Pantry, before they have even unpacked their bags or settled in. In the 2021-22 academic year, 45 students visited; by 2022-23, that number had risen to 301—a 650% rise in regular food bank users. They expect a similar rise this academic year. What will the Government do to help all those, including students and staff on campus, who are forced to turn to food banks?
Robert Halfon
I know the hon. Lady cares deeply about the welfare of her students. We are doing everything we can to help students with the cost of living. I mentioned the £276 million. One of her universities, Canterbury Christ Church University, provides a £600 bursary to students. Every family has received from the Government on average £3,300 for energy bills and other support. We are trying to be fair to the taxpayer, but fair to students and ensure the most disadvantaged are helped.
Lilian Greenwood
While the cost of food, heating and rent has rocketed, the value of the student maintenance loan has fallen by £1,500 in real terms since 2020-21. Recent research by the University of Nottingham Students’ Union revealed that the cost of living crisis is affecting students’ education, and their physical and mental health. It found that almost one in 10 students had a weekly budget of £20 or less after rent, and one in five had a weekly budget of £20 or less after rent and bills. Thirty-seven per cent had considered leaving university because of the difficulties they faced paying for essentials. Does the Minister think that these are acceptable conditions for students to be struggling under?
Robert Halfon
It is precisely because of the figures the hon. Lady sets out that we are helping students, with £276 million to try to ensure we help the most disadvantaged students. Her own university—she mentioned Nottingham University—gives a £1,000 bursary to disadvantaged students. We are also giving up to £90 billion of extra help to disadvantaged families, we have frozen tuition fees and we look at loan repayments if family incomes fall below 15%, so we are doing everything possible to support the most disadvantaged to get higher education.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
As we have heard, this is a very serious issue. Recent research from the National Union of Students shows that almost one in five full-time students work more than 20 hours per week alongside their studies—they are working even more than in previous years—and 40% of students say that work is having a negative impact on their studies. Students are clearly struggling with the Conservatives’ cost of living crisis. How does the Minister expect students to balance their studies and employment to pay their bills? Does he acknowledge that this is now forcing many students out of higher education?
Robert Halfon
Actually, the opposite is true. We have a record number of students going to university. Disadvantaged students are 71% more likely to go to university now than they were in 2010. We have a huge package of support. I have mentioned the £276 million for disadvantaged students. We are doing everything we can to help disadvantaged students. The hon. Gentleman criticises the money we are giving, but does not come up with a figure of his own. Warm words butter no parsnips.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Minister mentions some things that are maybe trying to help these students, but recent Higher Education Policy Institute analysis shows that students who previously received free school meals are less likely to complete their degree and those who do are less likely to get a first or a 2:1. Support cannot stop once they get to university. Will he detail what support he is giving those students at every stage of their journey to make sure they really do have the same opportunities as those from more privileged backgrounds?
Robert Halfon
Many universities offer bursaries to students—I highlighted two examples to previous questioners—and we are doing everything possible to ensure that students who do courses get good skills and good jobs at the end. That is the purpose of our higher education reforms, which, as I understand it, the SNP opposed.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
Since 2010, we have reformed the maths curriculum, reflecting international best practice, and introduced a network of maths hubs to boost the quality of teaching. In 2019, primary pupils achieved their highest ever score in the latest TIMSS—trends in international mathematics and science study—international survey, and Ofsted recently found “a resounding, positive shift” in primary maths education.
Mr Sharma
When will the Government learn that early years matter? One in four children leave primary school without core maths skills and never catch up. Does the Minister agree that, instead of forcing everyone to study maths to 18, we should focus on early years and encourage a more positive attitude to learning maths, rather than leave it hanging over pupils?
Nick Gibb
In fact, we are focusing on both. We have reformed the early years foundation stage to ensure that there is more interaction between adults and pupils in that stage, with a focus on numeracy and English as well. In 2011, we took the Singapore primary curriculum as the basis of our primary maths, and we introduced the multiplication tables check for year 4 pupils. An increasing number of pupils are now fluent in their times tables, in a way that generations of children in the past have not been.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and the Minister are both right to stress the importance of maths, but what is vital to all good teaching is proper school place planning. On the Isle of Wight, councillors are proving unwilling to deliver, or incapable of delivering, a school place plan despite their legal duty. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that the Isle of Wight Council acts to fulfil its legal duties soon—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member must try to keep to the main question. He really is drifting. He must return to the subject of primary education.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We are aware that the Isle of Wight is experiencing a decline in the number of primary school children, which is creating surplus places. The Department is monitoring the situation closely, and the south east regional director will be meeting the local authority next month to discuss this and other concerns that we have about the Isle of Wight.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Improving attendance is one of my top priorities. Our attendance hub now supports 800 schools, benefiting more than 400,000 pupils; 86% of schools subscribe to our attendance data tool to spot at-risk pupils; and we have specialist programmes helping some of the most vulnerable, including children with social workers, children with special educational needs, and young people facing particular issues such as mental ill health. Our approach is starting to turn the tide—recent data show that 380,000 fewer children were persistently not at school last year—but absence levels are still too high, and that remains my No. 1 priority.
Paul Maynard
As the Secretary of State has said, progress in reducing persistent absence is not as fast as anyone would like, and in places such as Blackpool the attendance monitoring pilots will be crucial. However, according to the charity School-Home Support, which has been working in Blackpool for 18 months, there is a need to focus on more than just individual pupils, and the “whole family support” model is also crucial. Will the Secretary of State meet me, along with representatives of School-Home Support, to hear about the pertinent lessons that they have learnt in Blackpool, which contains the most deprived neighbourhoods in the country? If we cannot get it right in Blackpool, where else are we going to get it right?
Gillian Keegan
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend: School-Home Support does incredible work in Blackpool. The Government’s supporting families programme, backed by £200 million, focuses on attendance by supporting the whole family. Blackpool is also one of our 24 priority education investment areas, with six family support workers helping 11 schools to improve attendance. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues further.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is not uncommon for kids who have had a brain injury, particularly a significant brain injury, to receive plenty of care and support at school immediately after the event, but, some six to nine months later, to suffer real cognitive problems. They may suffer from depression or anxiety, they may sometimes be unable to inhibit themselves, and they may stop turning up for school and start getting into trouble. Can the Secretary of State commission a specific piece of work on providing protection and support for those children and their families, who desperately need it?
Gillian Keegan
As the hon. Gentleman knows, he and I both worked on this topic when I had a different role. Of course we want all children to be helped to get into school, because they can only benefit from this fantastic education if they are there, and of course schools should make adjustments if children need them. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools will be happy to meet him as well in order to understand further what more we can do in this regard.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
In March, we published our improvement plan to transform support for children with special educational needs, and last month we launched nine regional change programme partnerships to drive reform. By 2024-25, we will have increased high needs funding by 60% since 2019-20, and we have approved the opening of 78 special free schools.
Andrew Lewer
Local authorities have spent nearly a quarter of a billion pounds fighting parents at SEND tribunals since 2014, yet they have a failure rate of over 90%. What steps is the Department taking to overhaul that process, which has caused SEND parents in Northampton South unnecessary distress?
David Johnston
My hon. Friend is right to say that tribunals are costly and stressful, but it is important to say that most education, health and care needs assessments and plans are concluded without a tribunal hearing. We will be introducing new national standards, strengthened mediation and greater system-wide accountability to give families the support they need earlier and reduce the number of tribunals.
Peter Aldous
I was one of 31 MPs from across the Chamber who signed the f40 letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor urging significant investment in SEN. Will my hon. Friend, behind the scenes at least, endorse that campaign and also look at how we can reduce the reliance on education, health and care plans, which are a barrier to so many young people getting the education they need?
David Johnston
It is probably worth saying that I am an f40 MP myself, and I met the group just last week to hear its concerns. On my hon. Friend’s point about EHCPs, through the reform plan we are working to get parents the support they need for their child at an earlier stage so that they do not always need an EHCP to get that support.
Valerie Vaz
There is a crisis in funding for SEND in Walsall South. In Old Church Primary, 78 pupils have special needs, which is 19% of the school total. How can the Minister target the funding to the schools that really need it? Does he agree that when Ofsted inspects, it should take into account children with special needs in schools such as Old Church so that these are mitigating factors?
David Johnston
The right hon. Lady makes an important point about the role of Ofsted and ensuring that it assesses that provision. It is worth saying that there will have been a 36% per-head increase in Walsall between 2021-22 and 2024-25, but I would be happy to meet her to discuss the issue further.
Mr French
Thanks to Government support, local Conservatives in the London Borough of Bexley have secured an incredible £39.5 million to expand and improve SEND provision in our borough. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that local authorities, charities, schools and families work closely together to maximise the educational impact of this Government-backed funding?
David Johnston
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I pay tribute to his campaigning on this issue and to the work of Bexley council. It is absolutely the case that people should be engaging not just with schools and families but with local charities, which are often best placed to understand the needs of families and their children.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
Families in Selby and Ainsty have been waiting nearly half a decade for spades in the ground at a new SEND school for the Selby area. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that there are no further delays to this vital project?
David Johnston
The hon. Gentleman and I have exchanged letters about this matter. We remain absolutely committed to the school and I would be happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The SEND crisis extends to Devon, and my postbag is full of correspondence from parents trying to get their children the educational provision they need. It has got so bad that in some cases children are being taught in school cupboards, and Devon has appointed a SEND champion to its cabinet. What steps is the Department taking to help boost SEND services in rural areas such as mine?
David Johnston
There has been a 30% increase in the per-head funding to schools in Devon for their special educational needs provision, and the whole thrust of our reform plan is to make the system work better for parents and families and get the support for their children at the stage when they need it.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
“Lose, lose, lose”, costing a “fortune” and not providing “the right service”. Those are not my words but those of the Secretary of State describing the SEND system over which her Government have been presiding for the last 13 years. Will the Minister tell the House when he expects the plans that the Government have announced for SEND to make a difference to the long waiting times and lack of support experienced by so many families across the country?
David Johnston
We have already begun the reform programme and have just launched the nine change partnerships, which are already starting to make a difference to the provision. I would just say to the hon. Lady that this is yet another area where the Labour party has absolutely no policies whatsoever.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
We are revolutionising our skills offering by introducing 172 higher technical qualifications at more than 140 providers at levels 4 and 5. This includes £150 million for providers and £300 million for 21 institutes of technology. I note that the Opposition want to rebadge institutes of technology as technical colleges of excellence. In our view, all our colleges are places of technical excellence.
David Duguid
I welcome the Government’s plan to introduce a new advanced British standard to help to remove the artificial divide between technical and academic qualifications. Given that the need for technical skills exists right across the United Kingdom, can my right hon. Friend confirm that this new qualification will live up to its name and be truly British, like the T-level before it, and therefore be available to education settings in Scotland that choose it?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is a champion of science, technology, engineering, maths and skills, and he will know that education is devolved. The devolved Administrations are responsible for their education systems, but the Department for Education is working with the Governments of the UK. We engaged at both official and ministerial level when the advanced British standard was announced. We look forward to continued engagement as it is hopefully adopted across the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response and his positivity. I echo the request of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) to ensure that all the benefits of higher education are present not only here on the mainland but across the whole United Kingdom. I know that is the Minister’s wish, but can he confirm that, when it comes to higher technical qualifications, girls and ladies will have the same opportunities as young fellas and young men?
Robert Halfon
I thank my hon. Friend—he is my hon. Friend—for his question. We are absolutely committed to making sure that women take up higher technical qualifications, and we are doing everything we can to support them with careers advice to ensure that more take up STEM subjects in particular.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Increasing the take-up of higher technical qualifications is desperately needed, with low take-up leading to persistent skills gaps and holding back economic growth. Colleges, which we were proud to celebrate during Love Our Colleges Week, tell us of issues affecting take-up, including a lack of quality careers advice, challenges with stable staffing and late course approvals. With the UK seeing only 10% of adults whose highest qualification is between level 3 and level 6—the sixth lowest rate in the G7—should not the Government address their cuts to careers advice, as Labour will, so that young people do not miss out because they hear about opportunities far too late?
Robert Halfon
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new position, but I genuinely do not know what planet she has been living on these past few years. We introduced higher technical qualifications and are transforming qualifications across the country. We introduced T-levels and spent £90 million to transform careers advice. Ninety per cent of schools are in a careers hub, and we have the National Careers Service. We are doing a lot of work to support careers, and we are spending something like £3 million to ensure that apprenticeships and skills are taught in schools up and down the country—more than 2,000 schools and 680,000 pupils. We are doing huge amounts on careers, and we are the people who transformed skills in our country.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment as shadow Minister for music and tourism.
The Government expect every school to teach music for at least an hour a week, supported by our music hub network, including the Greater Manchester hub led by the Bolton Music Service, and backed by £25 million of capital for instruments and a new £10,000 bursary for trainee music teachers.
Barbara Keeley
Last month, Ofsted reported:
“There remains a divide between the opportunities for children and young people whose families can afford to pay for music tuition and for those who come from lower socio-economic backgrounds.”
It also said that
“half the primary schools visited did not…offer any instrumental or vocal lessons”,
and that what lessons existed were being taught by non-specialist teachers in two thirds of primary schools. This is a damning reflection of the substantial decline in the provision of music education in England over which Conservative-led Governments have presided. What urgent action will the Government take in response to these findings?
Nick Gibb
From September next year, every music hub will be required to support music tuition for disadvantaged pupils. We are investing £2 million in a music progression programme in education investment areas to support up to 1,000 pupils to learn an instrument. From 2018-19 to 2022-23, between 96.4% and 94.7% of all hours taught in music were taught by a teacher with a relevant post-A-level qualification. There are now 7,184 full-time music teachers in our secondary schools, which is up from 7,000 last year.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
XYZ Music Academy teaches over 2,000 children across Buckinghamshire on a weekly basis, employing 18 tutors. Its online primary school music curriculum “XYZ Primary” helps primary schools with smaller budgets to deliver music provision to a high standard, adhering to the model music curriculum and Ofsted requirements. Will my right hon. Friend visit XYZ to learn more from this innovative small business that could be adopted more widely across the country?
Nick Gibb
I would be delighted to visit XYZ. Music in schools is a personal passion for me; I want to see more of it and a better quality of it. In 2021, we published the model music curriculum, which is designed to help primary and secondary schools to improve their music education. It took two years to produce and was written by a panel of music education practitioners, including Ed Watkins, head of music at the West London Free School, and Julian Lloyd Webber; the panel was chaired by Baroness Fleet. I would love to discuss that curriculum and learn more about XYZ.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
Well-maintained school buildings are a priority for this Government, and we will spend whatever it takes to keep children and staff safe. We have allocated £1.8 billion in 2023-24—£15 billion since 2015—to improve the condition of school buildings, and we are working to address reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. We are transforming hundreds of schools across the country through our school rebuilding programme.
Tim Farron
The excellent Lakes School at Troutbeck Bridge serves the communities of Windermere and Ambleside and those further afield with 11-to-18 education, but it is widely acknowledged that the school needs a full rebuild because the buildings are well beyond their sell-by date. Because of the unique history of the site, on which I am happy to brief the Minister separately, it is very likely that we will have significant charitable and private funds to help towards a rebuild, as long as there is some Government support as well. Will he agree to meet me and the school leaders to talk about how we can make sure that a brilliant school has a bright future?
Nick Gibb
Absolutely; I will be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman. We want all our schools, including excellent schools such as the Lakes School in the Lake district, to have the best-quality school buildings. That is our priority, and I will be delighted to meet him and teachers at the school to discuss how to make it happen in his constituency.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
This Conservative Government will fund a new school to replace the flood-prone Tipton St John primary school. However, that can happen only once a suitable alternative site is found. Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to speed up the process so that pupils have a safe new school as soon as possible?
Nick Gibb
We are working actively with the diocese of Exeter and with Devon County Council to identify suitable sites for the school. Site appraisals are due to be completed by the end of this year. Once a site is identified, we will work with the diocese and the council to expedite the acquisition of the site. I fully understand and share my hon. Friend’s desire for urgency in this matter.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Last week, the Government added another 41 schools and colleges to the RAAC list, bringing the total to 214. The Education Secretary claims that children prefer to learn in portacabins, but it is far from a joke when some are still waiting for temporary classrooms, studying from home or in cramped sports halls and dining rooms. Can the Minister confirm the total number of pupils who are already impacted and are expected to be impacted by this chaos? When will all children receive undisrupted face-to-face learning? Surely that is the minimum that a parent can expect for their child.
Nick Gibb
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her first Education questions and her appointment as shadow Schools Minister, although this is not our first exchange since her appointment. She is right: there are 214 schools and colleges with confirmed RAAC, which is an increase from the 173 we announced in September. Of those 214 schools, the pupils at 202, or 94%, are in full-time, face-to-face education, and 12 schools or colleges are offering hybrid face-to-face and remote education. Our objective and our focus is to ensure that schools are supported to put in place immediate measures to enable face-to-face education to continue.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
The holiday activities and food programme introduced by this Government is hugely important to families up and down the country and supported 685,000 children last summer. We know the positive impacts that these programmes are having on a range of issues, such as by improving attendance. One child in Stoke who attended a HAF programme run by the Kingsland CE Academy increased their school attendance by 32% and is no longer considered to be persistently absent. That is just one example of the wonderful work that HAF programmes do, and there is also strong evidence that they improve health, behaviour and confidence in children.
Caroline Ansell
I have seen at first hand just how brilliant the Government-backed holiday activities and food programmes are for children and young people and their families in Eastbourne. In one magical piece of feedback, a little girl at the Art House café sidled up to me and said, “One day I will own a place just like this,” and I have seen the same energy across the piece. Given that we are hoping that there is a connection between attendance and HAF uptake, what more can we do to provide and promote opportunities for children and young people with SEND, and also for the 11-plus and early teens?
Gillian Keegan
When it launched, HAF was the first summer camp for hundreds of thousands of children—70% had never experienced a holiday club before—and this summer, 4,000 children benefited in East Sussex. HAF is open to children from ages five to 16. Local authorities should meet the needs of all cohorts, including by offering programmes for older children and those with special educational needs. I urge all hon. Members to visit their local HAF over the Christmas recess; they really are heart-warming.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I have visited my local HAF in Washington over the last few summers, and I certainly will if there is one at Christmas. Does the Minister have any plans to extend the scheme further? There is obviously a lot more need than the current HAF schemes can meet, especially with the cost of living crisis.
Gillian Keegan
As I mentioned, 685,000 children were helped just this summer. Our independent evaluation found that around two thirds of the 700,000 children attending overall live in some of the most deprived areas across the country, so we believe we are getting the targeting right. We are very proud of this programme, which we think is a brilliant addition to the landscape, and we want to ensure that it benefits as many people as possible.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
We are hugely strengthening technical and provider access in schools. We have legislated for pupils to have six encounters with apprentice organisations and technical colleges. Ofsted is looking closely at careers guidance, and the apprentice support and knowledge network is going into over 2,000 schools, supporting 680,000 pupils and encouraging them to take up apprenticeships or other skills offerings.
Damien Moore
Colleges in Southport have raised concerns about careers advice opportunities for students with SEND—specifically, about the suitability of the oversight and the supposed added value of these sessions. Will my right hon. Friend detail what steps the Government are taking to ensure that these sessions are personalised better to support SEND students in their transition into employment?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is a champion for special needs pupils, and he is absolutely right. We need to ensure that special needs pupils have employment opportunities, along with everybody else. We are investing over £18 million over the next three years in supported internship schemes for high special needs 16-to-19 pupils. We have a mentor scheme for disabled apprentices, the Careers & Enterprise Company has put in SEND support to ensure high-quality careers guidance and training, and 82% of SEND schools are now part of careers hubs.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
As supportive as I am of this scheme, I do not think that up to six sessions really cuts it. Will the Minister consider a scheme similar to Aimhigher, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government to encourage young people into higher education and down the vocational route? This would give young people mentors who have been through apprenticeship schemes and really get them hooked on the opportunities that vocational education can bring.
Robert Halfon
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question. My first speech in the House of Commons was about that very subject. The six encounters that I mentioned are the minimum. Obviously, many schools do more. Only last week, I attended Oasis school in Bristol, and watched students being encouraged to take up apprenticeships and to hold an apprenticeship careers fair. We are doing huge amounts. I mentioned the apprenticeship skills and knowledge network, which is going around schools and encouraging pupils to take up apprenticeships. That involves more than 2,000 schools and 680,000 pupils. We need to do as much as possible to educate students about apprenticeships and to ensure that they have the encounters that he rightly talks about.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
This Conservative Government are investing more in childcare than at any other point in our country’s history, ensuring that parents do not have to choose between having a family or having a career. With 30 hours of free childcare on offer from the end of parental leave to the start of school, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston)—I welcome him to his place—is working hard to expand the capacity through new capital investment, more avenues into the workforce and increasing childcare rates.
James Grundy
At a Westminster Hall debate on childcare earlier this year, before the Secretary of State’s proposed changes were announced, I expressed concern that low-income families were facing high childcare costs that might make it sub-economic to return to work. Will she tell me how the changes that she has been making will help prevent that?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Just to remind everybody, under Labour, parents got just 12.5 hours for three and four-year-olds—less than an hour of free childcare per year in office. We will be spending more than £8 billion a year by 2027-28 to fund 30 hours of free childcare for working parents of children aged nine months to the start of primary school and giving every parent access to wraparound childcare between 8 am and 6 pm, Meanwhile, Labour still does not have a policy for parents.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
A nursery owner in my constituency told me how the Government’s funding for so-called “free” hours covers only about half of their costs, and even with the recently announced uplift for three and four-year-olds, the rate simply does not meet their needs. The Early Years Alliance found that a third of childcare providers suggested that they may close within a year due to rising costs. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that all these parents who are being told that they are now eligible for free childcare are actually able to access some?
Gillian Keegan
Specifically, I will deliver free childcare for all parents of nine-month-olds until they start school. We have worked with 10,000 businesses to make sure that we get this right. We are supporting the development of new places, by increasing the rates by up to £200 million this year and £288 million next year. We also have a huge programme of work. We will be considering all options to make sure that we are increasing the capacity in the system and that there is enough money in the system to deliver on our policies.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
I share my hon. Friend’s view about the importance of a broad curriculum, which is why the English Baccalaureate combination of core GCSEs is so important. English, maths, at least two sciences, a humanity and a foreign language are a key preparation for the Advanced British Standard at ages 16 to 19. The proportion of pupils entered for the EBacc has increased from 22% in 2010 to 39% in 2022.
Michael Fabricant
When I was a student—and a bit of a surfer dude—at the University of Southern California, I was struck by the fact that Americans, when they go to university, do not have to make the choice when they are 16 or 17 between arts and sciences. Will the initiative announced by the Secretary of State in Manchester mean that, in future, British students will not have to make that early choice?
Nick Gibb
Increasing the number of subjects under the Advanced British Standard means that students will have the benefits of the greater breadth of study that my hon. Friend references from his own experience as a surfing dude. The intention is that majors will have comparable depth and rigour to A-levels so that they can support progression, including to university.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
We are investing an additional £3.8 billion over the course of the Parliament to strengthen post-16 education and training, and we will boost 16-to-19 funding by £1.6 billion compared with 2021-22. We have launched our T-level programme, and 52% of apprenticeship starts in 2022-23 provisionally were by young people under 25.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does the Department have any jurisdiction over an academy refusing to offer a sixth-form place to a high-performing pupil with special educational needs who has more than met the academic requirements for one?
Robert Halfon
I was really sorry to hear about the difficult experiences of my hon. Friend’s constituent; I was disturbed to hear what has gone on. I know that my hon. Friend has raised the matter in correspondence with the Department, which the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), recently addressed. I hope that her constituent is now safely settling in at her new college, but the Schools Minister and I will absolutely look at this again.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
There were more than 335,000 starts in the 2022-23 academic year and more people undertaking high-level apprenticeships, with starts at level 4 and above increasing by 7%. Those are provisional figures; further figures will be set out in November. We are increasing investment in apprenticeships to £2.7 billion by 2024-25.
Steve McCabe
I thank the Minister for that answer, but given the decline in level 2 and 3 apprenticeship starts, might it be an idea to consider the views of leading industry experts who are calling for the ringfencing of apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds?
Robert Halfon
I say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect enormously, that 70% of apprentices are at level 2 or 3. I hoped that he would be getting up to celebrate the 10,130 apprenticeship starts in Birmingham, Selly Oak since May 2010.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
We are investing over £4.1 billion to expand the current free childcare entitlement offer to eligible working parents of children aged nine to 36 months. We are also increasing the hourly rates for childcare providers for the existing entitlements, and funding rates will be confirmed in the autumn.
Stella Creasy
The Government’s proposals will lead to thousands more families expecting to access childcare, so we might expect to see more childcare opening. However, in the past year some 600 nurseries have already closed, and in my constituency of Walthamstow there are now three children chasing every childcare place. Why does the Minister think that is the case, what will he do about it, and how will we ensure that in April parents who are not already accessing childcare can do so?
David Johnston
Part of the reason why we are staggering the entitlement is to ensure that we have the staff in place to deliver it. In the next few weeks we will announce changes to the processes for recruiting people. We will launch a big campaign of recruitment in the new year to increase the workforce, and I have every confidence that we will meet the commitment.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
Higher needs funding for children and young people with complex needs is increasing by a further £440 million next year, bringing the total higher needs budget to £10.5 billion in 2024-25—60% higher than it was in 2019-20.
Mr Robertson
I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and I heard the earlier responses, but there is a shortage of places in special needs schools—special schools for children who need those places. Will he carry out a national assessment of the number of places that are available in special schools against the number of places that are needed, because it is resulting in some children having to attend mainstream schools when actually they should be in special schools?
David Johnston
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have approved the opening of 78 special schools, and this year we collected new data from local authorities on their capacity and demand forecast for special schools. That will help us to support them more effectively to fulfil their duty to provide sufficient places.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Mr Speaker, I stand with this House in condemning the barbaric terrorist attacks on Israel. The brutal actions of Hamas have sent shockwaves that have reverberated all the way to our shores. My ministerial team and I recently met leaders from the Jewish education community. I was deeply moved by the experiences that they shared but horrified by the rise in antisemitism that they faced. That is totally unacceptable. All students deserve to learn without fear or harassment.
Disturbingly, I have also seen evidence of students and academics appearing to support Hamas. Let me be crystal clear: Hamas is a terrorist organisation and supporting it is a criminal act. The Government will take action against those who do. With my Ministers, I have written to schools, colleges and universities, reminding them of their duties under Prevent and that incidents of antisemitism will not be tolerated. We teach our children the British values of liberty, mutual respect and tolerance. This Government will always stand by those values.
Sir David Evennett
I join my right hon. Friend in the comments that she has just made.
Strike action in schools has caused significant disruption to children and parents in my constituency and resulted in the loss of some 25 million school days across the country. I welcome the part that my right hon. Friend played in bringing the dispute to an end, with the largest pay award for teachers in 30 years. However, what further steps is she taking to protect children from the impact of future strike action?
Gillian Keegan
My right hon. Friend is correct: it is unacceptable that the disruption caused over 10 days of strike action saw millions of school days lost. That is why the Government are introducing minimum service levels in schools and colleges, to protect children and parents from the damaging impact of future strike action. We must find a balance between teachers’ right to strike and protecting children’s education. In the first instance, we have asked unions to work with us on a voluntary agreement.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in recognising the impact of the conflict in the middle east on our education system here and the importance of every child being able to attend school safely.
Rates of persistent absence are now double what they were five years ago. Labour’s plan starts with resetting the relationship between families and schools, delivering new mental health hubs, and having counsellors in every secondary school and breakfast clubs for every primary school child. The Prime Minister’s first step was to say that he had maxed out on supporting our children, and now the Secretary of State is blaming parents for keeping children at home with a cold. When are Ministers going to get a grip on this serious problem?
Gillian Keegan
We do take this issue extremely seriously; as I said, it is my No. 1 priority. The Attendance Action Alliance includes the Children’s Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Care representatives, social workers and many others working together. The letter was sent to help parents because we have noticed that in some cases there has been a change in attendance as a result of parents not being clear about whether they should send their children to school with minor ailments. Chris Whitty took it upon himself to write, and we very much support his action.
Bridget Phillipson
Persistent absence is a symptom of a wider breakdown of trust right across our school system. It is no surprise, given that the Conservatives reopened pubs before they reopened schools, that they have left schools to crumble, and that they have allowed disruptive strike action to drag on for months. Labour’s first priority will be to rebuild that relationship between schools, families and Government. Does the Secretary of State not believe that parents and children deserve a lot better than the sorry mess she is presiding over today?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Lady talks about responsibility and accountability. When Labour were warned about RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—in 1997, 1999, 2002 and 2007, they did nothing. When Labour spent money on school rebuilding, they ignored school conditions altogether. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady needs to listen to this. They even rebuilt three schools and left RAAC within the buildings. A school even collapsed in 2018. What did they do in Wales? Absolutely nothing. We make the tough decisions. Labour cannot even make a single decision.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
Sadly, there are a number of Hamas’s useful idiots—a fifth column—across some of our universities. The Secretary of State has said that she will not stand for it; the Home Secretary will not stand for it. We have written to universities. This is absolutely unacceptable; we expect our universities to be safe places for all Jewish students.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
If the pay offer for teachers in England had matched the award for teachers in Scotland, the Secretary of State would have averted the current strike action. Paul Whiteman, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, has said that minimum service levels for teachers are
“nothing short of an overtly hostile act from the Government and an attack on the basic democratic freedoms of school leaders and teachers.”
Will the Secretary of State explain how she expects to tackle the staffing crisis in teaching when she goes out of her way to alienate the profession?
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
We have a record number of teachers in schools in England: 468,000. That is 27,000 more teachers today than in 2010. We accepted the recommendations of the School Teachers’ Review Body for a 6.5% pay rise—the highest in 30 years —for teachers and headteachers in our school system.
Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of educational psychologists. We are investing £21 million to train 400 more educational psychologists, building on the £10 million already announced to train more than 200 from this term.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Nick Gibb
Schools must have suitable drinking water facilities. Where responsible bodies, such as local authorities or academy trusts, discover lead piping in a school, they must take action, working as appropriate with water companies. Capital funding allocated to schools each year can be used to fund the removal of pipe work if required, but when a school has a particular concern, it can contact the Department for assistance.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Nick Gibb
No, it does not. The advanced British standard will offer a broad, balanced and knowledge-rich curriculum that builds on reforms of the last decade. Its curriculum will form a core part of the formal consultation in the coming months. GCSEs remain important, rigorous and highly regarded qualifications, providing preparation for the new advanced British standard.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
David Johnston
We are undertaking a significant programme of reform to ensure not only that EHCPs are delivered in the right timeframe but that children get the support they need at an earlier stage without needing one.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
David Johnston
The Metropolitan Borough of Bury is getting significant support. In addition to the funding increases, we have appointed a SEND adviser to work with the borough to improve services. The Council for Disabled Children is supporting it to strengthen EHCPs. Two special free schools have been approved, and Bury is also one of 34 areas in our safety valve programme.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Nick Gibb
The hon. Member is absolutely right: antisemitism has no place in education. It was an honour to join the Secretary of State’s visit to Menorah High School last week, together with the whole ministerial team, standing in solidarity with that school and with the Jewish community. We have written to all schools and colleges urging a swift response to hate-related incidents and active reassurance for their students and staff, and we continue to work with faith leaders, schools and Ofsted to monitor the response to those concerns.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Robert Halfon
I have made it clear that we will not tolerate antisemitism on campus. We are working closely with the Union of Jewish Students and the higher education Jewish chaplaincy service, as well as the Community Security Trust. I welcome the taskforce’s report and its recommendations, and we absolutely urge universities to prioritise the implementation of that report.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Having recently visited a local nursery in Birdwell, I know that its staff are very concerned about their ability to plan for provision for children in the year 2024-25. When will the Government give them certainty on hourly rates?
David Johnston
We will be setting out the funding rates very shortly.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Robert Halfon
I mentioned previously that unfortunately, we have some of Hamas’s useful idiots across our campuses, and we will not stand for it—they represent a fifth column supporting terrorism. We are doing everything possible. The Prevent duty requires higher education providers to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism, and we will work with the universities to ensure that they take any extremist activity very seriously.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
James, a 14-year-old lad from my constituency, has been passed from pillar to post by schools that simply cannot deal with his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism. Will the Minister meet me on that specific case?
David Johnston
I would be delighted to meet with the hon. Gentleman.
Israel and Gaza
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
Mr Speaker, last week I visited the middle east, bringing a message of solidarity with the region against terror and against the further spread of conflict. I met with the leaders of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to co-ordinate our response to the crisis before us, but also to renew the better vision of the future that Hamas are trying to destroy.
I travelled first to Israel. It is a nation in mourning, but it is also a nation under attack. The violence against Israel did not end on 7 October. Hundreds of rockets are launched at its towns and cities every day, and Hamas still hold around 200 hostages, including British citizens. In Jerusalem, I met some of the relatives, who are suffering unbearable torment. Their pain will stay with me for the rest of my days. I am doing everything in my power, and working with all our partners, to get their loved ones home. In my meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Herzog, I told them once again that we stand resolutely with Israel in defending itself against terror, and I stressed again the need to act in line with international humanitarian law and take every possible step to avoid harming civilians. It was a message delivered by a close friend and ally. I say it again: we stand with Israel.
I recognise that the Palestinian people are suffering terribly. Over 4,000 Palestinians have been killed in this conflict. They are also the victims of Hamas, who embed themselves in the civilian population. Too many lives have already been lost, and the humanitarian crisis is growing. I went to the region to address these issues directly. In Riyadh, and then Cairo, I met individually with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman from Saudi Arabia; the Amir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani; President Sisi in Egypt; and President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. These were further to my meetings with the King of Jordan last week and calls with other leaders, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s extensive travel in the region.
There are three abiding messages from all these conversations. First, we must continue working together to get more humanitarian support into Gaza. The whole House will welcome the limited opening of the Rafah crossing. It is important progress and testament to the power of diplomacy, but it is not enough. We need a constant stream of aid pouring in, bringing the water, food, medicine and fuel that is so desperately needed, so we will keep up the diplomatic pressure. We have already committed £10 million of extra support to help civilians in Gaza, and I can announce today that we are going further. We are providing an additional £20 million of humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza, more than doubling our previous support to the Palestinian people. There are major logistical and political challenges to delivering this aid, which I discussed with President Sisi. My right hon. Friend the Development Minister is leading an effort to ensure the maximum amount of aid is pre-positioned, with UK support ready to deliver. We are also working intensively to ensure that British nationals trapped in Gaza are able to leave through the Rafah crossing when it properly reopens.
Secondly, this is not a time for hyperbole and simplistic solutions. It is a time for quiet and dogged diplomacy that recognises the hard realities on the ground and delivers help now, and we have an important role to play. In all my meetings, people were clear that they value Britain’s engagement. The UK’s voice matters. We have deep ties across the region—ties of defence, trade and investment, but also of history. President Abbas pointed to that history—not the British mandate in Palestine or the Balfour declaration, but the UK’s efforts over decades to support the two-state solution.
Thirdly, growing attacks by Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border, rising tensions on the west bank, and missiles and drones launched from Yemen show that some are seeking escalation, so we need to invest more deeply in regional stability and in the two-state solution. Last night, I spoke to the leaders of the United States, Germany, France, Italy and Canada. We are all determined to prevent escalation. That is why I am deploying RAF and Royal Navy assets, monitoring threats to regional security and supporting humanitarian efforts. Our support for a two-state solution is highly valued across the region, but it cannot just be a clichéd talking point to roll out at times like this. The truth is that, in recent years, energy has moved into other avenues such as the Abraham accords and normalisation talks with Saudi Arabia. We support those steps absolutely and believe that they can bolster wider efforts, but we must never lose sight of how essential the two-state solution is. We will work with our international partners to bring renewed energy and creativity to that effort. It will rely on establishing more effective governance for Palestinian territories in Gaza and the west bank. It will also mean challenging actions that undercut legitimate aspirations for Palestinian statehood.
Mr Speaker, Hamas care more about their paymasters in Iran than the children they hide behind. So let me be clear: there is no scenario where Hamas can be allowed to control Gaza or any part of the Palestinian territories. Hamas is a threat not only to Israel, but to many others across the region. All the leaders I met agree that this is a watershed moment. It is time to set the region on a better path.
I also want to say a word about the tone of the debate. When things are so delicate, we all have a responsibility to take additional care in the language we use, and to operate on the basis of facts alone. The reaction to the horrific explosion at the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital was a case in point. As I indicated last week, we have taken care to look at all the evidence currently available, and I can now share our assessment with the House. On the basis of the deep knowledge and analysis of our intelligence and weapons experts, the British Government judge that the explosion was likely caused by a missile, or part of one, that was launched from within Gaza towards Israel. The misreporting of that incident had a negative effect in the region, including on a vital US diplomatic effort, and on tensions here at home. We need to learn the lessons and ensure that in future there is no rush to judgment.
We have seen hate on our streets again this weekend. We all stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people—that is the message I brought to President Abbas—but we will never tolerate antisemitism in our country. Calls for jihad on our streets are a threat not only to the Jewish community but to our democratic values, and we expect the police to take all necessary action to tackle extremism head on.
This a moment for great care and caution, but also for moral clarity. Hope and humanity must win out against the scourge of terrorism and aggression. The 7 October attack was driven by hatred, but it was also driven by Hamas’s fear that a new equilibrium might be emerging in the middle east, one that would leave old divisions behind and offer hope of a better, more secure, more prosperous way forward. It is the same motivation that drives Putin’s war in Ukraine—the fear of Ukraine’s emergence as a modern, thriving democracy, and the desire to pull it back into some imperialist fantasy of the past. Putin will fail, and so will Hamas. We must keep alive that vision of a better future, against those who seek to destroy it. Together with our partners, that is what we will do, and I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of his statement.
The brutal attack in Israel just over two weeks ago was the darkest day in Jewish history since the holocaust—two weeks of grief for the innocent people who lost brothers, sisters, children; two weeks of torture for the families whose loved ones were taken hostage by Hamas. There was a small glimmer of light this weekend with the release of two American hostages, Natalie and Judith Raanan. I met members of their family last week, and I know that they will be overcome with relief. But Hamas still hold hundreds more—sons, daughters, mums, dads are still missing. They are innocent people who could, if Hamas willed it, be released immediately. But they remain hostage because Hamas want the chaos of war. Hamas want Jews to suffer. Hamas want the Palestinian people to share in the pain, because the Palestinian people are not their cause, and peace is not their aim. The dignity of human life—Jew or Muslim—means absolutely nothing to them. In light of their barbarism, Israel has the right to defend herself. Yes, to get her hostages home, but also to defeat Hamas so that nobody need suffer like this again and so that we might once more see a road to a lasting peace, with a Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel.
This operation can and must be done within international law. We democracies know that all human life is equal. Innocent lives must be protected. Those are the principles that differentiate us from the terrorists who target Israel. There must now be clear humanitarian corridors within Gaza for those escaping violence. Civilians must not be targeted. Where Palestinians are forced to flee, they must not be permanently displaced from their homes. International law is clear. It also means that basic services, including water, electricity and the fuel needed for it, cannot be denied. Hamas might not care for the safety and security of the Palestinian people, but we do. We cannot and will not close our eyes to their suffering. Gaza is now a humanitarian emergency. There is not enough food. Clean water is running out. Hospitals are going without medicine and electricity. People are starving, reduced to drinking contaminated filth. Babies are lying in incubators that could switch off at any moment.
The deal struck by the United States to get a flow of trucks through the Rafah crossing is an important first step. There were 20 on Saturday and 14 on Sunday, but it is nowhere near enough. Gaza is not a small town facing a few shortages; it has a population the size of Greater Manchester. It is a place where, even before this devastation, life was a struggle. Gaza needs aid, and it needs to be rapid, safe, unhindered and regular.
Countries able to provide support must step up, including the United Kingdom, so I welcome the increased funding for humanitarian aid that the Prime Minister has announced this afternoon. The EU has promised to treble humanitarian aid and the US has appointed a special co-ordinator for international aid to Gaza. I ask whether the Prime Minister can commit to the same, because Britain must stand ready to ensure that aid gets to the right places, to deploy British experts and medical support teams, and to work with international partners to give UN agencies the resources they need for the long term, because there is a long term. Even as we stand by Israel in her fight against Hamas, our eyes must also look to the future: a future where Israeli citizens live free from the fear of terrorist attacks, and a future for the Palestinian people where they and their children enjoy the freedoms and opportunities that we take for granted.
For too long, we have talked about a two-state solution and the dignity and justice of a Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel, without a serious path or will to make it happen. For too long, we have allowed welcome progress in improving relations between Israel and her neighbours to sit without any progress on the future for Palestine and its people. That must change. We stand with Israel and her right to defend herself against the terrorists of Hamas. We stand for international law, the protection of innocent lives and humanitarian support for the Palestinians. We do so because we stand for a political path to a two-state solution and a better future. These are dark days, but the light must never go out. We must not let it.
The Prime Minister
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his constructive comments and his support. Just to recap, on humanitarian aid, by announcing an additional £20 million today, we will be doubling our aid to the region, where we are already one of the leading contributors of any country in the world. The Development Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), will remind me, but I think that about 10% of the UN mission in the region is funded by UK contributions. Most of our aid is funnelled through that. It is also worth bearing in mind that President Sisi specifically commended the efforts of the UK alongside the US in ensuring that the Rafah crossing could be open and functioning. That is testament to the work of the Development Minister, the Foreign Secretary and our team on the ground.
In response to the Leader of the Opposition’s question with regard to the UN, the Development Minister is in close contact—on an almost daily basis—with Martin Griffiths, the head of the UN’s humanitarian relief efforts, to ensure that the UK can play a leading role in supporting what is happening on the ground. There are considerable logistical challenges in getting aid to the people who need it, and there are areas where we can make a difference, particularly around el-Arish, the logistical hub that supplies are moving to. I confirm that tomorrow the Development Minister will lay a written ministerial statement setting out further details of the increase in humanitarian aid that we have announced today.
In closing, I concur with what the Leader of the Opposition said. There is absolutely a future available to us that is more prosperous and more stable for people living in the region; one where people can live with dignity, with security and with opportunity. That is the future that Hamas are trying to destroy. We should stand united to stop that happening.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Did my right hon. Friend get any impression from his discussions with Arab leaders that they understood the purpose of Hamas terrorism to derail their efforts to find a better way of living in the middle east? Was he satisfied that they were sufficiently aware of the benefit that Russia hopes to derive from all this and the need to deter Iran from further escalation?
The Prime Minister
I can tell my right hon. Friend from all my conversations across the region with Arab leaders that there is absolutely no love or affection for Hamas. Indeed, it is the opposite, as the Palestinian President said with me when he condemned in no uncertain terms the terrorist atrocities that they have perpetrated. All leaders see Hamas as a destabilising influence in the region and want to work with us and others to prevent the situation from escalating and to limit Hamas’s ability to carry out attacks like this in the future.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I said last week that history would judge us based on our response not just to the abhorrent terrorist attack in Israel but to the humanitarian crisis that was undoubtedly unfolding in Gaza. In our collective unequivocal condemnation of the abhorrent attacks of 7 October, the House has been and continues to be fully united, just as we are united in our condemnation of any form of antisemitism that rears its head on these isles, and in our thoughts and prayers for all the hostages, who need to be returned safely to their families.
However, in respect of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, while I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement, I believe that we must go further. Here is why. Turning off electricity and water to Gaza is collective punishment. Limiting the free access of food and medicines to Gaza is collective punishment. Preventing people, including British citizens, from fleeing Gaza is collective punishment. Dropping leaflets in northern Gaza telling people to flee or they will be deemed partners of Hamas is a precursor to further collective punishment. All of us in the Chamber know that collective punishment is prohibited by international law. I ask the Prime Minister to use his office to do some good on the humanitarian side of the conflict in Gaza and to answer the question I asked last week. Given the severity of this appalling situation, will he now agree that a ceasefire is required in the region?
The Prime Minister
I would characterise the situation differently from the hon. Gentleman, with the greatest of respect. Israel has suffered an appalling act of terror. It has the right to defend itself and ensure that something like it does not happen again. He talked about people moving from the north to south of Gaza; it is absolutely right that Israel takes every precaution to avoid harming civilians. In my conversation with the President, he confirmed that Israel intends to act within international humanitarian law, but Hamas are preventing people from moving, keeping them in harm’s way. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that in his question, but he would do well to recognise that that is Hamas’s policy: embedding themselves in civilian populations, using civilians as human shields and preventing them from leaving when they have been given advance notice.
Where I agree, and have been very clear, is that we must do everything we can to support humanitarian efforts in Gaza. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous comments. I raised all those issues with the Israeli Prime Minister, and we will continue to do everything we can. Again, I point out that it is not just a function of money but about the logistics of getting very considerable amounts of aid into the region. The UK has capability and expertise that we are very willing to bring to bear, and we are having active discussions about how best to do so.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Let me start by thanking the Chelmsford Muslim community for hosting a meeting that brought together Jewish, Muslim and Christian leaders on Friday. All were deeply shocked by the events of 7 October. There is no place for hate, but there is great concern about the loss of civilian life since then, and the risk of contagion and of the situation escalating even further. I thank our Prime Minister for saying that, in defending itself from terror, Israel also needs to act within international law. How is that being monitored? If there are breaches, how would any perpetrator be held to account?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend will know that there are established mechanisms for that, but I am reassured by what the Israeli President has said very publicly and in our conversations that Israel intends to act within humanitarian law and is taking every precaution to avoid harming civilians.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
We all condemned the attacks by Hamas on innocent civilians, but since then thousands of innocent Palestinians—including children—have been killed by the Israeli army’s bombardment, which I also condemn. Over a million Palestinians have been displaced, and many more are suffering without access to food, water, electricity, fuel and medicines, which is inhumane and against international law. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling for a ceasefire today, to end this collective punishment?
The Prime Minister
Again, Israel has the right the defend itself in line with international and humanitarian law, and it has our support in doing that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The statement will run until 5 o’clock, so let us help one another to get everyone in.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
How can members of the British Jewish community feel safe when people are allowed to chant on the streets of Britain in favour of jihad, call for the raising of religious armies to go and fight Israel, call for the mobilisation of the intifada, and walk down our street holding signs that display despicable ancient antisemitic tropes? Those are marches not for peace but for hate. They glorify the worst murder of Jews since the holocaust, and they have to stop.
The Prime Minister
Hateful extremism has no place in our society. Calls for jihad and for Muslim armies to rise up are a threat not only to the Jewish community but to our democratic values. The police are operationally independent, but the Home Secretary has a role in holding police forces to account. As Members will know, she raised this matter with the Met police commissioner at their meeting earlier today. Anyone who commits a crime—whether inciting racial hatred, glorifying terrorism or violating public order—should expect to face the full force of the law.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I agree with him and the Leader of the Opposition that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is truly horrifying. To prevent a catastrophe it is essential that far more aid reaches the people who need it and it is vital that the hostages are unconditionally released. Hamas’s evil attacks have claimed far too many innocent lives already. Israel unquestionably has the right to protect its citizens and target these brutal terrorists in line with international law, just as we all have a duty to prevent more needless civilian deaths. Does the Prime Minister agree with many of us, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the UK should be leading diplomatic efforts to secure a pause in hostilities with a temporary humanitarian ceasefire to allow for the hostages to be released and to get aid into Gaza?
The Prime Minister
Let me just say exactly what I have been trying to do over the past week: ensure that we can diplomatically engage with partners in the region—as, indeed, the Foreign Secretary has been doing. That has resulted in humanitarian aid coming into Gaza. More needs to come, but that is a sign of progress. In all our conversations, particularly with the Emir of Qatar, we are focused on releasing hostages of all nationalities, but we are particularly concerned about the British hostages. We will continue to have that engagement with our partners to do everything in our power to secure the release of the hostages.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows that I am one of the Members of this House who takes the most satisfaction in the fact that it is he who is Prime Minister of this great democratic country, with all the powers of analysis that he brings to his role. We are all in this nation accountable before the law—perhaps the only one who is not has to act on my right hon. Friend’s advice anyway, and he is accountable before the law like everyone else. I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, but we do not quite get to the conclusion. This is a watershed moment: we are either going to build a future that is based on a killing field in Gaza, or we are going to have a ceasefire and the opportunity to bring the necessary aid there for all the people who are suffering now so appallingly. My right hon. Friend knows that we must operate within the law. The law is clear and it requires a ceasefire to be implemented now.
The Prime Minister
It is difficult to tell Israel to have a ceasefire when it is still facing rocket fire on an almost daily basis and when its citizens are still being held hostage. It has suffered an appalling terrorist attack and has a right to defend itself, but, as I have said, it is important that that is done in accordance with international law and it is important that Israel takes every possible precaution to avoid harming civilians. Based on all my conversations, that is something we will continue to expect and continue to impress on the Israeli Government.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Nobody is arguing about whether Israel has a right to defend itself, but my constituents want to know what has already been asked by Members from the Prime Minister’s own side: what happens if international law is not followed? Can the Prime Minister give some assurance to the country, and to people in my constituency, that if Israel breaches international law in its endeavours to defend itself, he will stand at that Dispatch Box and say so?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady well knows, there are established processes and mechanisms to take account of international law. But again, we cannot lose sight, just a week or two later, of the fact that Hamas—an absolutely evil terrorist organisation—have perpetrated a horrific attack on over 1,000 people in Israel, and Israel has the right to defend itself and ensure that that does not happen again.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his recent attempts in the middle east and for his reminder that the UK, regardless of political party, has been behind the two-state solution from the word go. It is also becoming very clear, as he referenced, that Iran’s hand is behind all the genocidal murdering and kidnapping of Jewish Israeli people. I therefore ask a simple question. If we know all this, and we now know it is abroad in the UK creating useful idiots to go out and promote its propaganda, is it not time that we reviewed again the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with a view to banning its activities, and the role of Iranian banks here in the UK, in the City of London? Why are they still here getting money and putting it towards terrorist activities?
The Prime Minister
We have already taken strong action, such as sanctioning more than 350 Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC in its entirety. Furthermore, the National Security Act 2023 implements new measures to protect the British public, including new offences of espionage and foreign interference. As my right hon. Friend knows, we do not comment on specific organisations and whether they are being considered for proscription, but he can rest assured that we discus Iran and how best to contain it with all our allies on a regular basis.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Indiscriminate bombing and obliterating entire neighbourhoods is a war crime. Collective punishment and starving a population of necessities is a war crime. Ordering 1.1 million people to leave their homes and forcibly displacing them is a war crime as well. I absolutely condemn Hamas’s killing of Israeli civilians, and I echo the calls for the release of hostages, but that does not excuse war crimes, and merely saying that international law should be followed when it is clearly not being followed is an insult. Let me ask the Prime Minister this: how many more Palestinians must die before he condemns Israel for violating international law, and calls for an immediate ceasefire?
The Prime Minister
As I have made very clear, we support the Palestinian people because they are victims of Hamas too. We mourn the loss of every innocent life; we mourn the loss of civilians of every faith and every nationality who have been killed in this conflict. However, I simply disagree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of what is going on. There is a significant difference between a terrorist organisation that deliberately and specifically targeted the killing, mutilation and murder of innocent civilians—including children and women and babies—a couple of weeks ago, and Israel’s lawful right to defend itself and go after those perpetrators.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for all the efforts that he and his team are making at this time. During the important discussions that he was having with leaders in the region at the end of last week about getting more humanitarian assistance into Gaza—and that is exactly right—was he able to obtain any new information about the welfare of hostages who have been taken by Hamas into Gaza? They include many elderly people, toddlers with medical needs and disabled people. Is it not important for us to make sure that they are not forgotten, and that the supplies going into Gaza reach the hostages as well?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising an excellent point. It is difficult to ascertain that information precisely, but I give him the reassurance that we are talking extensively to our partners. I had a very constructive conversation with the Emir of Qatar about this issue to put pressure on those holding the hostages to release them unconditionally and to ensure their wellbeing in the meantime.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Given that Hizb ut-Tahrir is a fundamentalist organisation that is banned in 40 countries and across most of the Arab world, why are its members allowed to parade on the streets of London and call for the destruction of the state of Israel?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, we do of course keep the list of proscribed organisations under review, but we do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier comments: hateful extremism of the type that we saw this weekend has no place in our society, and it should be met with the full force of the law.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
A group of 100 journalists from around the world have just been shown some indescribable raw footage of the Hamas attacks in a private screening. According to a BBC journalist, it features a father and two sons aged roughly seven and nine seen running into a shelter in their underwear. A terrorist throws a grenade into the shelter, killing the father and badly injuring the two boys, who run back into the house covered in blood. The two children are screaming for their father, and saying that they are going to die. The terrorist is seen calmly drinking water from the family’s fridge. That is just one of the videos that have been shown to 100 journalists from around the world in the last couple of hours. Will the Prime Minister confirm that any person in the United Kingdom supporting this vicious terrorism will be subject to the full force of the law?
The Prime Minister
I saw much of the same footage myself on my visit to Israel last week and I can tell the House that it is absolutely horrifying to watch. When we hear in this House about Israel’s actions, it is important to have those images in our mind. What happened to its citizens was unforgivable and it has every right to defend itself against that. I can also provide my right hon. and learned Friend with the reassurance that, as he well knows, under the Terrorism Acts of 2000 and 2006, the glorification of terrorism, support for proscribed organisations and the encouraging of terrorism are all offences and will be met with the full force of law.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said in his statement that this was a moment for moral clarity, and I agree with him. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire at the moment: 34 trucks have gone in, set against a normal backdrop of hundreds going in every day. We are on a precipice, with people including women and children in hospitals dying because of shortages of power, water and food. I welcome the money for aid but, if it cannot get in, it is not helping. What can the Prime Minister do to get that aid in, in the quantities that will prevent avoidable deaths in Gaza?
The Prime Minister
Last week, President Sisi himself commended the United Kingdom for our diplomatic efforts to ensure the access of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and I thank my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Development Minister for their efforts in that regard. We in this House should be proud of the UK’s efforts to ensure that that access is now open. Of course we need more, and that is why the logistical support that we can provide to ensure that high volumes of aid can flow freely to the people who need it is imperative. The Development Minister is extensively engaged with the UN on that topic.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. My constituency has been the location for two major solidarity with Palestine protests over the past two Saturdays, and I suspect that there will be more to come. The Jewish community in Westminster has highlighted to me that these protests start just a few minutes’ walk from synagogues and that they coincide with the end of Shabbat services. Does the Prime Minister agree that, if further such protests go ahead, the timing and location of their starts should be considered, to take into account that members of the Jewish community are still worried about their safety and that the protests coincide with their Shabbat?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. There is no place on British streets for demonstrations, convoys or flag-waving that not only glorify terrorism but harass the Jewish community. There is no place for antisemitism on our streets, which is why we have also increased funding for the Community Security Trust to protect British Jews from these types of incidents. The decisions that she refers to are typically operational decisions for the police and local communities, but I will very much bear in mind what she has said in our further engagements with those entities and individuals.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for his calmness in the face of the barbarity that the world has witnessed. I also welcome the comments from the Leader of the Opposition and agree with the solidarity that has been expressed—hopefully profoundly—across the House. I want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the murder by the terrorists of Kim Damti, a 22-year-old Irish-Israeli woman. I have searched this city long and hard for a book of condolence for her, but unfortunately none is to be found in the Irish embassy or anywhere else, so I want to put her name on record so that she too is immortalised and remembered forever.
The Prime Minister
I know that Kim’s family will be grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, and I know that the whole House’s thoughts will be with them at this unspeakably difficult time.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Hamas has not just abducted civilians but refused to release proof of life or lists, which is clearly adding even more to the distress. Will my right hon. Friend outline the steps he is taking to ensure that the Red Cross does everything possible to extract that information from this terror group?
The Prime Minister
One of the things we have been discussing with our regional partners, including the Qataris, is how best to ensure humanitarian access to those hostages and to get better information on their wellbeing. That is something we will continue to press on.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The killings on 7 October were appalling and have to be totally condemned, as everyone has today. However, the loss of 5,000 Palestinian lives in Gaza is continuing and getting worse. The question is: why did the Prime Minister instruct Britain’s representative to the UN not to support the call for a very minimal thing, which is a humanitarian pause to allow aid to go in and a ceasefire to take place, to start to bring about a process of peace? Ultimately, that is the only way forward. Ultimately, the only way forward is the end of the occupation. Ultimately, the only way forward is recognition of the rights of the people of Palestine.
The Prime Minister
Our regional and diplomatic engagement has focused extensively on how we can bring about a better and brighter future for the people of Palestine and the Palestinians, but I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman has made no reference to the fact that an organisation he once described as a friend has perpetrated an absolutely appalling act of terrorism against more than 1,000 people.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Earlier this afternoon, the all-party parliamentary group for Israel, which I co-chair, heard from victims, the families of victims and the families of hostages held in Gaza. Their one ask, above all else, is of course for hostages to be returned home, safe and sound, but there are babies aged nine months and many elderly people who are totally dependent on medicines that they were not carrying when they were taken hostage. The Prime Minister has already mentioned the role of the International Red Cross. Could he update the House on what is happening to enable the International Red Cross to gain access to the hostages and to supply them with the medicines they need to keep them alive?
The Prime Minister
I can tell my hon. Friend that is exactly what we are trying to do. We are also working with the Egyptian Red Crescent, which is engaged on the ground. Our priority is to provide food, water, medicines and fuel to those who need them. We will continue our extensive dialogue with partners to increase both the speed and the duration of aid, and to help to get aid to the people who need it.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I think we can all agree that there is no place on our streets for hateful extremism, so what does the Prime Minister have to say to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who said that, at the moment, law enforcement do not have the powers they need to combat hateful extremism?
The Prime Minister
The Home Secretary met the police chiefs this morning and, of course, we continue in dialogue with them. Where there are gaps in the law, we are happy to address and look at them, but we believe that at the moment the police do have the powers to arrest those who incite violence or racial hatred. There is no place on our streets for that type of behaviour, and we will work extensively to clarify the guidance to officers on the ground so they are fully aware of the powers and tools available to them to make sure these people feel the force of the law.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his dignified strength and leadership in these challenging times. Indeed, I also thank the Foreign Secretary for his leadership.
There is a time for peace and a time for war. Of course, this is a time of war for Israel. Does the Prime Minister agree that, post conflict, we cannot go back to the status quo and that there will need to be a comprehensive peace settlement for the region as a whole, involving many actors in the region, perhaps including some people we may not want to talk to today? Although Britain and the United States will be at the vanguard of that, it has to be a regional solution and a long-lasting solution, and the people of Gaza should never, ever be represented by an organisation that wants to kill rather than save lives.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent contribution. He is absolutely right. The Foreign Secretary and I are having those conversations with people across the region as we speak. We cannot go back to the status quo ante; that is not right and it is unacceptable. That means we have to work positively and with energy on a better future for the people of Gaza especially. That is a huge priority for us in the coming days and weeks.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Fourteen hundred Israelis have been killed by Hamas attacks, which I utterly condemn. Over 4,700 Palestinians have been killed by the airstrikes and, according to Save the Children, a child is dying every 15 minutes inside Gaza. Last week, I asked the Prime Minister what steps were being taken to de-escalate the conflict so that it does not engulf the wider region. This is happening. Can he say more about what he is doing to support any other UN resolutions that may help to de-escalate the conflict and create the humanitarian space that is desperately needed to help civilians and bring some kind of end to this conflict?
The Prime Minister
The biggest risk on escalation comes from Iran and its destabilising behaviour. We have seen worrying rocket attacks from the Houthis over the past few days, but also increasing rocket fire from Hezbollah. It is important that those are restrained. Our engagement, particularly with Arab leaders, has focused on them putting pressure on those who have influence in the region to de-escalate those tensions. We have also sent Navy assets to the region to help, and to make sure that arms shipments are not getting to those nefarious actors.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Events in Israel and Gaza have a direct influence upon my constituents. In May 2021, a convoy for Palestine drove through north London with loudspeakers advocating that people raped Jewish girls and mothers. On Saturday, as the Prime Minister said, “jihad” was called for on the streets of London, and a London underground driver said the same over the tannoy. Only yesterday, a long-term resident of my constituency has been identified as a Hamas operative. Indeed, two further names have been drawn to my attention. The Prime Minister says that action will be taken, but it simply is not. My constituents do not expect the law to be enforced; they demand it.
The Prime Minister
May I thank my hon. Friend for everything he does to champion particularly his Jewish constituents and the community more broadly? I can let him know that, at this point, I am aware of over 38 arrests that have been made by the police over the past week or two on this particular issue.
On the other issue that my hon. Friend mentioned, the British Transport police are actively working with Transport for London to look into it. Of course, that is an operational matter for the police, but the Government are clear that everyone should have the right to travel safely and without intimidation. I would also hope that the Mayor of London and others responsible for transport will take steps to make sure that that is the case.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
In their joint policy statement, the Prime Minister, President Biden and other leaders said that they have
“committed to continue coordinating with partners in the region to ensure sustained and safe access to food, water, medical care, and other assistance required to meet humanitarian needs.”
Fuel is not mentioned specifically. However, in his statement today—at page 4, line 7, in the advance copy—the Prime Minister does mention fuel. Is securing the delivery of fuel a UK policy aim only, or is it the joint position of all the leaders?
The Prime Minister
The UK is working hard to ensure that humanitarian aid gets to the people who need it, and fuel is one of the things that we are working on.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement today of an extra £20 million in humanitarian aid. Last week, I met a group of senior leaders from my mosques in Bolton. At the very end, a note was passed to me that said, “Can we stop just having words on the two-state solution and actually have some action?” I welcome what the Prime Minister has said, and I recognise that we are in the acute moments of the conflict right now, but—looking to the future—what ideas, international collaboration and leadership will we put in to bring about a two-state solution? Where there is a vacuum, others will fill it.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that we need to redouble our efforts and inject fresh energy into demonstrating progress towards that better future. The most immediate thing we can do is ensure that there is a future in Gaza after Hamas that provides Palestinians with the opportunity to live with dignity and security. That is something that we are actively engaged on with our international counterparts.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Prime Minister, you state in your statement that you stand with the people of Palestine and recognise their suffering, but according to NGOs on the ground in Gaza, 100 children are dying every day due to Israeli aerial bombardment. Military solutions are not going to end this conflict. Only an immediate ceasefire will, so are you going to call for an immediate ceasefire—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
This House stands united in saying that Israel has a right to defend itself. Then it should stand united with Israel’s right to defend itself in line with international humanitarian law.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
After the appalling protests this weekend, will the Prime Minister endorse the October declaration, which so many Members of this House and the other place have signed, and encourage all people across this country to stand up for British Jews? I welcome the decision to double the aid in this situation, but will he reassure the House that not a single penny of it will fall into the hands of Hamas?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend obviously speaks with experience on this issue. I assure him that the Development Minister is very seized of that particular question. Historically, the vast bulk of our aid has been both humanitarian and channelled through the UN, but we will of course make sure that it gets to the people who need it and is not syphoned off or hijacked by Hamas.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I hope the Prime Minister is right in his belief that these recent traumas could give fresh impetus to a process towards a two-state solution because, frankly, to many of us that seems further away than it has for decades. In that context, what is his understanding of the Israeli Government’s medium and long-term strategy, in the event of their ground operation in Gaza going ahead?
The Prime Minister
The Israeli Government are obviously best placed to speak for themselves, but they have a right to defend themselves. They have said very clearly that they want to protect their citizens. I think they do not just have a right to do that; they have a duty to do that, to ensure that attacks like this cannot happen ever again.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Constituents of mine have been in touch to express how appalled they are at a report in The Times about how an individual with known links to Hamas was not only given UK citizenship, but given a council house and allowed to buy it at a discount. Will the Prime Minister investigate this case to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again?
The Prime Minister
The House and my right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on any individual case, but the Metropolitan police have set out that they will always take appropriate action when provided with information about alleged activity that may be linked to terrorism perpetrated either abroad or here in the UK.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
We stand on the edge of the land invasion of Gaza, which will put at risk both Palestinian lives and the hostages’ lives. What estimate has the Prime Minister made of the potential number of civilian casualties there will be if the land invasion goes ahead?
On a constituency matter, four weeks ago the Muslim women’s centre in my constituency suffered an arson attack, which was particularly distressing because the Holy Koran was burnt in the room that was targeted. What assistance will be provided to the Muslim centres that have been under attack in that way?
The Prime Minister
I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that we will not tolerate anti-Muslim hatred in any form and will seek to stamp it out wherever it occurs. In June, the Security Minister confirmed that additional funding of around £24.5 million would be available to provide protective security at mosques and Muslim faith schools, and the deadline for the protective security scheme has been extended to cover more applications.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his unstinting work in the region to bring about a positive influence. The release of two hostages on Friday evening offered the smallest of hopes to many, many people for further releases as time goes on. In his statement on Friday, he specifically referred to Qatar and Israel. Will he say a little more about the negotiations and the influence he is bringing to bear, and the hope that we will see further hostages released as a result?
The Prime Minister
Qatar is an important ally to the UK. We have a wide-ranging bilateral relationship, and because of that it is helpful to discuss with the Emir of Qatar their efforts—they are taking a lead on this—to secure the release of hostages. I welcome and commend Qatar’s leadership in helping to secure the release of the first two hostages, but I know that the Emir and Qatar are focused on securing further releases, and we will continue to work closely with them.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I was disappointed that nowhere in this statement did the word “ceasefire” appear. Of course, we absolutely and unreservedly condemn Hamas embedding themselves within the civilian population, but that surely is a compelling reason for a ceasefire, because only by ending the killings can progress towards a political solution take place. So why, even at this late stage, will the Prime Minister not join the growing number of voices calling for an immediate ceasefire, before this catastrophic conflict engulfs the entire region?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said previously. Israel has the right to defend itself. It is facing an appalling terrorist organisation, which has committed appalling acts, and it has the right to ensure that those acts stop and do not hurt its citizens again.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s work and leadership in engaging with the Arab world to try to find a solution to the difficult and challenging situation that we face in the middle east. This is not the first time that the terrorist organisation, Hamas, have carried out terrorist activity and killed innocent Jewish people to derail the peace process. They did that in 2002, when they killed innocent Jewish people on the night of Passover, just before the Arab peace initiative was about to be launched. That then derailed the peace initiative for the region. I ask the Prime Minister this: from his meetings with Arab leaders, can he tell us whether they are still committed to the Arab peace initiative on the 1967 borders? If that is the case, and given that we were previously committed to it, are we? Moreover, will he host an international summit on a two-state solution as President Clinton did at Camp David in 2000?
The Prime Minister
One thing we must do collectively is re-energise progress towards a two-state solution. That has been the long-standing position of the UK and it remains so. In all the diplomatic engagements of both myself and the Foreign Secretary over the past few days, we have emphasised that with our Arab partners in particular and discussed how we might demonstrate visible progress towards that goal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. This session must end at 5 o’clock. Patently, I am afraid, not all Members will be called. We will do the best that we can, but it would help colleagues if questions were short.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
With reports that 50 dual citizens who are hostages may be released this evening, Walthamstow is grateful to the Prime Minister for all that he has done, and for the commitment that he has made to one family to help get their kidnapped family members released. May I ask him about his commitment to other Walthamstow residents—some of the 200 UK nationals—who are stuck in Gaza? Rania and her children are terrified and confused, because they have been to the border several times following Foreign Office advice, only to find that it is closed. Can the Prime Minister update us on whether any UK nationals have yet been rescued and whether there could be a single point of contact at the border for these families if they do make such a perilous journey?
The Prime Minister
I say to the hon. Lady that I know that it will be a frightening time for British nationals in Gaza and for their families. We continue to provide assistance to them, and they are in contact with the Foreign Office. We have not been able to secure the movement of any British nationals the other way across the Rafah crossing, but we have had discussions with the Egyptians, including the one that I had with President Sisi, to ensure that when the possibility is there, those people can cross. Indeed, we have pre-positioned rapid deployment teams from Border Force in Egypt, close to the border, to make sure that, logistically, we can collect those people and get them home as safely as possible when that happens.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The new army of online middle east experts, the unverified bots from nefarious sources and the rise of sophisticated artificial intelligence risk seriously undermining the work that the UK and the international community are doing to de-escalate the conflict. Everybody sharing divisive and abusive messages—including, sadly, people in this place—needs to understand that they are serving only to raise the heat on the families of the people with loved ones in Israel and Gaza. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK and Governments around the world are working to put pressure on the tech companies to tighten up their controls and ensure that we have prosecutions here where necessary to provide the deterrence that we need?
The Prime Minister
I reassure my hon. Friend, who raises an excellent point, that online offending is as serious as offline offending and that we have robust legislation in place to deal with threatening or abusive behaviour, or behaviour that is intended or likely to stir up hatred. That applies whether it takes place offline or online, and we have worked with the police to fund an online hate crime reporting portal and to ensure that they have all the tools they need to bring those who break the law to justice.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The scale of violence that we have seen in Palestine and Israel over the past few weeks has been horrific and the deaths of innocent people on both sides is a tragedy. The Prime Minister is right that the violence did not end on 7 October, but it did not start then either. Recent wars broke out in the region in 2008, 2012, 2014, 2018 and 2021. What is the Prime Minister doing not only to address the immediate violence, but to bring about a long-lasting peace in the region?
The Prime Minister
We are working hard to make sure that we can provide the people of Palestine with a better future, because they have legitimate aspirations to live with measures of security and freedom, justice, opportunity and dignity. We will strive to build that future for them in all our dialogue with regional partners.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
On Saturday, Hen Mazzig tweeted that a pro-Palestinian protestor carrying a black flag was “too similar to ISIS”. The Met police disagreed, retweeted him, and publicly said that it was not true. That caused a barrage of antisemitic and homophobic abuse on a scale that he had never seen. I spoke to Hen, and he said that after seeing the most horrific massacre of Jews since the holocaust he thought that he was safe in London, and that British people always made him feel welcome, but now he is worried to leave his home. Does the Prime Minister agree that that example is disgraceful? The Met has a responsibility to protect Jewish communities at this most difficult time, and should be held to account for allowing that barrage of antisemitic abuse towards a member of the Jewish community.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all that she does to champion the Jewish community. I met most recently with Ministers, police chiefs and the Community Security Trust in Downing Street to discuss how we can better protect the British Jewish community at this difficult time, as well as additional funding. I have been clear that there is zero tolerance in our country for antisemitism. What we have seen recently is unacceptable and it should be met with the full force of the law.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Hamas’s crime was not just what was once called “the banality of evil”; it was the calculation of evil, which is why Hamas must be defeated. The Prime Minister is right that a humanitarian disaster is unfolding in Gaza. That is why he is right to say that we need a constant stream of aid pouring in. The UN Secretary-General is very clear that only a binding-on-all-sides negotiated cessation of hostilities will allow that aid to pour in as the Prime Minister said. Is the UN Secretary-General wrong, and if he is not what will the Prime Minister do at the United Nations to bring about that binding-on-all-sides negotiated ceasefire so that aid can flow and lives can be saved?
The Prime Minister
Aid is already flowing into Gaza as a result of the diplomatic efforts of many, including the UK, and now we are providing further not just financial but logistical support to increase the supply of that aid. We will continue to do so. It is vital that we get it in, and we are working very closely, as I said, with the head of the UN’s humanitarian agency, who is in constant contact with the Development Minister.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Two weeks ago, Hamas committed an unprecedented and heinous pogrom against Jewish people—men, women, babies and children. We all stand with our British Jewish community, so Rotherham Council town hall flew the Israeli flag in solidarity. However, within hours it was attacked, the flag torn down and the flagpole broken. Rotherham Council is refusing to re-fly the Israeli flag. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must stand up against those who wish to intimidate our Jewish community, and re-fly the flag to show that we will always stand up against antisemitism and stand with our Jewish community?
The Prime Minister
We have zero tolerance in the UK for antisemitism, and I thank my hon. Friend for everything that he is doing to champion his Jewish constituents at this difficult time. I am clear that where people incite racial or religious hatred or their conduct is threatening, abusive or disorderly, or causes distress to others, the police can and should take action, and those who commit those crimes should face the full force of the law.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk of the need to get fuel into Gaza, but as the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) said, that was not referenced in yesterday’s joint statement, even though fuel is due to run out in the next few days and without it there will be no water, no functioning hospitals, no bakeries and so on. Can I press the Prime Minister on a question that he has not been prepared to answer so far: does he consider the withholding of fuel to be in line with the Government of Israel’s obligations to act within international law?
The Prime Minister
The Government of Israel will manage their behaviour in line with international law. Our job is to ensure that we get aid into the region, and that is what we are focused on doing.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
During his visit to regional partners in the middle east last week, did the Prime Minister get any sense of the extent to which any necessary Israeli action in Gaza can and will be contained from wider involvement by malign actors?
The Prime Minister
It is important that this conflict does not escalate. That is why our Navy presence to stop illegal arms shipments to entities such as Hezbollah is important, as is the diplomatic engagement that we have had with leaders across the region to ensure that those who would seek to exploit this already awful situation for their own further ends are stopped, and that they hear that message in no uncertain terms from everybody.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
This weekend I went to Whitefield shul and attended a vigil in Manchester for the hostages. The community is scared at what we are seeing on the streets. Since Hamas’s barbaric terrorist attack on Israel over two weeks ago, the Community Security Trust has reported a more than 700% rise in antisemitic hate incidents, and Tell MAMA has reported a more than 500% rise in Islamophobia over the same period. Does the Prime Minister agree that there is no place in Britain for antisemitism or Islamophobia, and that those who proliferate this hatred and poison on British streets will be met with the full force of the law?
The Prime Minister
I have been clear that there is zero tolerance for antisemitism or indeed anti-Muslim hatred in any form. We will seek to stamp it out wherever we see it.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
A great many constituents whose families found refuge here in the UK from the holocaust in Europe have reached out to me in the last few weeks to tell me about how they have been personally and directly affected by the ongoing attacks from Hamas in Israel. They would like me to commend my right hon. Friend for the work that he has been doing with our allies to bring peace and stability, and they pose this question: what further efforts can be made to ensure that, once the current threat from Hamas is addressed through Israel’s actions, the evidence is gathered and the perpetrators are identified so that the due process of international law can bring them to justice?
The Prime Minister
It is important that people act in accordance with international law, that those procedures are followed and, indeed, that Israel takes every precaution to avoid harming civilians. In the meantime, we will ensure that we get humanitarian support into the region. Those efforts are starting to bear fruit, but we must double our efforts.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The horrific death toll of this crisis now includes 1,800 Palestinian children. More children will die while the bombs are dropping. The aid needed will not get through. The United Nations Secretary-General is calling for a ceasefire; so is the EU foreign policy chief and so are France, Spain, Japan and Brazil. We need more than just expressions of regret about the loss of civilian lives; we need action to stop it. Is it not time to back a ceasefire, binding on all sides?
The Prime Minister
I think that is a mischaracterisation of some of what some of those countries have said. I spoke to the President of France last night and also leaders from the US, Canada, Italy and Germany. We are united in supporting Israel’s right to self-defence, acting in accordance with international law, and committed to getting humanitarian aid into the region, as we are now doing.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I pay tribute to the statesmanlike actions of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on this terrible issue. At the weekend, shocking footage travelled the world showing flags of proscribed organisations on the streets of London, with extremists proclaiming Allah’s curse on the Jews and others calling for jihad. British Jews are increasingly feeling unsafe in their own country. But what has made that worse is the apparent refusal of the Metropolitan police to do anything about it, other than stand to one side and then issue a self-justificatory tweet that, frankly, was an insult to the intelligence of anybody who read it. What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that the leadership of the police will in future enforce a zero-tolerance policy for incitement and extremism on our streets, for the good of all our people?
The Prime Minister
Hateful extremism has no place in our society. Calls for jihad and Muslim armies to rise up are a threat not only to the Jewish community but to our democratic values. Of course, the police are operationally independent, but the Home Secretary has raised this with them. Anyone who commits a crime—whether it be inciting racial hatred, glorifying terrorism or violating public order—should expect to face the full force of the law.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment in his statement to challenging actions that undermine the prospects for Palestinian statehood. What is his assessment of the impact of continued illegal settlement building in the Palestinian territories on the prospects for Palestinian statehood?
The Prime Minister
Our position on illegal settlements is of long standing and is in accordance with the UN Security Council resolution, which I know the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
May I start by sincerely thanking Members who have shown me support over the last week? It has been really meaningful.
There is a narrative developing that I think we need to challenge. Someone can stand for Israel and still care about what is happening in Gaza. Someone can stand for Palestine and not support Hamas or the atrocities that they have committed. Both can be true. It is an incredibly sensitive time both in our communities and, as the Prime Minister will know, diplomatically. Will he look again at the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, which is coming to the House on Wednesday and relates to this specific conflict? Whatever one may think of the content of the Bill, I hope that he agrees that now is not the time.
The Prime Minister
The Bill to which the hon. Lady refers delivers a manifesto commitment to ban public bodies from imposing their own boycott, divestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. Those could be divisive policies that undermine community cohesion. It is important that the UK has a consistent foreign policy and speaks with one voice internationally.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I have—not just now but for a very long time, since 2007—condemned Hamas for their action, which has always led to Palestinian bloodshed in Gaza, and I will continue to do so. I condemn, of course, the action against the Israelis on 7 October—the slaughter of men, women and children. However, I also want to look at the issues in Gaza. I want support for the people whom Hamas use as shields, and I want their rights protected. I want aid and support for them, because they have just as much of a right to life as anyone else. I ask for a ceasefire in the interim to allow people to get the right amount of aid and to feel safe in their territory.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Hamas are using innocent Palestinian people as human shields, with tragic consequences. We mourn the loss of every innocent life, of civilians of every faith and nationality who have been killed. We support the Palestinian people because they are victims of Hamas, too. That is why we are so focused on getting aid into Gaza. As he can see, those efforts are starting to bear fruit. Of course, there is far more that we need to do, but he has my assurance that we are working around the clock to bring that aid to the people who need it.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The Prime Minister said earlier that aid is flowing into Gaza. May I draw his attention to the fact that every single non-governmental organisation is saying that the aid is only of a token amount? What is he doing to ensure that aid goes to Gaza in the quantities that are needed?
The Prime Minister
I just gently point out to the right hon. Lady that aid is going in, but I have also said that it is not enough and there needs to be more. We are working incredibly hard to ensure that happens. That is a function of the financial support that we are providing, more than doubling our financial support to the region, as well as the logistical support, which is why the conversations that the Development Minister is having with the head of the UN’s humanitarian agency are so important. The logistical effort required to bring about high volumes of aid is considerable. The UK has specific expertise, capabilities and equipment that may be able to help with that, particularly at el-Arish airport, and we will work very hard not just to increase the supply of aid into Egypt, but to ensure that it can get to the people who need it across the crossing.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
We must all recognise the responsibility of global leaders to ensure the protection of innocent Palestinian civilians. To that end, may I ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to be certain that independent observers are able to monitor fully the ongoing situation in Gaza, to ensure that there is no collective punishment of the innocent and that international law is upheld at all times?
The Prime Minister
Our overriding priority is to ensure that aid gets to those who need it, which is why we are not just increasing our financial contributions to the region, but intensifying our diplomatic efforts with all parties to allow for safe access to aid for those people, and to make sure, as I said, that the logistical efforts are put in place to ensure that aid can actually be delivered once it finds its way to Egypt. None of those things is easy, but we are making progress on all three, and we continue to be committed to all of those things. I am confident that things can keep getting better over time, in terms of both volume and scale.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Clearly, Israel is not going to have a ceasefire while it is still under attack, and it has every right to defend its citizens. However, the deaths in Palestine are increasing, and international concern about that is growing. Too few aid lorries are getting into the country, hostages are being held in Gaza, and we also need to ensure that we stop the deaths of innocent people in Gaza. Is the use of safe zones or humanitarian zones part of a solution that would allow the aid to get in and the hostages to be got out, and would save more lives?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. When it comes to the release of hostages, those conversations are happening—as he can imagine—and we are diplomatically involved in applying as much pressure as we can for the unconditional and safe release of hostages. We saw welcome progress with the first two hostages released, but there is clearly more to do.
With regard to aid, again, we are having those conversations about ensuring that aid can get across the Rafah crossing safely to those people who need it. That is why diplomatic engagement with all sides is important, and we will continue our efforts with the US and other allies in the region to make sure that happens.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Has the Prime Minister considered calling on Israel to allow patients in a critical condition in Gaza to be medically evacuated for urgent care?
The Prime Minister
At this point, there are no people leaving Gaza the other way across the Rafah crossing. That includes the people whom the hon. Gentleman points to, but also British nationals. We continue to press for that, and will continue our diplomatic activity to ensure that those who need to come across can do so. As I said, we have pre-positioned Border Force operatives in Egypt, with the logistical support to ensure that once British nationals do get across the Rafah crossing into Egypt, we are able to collect them and bring them home safely. However, there is still dialogue to be had to make sure that can happen.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, has now called for a humanitarian ceasefire, alongside Leo Varadkar, the Irish Taoiseach; Humza Yousaf, the Scottish First Minister; the UN Secretary-General; and the EU’s High Representative on Foreign Affairs. Will the Prime Minister urgently consider a humanitarian ceasefire on the basis of not just aid, but giving our diplomatic efforts the chance to free those hostages?
The Prime Minister
Those hostages should be freed unconditionally—they should never have been taken in the first place. We will continue our diplomatic efforts to ensure not just their wellbeing but their safe release. That is why our conversations with the Qataris, among others, are so important, and evidence that that diplomacy is paying off has been demonstrated in the past few days. However, there is clearly considerable work to do, given how many more hostages are being held against their will. These people were kidnapped from Israel. They are innocent people. They should not be there, and they should be unconditionally released.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I received an email from a constituent the day after the horrific terrorist attack in Israel. She was worried about the safety of her brother and his friend, who are also both Vauxhall constituents. Working with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, they thankfully made it to the border with Jordan, and are now back home. However, I recognise that this is not the case for so many people. So many people are still worried for their loved ones. The killing of innocent people at a music festival should shock us all, and the kidnapping of innocent children should be condemned. Every night that I put my six-year-old and eight-year-old to bed, I think of those innocent children, kidnapped without their parents. We should all call this out.
Israel has the right to defend itself, and how Israel does so matters. The Prime Minister has touched on the humanitarian work that he has been doing, which I welcome. However, having listened to Members this afternoon, and given the volume of emails I have received from Vauxhall constituents, does he agree that a temporary humanitarian corridor will help get that urgent aid through to Gaza?
The Prime Minister
We are working on efforts to get more humanitarian aid into Gaza. The crossing is now open, aid is being pre-positioned to el-Arish and neighbouring areas, and we are intensifying our conversations on logistical support as well as further financial support. I am pleased that the hon. Lady’s constituent’s family were able to exit—I assume via the west bank. Just for Members’ information, we are also working on that side of the conflict to ensure we can support those British nationals who have registered with the Foreign Office in their safe departure from the west bank, should they so choose. Border Force teams and others are engaged on that side of the conflict as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I apologise to the House, but we are out of time. For those watching, I would like to place on record the fact that a significant number of Members have not been able to be called, but the fact that that is so does not mean they are not interested. I thank them all very much for their patience.
Florence Eshalomi
It is, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) mentioned some of the horrific chanting this weekend. He also mentioned that a London Underground tube driver had said the word “jihad”. To ensure clarity—at this really sensitive time, our words matter—should the hon. Member not come and correct what he has said, because it has been stated that the London Underground staff member actually said “Free Palestine”, not “jihad”?
Mr Deputy Speaker
The hon. Lady is well aware that all hon. Members are responsible for their own words in this place. If the hon. Gentleman feels that he has something that he wishes to amend, he will do so, but that is not a matter for the Chair.
Storm Babet: Flooding
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Storm Babet has affected a number of communities across the UK, with the worst impacts being seen in Scotland and the very sad loss of life in Scotland and England. I know only too well the devasting impacts that flooding can have on individuals and communities. My thoughts and sympathies are with all those affected, and in particular with the friends and families of those who have tragically lost their lives in recent days. I thank emergency responders, local authorities, volunteers and the Environment Agency for their tireless efforts to help communities across the country.
Storm Babet brought persistent and heavy rain to the north and midlands of England overnight on Thursday 19 October, and through Friday and Saturday. Met Office amber and yellow warnings for rain and a yellow warning for wind were in place across large parts of England. The range was so broad due to the storm being easterly—atypical in the UK—and eastern and south-eastern facing slopes took the brunt of the rainfall. This was further complicated by a band of high pressure over Scandinavia, which trapped rainfall over the north of England and Scotland.
As the Secretary of State set out in the House last week, an emergency response centre was set up. In advance of the storm, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Cabinet Office convened the national flood response centre to co-ordinate the response. Cross-Government meetings have taken place daily since last Wednesday, and they will continue to do so this week.
Meeting in advance of the storm enabled the Environment Agency and local responders to increase the readiness of flood defences and the clearing of potential blockages, such as sluice gates and drains. Equipment was transferred from different parts of the country to areas that had been forecast to be most badly affected. Over the weekend, severe flood warnings were issued for parts of the River Derwent in Derbyshire and the River Idle in Nottinghamshire. The worst areas impacted by the storm were in Suffolk, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and south Yorkshire, where major incidents were declared.
Yesterday, I visited Bewdley on the River Severn, where I saw at first hand how intense bursts of local rainfall had led to the Severn’s tributaries putting more water into the main channel, leading to an exceptional 1-metre rise in just two hours on Friday. When the water receded a few hours later, the EA was able to complete erecting the demountable barriers to ensure that potentially floodable properties were not flooded at these incredible peak levels. At its peak more than 300 flood warnings were issued by the Environment Agency, and several severe flood warnings. The Environment Agency flood line service experienced its busiest day since 2015-16, with more than 1,800 calls.
As of this morning, we are aware of 1,258 properties that have flooded. There was also wider disruption to road and rail networks, as well as flooding on agricultural land that will have impacted crops. The Environment Agency agreed to requests for early abstraction for some farmers, so that they could take water out of the system to store in their on-farm reservoirs. I add my thanks to those farming communities, particularly in Suffolk, who responded so quickly to the needs of their local communities.
On the impact in Scotland and Wales, the House will know that this is a devolved matter. Although the storm has now passed, over the course of the week, rainfall will continue to flow into river networks, and the overall flood risk for England and Wales is currently medium. Significant river flooding impacts remain probable in parts of South Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, and significant river flooding impacts are also probable more widely. Further rainfall is expected later this week but not on the same scale, and it is not expected to lead to further significant flooding. Two major incidents remain in place in South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, and both are moving from response to recovery.
I take my role as the flooding Minister extremely seriously, and I am aware of the devasting impact that flooding can have on local communities. Local flood authorities will decide whether to initiate section 19 inquiries. I know that will happen in Horncastle and is being considered in other areas. The Secretary of State visited sites in Nottinghamshire today. Before she left she met the chief executive of the Environment Agency on Saturday, and she met me again this morning. My teams and I have been in constant communication throughout this event with the Environment Agency and all concerned, and particularly with all Members of Parliament from affected areas. Although unfortunately some properties have been flooded, we estimate that approximately 42,000 homes in England have been protected that otherwise might have been flooded during this incident. That includes towns such as Matlock, where the recently completed flood defence—basically a big wall—in the centre of the town on the River Derwent held up well and protected the town. Its Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), got in touch with me to share pictures to show how that defence was working, and it had only just been completed.
The Environment Agency considers that its assets and response have largely been effective. We should also consider more widely those areas that have been protected due to flood defences that have been installed within the last decade. We invested £2.6 billion in flood defences between 2015 and 2021, which has better protected 314,000 homes all over England. We are currently deploying more flood schemes between 2021 and 2027, with a record £5.2 billion of investment. That includes both hard defences and natural flood defences. It includes areas such as Hull, for example, where a £42 million scheme was opened in 2022, which I visited. It is in the constituency of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy).
However, we know of some areas where the assets were overwhelmed, not having been designed for such rare, extreme levels of rainfall. We will of course be reviewing our response once the risk of flooding has passed. That will consider flood warning triggers and local mobilisation of assets. We should bear in mind that local resilience forums are the principal authorities for deciding and co-ordinating responses, working off established protocols and existing flood risk management plans.
Some of this flooding was due to surface water flooding, which is the primary responsibility of local authorities. However, we work with local authorities, and a third of our current funding is linked to projects for tackling surface water flooding across the country. The Government are also working to improve the local and national response to flooding, including improving surface water flood forecasting. We are investing £1 million in that, and through an Environment Agency, Met Office, and Flood Forecasting Centre project, we hope to come up with some valuable suggestions and actions.
Finally, as local authorities move to the recovery phase, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is already in contact with affected councils to assess impacts as these communities look to recover.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Our hearts go out to all the family businesses and farmers affected by this tragedy, but especially to those affected by the tragic loss of life. I thank the emergency services and Environment Agency workers for their tireless work around the clock to keep people safe. More than 1,200 properties have been flooded, and hundreds of people have been evacuated from their homes. Lives have been lost.
Events such as Storm Babet are not unexpected, however. We know that floods happen every winter. The Minister’s statement that assets have not been designed “for such rare, extreme levels of rainfall” shows complacency. We know that climate change is bringing more frequent and more severe rainfall events and, as I know from the terrible floods in 2007, where 16,000 properties were flooded in Hull, flooding has a devastating impact on people’s lives, with their belongings lost and businesses destroyed. The country must be better prepared, and we need to take our climate change goals seriously.
It is therefore incredibly worrying that the National Infrastructure Commission stated last week that
“there is no measurable long term national target to reduce flood risk…and the current target does not factor in risk increasing due to climate change.”
To make matters worse, one in six homes in this country is at risk of flooding—a number that is only set to rise. According to the Environment Agency, more than half of local planning authorities surveyed rarely or never inspected new developments to check flood risk planning conditions had been carried out. Research commissioned by insurers found that almost one third of homes built in the five most flood-prone areas were approved without a flood assessment.
The Government are asleep at the wheel. Why have they put homes at risk of flooding by failing to ensure that local planning authorities can carry out essential works? As I told the Minister last Thursday, an estimated 190,000 homes across the country were under threat from inadequately maintained flood defences in 2020. Does the Minister know where these inadequately maintained flood defences are? Did any of them fail over the weekend? Does she have any plans to find out? Are any of the overwhelmed assets that she mentioned these inadequately maintained flood assets? The Government have failed to get a grip on the challenges facing our country over flooding, but these risks, as I keep saying, will only increase.
The independent review of flooding for London in 2021 noted that the inability of organisations to share data and co-ordinate emergency preparedness action had undermined the response to flooding. I note that the Minister referred to the DEFRA and Cabinet Office meetings two days before the floods were due, but that is not nearly enough. It is time that we ended the Tory practice of waiting for disaster to strike. While the Government want to pass off responsibility to other agencies, a Labour Government would establish a Cobra-style flood preparedness taskforce to protect communities from the danger of flooding. We will plan for the long term and co-ordinate central Government, local authorities and emergency services to minimise the damage of flooding every single winter—importantly, before the flooding takes place. That would ensure that communities have the adequate drainage systems and flood defences to protect themselves.
It is time to turn the page on the Tories’ sticking-plaster politics and make the long-term decisions to protect communities from the devastating impact of flooding. That is how we give Britain its future back.
Rebecca Pow
First, we are far from complacent; quite the reverse. The hon. Member suggested that we need to be better prepared; that is what our whole flood budget is geared up to doing. That is why we doubled it to £5.2 billion. It was £2.6 billion, and it is now £5.2 billion, with all the associated flooding schemes that that is delivering—both hard infrastructure and a range of nature-based solutions, which are a high proportion of many of our schemes. I would have thought that she for one would have recognised that, given the £42 million invested in Hull—her own constituency. I visited the scheme in 2022—I invited her but do not think that she came to the launch—and the people I met could not have expressed more wholeheartedly what it had done for Hull and how it had protected properties and businesses. It is now attracting businesses to Hull that previously would not have come as it was too risky for flooding. That is a prime demonstration of what the Government are doing.
On asset maintenance, we continue to invest in all our flood and coastal defence maintenance and have dedicated an extra £22 million to maintenance in the current review period of 2024-25. Of course, checking assets and keeping them well maintained is a critical part of the Environment Agency’s work. Virtually 94% of major flood and coastal erosion risk management assets are in their target condition. In addition, when the warnings began a week ago, the Environment Agency and local authorities went out to check assets, clear culverts and drains and do all the small things that make such a big difference to whether there is or is not flooding in our local areas.
On planning applications, the Environment Agency gives advice when there is any suggestion of flood risk, and 96% of all planning applications complied with Environment Agency advice on flood risk. It is important that there are strong safeguards in place where there is flood risk, and there are, but of course planning departments have to decide whether to take note of the Environment Agency’s advice. We are working hard with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on this very issue—I see the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), in his place alongside me—as it is critical to protecting our island.
I would have thought the hon. Lady would have welcomed the Cabinet Office meetings. We already have exactly what she is asking for, as we do have a national flood response centre with the Cabinet Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and various Government Departments engaging. That was set up on Wednesday, and the Met Office information and the warnings that had begun fed into its meetings—that is why information was able to go out to people. If we can do more and keep more people safe, we will always do that. That is why we have taken note of the incidents. When it is safe to do so, we will review particular things to see whether we can improve people’s safety even more.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. The wider consequences of sudden torrential rainfall, which is happening much more frequently, are being clearly seen in constituencies and communities such as mine. I was dealing with the aftermath on Friday.
There are two observations to draw. First, there is the need for long-term planning with regard to providing more retention ponds and understanding the flow of watercourses in local areas such as mine. Secondly, short-term culvert clearing and drain clearing operations clearly need to get better. Will she meet me to discuss how we can better co-ordinate local authorities and the Environment Agency, as well as the utility companies, which also have a responsibility in this area?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for those astute observations. He is right about the more frequent incidence. This is linked to climate change—there is no doubt about that. We are focusing exactly on the whole flow of water through our plan for water, working at a catchment basis, which will be so important in future. It is local authorities’ role to keep culverts clean and all of that, so I will volunteer the Minister from DLUHC to meet him to discuss that important issue.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
My thoughts and those of my colleagues are with all those who have lost loved ones as a result of the storm. We are also thinking about those who have lost pets or have been displaced from their homes or businesses as a result of water or wind damage during Storm Babet. I would like to thank the emergency responders and all those working in public services—whether SSE, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, local councils or the emergency services—who stepped up to protect and prevent risk to people, and to protect homes and businesses wherever they could. The River South Esk in Brechin reached 4.4 metres above normal levels. The flood defences there were designed to cover 3.8 metres above normal levels, so they were overwhelmed by the extreme weather.
The Scottish Government are committed to helping communities. Our First Minister Humza Yousaf has been out in Brechin to speak to those affected. The UK Government hold the purse strings, and it would be much easier for us to provide the right level of protection if they took financial action. When will the UK Government begin unlocking the recovery and repair funding? Will the Minister please commit to delivering the consequentials of that funding to Scotland as a matter of urgency?
Rebecca Pow
I fully support the hon. Lady’s thanks to all those emergency services working in Scotland—interestingly, she named the coastguard’s involvement in her area. To everyone involved, we give our heartfelt thanks, and we give our sympathies to those who experienced tragedies. As I pointed out, this area is devolved, so I cannot comment on a lot of what she said. She knows it is devolved, and I will leave it at that.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for taking time on Saturday to discuss the dire situation developing across Erewash. More than 500 homes and many businesses have now been flooded, including homes on Station Road and Station Street in Ilkeston, Rutland Grove, Regent Street and Westminster Avenue in Sandiacre, and the Nottingham Road area of Long Eaton. Many residents yet again feel abandoned by the authorities, especially the Environment Agency. Will my hon. Friend take action to ensure that my constituents get the support they need, not only to deal with the clean-up operation but to mitigate future flooding? With more heavy rain forecast, what is she doing to ensure that homeowners are informed of flood risk at the earliest opportunity and not just by social media, which often excludes the older and vulnerable populations across Erewash?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for all she did this weekend. She was straight on the phone, rightly representing her constituents. I believe that the waters are now receding in Erewash. I give my sympathies to those who have been flooded. A lot of the flooding is surface water flooding, so our new scheme to improve forecasting of surface water flooding will be a real help to constituencies such as hers. DLUHC Ministers are working on what might be in place to help with the clear-up, and I will speak to them later, as will our Department.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Flood Babet hit Chesterfield very hard on Friday, with the River Rother and the River Hipper bursting their banks. Tragically, 83-year-old Maureen Gilbert of Tapton Terrace lost her life in her own home. Her death has hit both her family and her neighbours very hard. On behalf of the whole House, I send our condolences to the family.
As many as 400 homes across Brampton, Birdholme, Riverside and Tapton Terrace have been flooded, and countless businesses now face a fight for their survival. It is particularly hard to bear as the vast majority of those properties are the same ones that flooded into 2007, despite the Government implementing schemes to protect the River Rother. Why did residents on Tapton Terrace receive the phone call from the early warning system after their houses had been flooded? What assessment has the Minister made of the success of the early warning system?
The financial cost facing flood victims and the council are huge. Can the Minister explain when the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will confirm that residents qualify for financial support from the flood recovery framework, and that the council will be covered for the huge additional cost via the Bellwin scheme? How quickly will the Government be in a position to announce that?
Rebecca Pow
I reiterate our condolences to the family of Maureen. Nothing could be more tragic, so huge sympathies go out to the family. I was in touch with the hon. Gentleman over the weekend about the situation in Tapton Terrace. I fed that straight into the Environment Agency, which is working very closely with people up there to fully review what happened. That will be part of the review that we instigate. On the costs of clear-up, the Bellwin scheme is triggered by DLUHC, the recovery Department. As I said, we will be meeting to discuss whether that is appropriate, when it would be appropriate and who might apply for it.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
On Friday, Rother Valley was hit by flooding. Homes in Laughton Common, Whiston, Brookhouse, Woodsetts and other places were flooded, with more flooding in the areas of Kiveton, Todwick, Treeton, Stone, Harthill and across the whole of Rother Valley. What was clear when I met residents on Friday and Saturday was the concern that a lack of drainage and culvert cleaning had caused the flooding, as well as huge overdevelopment on the green belt, especially in areas such as Whiston and Laughton Common. What guidance can the Minister give to councils, such as Rotherham Council, to dissuade them from building over green spaces that are natural sinks for water, and to encourage them to clean the culverts and drains more frequently, because it will lead to more and more flooding if they do not?
Rebecca Pow
Building and development has been considered, working with DLUHC, in our holistic plan for water. It is why we so urgently need sustainable urban drainage, for example, in our new developments and to get that switched on. It is being reviewed and hopefully that will start to happen, because it will make such a difference in trapping and capturing water, as do schemes such as grey water harvesting, semi-permeable driveways and so on. I urge planning departments to consider them, because they will make such a difference in areas such as my hon. Friend’s.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
Flooding devastates communities across Selby and Ainsty. Residents are caused enormous anxiety and panic when events like Storm Babet occur. Will the Minister outline what steps she is taking to work with the Environment Agency regionally in Yorkshire to ensure that towns like Tadcaster are safe from flooding in future?
Rebecca Pow
I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we are working very closely with the regional Environment Agencies. In fact, they come to the fore in incidents like this and we are in constant communication with them. They feed into plans for flood management and water resources. It should be a cohesive programme, working together. That is also why, as I mentioned earlier, working in catchments is so important.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I was grateful to the Environment Agency for a call earlier updating me on the situation in Derbyshire, which has been particularly badly affected by the flooding. We remain nervous about the impact of potential rainfall this evening, but generally we are moving to the recovery phase. I place on record my thanks to all the communities and authorities who have been so brilliant this weekend. However, there is obviously a great concern around the funding as we move into the recovery phase. We need to make sure that Derbyshire County Council, unlike in 2019, is given the proper funding it needs to get things back to normal. When the Minister meets DLUHC later, will she make sure that she emphasises the need for the funding to be put in place quickly?
Rebecca Pow
I hear what my hon. Friend says. That is why we will be working closely with DLUHC on what is possible to help local authorities with the clear-up. Derbyshire has been really badly hit, but it has also had £74 million of flood defence schemes, better protecting 3,900 properties. A great many properties were protected that might otherwise have been flooded. We also have to bear that in mind.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister may not be aware of this, but the BBC website has confirmed in the last hour that there are now three confirmed deaths in Scotland as a consequence of Storm Babet. Each one is a tragedy, and I am sure that we all send sympathies and condolences to them and their families. The loss of life could have been so much worse, but for the willingness of others to put themselves in harm’s way. In Shetland, the Lerwick lifeboat was at sea for 18 hours in atrocious conditions to save the lives of those on the Danish trawler Westbank, and the coastguard helicopter airlifted 45 workers from the Stena Spey, an offshore drilling rig. Does the Minister agree that they deserve our gratitude and commendation, and will she have a word with her colleagues in the Department for Transport, who are currently proposing that the response time for the Shetland coastguard helicopter be increased from 15 minutes to 60?
Rebecca Pow
Of course I send condolences for all three of those deaths—any death is absolutely tragic—and I commend the lifeboat team who did such spectacular work in rescuing the trawler and those who rescued the people on the oil rig. This is a tremendous story and accolade for them. I am not sure that I am the one who can trigger the commendation, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion will be fed in, and I will certainly pass his other comments to the Department for Transport.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
One of the victims was apparently from Far Forest, which used to be in my constituency, and obviously our thoughts and prayers are with the family at this moment. This is going to happen again. On the ground, the Environment Agency workers do a great job. Is it not time to merge the agency with Natural England, so that there are fewer managers and more people to protect us?
Rebecca Pow
Again, I send my condolences following that very sad case in Far Forest. I was in the area on Sunday, so I heard a great deal about it from the local people.
My hon. Friend has made an interesting proposal. I think we should deal with the immediate issues first, but on the ground those in the Environment Agency have done a tremendous job in almost every case, particularly those whom I met in Bewdley. I must also give some praise to the community officers who meet so many worried and upset people on the streets, and also meet with some aggression. They have done a tremendous job in all the parts of the country where they were sent out.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Over the last six years, Northwich, in my constituency, has been flooded twice. This time round, having learned from the section 19 report, the Environment Agency, Cheshire West and Chester Council, the Canal & River Trust, the emergency services and other local councils did a sterling job to prevent it from happening again. My concern for the future, however, relates to the huge cuts in the trust, amounting to £300 million. I issue this plea to the Minister: will she look at that and think again?
Rebecca Pow
I am pleased to hear that all those organisations did such a grand job locally. We understand the huge benefit brought by the Canal & River Trust and the great work that it does, but that £300 million figure is something of a bone of contention. The trust has adjusted the figure for inflation, and the Government do not normally do that with their funds.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her visit to Retford and Ordsall today to meet some of the hundreds of people who were evacuated, such as those in Darrel Road, and to see the devastation at first hand. For many of those residents, it is not the first time that this has happened. I also thank the Minister for her reassurance that we will provide as much support as possible, and will invest in the appropriate flood defences to make sure that we can mitigate the impact. Does she agree, however, that we need to remind councils of their responsibilities to communicate information effectively to our constituents? In my case, one of the emergency respite centres was closed with only 20 minutes’ notice, and one of the emergency phone lines was down for nearly two days. Can we also please ask councils to stop building on floodplains?
Rebecca Pow
I know that the Secretary of State visited my hon. Friend’s constituency today and will have seen for herself exactly what local people are facing. I know that my hon. Friend has rightly been a great champion for them, and he makes a good point about the role of local authorities in the local flood forums. It is important that everybody plays their part in this, not just the emergency services who come in if there is a problem. It is about the messaging early on, and that is why the Environment Agency has a comprehensive system of warnings that people can sign up to. Some 1.6 million people are signed up to its flood warning scheme and I would urge people to ensure that they know how to join it. I also urge local authorities to play the role that they really should be playing, and I will be talking to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to stress that further.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
Following the storm at the weekend, several areas in my constituency were affected. There are still active flood alerts across Cheshire, so many areas are not out of the woods yet. On Saturday morning, I visited a number of my constituents living in close proximity to Finchett’s Gutter who expressed serious concern over the timings of the flood alerts received over the weekend. Some of them were already standing knee-deep in water by the time the alerts came through. I join Members across the House in asking the Minister again what discussions have been had to ensure that as the rainfall continues, alerts are sent out in a timely fashion to give residents plenty of warning.
Rebecca Pow
Of course it is critical that warnings go out appropriately at the right time, and that was why this incident started to be flagged the previous weekend and why the national flood response centre was set up. There is a comprehensive Environment Agency flood warning service and I advise people to sign up to it, as well as checking whether they are in an area that might be at risk of flooding. One of the issues is awareness. The EA runs a lot of comms programmes on this, but if there is more that should be done, I will look at that in the review.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
When Storm Arwen hit Cumbria two years ago, many of our villages and other communities lost electrical power for several days due to damaged power cables. I know that that has happened to many communities over the last few days. What progress have the Government made since 2021 to make Britain’s power infrastructure more resilient—for example, by creating a national bank of mobile generators to ensure that communities are not left cold, dark and vulnerable for days on end? Have the people hit by Storm Babet benefited from lessons learned from Storm Arwen, or are we no further forward?
Rebecca Pow
I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman that DEFRA has been working closely with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which has a strategy for exactly this issue, because it is critical that power outages are considered when emergencies such as this take place. Effective action was taken over the Rolls-Royce plants in the Derbyshire area; that was a very effective alignment with the Energy Department. Just as an aside, we work closely with the water industry on preparedness, should there be electricity outages, some of which might be linked to flooding. In fact, there was another incident near Derby and it had a clear management plan.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
My heart goes out to all the communities affected, and particularly to those who lost their lives. The images on the news of the devastation of the floods will also have an impact on communities who have been flooded previously and have escaped. Many people in Prestolee on the River Irwell in my constituency will be among those watching with great anxiety. I have raised this issue several times in the Chamber and with the Minister. Can she assure me that every house in every community that has faced repeated flooding this week and in previous years, including Prestolee, will get the funding they need to be able to protect their lives, livelihoods and property?
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Lady and I have met and discussed her issues a number of times. I will just flag that we launched the frequently flooded fund of £100 million, which allocated funds to 53 projects. The areas that put forward viable projects for the funding are finding it very effective, and another round will open shortly.
Insurance is also really important for houses where there is a possibility of flooding, and Flood Re works intensively on that. The process has been tweaked to ensure that as many houses as possible can get into it and a huge number of properties have been helped. Those that have difficulties can go to the inventory that has just been set up, and 13,000 people who had slightly more difficult cases have been helped through that. The Association of British Insurers has worked closely to ensure that all people are being catered for. There is also an extra “build back better” £10,000 to build one’s property back better.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Many of my constituents in Dundee and Angus were hit very hard by the storm, and I wish to add my thanks to all the emergency services and others, particularly at Dundee City Council and Angus Council, who did so much to help. It is absolutely tragic to see cars submerged, homes flooded, businesses closed, bridges washed away and, of course, lives lost.
Given that we are seeing more, and more frequent, extreme weather events, and given that the Minister recognised climate change in her statement, does she not now regret the Prime Minister’s recent statement rolling back many of the measures necessary to tackle climate change quickly?
Rebecca Pow
Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman proposes, we take this matter extremely seriously. That is why we have doubled the flooding budget to £5.2 billion, as we are aware of these extreme weather incidents. It is also why we have opened a range of other funds, such as the £200 million flood and coastal resilience innovation programme, to look at how we can accelerate flood protection in areas where it will be trickier as sea levels rise, and so on. Another £8 million project in the Thames estuary, the Humber estuary, the Severn estuary and Yorkshire is looking at pathways to deal with exactly these things.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
My heart goes out to everyone affected by flooding, particularly in Barnsley, Darfield, Wombwell, Worsbrough, Lundwood and Darton. The response to flooding is obviously fragmented by its nature because there are so many agencies involved, from the emergency services to the local authority, the Environment Agency, the water companies and national Government.
I mention in particular Worsbrough Bridge Athletic football club, which has suffered flooding five years in a row. Because it is not a home or a business, it often struggles to get support. What advice and, more importantly, action can the Government give to community groups such as Worsbrough Bridge Athletic football club that are affected by persistent flooding?
Rebecca Pow
Individual businesses can seek insurance. There is insurance out there, which I urge Worsbrough Bridge Athletic football club to seek. There are many other measures, including our natural flood management schemes, which are looking at much wider ways of encouraging flood protection. We have just launched a new £25 million fund on that, and there is also our frequently flooded allowance. There are funds out there, but the hon. Lady’s local authority could also do a lot to come up with the correct plans for its area.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I thank the Minister for her statement, but she made a significant omission in relation to the impact on the railway network, which has implications for funding and the response in Scotland, because the network is not devolved.
Following August 2020’s fatal derailment at Carmont, near Stonehaven, in which three people lost their lives, Network Rail gave a commitment to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers that it would put in place additional resources to address the drainage maintenance failures that were responsible, but the RMT’s Gordon Martin has claimed that Network Rail’s modernising maintenance project has less to do with improvement and everything to do with cuts. As the Minister is responsible for flooding and its impact, will she raise this with her counterpart in the Department for Transport to ensure that Network Rail’s failings do not again lead to death and injury, as they did in August 2020?
Rebecca Pow
I will certainly pass on those comments to the Department for Transport.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her statement and for her enthusiasm when it comes to improving and doing better, which I think we all welcome. Does she accept that this storm and others like it have adversely affected coastal erosion around the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, especially in areas such as the Ards peninsula in my Strangford constituency? Has she had any discussions with the Cabinet about creating a dedicated fund to build up defences in coastal communities against the battering winds and waves that are literally beating away our coastlines and impairing road and rail safety?
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman mentions the particular challenges that coastal areas face. We have launched a £200 million flood and coastal innovation programme to look at those issues in particular. I urge him to suggest that his own Cabinet looks at some similar projects. We are happy to share the detail.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My sympathies are with all those affected by these terrible floods. Thousands of residents of Reading, Caversham and Woodley in my constituency live in areas that could be affected by catastrophic flooding, yet plans to build flood defences next to the River Thames in Reading have been delayed. Will the Minister write to me urgently with an update on this important issue, to reassure local residents and businesses?
Rebecca Pow
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the water resources management plans are under discussion right now. Protections, reservoirs and water supplies will all be discussed within those plans. I cannot comment on what will be in the plans yet, but I am sure that he has fed into them. I urge him to continue to do so, because keeping people safe along this great river is of the utmost importance.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Vast areas of my constituency are once again under water, despite Storm Babet not being the most serious that we have experienced in recent times. Although my residents are largely dry this time around, they are often cut off for weeks when floodwaters rise, and many of them are old and vulnerable. What conversations has the Minister had with her colleagues in DLUHC about protecting people who are cut off from basic services for such long periods when floodwaters rise?
Rebecca Pow
I have had a great many discussions with DLUHC about these issues; we also work closely with the Environment Agency, as the hon. Lady will know. The local resilience forums will be factoring in areas at potential risk of being cut off, so that they have emergency systems in place.
I have been right up the river into the hon. Lady’s constituency to look at these issues. I know how closely the Environment Agency is working on those plans, and how mindful it is of getting the right warning systems in place for any such areas. That is why our nature-based solutions funding, our frequently flooded allowance and our £5.2 billion fund is so important.
Points of Order
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to raise a point of order about a serious incident affecting my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on a Select Committee visit to Canada last week.
On checking in for their flight at Heathrow, all Committee members got through except my hon. Friend, who was delayed for questioning for a considerable period. He was told that this was because his name is Mohammad. He was asked whether he was carrying a knife or other offensive weapon; he was also asked where he was born. The questioning was undertaken by officials from Air Canada and, we believe, the Canadian Government, despite my hon. Friend having already been given a visa to enter Canada. After proving that he was an MP, with help from our Committee Clerk, he was eventually allowed through. At Montreal airport, the same issues were raised by Canadian immigration. At Toronto airport on the way back, my hon. Friend was again challenged. He got on his flight with assistance from our consul general, who was very helpful.
My hon. Friend has received apologies from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Canadian Minister for Immigration and from Air Canada. However, given the racist and Islamophobic nature of these challenges, I believe that as well as writing to the Canadian high commissioner, which I will do, it is important to put these concerns on the parliamentary record. It was completely unacceptable for a Member of this House to be treated in this way. Because he was an MP, my hon. Friend was allowed on his flights; if, however, one of our constituents had been so challenged, they might have been refused.
We raised the issue with our high commissioner in Ottawa, who was very supportive. She was amazed at what had happened, given the multicultural nature of Canada as an open and welcoming country. She has raised the matter with the Canadian Government and appreciates that I am raising it in Parliament, to try to ensure that no one is treated in this way in future. I look forward to any help that you can give in this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. I am sure that the whole House shares his dismay at the treatment of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin). It is wholly unacceptable under any circumstances, but it is particularly concerning when it occurs, as it did, in the course of official travel on parliamentary business. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is absolutely right to put his concerns on the record. I am sure that Ministers on the Treasury Bench will also have noted his comments.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today, after I had asked for a statement from the Paymaster General on the recently announced delay to the infected blood inquiry’s final report, a short, 193-word statement has been laid by the Government. That number is in stark contrast to the 485 people who are estimated to have died since the inquiry started, with one person dying every four days on average. The short statement failed to deal with the final recommendations made already by Sir Brian Langstaff for making interim payments, for which there is now an even stronger case because of the delay to his final report. There was no detail on progress to establish a compensation scheme, as has also already been recommended by Sir Brian Langstaff, and no explanation of why contaminated blood victims are being treated differently from victims of the Horizon scandal, who are already going to receive £600,000 in compensation before that final report is produced. What more can I do, Mr Deputy Speaker, to get the Government to deal with this matter in a timely way, and to ensure that as much information as possible is disclosed and that these people are shown some compassion?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I appreciate the right hon. Lady’s concerns, but she in turn will understand that that is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Government. However, as before, I am sure that her remarks will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.
Renters (Reform) Bill
Monday 23rd October 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 View all Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before I get into the detail of what the Bill allows for and the reforms that it portends, may I say a few words of thanks? In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). During his time at the Department, he was responsible for the White Paper that essentially did the groundwork for the Bill, but prior to working in the Department, he worked for a variety of third sector and voluntary organisations, helping the homeless and standing up for those in poor-quality housing. His foreword to the recent report by the Centre for Social Justice on the importance of reform in the private rented sector is both eloquent and effective. May I take this opportunity to thank him for his excellent work?
I also thank the Centre for Social Justice, which was founded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) some time ago. The report that it has prepared makes a compelling case for reform in the private rented sector, in order to help those most in need. May I also thank those organisations, including Shelter and the National Residential Landlords Association, that have supported me and the Department in framing this legislation?
May I also thank the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for the recommendations in its report on the need to reform the private rented sector? There were a series of recommendations in the report, upon which we have acted. It is the case that we will bring forward changes to ensure that the student market, which operates differently from other aspects of the private rented sector, is regulated in a different way; it is the case that we will bring forward details of a decent homes standard in the private rented sector, as requested by the Select Committee; and it is the case that we will ensure that the justice system, which is controlled by the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, is fit for purpose before we move ahead with some of the reforms in the Bill.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I add my thanks to my right hon. Friend for finally publishing a response to the Select Committee? He will recall that, as Chair of the Liaison Committee, I wrote to him last week—he responded very promptly, for which I am grateful. However, the Government’s response was published only on Friday, more than six months after the Committee published its original report, yet it is de rigueur in the civil service code that responses should be published within two months. Will he explain to the House why it took so long, can he give an assurance that it will not happen again, and will he say what measures are being taken to ensure that such delays will not recur?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which gives me an opportunity to apologise to the House, on behalf of the Government, my Department and in particular myself, for the delay in responding to a number of Select Committee reports that have been put forward. The Chairman of the Select Committee knows that I hold him and his Committee in the highest regard. I deeply regret the delays in responding to the many excellent reports that the Select Committee has put forward. The reasons for that relate to policy discussions within Government. We wanted to make sure that we had a clear and settled position in response, but that does not excuse us of the need to do better. I have discussed with Ministers and others in the Department the vital importance of responding quickly and showing respect for this House, so may I again apologise to my hon. Friend and to the Chairman of the Select Committee?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The delay has cost hundreds of families in my constituency their homes. Section 21 evictions have been carried out on so many families, as the sector has moved into the Airbnb short-term let market. Will the Secretary of State apologise to those families? Will he also very quickly bring in the change of use designations that I know he is considering, to ensure that short-term lets and also second homes are separate categories of planning use, so that we can protect our lakes and dales communities and ensure that they can survive?
Michael Gove
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have an enormous amount of respect for the work that he does in this area. I would draw a distinction between the response to the Select Committee’s report and the bringing forward of legislation, but he is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that we need to consider—and we are—our responses to the consultations on registration and on changes to planning use requirements in the short-term let market. We hope to come forward shortly with our response to those consultations. I should also say that I had the opportunity last week to talk to the founder of Airbnb, and I outlined concerns very similar to those that the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
Michael Gove
I will not give way at this stage; I will make a wee bit of progress, then I hope to give way shortly.
I want to emphasise that a healthy private rented sector is in all our interests. Making sure that both landlords and tenants have a new deal and a fair deal is critical.
Michael Gove
Not for the moment.
The private rented sector has doubled in size since 2004, to the point where it now constitutes between 19% and 20% of the total housing stock in our country. Given the number of people in the private rented sector, it is absolutely vital that we ensure that tenants have the rights that they deserve, while also recognising the importance of the private rental sector to our economy and the fact that the overwhelming number of private landlords provide an excellent service. It is also important that we provide them with the rights to redress required when dealing with antisocial tenants, tenants in arrears or other factors that may mean that they need to have recourse to securing vacant possession of a property.
The private rental sector is vital for reasons of labour mobility and personal convenience and, overall, because of the different ways that we respond to the labour market and other pressures at different points in all our lives. We need a healthy private rented sector. I would like to place on the record my thanks to Ben Beadle and the National Residential Landlords Association for the work they have consistently done to ensure that the voice of landlords is heard and to ensure, as Ben Beadle has made clear, that landlords, the overwhelming majority of whom provide a good service, can be certain—because of our property portal, the ombudsman and the other changes in the Bill—that the small minority of poor landlords who victimise tenants can be driven out of the system and the good name of those in the private rented sector upheld.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I am very happy to give way to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), then to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), then to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and then to the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark).
Caroline Lucas
There is plenty to welcome in this Bill, but it should have been an opportunity to increase minimum energy efficiency standards. When the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero last week tried to defend the scrapping of energy efficiency standards for the PRS, she essentially said, on the Floor of the House, that it was because they could cost property owners up to £15,000. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the regulations include a £10,000 cap, so the cost cannot possibly be £15,000; indeed, according to the Government’s own assessment, the average cost of upgrading homes to an energy performance certificate rating of C would be less than £5,000. Will he please correct the record, apologise on behalf of his colleague, who has misled the House, and put it on the record that it could not possibly cost £15,000? His own assessment suggests that it costs less than £5,000.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady; no one could doubt her sincerity or her commitment to making sure that we improve the condition of homes and that we deal with energy efficiency. The first thing to say is that the cost will be determined in the market. The amount that an individual might have to pay can be capped by legislation, but the cost is a function of the market. The second thing that it is important to stress is that the decent homes standard, and indeed the work we are doing on retrofitting overall, will improve, and has improved, energy efficiency, but we need to balance the improvement of energy efficiency against the costs that individual landlords and tenants face in a cost-of-living time that is challenging.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is right to say that the encouragement of private landlords is important to ensure that rental properties are available, but it is also incredibly important that unscrupulous landlords are not facilitated in avoiding their obligations. In relation to the obligations, Citizens Advice has recently announced some figures, which show that 48% of evicted tenants have been told that their landlord wanted to sell. This is a common reason for ending a tenancy. With respect, nothing in this legislation suggests that landlords must give evidence that they have followed through on their intention to sell. Will the Minister rectify that?
Michael Gove
Of course, landlords and any property owner must have the right to sell their home if they need or wish to do so; nothing should interfere with that. None the less, it is the case that there may be circumstances in which there will be some landlords who use an attempt to sell, or a claim to sell, as a feint in order to evict a tenant. In Committee, we will explain how we will ensure that, in those circumstances, the situation is effectively dealt with.
Mr Perkins
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. This weekend I was out meeting flood victims in Chesterfield. The flood damage of one of them was up to 3 feet high in their front room. They were told by the landlord, who was busy as I arrived, hoovering the carpet, which had sewage and river effluent all over it, that they must accept that the landlord would attempt to clean the carpet rather than a renter expecting a new one and that if they would not tolerate that, she would end their tenancy and throw them out. Does that not demonstrate how the balance of power between landlords and renters is totally skewed? Is there not all the more need for the strongest possible legislation to ensure that we do take action against those rogue landlords?
Michael Gove
I agree with the hon. Gentleman up to a point, but I would not characterise it in quite that way. On the basis of everything that he has said, that was completely the wrong response from the landlord concerned, but I would stress that there is only a minority of bad landlords and also that the law clearly delineates, and has done so for some time, the responsibilities for repair between the tenant and the landlord. It is important that we always strike a balance between the need of landlords to ensure that their business is effective and the protection that tenants enjoy. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about that specific case, I will see what I can do to help.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. My constituents, Esther and Fred, lost their son two weeks ago in the most horrific of circumstances. The very week that they lost their son they were served a section 21 notice, despite the landlord knowing their circumstances. What message does it send to renters like Esther and Fred that the Government are yet again delaying the abolition of section 21 evictions?
Michael Gove
I am deeply sorry to hear about the personal tragedy that the hon. Lady’s constituents have suffered—please do pass on my sympathy and condolences. I would say, though, that this Bill leads to the abolition of section 21, and it does so in a way that I believe is right and proportionate. I will explain why I think it is necessary, but before doing so I must give way to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I noted he said that, nationally, around 20% of the population live in the private rented sector. In constituencies such as mine, the figure is 30% to 35%, and many people feel very insecure in their lives. For those on universal credit and housing benefit, the problem is that the local housing allowance does not meet their rent needs. Therefore, they are actually subsidising landlords through their benefits and living in desperate poverty as a result of it. In turn, this forces people in mainly ex-council properties to leave the borough, so we end up with a sort of social cleansing of our inner cities all over the country. Does the Secretary of State understand that we need rent control, so that those people who cannot afford to remain in their own home get some comfort and are allowed to continue being a valuable part of our local communities?
Michael Gove
Although the right hon. Gentleman and I have had many disagreements, there is no one who doubts that he is a very assiduous constituency Member, and he is right that the pressures faced by a number of people in the private rented sector are significant. The principal reason for those rental pressures is inflation. We can debate the causes of inflation, but this Government are determined to do everything possible to halve it. and I believe the steps that we are taking have shown progress so far.
Michael Gove
Please forgive me; I am just responding to the right hon. Gentleman. It is the case that our effective system of tribunals ensures that excessive rents that are way out of kilter with the market can be dealt with. However, one of the challenges of rent controls of the kind that I believe he is advocating, and that have been advocated by others on the Labour Front Bench, is that they are proven to reduce supply overall, and a reduction of supply on the scale that an intervention of the kind that he puts forward would only increase rents and reduce the capacity of people to be able to live in the private rented sector.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Bill would do exactly what he has just been saying is the problem with rent control, which is to drive private landlords out of the market? Is that not entirely contrary to the Government’s main aim right now, which is to bring down inflation? Private rents are the key cause of core inflation, and this is a disastrous Bill for every renter in the country who wants to see a well-supplied housing market.
Michael Gove
I am very fond of my hon. Friend, but that is just not true. We have seen an increase in the number of homes in the private rented sector recently, not a reduction. [Interruption.] As we say in Scotland,
“facts are chiels that winna ding.”
There is no evidence at all that the abolition of section 21, and at the same time the enhancement of section 8, will lead to any reduction in the number of homes in the private rented sector. However, let me say to him, and to the whole House, that what we need is not so much an arbitrage between the private rented sector and the number of homes available for private ownership, or indeed the social rented sector, but more homes overall. It is that which is at the root of our challenge, and we will solve it with our long-term plan for housing, which was outlined in July of this year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
No, I have been generous so far. Every intervention only takes time from those who wish to contribute to the debate. Let me develop my argument and then I will give way to some other colleagues—but perhaps not all.
I just wish to stress what the abolition of section 21 involves. Getting rid of section 21 means that a weapon used by unscrupulous landlords can no longer be in their hands. Essentially, section 21 no-fault eviction is used by that small minority of bad landlords to intimidate tenants. It is the case that a significant number of tenants have concerns about the quality of their home, or indeed about excessive rent rises, but section 21 has been used to silence those who have complained about the quality of their property, to intimidate them into accepting excessive rent rises, and in certain circumstances it has been prosecuted anyway, leading to a significant number of people—20,000 in the past year—finding themselves rendered homeless, and therefore the taxpayer and local authorities having to pay for their accommodation.
It is in nobody’s interests to allow unscrupulous landlords to continue to behave in this way, to allow vulnerable people to be rendered voiceless in this way, and to force the taxpayer to pick up the bill. The idea that abolishing section 21 is somehow un-Conservative is to me absolutely nonsensical. Conservatives exist to protect the vulnerable in society, to make sure that markets work and to save the taxpayer money. I have to say to any hon. Member who thinks that such a policy is un-Conservative that they should consider the Conservative record. The artisans’ dwellings Act 1875, the Law of Property Act 1925, the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985—when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister—the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the Tenant Fees Act 2019 were all Conservative measures introduced by Conservative Prime Ministers in order to ensure that the private rented sector could work better and, critically, they all make provision for the rights of tenants.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Lady has only just entered the Chamber. She should wait for a wee while before she rises to intervene.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I will give way to colleagues in a moment. The key thing to consider when thinking about how those in the private rented sector live is that the overwhelming majority of landlords do a great job, but we know that, because of section 21, 23% of tenants in that sector who wished to complain about conditions chose not to do so, and 31% of those who did were subsequently evicted under section 21. As I mentioned, 20,000 people were assessed as homeless as a direct result.
I am absolutely committed—as was the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) when she was Prime Minister, as was the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip when he was Prime Minister, and as all Conservative Members were when we put it in our 2019 manifesto—to getting rid of section 21, but it is important to recognise that in so doing we need to strengthen the provisions that landlords have in order to deal with those tenants who, for whatever reason, need to be evicted from their property.
We are outlining an extensive range of provisions under section 8. We are moving to ensure that antisocial behaviour is dealt with more effectively by making it mandatory grounds for removing a tenant. We are lowering the threshold so that it is easier to establish antisocial behaviour. We are dealing more effectively with rent arrears, and the way in which some unscrupulous tenants have hitherto manipulated the system on rent arrears. We are making it clear that anyone who wishes to occupy their property because they need to sell it, repair it, or have family member within it, or for any other reason, can do so. It is about strengthening both protections for tenants and powers for landlords in the cases where they need it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I am now more than happy to give way to a range of colleagues.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I will allow the right hon. Gentleman to do that in just a moment, but first let me set the record straight. The Clerks have informed me that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) was in the Chamber from the start. I apologise. I would not wish that to influence the decision of the Secretary of State on who he gives way to.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I accept entirely the force of what the Secretary of State has said, but clearly under section 8 many landlords will, for perfectly legitimate reasons—to get rid of a tenant for antisocial behaviour or whatever—have recourse to section 21 simply because of the convenience and ease, particularly in the face of tenants who make particular difficulties. That is why the provisions that he is making in respect of the courts being able to deal with such things effectively and efficiently are vital as part of the reform that he is bringing forward.
Michael Gove
Actually, I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is vital that we ensure that the courts system is reformed and that we have end-to-end digitisation. We have seen section 21 abused, but if a determined tenant wishes, for whatever reason, to ignore section 21, that ends up in the courts anyway.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My constituent Jan Childs rented a property in Much Wenlock to an individual she got into a dispute with. He has now scarpered, owing my constituent £10,000, and nobody seems to be interested in helping her to retrieve the money—neither the police nor the local authorities. How will this Bill help my constituent Jan Childs to retrieve her £10,000?
Michael Gove
It is not so much this Bill; it is more the steps that we are taking in order to improve the justice system that will help, but I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would write to me about that particular situation. It is always the case, no matter how well framed any piece of legislation might be, that if we are dealing with unscrupulous characters who seek to evade justice, we have to rely on the agencies of the criminal justice system to pursue them.
Sir Desmond Swayne
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise; I should have referred to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when I intervened.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is nearly always right and always honourable.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I, too, put on the record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Some months ago, I raised with the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), who is present, my concerns about the illegal eviction laws, which are over 40 years old, complex and difficult to understand. Unless we reform illegal eviction law alongside section 21, I worry that bad landlords will take matters into their own hands. Has the Department taken into account the concerns that I raised with Government officials about reforming illegal eviction law at the same time?
Michael Gove
I know that my colleague the Housing and Planning Minister has met the hon. Lady, and we will respond in further detail about the steps that we propose to take.
Munira Wilson
Given that the Secretary of State is getting quite a few pot shots from behind him, let me help him out by saying that I welcome the ban on section 21 no-fault evictions. It is sadly very overdue, and I hope that he will not delay in implementing it, because as a London MP I have had countless people in my surgeries and contacting me via email who have been evicted under section 21. A most egregious case involved a father of two young children, both of whom were gravely ill. He had to tackle the mould in his home himself because the landlord was not dealing with it. Then the landlord evicted him for making the repairs. Will the Secretary of State commit to implementing the reform without delay?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. The sooner the Bill is on the statute book, the sooner we can proceed. Alongside that, we of course need to ensure that the justice system, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) made clear, is in a position to implement it effectively. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), is present. He and I, and the Minister for Housing and Planning, are working to do just that.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
On the enhanced grounds for antisocial behaviour, I have one constituent who has been evicted because their baby was crying too much, and another who has been evicted because her husband was beating her too loudly. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that the grounds need to be discretionary ones on which the courts can deliberate, not mandatory ones? Otherwise, it will be a handle for abusers to use.
Michael Gove
I very much take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I do not believe that either of those two cases would count as antisocial behaviour under our proposals, but we need to ensure that we are clear about what constitutes antisocial behaviour liable to lead to eviction and what is, as in those cases, either a preposterous claim or an example of domestic abuse that the police should be investigating.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the intention to scrap no-fault evictions. A year ago I asked about the matter at Prime Minister’s questions, saying, “It’s going to be winter. It’s cold.” As 2019 was a long time ago, I welcome the proposals, although some detail is needed on the burden of proof.
Under Thatcher, from my recollection, the Conservatives were the party of the family, so why has the blanket ban on unscrupulous landlords saying, “No children,” vanished, as has the no-people-on-benefits stipulation? A I know from my weekly surgery, landlords who say, “No DSS” are the big barrier to unlocking this part of the market, because pensioners and others are excluded. Have the Conservatives done away with Thatcher, or is their tail being wagged by all the people—apparently one in five Tory MPs is a landlord—making declarations of interests?
Michael Gove
First, we will be clear that landlords cannot have blanket bans of the kind that the hon. Lady rightly draws to the House’s attention. Secondly, colleagues will declare interests, but landlords are good things. We need landlords to provide homes. It is nothing to be ashamed of to be in the business of providing a safe, warm and decent home for someone, and there is nothing wrong with people who have saved and work hard investing in property. You do not need to be Margaret Thatcher to believe that that is right.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee raised the need for an effective and efficient court system to deal with such matters. Evictions will now have to go to court because they will not be automatic under section 21. Also, many more tenants may go to court over landlords refusing to do repairs, because they will no longer fear retaliatory evictions.
Officials in the Department have suggested that the delays in implementing the Bill came about because of the need to reform the courts, and that that is down to the Select Committee. As I am sure the Secretary of State is aware, the Select Committee actually recommended a specialist housing court—we did that several years ago. If the Secretary of State had agreed to that at the time, there would no longer be any need for delay. The court would be up and running, and be effective and efficient in dealing with cases in the future.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, but the view of the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and others involved in the court system is that the creation of a specialist housing court would divert resources from the effort to make the existing system work better. But good people can disagree on that point.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I rise as what is known as an “accidental landlord”, who conveniently owns and rents out a property in Tamworth. Speaking as a landlord, I welcome the Bill—particularly the property portal, which will allow councils to focus their resource better on landlords who provide poor-quality accommodation and give councils the opportunity to drive them out of business.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Two of the less conspicuous but important parts of the Bill are the creation of the property portal and the role of the private rented sector ombudsman. If they work effectively, both should obviate the need for the court processes that the Chair of the Select Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) have mentioned. The property portal should ensure that we can identify properties in the private rented sector whose landlords have not registered, and we can focus our enforcement action on them.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I welcome better protections for renters; in my constituency, swathes of constituents have been evicted so that landlords can flip their properties to become short-term holiday lets. Nationally, there may have been a growth in landlord numbers, but the Country Land and Business Association and the English housing survey both report that rural seats have seen a demise in landlord numbers of about 24%. In my constituency, we have lost 67% of our long-term landlords since the end of the pandemic. What steps will be taken to reverse the trend, so that long-term landlords come back into constituencies such as mine?
Michael Gove
What I would like to see in my hon. Friend’s constituency and so many others is an increase in housing overall—houses for social rent, for private rent and, above all, for people to own. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) pointed out, there is a particular challenge in the very attractive parts of the country, such as those my hon. Friend represents, that attract tourism.
There has been a phenomenon whereby houses that would have been available for rent to the local community have been Airbnb-ised, although not just through that company. They have been turned into short-term lets and effectively been operating as shadow B&Bs or shadow hotels. There is nothing wrong—there is everything right—with making sure that we utilise property as efficiently as possible, but that has created percussive and deleterious consequences in some areas. That is why we are consulting on both using the planning system and also, with our colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, a form of registration to ensure that the situation works. Ultimately, however, the challenge is increasing supply overall.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has just mentioned the private rental ombudsman, a post that I welcome. Is he considering the case for giving that job to the existing housing ombudsman, who supports the social housing sector at the moment?
Michael Gove
Yes, we are. There is a case for both a separate organisation and for having the issue fall to the existing ombudsman—who, I have to say, has been doing a very effective job.
I must draw my remarks to a close shortly so that all colleagues who wish to contribute can, but the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention provides me an opportunity to suggest that the condition of housing in this country—particularly housing built in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s—is a profound cause for concern. Many of those homes are reaching the end of their natural lives. As a result of how they were built, we are seeing not just building safety issues but children in particular living in homes that are not decent.
The tragedy of Awaab Ishak’s death reminded us that damp, mould and other poor housing conditions can have a deleterious effect not just on life chances but on lives themselves. That is why the Social Housing (Regulation) Act, the actions of the housing ombudsman and the actions that my Department has taken have been focused on ensuring that registered providers and social landlords live up to their responsibilities.
What we seek to do in the Bill is ensure that the small minority of private sector landlords who also need to up their game do so. We are not targeting any one sector. We are not targeting registered providers of social housing while leaving the private rented sector off the hook; nor are we directing particular attention to the private rented sector and letting registered social landlords off the hook. What we are doing is ensuring that citizens, who deserve a warm, decent, safe home, get one. That is what the establishment of the decent homes standard through this legislation will do.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Bill would have been a good opportunity to bring forward provisions ensuring that homes are kept at a decent standard. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will bring forward measures before the next election that will address decent home standards for the private rented sector?
Michael Gove
At the very beginning of my introduction to the Bill, I stressed my gratitude to all those who had worked to shape the measure and make recommendations on how we could improve it. I am sure that in Committee we will hear representations from different Members and different organisations about how we can improve the Bill further. I am open-minded about that: my aim is to ensure that we get a new deal and a fair deal for both landlords and tenants.
I have listened to representations from the National Residential Landlords Association and others about making sure that the overwhelming majority of landlords, who do a great job, are able to deal with a small minority of tenants who behave badly. I have also listened to representations from individual tenants and those campaigning for them, who want us to move ahead with the abolition of section 21 and the establishment of the portal. The establishment of the portal and the existence of the ombudsman will, I believe, ensure that landlords are on firmer ground and no longer undercut by rogues, and that tenants get a better deal. It is because the Bill provides both landlords and tenants with stronger protections for the future that I commend it to the House.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I start by saying that we on these Benches will not oppose the Bill today—that may be more than can be said for some on the Benches behind the Secretary of State. After nearly five years of foot dragging, it appears that they need to be appeased with yet more delays. We disagree. Renters are at the sharp edge of the current housing crisis and urgently need the protections and support in the Bill—protections that, unfortunately, are just too late for many renters struggling right now in this cost of living crisis. But as they say, better late than never.
I welcome the Bill. In fact, I welcome much of what the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks. We have been calling for such measures for some years. We will be pleased to finally see the abolition of section 21, whenever that actually comes. Labour also welcome the simplification of tenancies, which will give renters more flexibility and rights. It is right that periodic tenancies should become the norm, meaning that renters can give two months’ notice and get out of a tenancy at any point.
We further welcome the creation of a new ombudsman; that has the potential to be an essential part of the redress system. For too long, renters have lacked basic power and control over one of the fundamentals of life: their home. Tenants have struggled to challenge unfair treatment without undergoing lengthy and expensive court proceedings. If this ombudsman is given the proper teeth and resources, they will have an important role to play in levelling the playing field. I think the Secretary of State agrees.
We are pleased that the Tory rebrand of Labour’s proposed landlords register has made it into the Bill, too. The register is good for landlords and tenants. Finally, it is good to see the Government build in provisions to make it easier for renters to have pets. As I am sure the Prime Minister agrees, pets are an important part of the family, just as long as we remember not to let them off the lead illegally.
After four and a half years of foot-dragging, there can be no more dither and delay in ending no-fault evictions. The Secretary of State made strong points in his opening remarks, but I am afraid that he did not see the faces behind him—I can see why he has spent years arguing with the landlords on his Back Benches. Tenants across the country have been wrongfully evicted, kicked out of their homes and made homeless. In fact, since his Government first announced the end of no-fault evictions back in April 2019, a total of 71,310 households have been kicked out on to the street. That is more than 70,000 families put at risk of homelessness since this Government first proposed to protect them. Every single day another person suffers the same fate. According to Shelter, private renters over the age of 55 are served a section 21 eviction notice every 16 minutes. It has taken the Government four and a half years to reach the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr Perkins
The Secretary of State was at pains to stress that the majority of landlords are good ones. It is almost like saying that there has been a delay to murder legislation because most people do not kill people. The reality is that we need legislation because there are some bad landlords, and the imbalance between renters and landlords is huge. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is welcome that we have finally got to Second Reading, many people have been let down by how long it has taken? It is now the responsibility of us all to get the legislation moving as quickly as we can.
Angela Rayner
I agree. I hope I can bring the House together when I say that it is right that we get moving on this issue. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the Government will move on it, but I am concerned about potential delays. I will come to those points in more detail.
Jim Shannon
There may well be consensus in the House—I hope there is; we will see how it goes later on. A major issue that comes to my attention and that of many others is mould, condensation and damp in houses, about which tenants tell me regularly. Does the right hon. Lady feel that the Bill can satisfactorily address that to ensure the health and safety of tenants and their families?
Angela Rayner
We need legislation for decent homes alongside these provisions. I hope that we can get into that, and how we can protect people, in Committee. As the Secretary of State acknowledged, at the moment many families face a situation of inadequate housing, which goes beyond the scope of the Bill. I think we all agree that that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
Caroline Lucas
On decent home standards, would the right hon. Lady support the integration of Awaab’s law into the Bill? We are talking about delays, but my concern is that if those provisions do not make it into the Bill right now, our constituents, including some of mine in Brighton, will still be living in absolutely atrocious accommodation, with water streaming down their walls, mould and kids getting ill.
Angela Rayner
If we can address that in the Bill, we should push for it, but we should also push to ensure that, whether in social housing or private rentals, people should have confidence that their homes are safe. Homes should be a safe place, but at the moment, that is not the case for too many.
Huge swathes of renters have been left paying a heavy price for the Government’s inaction on section 21. This is real for people such as the Brady family, who live in Wiltshire and have experienced two no-fault evictions in the past two years. Mr Brady is a gardener and Mrs Brady works full time. After being forced out of their home, where they had lived for 15 years, they have resorted to living in their van. The family are able to bid on council houses when they become available, but so far, everything has been at least an hour away from where they live. Mr Brady said:
“There is a housing crisis and there are reasons behind it—you can use whatever excuses you want but it is a political decision. It was a political decision not to build enough houses, it was a political decision to sell off the social housing stock.”
Those are not my words but the words of a man who would still have a roof over his head if the Government had not dragged their feet.
I feel that more delay is inevitable. Conservative Members threatened in the newspapers this weekend to choose their self-interest over the national interest by opposing or delaying the Bill. They do not want to see these changes enacted. Then, on Friday evening, the Department snuck out the suggestion that section 21 changes are dependent on court improvements, which could take years to complete. Today we discovered—not from an announcement to the press, to Parliament or to the public, but from a leak—that that is indeed the core part of a grubby private deal that the Secretary of State has struck behind closed doors with his own Back Benchers. So the Government who broke our justice system are now using their own failure as an excuse to break their own promises.
Just how long will it take? Can the Secretary of State promise that the Government will meet the pledge they made at the last general election, which he mentioned, before the next general election? Renters simply cannot afford any more excuses or delays; he must provide clarity on that. [Interruption.] I know that he is a confident Secretary of State—he says so from a sedentary position—and I have confidence in his abilities, but people who are facing section 21 notices cannot afford any more dither and delay. He will get support from those on the Labour Benches in enacting this legislation to protect families who need protection.
We think that the Bill is a good starting point. We fear that a number of loopholes have been left in it, however. One such loophole is the commencement clause, which leaves Ministers the power to decide when—or, perhaps, whether—to actually bring an end to section 21. But that is not the only loophole. I hope that the Minister will engage with us constructively in Committee to close all those loopholes and strengthen the Bill in a range of areas.
For example, the new grounds for and protections from evictions are a welcome step, but the details on those grounds remain vague. On evictions, there remains a loophole by which renters are protected only for the first six months of their tenancy if their landlord decides to sell the property or move back in. That time limit needs to be increased as part of the Bill to give renters proper protection.
On section 21, it is not just a question of when the law is implemented but of how. Every household threatened with homelessness by a section 21 notice has the right to assistance from their local council to prevent them from becoming homeless, but the Bill removes that right to immediate help. That loophole could lead to a huge spike in homelessness and must be closed.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am grateful to her for highlighting that point; I have come across such cases, and it is an absolutely appalling situation. Often young families are thrust out of their homes with very little notice, and local authorities struggle to cope. At the moment, many such cases that I have come across involve people being moved to B&Bs out of the area.
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that concern. To be fair to the Secretary of State, he acknowledged the challenges in his remarks—not just the housing challenges but all the challenges faced by families. People are scared and live insecure lives because of the devastation and ripple effect of the challenges they face.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the human cost of those evictions, but there is also a financial cost to councils. Bristol City Council pays exorbitant amounts to put people into emergency and temporary accommodation, which it should not have to do, so does she agree that, on top of helping people by ensuring that they do not have to go through the pain of eviction, the Government have a financial interest in resolving the issue?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree. I also think that, as the Secretary of State mentioned, most private landlords want to do the right thing and are a good part of our housing mix. They should therefore welcome the fact that we are doing our best to ensure that their good name is upheld and that they are not stained by the tiny minority who do not do the right thing, who are the reason why these protections are so overdue.
We are also concerned that the changes to antisocial behaviour grounds are, as they stand, ambiguous and open to abuse. Mental health needs and domestic abuse are sometimes reported as antisocial behaviour, so that definition must be made more pragmatic and focused on genuine antisocial behaviour. The Secretary of State made reference to this issue, and I heard what he said; I look forward to working with him in Committee to address it, because it is important.
The Bill is also silent on the issue of economic evictions. While it strengthens the law to ensure landlords can only increase rents once a year, which is welcome, the mechanism for tenants to contest excessive rent hikes is not strong enough, giving people little real protection against so-called economic evictions.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Is there not a particular problem with the evidence that the rent tribunals will look at? The proposal is that they will look at the average market rents, but the local housing allowance is set at only 30% of the local average, meaning that rents could increase above the LHA and no one would be able to complain about it.
Angela Rayner
It is absolutely right that we get into these challenges, because I do not think people feel that the current situation provides redress for the challenges they face. I hope that in Committee, the Secretary of State will listen to points made by Members across the House to ensure that people get the redress and support that they need, and that we strengthen tenants’ rights in this area.
Mr Betts
The Bill does not really deal with the issue of affordability at all. One of the big issues is the freezing of the local housing allowance: some 90% of properties in the private rented sector are not affordable with the amount of LHA that is payable. The Select Committee recommended that we go back to the 30% figure, as was previously the case, so could we push for that to happen? Currently, many people simply cannot afford anything at all in the private rented sector.
Angela Rayner
We have to get into that issue, but we also have to deal with the root cause, which is that we do not have enough adequate social housing in this country. We do not have enough housing, and that is because of 13 years of the Tories’ failure to build the housing that we need and to challenge Members on their Back Benches. The Prime Minister has failed to challenge those on his Back Benches who have delayed house building in this country when we need it so desperately.
The Secretary of State mentioned the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) and the White Paper, but I am disappointed that many of the proposals in the Government’s White Paper have since been dropped. The Secretary of State said that he is open-minded, and I am glad about that, because the Bill is silent on proposals to make blanket bans on renting to families with children or those in receipt of benefits illegal. That sort of unacceptable practice must be stamped out, and I hope he will work with us to make sure the Bill does so. In the White Paper, the Government also promised to introduce the decent homes standard to give renters safer, better-value homes and remove the blight of poor-quality homes in local communities. That standard is missing from the Bill, but I did hear what the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks. I gently say to him that we cannot miss an opportunity to give private renters the protection—the long-term security and better rights and conditions—that they deserve.
Wera Hobhouse
To ensure that tenants have that safety, does the right hon. Lady agree that we need a new regulator for all private rentals with the power to subject landlords to regular inspections?
Angela Rayner
The Bill talks about the ombudsman. We need to make sure that landlords understand their obligations, and where they do not, we need to ensure that there is redress. As I mentioned earlier, that ombudsman must have real teeth, and I hope the Secretary of State understands that. While I respect the landlords who are in the Chamber and those who are listening to this debate—I know many of them do a good job and are trying their best—we have to have a minimum standard. We cannot have circumstances, as we have seen in Greater Manchester, where children are living in very poor conditions. It is really important that we have regulation and, where people are in accommodation that falls below those standards, we have redress.
After four years, the clock is ticking. There can be no more delay, but the Government’s track record does not instil much confidence. On the Tories’ watch, mortgage bills and rents are soaring, fewer people are able to buy their own home, and over 1 million people are stuck on social housing waiting lists. Those problems are only going to get worse because the Prime Minister could not stand up to his Back Benchers on house building targets. Now it appears that once again, he is caving in to them, rather than keeping his promises to the British people.
This Bill is an important step forward, supporting renters at the sharp edge of the cost of living crisis, so Labour will work constructively throughout its passage. We will not be the cause of delay—I hope the Secretary of State can say the same about his Back Benchers. If they cannot act in the national interest and support a renters’ reform Bill worthy of its name, let me make clear that our offer is to do so instead, because over the course of our proceedings today, 33 renters will have been put at risk of homelessness because they were issued with a section 21 notice and 11 will have got a visit from the bailiffs evicting them. Every single one of those people will be faced with anxiety about the future—anxiety about having to pay eye-watering moving costs and about whether they will be made completely homeless. They cannot afford to wait for the Prime Minister to find a backbone and stand up to his party. They cannot afford to wait for the Secretary of State to buy off his Back Benchers, and they cannot afford to wait yet more years for this Government to keep the promises they made to them.
We stand ready to work in the national interest, and will do so with anyone else who is prepared to join us. I urge the House not to waste this chance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It will be obvious to the House that a great many people want to catch my eye. We have a long time—we have three hours ahead—but I want to be fair in the way that that is divided up, so we will begin with a time limit of seven minutes.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
In 2014, fellow housing expert Calum Mercer and I published a then-seminal paper called “Nation Rent”. That paper challenged what was then the status quo, which was that generation rent affected only younger people and would be a passing phase. “Nation Rent” set out that it was a changing structural environment in the housing and financial markets that had occurred since 2003, which saw a rapid acceleration of the private rented sector—overtaking social rent—together with a fall in home ownership. That structural change started long before the credit crunch and financial crash, but accelerated after them.
A decade on, little has changed in structural terms, and it should concern Members of all parties that generation rent has now become nation rent. The percentage of people aged between 35 and 44 and between 45 and 54 who are renting privately has tripled over the past two decades, and has more than doubled for those aged between 55 and 64. Nation rent is now embedded, not just in the younger generation but through the generations. As I set out in my 2018 paper with the Housing and Finance Institute, “A Time for Good Homes”, that structural change towards private renting affected around 2.4 million homes, or around 6 million people.
The need for legislation reflects that long-term structural shift. The private rented sector is no longer a flex or transitory tenure: it is the main tenure for millions of people for much, if not all, of their lives. The current legislative framework—a short-term tenure for long-term living, one person’s pension pot but another person’s only home—is not fit for that purpose. That is why there is tension and strain, which is reflected in the design of the Bill and the comments that have been made about it. There is a need to find a new balance that reflects this new reality for millions of people in our country, acting in a way that is fair and responsible to those who are being housed as well as to those who house them.
It remains my view that although the principle of the Bill and its measures are very welcome, they do not go far enough in dealing with the fundamental challenges of an overweighted private sector. There needs to be a long-term plan for housing that rebalances the housing tenure mix—a plan to boost home ownership and expand affordable rented housing substantially; one that unblocks the financial and regulatory constraints on affordable home ownership and professional renting, and one that builds more homes. I continue to work cross-party and cross-industry, inside and outside of this place on those priorities, as I have done for many years and as is reflected in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Given my long-term campaigning for housing, I was pleased to stand on a manifesto to build 1 million homes this Parliament, work towards 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s, and scrap section 21 evictions. We have done well on the first, the second is a work in progress and the third manifesto commitment is why we are here today. I know at first hand the personal commitment that the Secretary of State and the Housing Minister bring to this matter, and how hard their commitment to it is.
This is a vital piece of legislation, because it seeks to provide greater security and stability for renters. This matters—and it should matter to everyone on the Conservative Benches—because housing instability destroys wealth creation, damages life chances, restricts educational prospects and harms health. I see this in my constituency inbox, as I am sure do all Members. In my MP surgery, I had a mother who had spent hundreds of pounds of her own money over many years building a comfortable home for her and her disabled daughter, only for them to be turfed out by their landlord with nowhere to go. Recently, I had to discuss with Ukrainian refugees how someone had complained to their landlord about the heating not working, only for them to find themselves served with a section 21 eviction notice. How do you begin to explain that that is just how things work in our country? They should not work like that; this needs to change.
That is why this reform is so important, but we cannot allow any delay, and that includes the proposed delay because, supposedly, repossession is taking too long. That is nonsense. There is already clear court guidance to deal with repossession claims in a timely manner, as set out in civil procedure rule 55.5, which states that the hearing must take place between four and eight weeks from the claim. Although there have been some spikes in court hearings over the covid pandemic, the timeliness of possession claims has remarkably improved. The latest available figures from the Ministry of Justice show that the average time between claims and orders is now back to under eight weeks. The average time between claims and warrants is the same as it was in December 2019, when the Conservative commitment was made to the nation. The repossession figures have collapsed from the post-covid high of 69 weeks, and are back on track to pre-covid levels. For landlords, every single median metric—be that for orders, warrants or possessions—has dramatically improved on the latest Government data.
Therefore, this landmark section 21 reform should not be delayed on the basis that court improvements are required. That was a concern of our Select Committee, and I think it has now been met in part by the improved data. Any change to the Bill that delays the implementation of these vital reforms cannot be supported. This issue affects millions of people in our country. That is why renters reform—specifically the abolition of section 21—was in the 2019 manifesto, on which all of us on the Conservative Benches stood. It was a manifesto that put the Conservatives on the side of the people, and a manifesto that secured such a huge majority. It would be a grave mistake not to honour that commitment, or to stifle it by delay.
To conclude, the Renters (Reform) Bill will provide security and stability to millions of renters across the country. It should be passed by Parliament without any further delay, but we must also do more to continue to unlock home ownership and other housing to deliver the homes and the housing stability that our nation needs.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
First, I put on record that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Having considered the White Paper and then the Bill, the Select Committee welcomes in principle the proposal from the Government to abolish section 21. We heard evidence in a number of sessions from organisations such as Shelter, looking at the interests of tenants, and from the National Residential Landlords Association, and they all accepted that this was the right way to go and engaged constructively with the Select Committee on that.
People’s homes can be taken away from them just like that when they have paid their rent and observed their tenancy conditions, and in principle that simply cannot be right. When a home is taken away, people have to move somewhere else, and their children have to uproot themselves from their school and be taken to another school. Members of the family who work may have to find another job somewhere else, because their home has moved and they can no longer get to their place of employment. That simply is not right in this day and age.
We recognise as a Committee—I made this point in an intervention—that there will be added work for the justice system, because evictions will now require a decision from the courts and more tenants may feel empowered to go to the courts. I am really disappointed that the Secretary of State is not going to indicate when he thinks the reforms to the court system will be in place to allow the legislation to be enacted. I think we need assurances today about when that will be. That cannot be an excuse for delaying something that has already been delayed for far too long.
I want to point out one or two other issues. I welcome the Secretary of State’s welcome for the work that the Select Committee has done, even though his response was a little late; I accept his apology for that. We said very clearly in our report that enforcement by local authorities will be absolutely key in making these changes work. There has to be proper funding for local authorities, as the Local Government Association has said today, to enable that work to be carried out properly. We want assurances from the Secretary of State on that as well.
One of the really good ideas is the property portal, so that tenants and all of us know who the landlords are. We have suggested some changes and some improvements, on which I think the Secretary of State will come back to us, to make sure that the property portal is comprehensive. It should cover things such as when the property last had a gas safety certificate and when the electrical systems in the house were properly inspected, and information of that kind, including whether it complies with the decent homes standard. All those things are important, and tenants should be able to access that quickly. The registers should be updated and digitised, which we are encouraging the Secretary of State to do. We hope he will come back positively on that.
The cost for tenants is important. We welcome the Secretary of State’s saying that rent increases cannot take place more than once a year, but we have concerns about the overload on the tribunal system and the way that those arguments will be played out, often with the landlords having a great advantage. We are not quite sure why the Secretary of State is saying that a tenancy agreement could not have a yearly update of rents in line with inflation, with no need for argument. That is actually the case in many rent agreements now. While it has been difficult in the last couple of years with hyperinflation, historically—with inflation at about 2%—that has not been an issue and it gives some certainty to tenants. We are not sure, and we have not had an explanation, why the Government have ruled that out completely.
Coming back to the point about tenants on benefits, why can we not have a ban on landlords automatically prohibiting tenants on benefits from renting? Surely the Secretary of State should do that, and should indicate very quickly that he is prepared to accept that as an amendment to the Bill.
Munira Wilson
I strongly support the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made about the importance of the Government outlawing these blanket bans on renting in the private sector by those who are in receipt of benefits. I have been seeing a double whammy in that, in a constituency such as mine in Twickenham, rents have gone up by over 12% in the past year and, as he said, local housing allowance has not gone up, so people are evicted and banned from renting if they are in receipt of benefits when they try to find a new place. I pay tribute to the work of Citizens Advice Richmond, which has been running a campaign on that. We need to see the ban on such practice in place soon.
Mr Betts
I completely agree with those points, and I hope the Secretary of State responds positively to them. I think the situation is of real concern, and there is no reason why the ban cannot be enacted.
I have already made the point about local housing allowance. It is not part of the Secretary of State’s Department, but it is part of Government policy. It is always going to be a challenge for tenants to pay their rent in the private rented sector given the rise in rents recently, but people on the lowest incomes and on benefits are now being excluded from most properties because they simply cannot afford it, because their local housing allowance has been frozen. The LHA needs to be lifted. Even if the Secretary of State cannot say so today, I hope he is encouraging those behind the scenes who can make the changes to make them in a proper and timely way.
I have a couple of other points. Student housing is different. The difference in student housing has been recognised where it is purpose-built student housing in that it will be exempt from the ban on periodic tenancies. That is entirely sensible. Recently, we have seen some real pressures on student accommodation in some university cities. Last year, Manchester students were actually being encouraged to live in Liverpool, because there was not enough housing in Manchester for them. That is just one of a number of examples in relation to protecting the student market, including non-purpose-built accommodation.
Michael Gove
Briefly, I wish to declare my interest. As the parent of a daughter who is currently at Manchester University, I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman means. We will be doing everything we can.
Mr Betts
I recognise that the Secretary of State has responded to the Committee’s report, and while not allowing a complete reversal to periodic tenancies for non-purpose built student accommodation, landlords will have the right to terminate the tenancy in line with the university year—I think that is the basis of the proposal he is suggesting. That might well be a good compromise to take things forward, and I am sure the details of that will be tested further in Committee.
On the proposals for the ombudsman, the suggestion in an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) about having one housing ombudsman, and incorporating the private sector role into the social housing ombudsman role, is very sensible. Why do we need two separate schemes for letting agents? Why can we not have just one ombudsman covering the whole of that area? At least everyone could understand it, rather than having to think, “Which bit do I go to in order to get this grievance raised?” I hope the Secretary of State will reflect on that point, which was simply made, to ensure that the process of redressing grievances works better.
Members of the Committee welcome the basic principle of the changes proposed by the Secretary of State, and we want them to be implemented as quickly as possible. We hope he will continue to listen to those recommendations that he has not yet indicated a willingness to accept.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Everybody agrees that people deserve to live in rented homes that are safe, warm, free from damp and mould, and in which they can feel secure. Nobody doubts that intention, or the fact that rogue landlords should be clamped down on and be made responsible. However, rogue landlords are the minority—the Secretary of State has said that on the Floor of the House—yet despite that, the Government seem to be tarring every landlord with the same brush with the Bill. The ironic fact is that there is already a plethora of legislation that allows local authorities to clamp down on every housing issue, including the scourge of the rogue landlord. One issue is that councils themselves are often the rogues, citing resources as an excuse for inaction, and with private landlords they already take action, or at least have the powers to take action if they so wish.
Without wishing to pinch the TV advertising slogan, this Bill does not do what it says on the tin. It should be renamed the “rogue landlord and nightmare tenants Bill”, because all it does is force good landlords to take action that they would not normally take. To highlight what I mean, this is what has happened in the past. The Government forced landlords to put deposits into a Government-approved scheme, which landlords did. Any landlord who has tried to get money back from that scheme when tenants have caused damage will know that it is nigh-on impossible. So instead of putting money into deposit schemes, many landlords now do not take deposits. Instead, they have increased rents in order to cover the cost.
The Government do not treat private landlords as sole traders, but instead treat the whole income from rents as taxable, whether someone has a mortgage on the property or not. The result of that is increased rents. The Government stopped paying landlords directly when tenants on benefits are in arrears, instead saying that the contract is with the tenant and not the Government. As a result, good landlords are now forced to take rent in advance—in the old days they used to take it in arrears as those tenants on benefits were paid by universal credit—and they have increased the rents because of the higher risk. Many, many landlords do not take people on benefits as a result of that. The Government say that they will legislate to make it illegal for landlords to discriminate against those on benefits, but when landlords have between 20 and 50 applicants for each house, all the legislation in the world will not make a ha’porth of difference, because the landlord will always take the most risk-free option.
One key component of the Bill is the removal of section 21 “no fault” evictions—because of the time limit I have had to strip loads out of this speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. Leaders Romans Group is one of the UK’s largest property maintenance companies. Indeed, it has a landlord client base of more than 65,000. It took a sample survey from those landlords and found that section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 is rarely used, rarely overused, and even more rarely misused. Of all those who responded to the survey, 80% had never used section 21. Of those who had, a significant majority—over 60%—did so because the tenant was in breach of the lease. The English Housing Survey 2021-22 found that only 6% of tenancies ended at the landlord’s volition. Both figures demonstrate the fact that the vast majority of landlords do not evict tenants on a whim. To end no-fault evictions through the abolition of section 21 is extreme, unnecessary and damaging to both landlords and tenants.
Let me give a couple of examples about using section 8 evictions to replace section 21. Ground eight is currently the most heavily relied on ground for landlords trying to gain repossession, and it currently provides a two-week notice period. It applies where the tenant is two months in rent arrears at the date of the section 8 notice and the date of the possession hearing. In the Bill, the notice period has been extended to four weeks. Also, any outstanding universal credit payments that the tenant is due to receive are not to be included when calculating the arrears, if the universal credit payment would reduce arrears below the two-month threshold. The Government cannot say to landlords on one hand that the contract for UC is between the landlord and the tenant, but in the Bill say that the landlord has to take off the pending UC payments for rent. It is a nonsense.
I am short of time, so I will briefly mention expanding the powers for antisocial behaviour under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. It is unlikely to change the effect of ground 14, which—I think this question was asked earlier—is not mandatory but discretionary. That means that the judge has to consider whether it is reasonable to make a possession order, even if a tenant is guilty of the alleged conduct. It is very unlikely that any court would consider some trivial conduct to justify a possession order.
As has been mentioned several times, the real issue is the inaction in building more houses for people to live in—that is not just this Government but successive Governments. The market will not change until a Government grasp the nettle and literally put spades in the ground, as Macmillan did in the 1950s. There is a reason why we have the Homes for Ukraine scheme: it is because we do not have any houses to put people in. There is a reason why over 100,000 young men are staying in hotels in this country: it is because we have no homes to put them in. The Bill will do absolutely nothing to improve the rental market. It will drive more landlords from the system. The Secretary of State said earlier that the number of landlords in this country has stayed static since 2016, but I would like to know exactly where he gets that information from as it is not the information coming from the market.
Mr Fysh
Is my hon. Friend aware that just five days ago Jones Lang LaSalle, one of the biggest property consultants in the world, published a report that analysed Rightmove evidence of rental market availability? It shows that in the south-east and south-west of England, rental availability is down by 32% on 2019. Is that caused by some of the things my hon. Friend has been talking about?
Craig Whittaker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a problem right throughout the country, not just the south-east. It is happening in the north in Calder Valley—wherever people are, there is an absolute shortage of homes, whether socially or privately rented. The Bill will do nothing to improve the rental market. It will drive more landlords from the system, and because of those shortages of homes to rent, where dozens of people apply for any homes that are available, the Bill will also do nothing to curb the rogue landlord element.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is genuinely hard to overstate the scale of the housing crisis that we are in, in 2023. Every element of this crisis interacts with every other element, and they all feed off each other, driven—I agree with the right hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) on this one point—by the failure to build enough homes, as well as: the decline in home ownership, particularly among the young; the shrinking of the social rented sector; the growth of the private rented sector, especially, as has been pointed out, given the many different housing markets within the private sector; the growth of the private rented sector for those who are least able to afford that; the growth of homelessness; the pressures of housing costs, driven particularly by the shortfall between the housing element of the social security budget and actual housing costs; the collapse in legal aid and the advice sector; and the pressures on local authorities across the board. That has led to a perfect storm, at the sharp end of which is homelessness.
It is a relief to have this Bill with at least the promise that section 21 will end, because the section 21 powers are used for the most vulnerable and poorest and drive people directly into the homelessness sector. As an MP whose borough has the largest proportion in the private rented sector anywhere in the country, I feel strongly about that. It is profoundly worrying to hear that the Government have backtracked four years after they first promised to abolish section 21. The caveat we now have before us will mean in effect that there will be no progress on protecting tenants over the coming years.
It will be years before those powers are brought into effect, because one of the other elements of this omni-crisis is the shambles that is the courts system. We know that the Ministry of Justice took the single largest proportion of all spending cuts in the post-2010 austerity budget, and it is struggling to cope with the current system. The sector has no plans and no provision to make the changes that the Secretary of State is relying on as a preliminary for abolishing section 21. Every day that goes by means that more people—many highly vulnerable—will face eviction.
On average, 290 London renters a week have faced no-fault evictions since the Government promised to bring an end to them in 2019. Citizens Advice said that it has helped 10,600 households with section 21 cases since this Bill had its First Reading. A six-month delay would mean almost 15,000 more Londoners facing no-fault evictions, and a third of all no-fault evictions in England in recent years have been in the capital. It is London—the most expensive place and the place with the greatest homelessness crisis—that will bear the heaviest burden as a result of further delays by the Secretary of State.
At the heart of all this is the tenants themselves. For many people, insecure tenancies are a nuisance—often an expensive one—that keep them in a state of permanent instability. High levels of population turnover are not good for strong communities. They are linked to low levels of participation at every level of civic society, and they place a particular strain on public services such as GPs and schools. For the most vulnerable, the private sector is a living nightmare, damaging their physical and mental health. All too often, insecurity, unaffordability and poor standards of accommodation come as a single package, placing the greatest strain on those who can cope with it least.
My casework—like that of many other Members, I am sure—is full of examples like these. One constituent wrote to me:
“We have been issued with a section 21 eviction letter by the landlord. I suffer from severe depression and recently had a cornea eye transplant and am still undergoing treatments. My son has autism, asthma, is non-verbal with severe sensory needs and also struggles with change, and we have both suffered serious mental health breakdowns due to our current living conditions.”
These constituents have to wait until the court issues a bailiff warrant for them to be moved into alternative accommodation, but due to the high level of backlog that the courts are experiencing, that will not be any time soon. As she writes:
“This whole process has been severely detrimental to my mental health… My concern is that our current property isn’t safe as the kitchen ceiling is about to collapse in on us”.
Another constituent wrote:
“This miscreant of a landlord sent me a section 21 notice for possession of my apartment. I have been a tenant there in good standing for three years. Rent is always paid on the due date. Rent is £850 for a tiny room…with a shared toilet and shower with 17 other tenants. The landlord informs me today that he wants to raise the rent to £1,516…an 80% rent increase out of the clear blue sky!”
A third constituent wrote:
“Today my wife and I were served with a no-fault eviction…principally for refusing to agree to an almost 20% rent increase. This was particularly galling, because in February we had already had an increase of almost 10%. We now have just eight weeks to find a place to live, but as you…know, there is a dearth of properties…not just in this area but other parts of London.”
They think it highly unlikely they will be able to find somewhere to live. They continue:
“I am utterly disheartened that we live in a country where this is possible. It is nothing short of an outrage.”
There is much in this Bill that is good. There are elements promised for this Bill that are not here and that we will want to press on, and there are a number of concerns we will want to press on in Committee to probe the Government. The central point is this: tenant insecurity is extremely damaging. It is bad for mental and physical health, it is expensive and it places pressure on local authorities. The longer that measures are delayed, the worse it will be. The Government have broken their promise, and we will be holding them to account for that failure.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
This is without doubt a significant Bill, which shows that the Conservative Government are serious about delivering our manifesto commitments and delivering for the British people. In my constituency, tackling homelessness and rough sleeping is a key priority. To make in-roads, we must reform the private rental market. Many of my constituents and people across the country are trapped in high rental spirals, with little or no other viable options available to them. On that basis, the Bill’s proposal to enable tenants to appeal excessive market rents designed to force out tenants could be an important step, but we need to ensure we see more detail on how that would work in practice.
On top of that, and more broadly, we must go back to these proposals and make sure that they do not let up on the delivery of more affordable housing and social housing. The Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) has heard me say that time and again. I believe there is a consensus across the House on that point. As the Bill progresses, I will be keeping a strong look-out for the appropriate protections for renters, but we cannot forget that without landlords, we would not have a rental market at all. That is why we need to strike the right balance between assurances for landlords and protections for renters. The tendency to vilify landlords is not just unhelpful to our public discourse; it is unhelpful to how we are developing legislation. We must make sure that we look after landlords in this process; they form a critical part of the housing ecosystem, and scaring them off would set us back even further, so we must tread carefully.
Through my role as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for housing market and housing delivery, and from meeting landlords and tenants in my constituency, I have engaged with a huge range of stakeholders, including professional landlords such as Grainger and charities such as Shelter. Through those discussions, I am aware of the sticking points that we need to resolve as we progress this Bill through its remaining stages.
To get into just one of the details—I know we are pushed for time—Grainger and others in the industry favour the idea of introducing the ability for landlords to request a six-month minimum tenancy length. Once that period is over, renters could issue a two-month notice. Responsible landlords such as Grainger—and many others; in fact, the vast majority of them—want to build communities and have lasting bonds with the people they house, which is an often forgotten point in these debates. Conversely, charities that I have been talking to that fight for the side of tenants and renters, such as Shelter, want to see a longer protected period for tenants, with a focus on open-ended tendencies. They want to see the protected period lengthened from six months to two years to give renters more certainty and security. In the light of proposals to introduce comprehensive possession grounds for landlords, we need to be careful that we find a compromise between the two positions.
The reforms proposed in the Bill are promising, and I think we can all accept that they are a step in the right direction. However, there is more work to be done in finding the right balance between the needs of renters and landlords and successfully integrating the rental market with our levelling-up plans and the need to deliver more affordable housing across our country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Feryal Clark—not here. That is a shock.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I join colleagues across the House in welcoming this long-overdue Bill and share their dismay at the delay in implementing a ban on no-fault evictions. Renters have been left with soaring rents and disrepairs, and are at the complete mercy of landlords, powerless under the current system of no-fault evictions to demand fair rents and humane living conditions.
This is a massive housing emergency. Across the country, renters of all ages and backgrounds—from students to families, young couples and single retirees—are struggling to pay their rent, let alone save for a deposit to buy. Only half of private renters have any savings in their name. With a desperate lack of social housing, Liverpool alone has more than 15,000 applicants on the council’s housing register and almost 1,000 households in temporary accommodation. The frontline housing options and homelessness service is seeing nearly 400 new approaches a month. Councils are relying on the private rented sector as the only way to ease the pressures on the system, and renters are left with no viable options.
An entire generation have been betrayed by the Tories, with 13 years of austerity and rising rents, frozen wages and diminishing opportunities. On top of that, they have faced unprecedented challenges caused by the financial crash, recessions, the pandemic and, now, the cost of living crisis. Thirteen years of Tory attacks on workers’ and tenants’ rights have left renters facing soaring insecurity and plummeting conditions. We urgently need the Bill to be passed into law to begin to redress some of the worst impacts of the deregulation.
Nearly five years since the Government proposed to outlaw no-fault evictions and give renters desperately needed protection from exploitative landlords, some 70,000 households have been threatened with homelessness by section 21 notices. Homelessness has skyrocketed during the last year, with the number of households in England who became homeless or were at risk of homelessness up 7% in the year to March. Each day that we delay, 172 families are handed a no-fault eviction notice. We cannot wait for improvements in the courts; renters need protection now.
In my constituency, as across the country, we have increasingly seen private landlords using no-fault evictions to turf out tenants on fixed-term contracts in order to hike up rents in line with soaring market rates. Not content with waiting out one-year or two-year-long contracts to raise rents and bolster profits, landlords are taking advantage of the cost of living crisis to line their pockets while tenants are turfed out with nowhere to go. Citizens Advice has found that a shocking 46% of renters who complain about their conditions receive a section 21 notice within six months. Research by Shelter supports that, with its findings showing that private renters in England who complain about poor conditions are 2.5 times more likely to be handed an eviction notice.
Ending pernicious section 21 evictions is a major step in rebalancing power in favour of tenants, but there are a number of areas where we need to go further to ensure that the Bill’s measures have their intended consequences, as called for by the Renters Reform Coalition of the 20 leading housing organisations. First, we must increase the notice period from two months to at least four months: a move that will drastically reduce the number of people made homeless as a result of evictions. We must also protect renters from eviction for the first two full years of tenancy, not the six months proposed. We must introduce strong safeguards to prevent abuse of the new grounds for eviction, including a financial incentive for tenants to prevent abuse, and a one-year ban on re-letting a property after invoking new landlord circumstances on the grounds for eviction. Courts must be given maximum discretion to identify reasons why an eviction should not take place, and a cap on in-tenancy rent increases in line with inflation and wage growth must be introduced to prevent unaffordable rent increases being used as a way to evict tenants via the back door. Lastly, we need action to raise local housing allowance in line with inflation to prevent renters on benefits from being penalised by rising rents, and local authorities must be given extra financial support to take action on rogue landlords.
Everyone deserves a safe and secure home. The Government must bring the Bill into law immediately, with the additional safeguards that Members have outlined, to deliver desperately needed robust legislation that protects renters.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am pleased to rise to speak on Second Reading of a Bill that fulfils a manifesto promise and introduces a number of measures ensuring that renters get a fairer deal and more protections while maintaining landlords’ essential control over their properties. Acknowledging that there are both good landlords and tenants—there are problematic ones as well—we must strike a careful balance. Therefore, as well as abolishing section 21 evictions and moving to a simpler structure where tenancies are periodic to empower renters and provide them with more certainty, the Bill introduces reforms to ensure that repossessions where tenants are at fault are easier, such as in cases of repeated, frequent arrears or antisocial behaviour.
The majority of landlord-tenant relationships work well, but, where they break down, early and effective dispute resolution is crucial. The new private rented sector ombudsman will be able to provide impartial and binding resolution to issues. However, it is not a full replacement for the court system. Therefore, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service must be ready for the changes. I welcome that some of that has already been raised, indicating that there will be: more digitising of the court process to make it simpler and easier for landlords to use; prioritising of certain cases, such as those including antisocial behaviour, which can be a significant issue for landlords and tenants alike in my constituency; and the provision of early legal advice and better signposting for tenants, including to help them find a housing solution that meets their needs. I urge the Minister to work at pace with the Justice Secretary so that we can bring forward these measures as soon as possible.
My constituents in Cheadle are animal lovers, so I welcome that the Bill will give tenants the right to request having a pet in their property. Landlords will be required to consider those requests and unable to refuse them unreasonably.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. The people of Southend West are great animal lovers, and many have written to me to say that they have not been allowed to have a pet in a private rented property—what a terrible thing that is for their mental health. In Southend, I have met the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and been told heartbreaking tales of people having to give up their pets. Like her, I welcome the provisions in the Bill such that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a request for a pet, but, likewise, landlords can demand that the tenant takes out insurance against any damage that a pet may do—a good balancing act. Does she agree that, given how important pets are to our physical and mental health, those provisions are to be much welcomed?
Mary Robinson
I certainly agree, and my hon. Friend has pre-empted many of my comments. It is heartbreaking for many people to part with their pets in order to have a roof over their heads. However, as we know, pets can sometimes cause damage and deterioration to a property, so it is important that landlords can insist on pet insurance to cover any damage caused as a result. However, for clarity, I would be grateful if the Minister could clear up a query from a constituent who expressed concerns to me about allowing pets in shared properties. In those circumstances, what will constitute a reasonable refusal—for instance, what if another resident with allergies or difficulties with animals complains? Will the Minister make sure that acceptable reasons for giving that refusal are made clear?
As the Secretary of State mentioned, the proposals have been examined in Committees. As a member of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, I have had the opportunity to look closely into reform of the private rented sector, examining the Government’s proposals as set out in the White Paper, “A fairer private rented sector”. We heard from a wide range of stakeholders with views across the spectrum. The Committee found that there was considerable support for the proposal of introducing an ombudsman for the sector. Further, we heard evidence that many rogue landlords are not intentionally malicious but unaware of their obligations. We heard that supporters of the Bill hope it will be an effective place for resolution. Equally, there were concerns from landlords that it might create additional bureaucracy, and concerns from tenant groups that it may take away the ability to go to court. Reassurance about the ease of use of the dispute mechanism would be welcome.
Getting the balance right is crucial. Over the summer I met tenants, landlords and letting agents, such as Cheadle-based Stuarts Homes, which facilitates tenants and landlords on a daily basis. I am grateful to all my local residents, tenants and businesses for giving me their views. As with any legislation or policy, we must consider any unintended consequences and seek to balance the protection of tenants with the rights of landlords. I heard about potential issues with the debt respite scheme, also known as “breathing space”. It was introduced in 2021 to help those experiencing debt, and provides individuals with a 60-day period in which interest and charges on their debts are frozen and enforcement action from creditors is paused. That is paired with a requirement to seek professional support to create a repayment plan. The scheme will have come as a relief to many. However, I have listened to concerns that some tenants have misused it to prevent evictions in cases of long-standing non-payment of rent. The stress of non-payment of rent—sometimes for months on end—affects landlords, who are unable to take possession of their property and are owed thousands of pounds in rent, which they fear they will never recoup.
Meanwhile, I have constituents in Cheadle who are landlords operating student lets. They have expressed concerns about the abolition of fixed-term lets. I was told that it may prevent landlords from securing tenants ahead of time for the next academic year, thereby taking away certainty and security for both landlords and students, who want to know their housing situation is sorted ahead of time. I was given an example by a constituent of where rental agreements are shared and if a student leaves, the others are—in theory—liable for the extra share of rent. However, in practice, the student leaving finds a suitable replacement, the lease is transferred and the departing resident gets their deposit back. As such, my constituent feels that a move to rolling tenancies, as the Bill proposes, would be unsuitable for student lets. I am reassured that that is being considered again.
We also heard during sessions of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee that the changes could negatively impact the rental market, making it unattractive for landlords to let to students. I understand that the Secretary of State has plans to introduce a new ground for possession, which will facilitate short-term student tenancies, but the Committee—and my constituents —recommend giving consideration to retaining fixed terms for the student rental market. Although I am pleased that the Government recognise the unique position of student accommodation in the rental market, I ask them to look at doing that.
The Bill makes some much-needed changes, but I ask the Government to listen to the outstanding concerns raised by those directly affected—the tenants and the landlords. We must ensure that we do not create unintended negative consequences or further problems that negate the good work of the Bill. In closing, I reiterate my overall support for these measures, and I look forward to following the Bill as it moves through the legislative process.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Almost 40% of my constituents are private renters, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to reflect their concerns. Of those, many are students—I think I have the largest number of students of any Member in the country—and I want to raise their concerns as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for students.
I was one of a cross-party group of 60 parliamentarians who wrote recently to the Secretary of State urging him to bring forward this legislation, so I am delighted that we have it. I did so primarily because of its promise to fulfil the Government’s pledge to end no-fault section 21 evictions, so it is a bitter disappointment that the Government appear to have frustrated the hopes of tenants by kicking the abolition of section 21 notices down the road to some potentially distant future, after further changes to the courts system—something that I saw that the National Residential Landlords Association has celebrated in a statement today, as a result of its “extensive lobbying”. I hope that the Government will think again, or at least give us an assurance this evening of the date when they plan to fulfil the ambition for no-fault evictions.
I hope the Government will go further in delivering the promised new deal for private renters in other areas, because I share the concern of the Renters Reform Coalition that the Bill needs amending to ensure that the proposed “landlord circumstances” grounds for eviction do not become the new section 21. The tenant should be given four months’ notice rather than two. There should be a one-year ban on re-letting after invoking the new landlord circumstances, rather than the proposed three months. We need stronger mechanisms than those proposed to stop unaffordable rent increases—of which we have heard examples already this evening—pricing tenants out and becoming the new section 21. We need to ensure that tenants can be confident in raising issues and making complaints without fear of retaliation. I hope that those issues will be considered seriously in Committee.
I want to raise the concerns of student renters. There is an exemption for purpose-built student accommodation, but many students live in the parts of the private rented sector that are covered by the Bill—around 45% of them, or 600,000 across England and Wales. Their voices have not been fully heard, which our all-party group has been trying to address. In May, we held a roundtable with student representatives from most of our major cities and many of our smaller towns. They agreed that there were many positive elements to the Bill, but raised issues that needed further clarification if it is to succeed for all renters.
I see that in his response to the Select Committee, the Secretary of State accepted the argument of landlords that
“the student market is cyclical and…landlords must be able to guarantee possession each year for a new set of tenants”.
He went on to state that
“we will introduce a new ground for possession to facilitate this.”
I understand that case, and it was reflected in some of the student voices that we heard, but we need to take care about how we do it because there is an underlying false assumption in the discourse around the issue that all students fit a traditional stereotype: on three-year undergraduate courses, wanting a 10-month contract and leaving their university town when they finish their studies. However, students are not homogeneous. Undergraduates and postgraduates have different requirements; there are 30-week programmes and 52-week programmes; some courses start at different times of the year and have a different cycle. There are mature and part-time students, students with families, estranged students, international students, graduate apprentices, those who stay on to study or work during vacation while their friends do not, and those who want to make their university house a permanent home.
Many students live in mixed households, with recent graduates or other non-students. It simply would not work to have people in a mixed household on a shared tenancy with different rights. A grounds for possession clause might protect the market, but a one-size-fits-all approach will not address the fact that not all students want properties that are cyclical with the standard undergraduate year. So we need a clear definition of a student and how grounds for possession will be implemented. I would welcome some acknowledgement from the Minister, in winding up this evening, that the Government have given consideration to those complexities in their proposals in relation to students.
We also have to recognise that the student market differs greatly across the country. Large cities are different from smaller towns, and urban and rural-based universities are different again. The Higher Education Policy Institute’s study of the Scottish experience highlighted the risk in tourist areas, or in other areas with low supply and high rents, that not exempting students will encourage landlords to move out of student accommodation. Student representatives expressed concern to us about being priced out in some areas by young professionals. On the other hand, there are worries that exempting students in some areas will risk them becoming second class renters, attracting less scrupulous landlords into student accommodation because they are relatively unprotected tenants.
Student renters face many of the same issues as other renters and they deserve the same broad protections. They face specific issues, too. The raised with us the growing pressure they are under to view and sign tenancy agreements for a property earlier and earlier each year—often in this term, early in the academic session, before friendship groups are formed—leaving them locked into unwanted contracts. The Bill does not address that, but students felt that it should. There are other questions that need addressing if we are to exempt students. What happens if a renter’s student status changes during the tenancy? How will the Bill address the issue of joint tenancies?
To conclude, I simply say to the Minister that we should not rush to exempt students from the protections in the Bill relating to no-fault evictions and keep them uniquely locked into fixed-term tenancies without careful consideration of the impact on all types of students in all parts of England and Wales. Even then, we need to ensure they continue enjoy the protections in the Bill. I hope the Minister will agree to meet the all-party parliamentary group for students, and student representatives, to hear our concerns.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I must declare that I own half of a rental property with my wife and should therefore refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I want to start by talking about one of my favourite subjects in this place. I have often spoken in the House about the impact of second homes in my constituency. While they bring many economic benefits, we must also face the fact that quite often they turbocharge the market, pushing up prices and making home ownership simply a dream for many local people. It is no big secret that North Norfolk has the highest proportion of second homes in the country outside London. In addition, one in five properties are private rentals. However, with an increasing number of holiday lets and second homes for many local people, the availability of secure, long-term rentals is diminishing year on year. That is particularly worrying in a constituency such as mine.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, whose area I know well because—I declare an interest—I farm in his constituency. I also have rental properties. What he is saying is absolutely correct. The Bill will have a disastrous effect on areas such as his and mine, reducing the number of rental properties and therefore increasing the price of rent. For youngsters, that is really serious.
Duncan Baker
I thank my hon. Friend for intervening. I do not agree at all, actually. In constituencies like mine, people have a real problem with the security of rental property. If they are evicted, it is virtually impossible for them to find somewhere else to rent in a short space of time at the moment. I deal with queries about that all the time, but I will come on to that in just a moment.
It is worrying that for so many who are looking to settle down in a family home of their own, renting is becoming the only option due to rising house prices. For example, on Friday I bumped into a local estate agent in one of my biggest towns, North Walsham. He told me he has 25 applicants for every rental property that comes on to the market. The demand is just off the scale. Clearly, that is a really huge problem. There is simply not enough rental market security when demand is rising as it is.
Now, clearly I am a Conservative and I am not against people wanting to purchase property in Norfolk as a second home. If one works hard in life, one should have the choice to spend one’s finances as one wishes. But I also believe that when the market begins to fail, intervention is sometimes necessary and that is where we are at the moment. Many second homes, for instance, are left vacant for large parts of the year, reducing the property pool and once again reducing the availability of homes for residents to rent. Although holiday lets and vacant second homes are not the focus of my speech today, following conversations I have had with many of my constituents, especially Jane Platt, whom I met when she came all the way from North Norfolk to Parliament back in March, I know how unsettled and insecure tenants can feel in the sector as it currently stands. That fear is exacerbated in areas such as North Norfolk, because if a landlord decides to serve an eviction notice, given everything I have just said, there would simply be so little choice available for renters who need to find a new home quickly. Indeed, sadly, just in the four years I have been in this place, I have tried to help many desperate families find a suitable home to rent. That is at the pinnacle of why I support the Bill.
The Government are trying to help. Many initiatives have come forward; I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for a short period of time. Doubling council tax on second homes, planning changes for short-term rentals and now this Bill show that the Government are committed to fulfilling their manifesto commitment to introduce reforms that will provide families across the UK with that extra reassurance that they will be able to settle into a family home and be free from, in certain cases, unfair evictions and, in very limited circumstances, landlords who do not act in a correct way. Many landlords and tenants are good, honest and decent people; they are the norm. The private landlord is, in my view, the answer to the rental crisis we face, but only if they are incentivised properly, for example with tax reforms. I gently suggest that in some regards we could go further with some of the Government’s proposals to ensure that good and decent tenants feel secure in the private rental sector and feel they can put down roots. It might not be a big issue for some Members, but as others have said, enabling someone to have a pet in their home, as I allow, is certainly right in the 21st century when so many people treat a family pet as a part of their family.
There is large support across the board for the Government’s current proposals, and I am not suggesting that they are materially changed. However, I believe there are some valid conversations to be had around increasing notice periods from two to four months to give people time to find a new home. I have said it before, but in my constituency and in many others—for instance, in the south-west—I doubt anyone could find another rental property in two months, such is the enormous shortage. In addition, I would potentially improve the protected period at the start of the tenancy from six months to at least a year, as well as making all grounds discretionary rather than mandatory so that a court can take into account a tenant’s circumstances before granting possession. Above all—I have said this to various Ministers before—why can we not incentivise long-term landlords to return to the market by offering mortgage interest relief on long-term tenancies? In a constituency such as mine, so many people offer short-term rentals in their holiday cottages and on Airbnb, but if we could switch those people to offering long-term tenancies on their properties by giving them mortgage interest relief, it would fundamentally change the situation overnight and give more renters market security. It would seriously improve the amount of rental stock we have available.
I appreciate the need to safeguard landlords from antisocial tenants and to allow them to get their properties back when needed; we have heard that this evening. However, the tightening of some of the Government’s proposals would not cause an exodus of landlords from the sector or prevent them doing what they wish with their asset. As I said before, I own a part-share and I do not have any fear at all. When a landlord has a good relationship with their tenant, that is how it works—operating good relationships. Generally, people who are trying to rent are decent people. Creating a fairer, more secure and thriving rental sector is achievable, and this Bill is the first step.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Just for the sake of clarity, let me say that I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). He took the correct allotted time. There seems to be a mistake with the clock, but the hon. Gentleman has done the honourable thing, and I thank him very much for that.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Let me first draw Members’ attention to my own entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am also half a residential landlord.
The Bill has taken far too long to reach this stage. It is more than four years since the Government’s manifesto pledge, and now, in the dying months of the current Parliament, the Bill has only just reached Second Reading. Broadly, however, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I support it, and will vote for it this evening. Any legislation that paves the way towards a fairer situation for both renters and landlords must be welcome. Most important is the end of no-fault evictions, and I shall say more about that shortly. We also welcome clauses that will allow renters to keep pets in their homes, and the creation of a housing ombudsman, which will enable decisions to be made more quickly and cheaply for tenants and landlords.
Security for both tenants and landlords is vital, and it is essential that in providing that security for tenants, we do not inadvertently cause an exodus of landlords from the rental market. The Country Land and Business Association has found that 44% of landlords plan to sell or change the use of their rental properties in the next two years, which is cause for concern because at the same time we are seeing an increase in the number of people entering the private rental market. Rightmove estimates that for every property advertised for rent there are 24 applicants, whereas there were just eight in 2019. We need to ensure that we are incentivising landlords to stay in the market and to give renters security once they manage to become that one person in 24 to secure a property to rent.
The length of rental tenancies is an important element in that regard. In its current form, the Bill introduces rolling tenancies without specified end dates. That provides considerable security for tenants, but the six-month protected period is potentially too short. Meanwhile, 43% of landlords do not have a portfolio of properties; they have just one, so the risk of empty months is significant for them. Providing longer-term tenure might alleviate that risk and remove an incentive for landlords to exit the market. The Liberal Democrats’ proposal is to extend the default tenancy from one to three years, and, during that three-year period, only to allow rents to increase by the rate of inflation. That would give both renters and landlords greater stability.
As I mentioned earlier, the Liberal Democrats welcome the banning of section 21 or no-fault evictions. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House have had an enormous amount of casework featuring, for many renters, a sudden and drastic upheaval in their everyday life caused by a section 21 eviction. Such evictions leave people stressed about their security of tenure and worried about not having somewhere to call their home, and can pull the rug from under their feet. They can require people to move to a new area, forcing them to find new schools for their children or new jobs for themselves and try to settle into new communities. That is particularly significant at present, because more families than ever are living in private rented accommodation, and, according to the Renters Reform Coalition, 1.8 million renter households include children.
The Government’s commitment to abolish those types of eviction and legislate for landlords to be able to evict only in “reasonable circumstances” is therefore a welcome step towards ensuring that renters’ rights are protected in law. It will also ensure that tenants living in properties suffering from disrepair or even infestation can report such issues to their landlords without the fear of a “revenge eviction”. It should drive up standards, particularly if coupled with longer tenancies. As always, however, there is a balance to be struck between providing security for tenants and ensuring that the legislation does not cause an exodus of landlords from the sector. It remains important for landlords to be able to remove tenants who are genuinely damaging their property or the surrounding community, but I hope that the Minister will make the definition of what will enable that to happen absolutely clear. It is also important to guard against landlords being able to use flimsy excuses to evict tenants, allowing section 21 evictions to continue in all but name.
I hope that the Minister will elaborate on the reform of the legal system that will be necessary to allow landlords to evict when there is non-payment of rent, unreasonable damage to property or clearly defined antisocial behaviour, or a genuine change in a landlord’s circumstances. A prompt and fair court process is obviously essential to retaining landlord confidence in a reformed system, but delays in that process should not be used as a mechanism to kick this important legislation into the long grass.
The quality of rental housing must also be considered. Black mould, damp, faulty boilers—I am sure we are all aware of the difficult conditions that some rental properties are left in. I say “some” with great seriousness, because not all private landlords leave their properties in disrepair, but we must make the Bill robust enough to challenge those who do. The Government have previously promised to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector. I find it concerning that that legislation has not been introduced, and the Government have instead announced that they will delay the requirements that will force private landlords to meet energy performance certificate standards.
I understand the cautious approach in ensuring stability of supply in the private rented sector, but responsible landlords should not baulk at taking measures over a reasonable timescale that will enhance the value of their asset. I also understand the concern about the usefulness of the EPC, but it should be possible to revisit that and phase in a more effective measure of energy efficiency rather than abandoning it altogether, providing certainty and a fixed timetable that landlords should be able to work to. Without such measures, the Bill risks offering rogue landlords an easy escape route when it comes to improving the quality of the properties.
The Bill is better late than never, but I urge the Government to revisit the issue of length of tenancy, to clarify the circumstances in which, and the legal process through which, a landlord would legitimately be able to evict a problematic tenant or sell the property, and to consider including a decent homes standard so that those renting privately can be sure of a safe and warm home for themselves and their families.
Let me end by calling for a rapid increase in the building of social housing, because a shortage of supply is behind all these issues in the private rented sector, and it leaves far too much power in the hands of landlords.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I have no financial interest in the Bill. I am not a landlord, have never been one, and have no desire to be one. It sounds like a very stressful job. However, I do declare a personal interest, because I am the father of young people in their 20s and 30s, and I am increasingly worried about their lack of opportunities to buy their own home, or indeed rent a home. My generation was fortunate in experiencing full employment, a buoyant housing and rental market, and low levels of net migration. I was able to buy my first house—although it was a bit of a struggle—for £25,000.
The opportunities for young people are so difficult now. and I think they should be at the forefront of our thoughts. They are overwhelmingly reliant on the rental sector for accommodation. The housing crunch means that they have to rent for a larger proportion of their lives, and the Government benchmark for an “unaffordable” level of rent is 30% of income. As of last year, four in 10 under-30s in England, Scotland and Wales are now paying rents that the Government consider “unaffordable”. The crisis is driven by a massive shortage of supply. Policies such as Help to Buy only help to increase demand, while doing nothing when it comes to supply. Only massive, comprehensive planning reform can solve this problem. We have to build many more houses, and we have to free up the rented sector.
We need a public-spirited mentality. Many older people have worked hard and have purchased their homes, but they are undermining the ability of younger people to do the same by objecting to new housing proposals—and, of course, when they object, they are also objecting to the ability of their own children and grandchildren to get on to the housing market. Much opposition to new housing is due to the fact that it is often poorly built, and developments lack the upscaling in infrastructure that is needed to support it. We need to adopt a holistic approach. The housing shortage means that first-time buyers have little to choose from, and delays them from getting on to the property ladder. Young people’s wages have not kept up with the rising cost of living and housing. They are forced to spend more and more of their money on rent, leaving less room for savings, paying off debt, and spending money which will flow into the general economy. Rent increases are outpacing wage growth in most of the UK.
I know that many Members, and rental reformers, have argued in favour of getting rid of no-fault evictions to help give renters security, but I believe the reality is the opposite. Banning no-fault evictions will make the rental market even more stagnant, and will lead to its drying up further. I urge the Government, if the Bill becomes law—as I am sure it will, with Labour support—to allow a cooling-off period so that over the next year, more and more landlords do not just get out of the sector altogether. Apart from adding to the burden of landlords, we do not want to see what happened when Ireland did this. The regulatory burden on landlords there was such that the rental sector shrank massively and Governments have paid the price in terms of popularity. The number of available properties for rent in Ireland has shrunk to a record low. A temporary eviction ban there ended at the end of March this year and did nothing to alleviate the shortage.
No-fault evictions are in some sense a legal fiction. Evicting a tenant for fault is a complex process and the burden is on the landlord to prove a breach of tenancy, arrears of rent, nuisance or antisocial behaviour, criminal activity or substantial disrepair. Depending on the tenancy, the notice period could be as short as two weeks or as long as several months. Notice procedures are highly regulated and must observe the prescribed format. Failure to observe this down to the letter of the law can render a notice invalid, delaying eviction. If the premises are not vacated, it is up to the landlord to initiate costly legal proceedings.
Let us look at what happened in the past. In 1952, under Harold Macmillan as Housing Minister, more than 270,000 new dwellings were completed. In 2019, the year before the pandemic, just 213,000 new dwellings were built. In the statistical year ending March 2019, 612,000 people came to live in the UK, with 385,000 emigrating from the UK. That is a net migration figure of 227,000 people, on top of the housing shortage that already existed. The post-covid statistics are even worse. The Office for National Statistics estimates that net migration to the UK in 2022 was 606,000. The same year, energy performance certificate data suggests that just 252,000 homes were built. The number of people we are letting into the country is 2.4 times the number of new dwellings we are building. This is a crisis and it needs to be addressed.
This does not take into account the fact that even without these newcomers there is already a squeeze on housing. We welcome the fact that we had 174,000 Ukrainians coming here, and perhaps we have not done enough but we have also welcomed people from Afghanistan. No one is claiming that we should not have taken in these refugees in genuine need, but we need to be realistic. If we are letting in these people in need, we need to severely curtail other migration—not just illegal migration but legal immigration—in order to stay afloat and give our own young people a chance to buy and rent houses. Younger and less well-off people are being left to shoulder the burden.
House builders face complex and lengthy planning processes that slow down development, and I cannot agree with the Government on removing housing targets. We need to reimpose housing targets on local authorities and we need a massive house building drive. We need to give many more people the opportunity to rent and we need to control net migration. For all these reasons, I cannot support the Bill tonight.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Today’s Second Reading of the Renters (Reform) Bill is long overdue but, as many have already said, it unfortunately does not go far enough in many areas. Since the Government first promised to end section 21 no-fault evictions, 70,000 households have been evicted or threatened with homelessness. Everybody deserves to have a safe, decent and affordable home, but sadly, on the Tories’ watch, mortgage bills and rents are soaring, fewer people can buy their own home and over 1 million people are still stuck on social housing waiting lists.
My constituency is one of the youngest in the country and has a higher number of private and social renters than the national average. Average house prices are more than £675,000, which is around 15 times the average annual salary, making it much harder for many to get on to the housing ladder. All too often, that leaves them trapped in the private rented sector. The Renters Reform Coalition has rightly asserted that:
“The private rented sector in England is characterised by poor standards, a lack of affordability, discrimination and”—
most importantly—
“insecurity.”
I regularly receive correspondence from constituents complaining about the poor living standards and eye-watering rents that they are facing. That is why I asked the Secretary of State earlier why he would not bring forward provisions in the Bill to address the issues around decent standards. Renters have never been so exposed or so desperately in need of Government action to establish a fairer, more secure and more affordable private rented sector.
In London, private rents rose by over 6% in the year to this September, which is the highest for over a decade. The average rent in London is the equivalent of 40% of the average household income, compared with just 26% across England. The lack of protections for renters is playing a huge role in these trends. That is why reform of this sector is vital, but more needs to be done to protect renters and to ensure that they can live in a home that is safe, decent and affordable.
The Bill as it stands does nothing to address the cost of renting, which has skyrocketed. It contains no requirements for privately rented homes to meet the decent homes standard or provisions to increase councils’ investigative and enforcement powers. The Bill will eventually remove section 21 no-fault evictions, but it still has many issues. Renters will be protected from eviction only for the first six months of their tenancy, rather than the two years that many across the sector have been calling for. They will be entitled to receive only two months’ notice of an eviction rather than four months, which would give them more security, and landlords will be banned from reletting a property after evicting tenants on new grounds for only three months rather than for a year. While the Bill strengthens the law to ensure that landlords can increase rents only once a year, the mechanism for tenants to contest increases that are too high is not strong enough. We need to see a cap on tenancy rent increases at either the lowest end of inflation or wage growth.
I also want to touch on pets in private rented homes. This is an issue I have been working on with Battersea Dogs and Cats Home in my constituency, and an issue that many of my constituents have been writing to me about. It is something that they care about. For many people, their pets bring them physical, mental and social health benefits as they are an integral part of many family units. It is vital that we ensure that clauses 7 and 8 are protected in the Bill, so that tenants have a legal right to request a pet in the property and the landlord must consider that request and not refuse it unnecessarily.
This Bill alone will not solve the housing crisis in the private rented sector, and the Government must look at wholesale reform of the sector. Labour has committed, once in government, to increasing the affordable housing supply, and the Mayor of London has already invested over £3 billion in building genuinely affordable homes. There is so much more that the Government can do. They could look at unfreezing the local housing allowance and restoring the link between the LHA and rising rents. It has been frozen for too many years and it is totally out of step with the cost of renting for many in this sector. Shelter has shown that low-income renters are being forced to find, on average, an additional £648 for a one-bedroom property, which is virtually impossible for many.
This Bill only scratches the surface on fixing the housing emergency created by the Conservatives. To protect our constituents, more needs to be done in every way to ensure that everybody has a safe, decent and affordable home to live in. This is the level of ambition that we need, but unfortunately it has been missing from this Government.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Looking at the housing market, we know that the problem is when people feel insecure. Generally speaking, those who own their own home or who are in council housing feel secure, but the private rented sector, because it is focused on very short-term lets, causes a problem. A one-year tenancy is not a problem for a mobile young man, but if he has a family, with children at school and work in the locality, and if he is unlucky enough to have gone from one private landlord to another, over half a dozen years, before being evicted, it will have a major effect on the family’s life chances. The kids might not be able to go to school, they might have a longer bus ride, and sometimes their exams might be affected. Sometimes parents have to change jobs.
It is laudable for the Government to try to lengthen tenancies in order to provide a little more security for those in the private rented sector, but I am not sure whether the formula in this Bill will actually do that. Like some of my colleagues, I am somewhat sceptical. There is quite a lot of room to improve the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) said, the Bill would probably be more effective if landlords were incentivised to keep tenants for longer by being able to claim their mortgage interest against tax. We would then end up with a market that is much more logical and better for tenants who want a long-term, secure tenancy. In other words, a fiscal intervention would be more likely to succeed than many of the interventions the Government are currently suggesting.
Of course, as many Members have said, one solution is to build more houses—more for people to buy and more for council housing. It is bizarre that some local authorities have got into trouble buying shopping centres and PV farms when, actually, the money would have been much better spent on providing people with a decent home. We all know that our local authorities spend a lot of money on putting people in temporary accommodation, with possibly only a microwave to heat their food. Investment in homes, which is good for people’s mental wellbeing and their children’s upbringing, should be the priority of any Government, rather than being a question of right or left. As a Government, we ought to focus more on building than on messing about with managing the housing market.
I am concerned that some things in the Bill may well put off private landlords. I sometimes feel that private landlords have a thankless task. They tend to get kicked by everybody, even though they are trying to do the right thing. Fundamentally, if we make it more difficult for landlords to get their property, they will think twice before renting it out. We have to be extremely careful when we legislate in this area, because the consequence of making it more difficult for private owners is that we may well end up with more people being evicted and more people falling on the council for a home.
The Secretary of State introduced the Bill with his usual panache, but I was amazed that two large areas have not really been included. First, the Bill will not work for student accommodation and, in fact, could have very perverse incentives. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is an expert in this sector, and he made some interesting observations. He asked what would happen, if we had this system and tried to introduce a separate system for students, where a student lives with somebody who is in work. There are all sorts of difficulties that the Bill will have to iron out.
It is vital that those who have invested in property near our universities—our universities seem to be property companies, as far as I can see—have the certainty of one year moving on when another year comes in, in good time, so that people can sort out their accommodation. We really should tell people what we are doing when we introduce a Bill, rather than waiting for what might come out during the Bill’s passage.
My other concern is about moving from section 21, which is clearly a blunt instrument, to the courts. We currently have a major backlog in our courts, on which I think they are making some progress, but the Bill will inevitably slow down the process for landlords. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), suggested that perhaps there ought to be property courts to fast-track the complaints. There are all sorts of issues.
Throughout most of my parliamentary career, when people have come to my surgery to say that they are going to court, I have tended to say, “Don’t do it.” In this instance the Government are trying to get people to go into the legal system, and I worry that it will take longer. I worry whether this is the right solution for either tenants or property owners. Have the Government done a proper assessment? Are we confident that the system will work? The Bill has been introduced on a promise that it will be sorted out, but the courts are the responsibility of another Department, not the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I worry about that.
This Bill is not fully formed, but I think it could be improved. It is one of those Bills for which Committee consideration will be vital. I will support the Government tonight, but I will be looking very carefully at how the Bill is improved as it goes through this House.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
For my constituents in Liverpool, West Derby, and for millions across the country, the private rented sector is the only housing option available because of the disastrous turning away from the post-war mass council house provision. Those long-term political decisions have led us to our current crisis.
The private rented sector has utterly failed to provide homes that are decent, affordable and allow people to live in safety, security and dignity. More than one in 10 privately rented homes contains a category 1 hazard that could kill or seriously maim, and tenants who raise complaints are two and a half times more likely to be handed an eviction notice, which often leads to a forced move that is disruptive to the family and to children’s education.
Local authorities have had their resources and capabilities decimated under the Government’s austerity programme. This morning alone, three families in West Derby have contacted my office after being given an eviction notice by a private landlord, with housing provision scant in Liverpool.
I have previously raised in the House the case of my constituent with asthma whose landlord left him in a damp property with no gas supply in the middle of winter. I have raised the cases of constituents, including children, who were hospitalised and suffered serious health impacts as a result of disrepair in privately rented homes, and cases of families living in fear of bailiffs, having been served a section 21 notice by their landlord after complaining about terrible conditions in their home. One constituent said, “Section 21 takes the humanity out of the situation and that’s precisely the problem—we are humans and our lives are being carelessly destroyed!”
Since I raised these cases a year and a half ago, my constituents have seen no changes to the law, so we finally welcome the Second Reading of the Renters (Reform) Bill, which we hope might at least bring an end to the nightmare of section 21 no-fault evictions. The delays to the Bill have been shameful. Nearly a quarter of a million private renters have been served with no-fault eviction notices since the Government first pledged to ban them in April 2019. During the delay between First Reading and Second Reading alone, Citizens Advice has had to help more than 10,500 people with section 21 evictions.
The Secretary of State has now said:
“Implementation of the reforms in this bill won’t proceed until further improvements are in place and HMCTS is fully prepared for these changes.”
How long will that take? Can the Secretary of State explain how this commitment will be reflected in legislation?
My constituents and hundreds of thousands of others have zero faith that they will ever see a ban on section 21 evictions under this Government, because they have seen 13 years of the Government’s complete destruction of the justice system, which has caused so much damage to those seeking justice in so many sections of society, including housing. I sit on the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. From the Secretary of State’s response to the Committee’s report, it feels as if the ideological destruction of the justice system by his Government is now being used as a cover to bow down to the lobbying from landlords—many of them seem to be on his Back Benches—and to kick the ban of section 21 into the long grass.
Added to that are the concerns of tenants, unions and charities, who welcome the ban on section 21 evictions but are concerned that the Bill will replace section 21 with potential loopholes for landlords to evict tenants under other terms that are unfair or extremely vaguely defined. They are also concerned that landlords will continue to be able, in effect, to evict tenants by raising rents to unsustainable levels. I hope that the Secretary of State will address those fears and loopholes when the Bill is in Committee.
This Bill should be an opportunity to empower tenants and hardwire social justice into the system. So many people are looking to the Bill to rebalance the scales of justice, which are weighted so heavily against tenants and so in favour of profit. Any delay in bringing in a no-loopholes ban on section 21 evictions really is unforgivable. A nation awaits.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my declaration on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been a landlord for 20-plus years. I should also note that I have been a tenant, too.
A wise man once said:
“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it.”
He also said:
“The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
Whenever this is the case, there are disastrous consequences. We see this every time Labour is elected. Who among us will ever forget the note that Labour left us in 2010? It said:
“I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards—and good luck!”
As Conservatives, we understand the importance of sound economics and trying not to interfere with the market, yet I am concerned that this Bill may be guilty of just that. The Bill could well result in fewer properties to rent, and in sky-high rents.
I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me in Edlington in my constituency. I showed him at first hand the problems that landlords and constituents are facing as a result of the decades of neglect that the area has faced under Doncaster’s Labour-controlled council. I am still hopeful that levelling-up funding will help to transform this part of my constituency. I have written a plan for Edlington, which I know my right hon. Friend has read. On a positive note, he will be pleased to know that his visit has bucked up all the stakeholders: they are now beginning to address issues that I have raised. My constituents are very grateful, as am I.
I also thank the Secretary of State for his recent letter to me, in which he announced changes that he has made to the Bill. They were needed. That proves that the Secretary of State is willing to listen, but there remain many issues that need addressing. The simple fact of the matter is that the more bureaucratic and difficult we make renting for landlords, the more incentive they will have to sell up and reduce the number of properties on the market to let. With fewer properties for rent, scarcity means that rents will increase. Is that what tenants want? We should be helping landlords and tenants equally, not one over the other. Savills has carried out research on the issue, and tens of thousands of landlords are doing just that: selling up. More are expected to follow.
There are those who say, “So what if the landlord sells? What is all the worry? The house is going nowhere. If it is sold, an owner-occupier or another landlord will buy it.” They are right—and if an owner occupier does buy it, that is fine. But if good landlords cannot make a property pay, they may just sell to an unscrupulous landlord who will make it pay. Is that what we seek to do: to make the property market so costly and so bureaucratic that only the cowboy landlords can make it pay? I do hope not.
By bringing this Bill forward, the Government will inadvertently increase the rents that many of my constituents are paying. No doubt that will reduce the quality of the properties, too. That cannot be right. Trying to protect any increases in rent by allowing only annual increases will no doubt result in landlords putting up the rent each year. It makes sense: that is what happens when the market is interfered with. Yet, prior to the scheme coming into effect, many landlords have allowed good tenants to pay rent at the same rate, year on year.
Rolling tenancies give neither the landlord nor the tenant any security. To allow notice to be given from day one is, I am afraid, nothing short of ludicrous. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State has ever had to try and find new tenants. Tidying up a property after the last tenant absconded is a job in itself, and then there is advertising the property, dealing with scores of viewings and dealing with agreements, deposit schemes and so on. To go through all that and then allow a tenant to give notice on day one and leave after two months is, as I say, ludicrous.
I can understand the attraction of an ombudsman and a database, but we must be realistic: this will only add costs. Either that will be another reason for a landlord to quit the sector, or it will increase the tenant’s rent. Tenants should see that these proposals will end up costing them hundreds of pounds every month.
I am sure the Government’s intentions are honourable, but the fact remains that although the Bill may initially look favourable to many, it simply is not. We should be careful not to follow the socialist path. Many socialist policies look good for politicians; that is why they win elections, but that failure to understand the market and basic economics is why they always end up bankrupting the country. Conservative Members understand economics and want to do the right thing for the right reason, no matter how it looks. That is the reason I am a Conservative.
I ask the Government again to listen to the industry and to meet me once more. Let us not do what that wise man Thomas Sowell said of politicians, and disregard the first lesson of economics. The outcome will always be worst for those who can least afford it, which will be many of my constituents.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The housing system is rigged against renters. In Britain today, on average, private renters spend about a third of their incomes on rent—on properties that are disproportionately in shoddy conditions, where problems such as damp and mould are rife—and things are getting worse. Rents have soared to record highs and have gone up 33% outside London in the past four years. Homes in England are, on average, not only the smallest in Europe, but in the worst condition and among the least affordable.
The rights that renters have to live in these often overpriced, overcrowded and unsafe homes are pathetically weak. With a no-fault eviction notice handed to a private renter every three minutes, many renters are forced into homelessness. Research shows that renters are so worried about the risk of being evicted that they often do not ask their landlord for vital repairs or challenge grossly unfair rent hikes.
In my constituency, I recently had a case that highlighted the need for stronger renters’ rights and the abolition of no-fault evictions. Having lived in her home for 15 years, Mandy and her two sons were issued with a no-fault eviction, giving them just two months to find a new home. As Mandy said,
“the threat of eviction is so stressful. The thought of having to move my family into temporary accommodation away from our community has kept me up at night.”
This was particularly difficult for one of her young sons, who is disabled and has complex needs. With the family on the brink of homelessness and bailiffs turning up, the community tenants union ACORN stepped in and supported Mandy and her family, which allowed more time to find a new home. I am pleased to say that, with the eviction delayed, they found a new home, but not everyone is so lucky.
That is why no-fault evictions need to be banned. Although on paper that is what the Bill says it will do, I share colleagues’ concerns. Not only is the Bill filled with loopholes, giving unscrupulous landlords opportunities to get round the scrapping of no-fault evictions, but today it was revealed that the Government will indefinitely delay introducing the ban, promising that it will come into effect only after court reforms have been implemented —and who knows when that will happen? Of course, this delay has been welcomed by the landlord lobby—and no doubt by many landlords on the Government Benches.
The Government promised a new deal for private renters, with quality, affordability and fairness at its heart, but this Bill is far too little, far too late. Renters do not just need a real, watertight ban on no-fault evictions; they need rent caps and an end to ever soaring rent rises. They need an end to the Thatcherite right to buy and the privatisation of council homes, which has seen two thirds of council homes sold off and almost half being bought up by private landlords, only to be leased out again at far higher rents. Renters also need a Government-led council house building programme to build hundreds of thousands of high-quality new homes—owned by the council, obviously—every year. Ultimately, we need a Government who shift the balance away from bad landlords and big property developers, in favour of renters and working-class communities.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
We have a mandate from the British people to deliver this Bill, and I know that passing it into law will be warmly welcomed by renters in the 4.6 million households who are renting nationwide. Support and fairness is what this Bill delivers, to both renters and landlords alike.
Last year, the English housing survey identified that 23% of privately rented properties do not meet the decent homes standard. The consequences of unsafe rental properties cost the NHS £340 million each year. I am sure that we can agree that this is an unnecessary cost, but it is made up of thousands upon thousands of individual stories of miserable living conditions.
From day one in this job—and sadly, week in and week out—much of my casework has involved poor housing conditions. Resolving these issues gives my caseworking team, Diana, Mollie and me, enormous satisfaction, but it is distressing to hear of the health impacts on vulnerable constituents. That was brought to the fore for all of us with the news at the beginning of the year of the death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak in Rochdale from respiratory issues caused by exposure to mould. I hope that we can all agree across the House that no family should suffer the loss of a child in that way. Fear of eviction should not be a reason for not asking for repairs to be done.
Since assured shorthold tenancies were introduced, renters have been offered no long-term security of tenure, and private landlords have been able to repossess their properties without any establishment of wrongdoing by the tenants. However, that is not to say that many landlords do not do an excellent job in delivering good-quality housing and support to their tenants, while exercising their rights properly and with good intention. The goal is to increase their number and for more landlords to follow their example.
A large number of my constituents in Guildford have written to me in support of the Bill, for many reasons, including the provisions that will give tenants the right to request a pet in their property and enable landlords to require pet insurance to cover any damages. My constituents think that is a great idea. As a pet owner, I wholly agree with them.
I have also been considering the issue of tenancy length, with students in Guildford in mind. There are some fundamentals that we need to get right. Landlords need full access to their properties after term finishes in the summer, to prepare them for their next tenants in the autumn. I am pleased that the Secretary of State gave reassurances on student lets in his opening speech.
Between 2010 and 2020, the Conservative Government reduced the number of non-decent private rental homes by 16%. The Secretary of State thinks we can go further, and so do I.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I see the impacts of the lack of regulation in the private rented sector in my constituency every single week. In Dulwich and West Norwood, rents have been spiralling for many years, and all too often the quality of accommodation falls way below what any tenant should be able to expect.
I have in my constituency a landlord who owns 90 homes in a development called Dorchester Court. The landlord is on the Sunday Times rich list. Their properties are in an absolutely dire state. Wooden props support the window frames. Plastic sheeting acts as an ineffective shield against moisture penetrating the walls. The heating is unreliable in the winter. The water pipes are made from lead, which contaminates the water supply to a level that is not safe for human health. The council has been trying for a number of years to take enforcement action against this landlord, but it has been waiting many months for a court date. In the meantime, the same landlord has used section 21 eviction notices—in a way that, in my experience, is entirely common—simply to ratchet up rents. Tenants are served with a section 21 notice terminating the tenancy, alongside an offer of a new tenancy at a higher level—often a significantly higher level—of rent. If any Member doubts the need for additional regulation of the private rented sector, they should visit Dorchester Court in my constituency, and, in five minutes, they will see how the regulatory framework is failing tenants across the country.
Section 8 allows for landlords to get their property back when they have a legitimate reason to do so. Section 21 is a pernicious, destabilising force in the housing rental market and there is no place for it. The consequences of section 21 are more than simply contractual. They are found in poor mental health and anxiety, in increasing homelessness and financial hardship, in children living in accommodation that no child should have to live in, and in children having to worry about the anxiety that their parents are experiencing because of the possibility of losing their home at any time. It is very disappointing that the Government are delaying the ban on section 21 evictions by allowing a loophole in this legislation. I sincerely hope that, in Committee, they will reconsider their position.
I turn now to an amendment to the Bill that I plan to table. Earlier this year, my constituents lost their son, a first year university student, to suicide—a devastating loss for any parent to bear. Their son had signed a tenancy for his second-year accommodation and his parents had signed a guarantor agreement. After their son’s death, they discovered that the guarantor agreement applied even in the event of his death, and the letting agent began pursuing them for the rent. It was rent for a tenancy that had not yet started and a tenancy that he would never take up. This is a shockingly punitive act against parents who were already suffering the worst possible loss.
In extensive correspondence with the letting agent on my constituents’ behalf, it refused to budge, simply stating that the rent was a contractual obligation and, although it was unfortunate, my constituents were bound to its terms. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss the issues raised by this case. She has explained that the Bill will enable any tenant to terminate a tenancy with two months’ notice, but two months’ rent is a financial penalty that no bereaved guarantor should have to pay. This type of clause is not in every guarantor agreement, and it is not necessary. Insurance policies can cover loss of rent in the event of the death of a tenant. I ask the Government to reconsider their position and, in Committee, to accept my amendment, which would straightforwardly outlaw the pursuit of guarantors for rent owed by a deceased tenant and stop any other family having to suffer this egregious additional pain, anxiety and hardship at a time of great sadness and vulnerability.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
Listening to this debate, I am surprised that we are being accused of dither and delay when 13 years of Labour government never produced a Bill such as this. However, that is for Labour Members to discuss and to wrestle with on their own terms.
I welcome the Bill and support its sentiment, but, as with all pieces of legislation that pass through this place, the devil is in the detail. The Minister and the Secretary of State have a trifecta on their hands. They must reassure Members in this place and in the House of Lords; reassure tenants; and reassure landlords, because, at the moment, I am not entirely sure that we are there. Just as not all tenants are bad tenants, not all landlords are bad landlords. We must make sure that what we provide in the Bill today, in Committee and on Third Reading will reassure both tenants and landlords and take them with us. As many Members have said, it is a balancing act of ensuring the rights of property ownership along with the rights of good, firm tenancies.
I have three areas on which to focus my remarks. The first is the removal of fixed terms—following the brilliant speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), I shall also mention the unforeseen consequences, which she talked about. Perhaps I can give an example. My constituency has one of the largest second home and Airbnb markets in the country. Under the Government’s proposal that tenants will be able to hand back a tenancy with a minimum of two months’ notice, someone could come down, pretend that they are going to rent a house on the long-term rental market, go there for June, July and August, and then hand back the tenancy. With this clause, we would completely obliterate the long-term rental market because people would take advantage of it as a short-term letting market and then hand the property back.
The disparity in prices between the short-term let market and the long-term let market is unbelievably significant in south Devon. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that point, because that is exactly what people will do. They will rent a house on the pretence that they will stay in it for a significant period, they will be there for the summer, and then they will give it back. That is what the clause allows. We have to ensure that the unforeseen consequences are addressed.
Unless the Minister can give me some reassurance, I worry deeply about what the long-term rental market will look like. At the moment, across south Devon only 70 homes are available for people to rent. We do not demonise landlords without risk. We need to incentivise people to put their houses into the long-term rental market so that they can provide that social value. That is exactly why the Country Land and Business Association has said that it thinks that the rural private housing sector is set to shrink, with 44% of landlords either selling their property or changing its usage class.
My second point is about court reform. I am distinctly uneasy about voting for a Bill that does not come with enforcement and arbitration measures. We have been here before. It is all very well to give a brilliant speech in this place, and clip it and put it on YouTube or Instagram, but if we do not address the legal mechanisms that are needed to enforce the measures, we do our constituents a disservice. It is part of the process in this place, and it worries me that the Government are suggesting that we vote blindly on a piece of legislation that does not have that enforcement mechanism in it.
As I have said, the devil is in the detail, so perhaps the Minister could tell us what the timeline will be for the full creation of the court system or arbitration system. How quickly will we see judgments come along? How will we look to expand the wording on antisocial behaviour, and what will the actual terminology be? When considering a Bill a few years ago, we had a very vague term for the acceptable level of noise. The people who had to enforce that were the police.
If we do not have specifics in our laws they end up being interpreted, sometimes for the better but more often for the worse. Again, I ask the Government to be clear about their laws and language, so that we can ensure that the Bill is drafted in the right way to help both tenants and landlords. I do not feel that this is particularly party political, or that many people from across the House would disagree with those points; it is about having good law and good legislation, and we are all part of that system.
My third point is about the social value of landlords. Both the shadow Minister and the Secretary of State made exactly the same point: they expressed the value of landlords in the housing mix. We have to remember that, because without landlords out there providing houses, our housing market would be a lot worse off. We therefore also have to ensure that under the rights of property ownership, which this place has protected over the years in many different forms, we are clear about the grounds for eviction. I do not think that it is controversial to ask for evictions on the basis of a breach of contract, persistent late payment or damage to property. We have to be clear about those things.
No Member who has spoken in the debate, which has been broadly co-operative, wants people to be homeless or to live in bad housing, but we have to be absolutely clear about what we are asking of tenants and landlords. We have to provide reassurance and ensure that we are incentivising the long-term rental market. By the way, we could also look at reinstituting section 24 mortgage rate relief, but that may be a debate for another time. We have to ensure that we are not pushing houses back into short-term lets, that we are creating a transparent legal system, and that we are looking after the value of tenants and landlords in equal measure. As I said at the beginning, this framework is welcome, but unfortunately there is more work to be done.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), I begin by informing the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am also a parliamentary ambassador for PricedOut, the campaign for affordable housing.
Let us give credit where it is due: the Government deserve praise for bringing the Bill forward at last. It has the potential to be transformational, bringing renters much needed additional security. However, if, as the Government statement on Friday seemed to suggest, Ministers are planning to delay indefinitely introducing the ban on section 21 evictions, the Bill will be a huge missed opportunity. Regardless of that issue, if the Bill is to reach its full potential, it must be strengthened significantly and its many outstanding loopholes must be firmly closed.
One such area of concern is notice periods. As we have heard, the Bill retains a two-month notice period when tenants receive an eviction notice on the grounds of landlord need. But with rents at their highest levels since records began and housing in chronically short supply, it is, as Shelter has argued, almost impossible for many tenants to find a suitable property to move into in just eight short weeks.
We must also remember in this debate that, according to the charity Crisis, the loss of a private tenancy is the leading cause of homelessness in the UK. Short notice periods—along, of course, with no-fault evictions—contribute to that, resulting in a disastrous situation for the individual involved and huge expense for the taxpayer. I hope to hear from the Minister why she believes that two months is enough time for tenants to relocate in such a difficult housing market.
I turn to fault-based evictions. I have significant concerns, which I hope can be addressed during the passage of the Bill. One is ground 14, which, as it stands, proposes widening the definition of antisocial behaviour to cover any behaviour capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. Mr Deputy Speaker, every Member of this House has the capability to cause nuisance or annoyance—and many of us do it frequently in this Chamber. How on earth could we stop a rogue landlord from exploiting such an extremely broad definition? They could make a false claim about a tenant’s capacity to cause antisocial behaviour and evict them simply to hike up the rent.
Protections must be built into the system to avoid section 21 evictions through the back door. What safeguards are in place specifically to stop victims of domestic abuse from facing eviction on antisocial behaviour grounds? Do we really want those who suffer at the hands of their abusers to lose their homes as well? There is much work to be done in this area.
Another reason for fault-based evictions, of course, is rent arrears. Again, no one denies that such evictions can be reasonable in certain circumstances, but safeguards for the vulnerable are vital and a sensible balance is needed. Ground 8A means that someone needs to have been in two months’ worth of rent arrears for just one day on three occasions to be liable for eviction. As we all know from our own casework, rent arrears can arise for a variety of reasons: unexpected bills, illness, redundancy. In a cost of living crisis, tenants could well find themselves falling foul of ground 8A through no fault of their own.
I will be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the impact of making ground 8A evictions discretionary rather than mandatory, so that, as in Scotland, the case would come before a judge who could evaluate whether the eviction was justified or a resolution between landlord and tenant could be found. That could help someone to stay in their home, protecting them from the devastation of homelessness.
The headline measure of the Bill should be the long-overdue ban on section 21, but delays in the court system will hold up that important measure for some time. None the less, other potentially positive steps include the proposed introduction of a private rented sector ombudsman and a property portal to which landlords must be signed up. Crucial to the effectiveness of those measures is the capacity of local authorities to enforce them. That is a significant concern given the cuts to local authority budgets since 2010 and the resultant hollowing-out of non-statutory services.
That is not the only area in which the capacity of local authorities is a significant worry. The Local Government Association has raised specific concerns about local authorities’ ability to enforce compliance with the ban on landlords re-letting or remarketing their property within three months of using “landlord need” eviction grounds, as it appears in practice that that system would be wholly reliant on former tenants noticing that the property is back on the market after they have been evicted. Many landlords will surely chance their arm in that situation and put their property back on the market within the re-let period, so I encourage the Minister to consider whether that period should be longer, and what steps she might take to ensure that such a period is effectively monitored without tenants and former tenants having to put their head above the parapet and report a landlord who fails to comply with the law.
Notice periods, fault-based evictions, the use of ground 14, the rigidity of ground 8A—there is much work still to do on the Bill. I support it in principle, but I hope there is significant movement in Committee.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me first refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for renters and rental reform and am supported by Generation Rent.
It is almost hard to believe that the words “ban on no-fault evictions” will not be in the next Tory party manifesto. Those words have been in Queen’s Speeches. The Tories have promised, but they have not delivered. Now we know, of course, that that is because there was an almighty fight on the Conservative Benches—a fight that is still going on by the sounds of it. To all the dodgy landlords and vested interests watching this debate, I say that if they delay the Bill and its implementation further—as has been rumoured today—the result will be rental reform at the very core of the next general election campaign, and when Labour is in government, legislation might well go even further beyond what some of those vested interests want.
Enough about the politics; let us get down to the Bill itself. Central to this legislation is the abolition of section 21 no-fault evictions, which have been the blight of renters for many years. The aim is to provide safe homes that allow renters to establish roots in the community and start families—that is lacking at the moment. I am concerned, however, that the vastly expanded grounds for eviction might undermine the very concept of the Bill. Under schedule 1, grounds 1 and 1A remain no-fault clauses. They are for the landlord moving themselves in or selling. To prevent potential abuse of those grounds, it is crucial that landlords provide unequivocal evidence of their intentions, including through solicitors, agents’ letters or sworn statements to the court. After using those grounds, landlords should submit another statement within 16 weeks of possession, for example. Landlords who genuinely need to possess under those grounds have nothing to lose in making such legal declarations, and the clauses are useless without them.
There may be legitimate circumstances in which a ground is no longer relevant—someone might have been evicted but the landlord no longer wants to sell the property or have a family member move in, for example. Should that happen, reasonable compensation should be offered to the person who has been evicted. It is not fair to use the grounds and then say, “Whoopsie-daisy, I didn’t realise that I couldn’t sell.” There must be redress for the tenant who has been harmed.
Ground 6 allows for an eviction when the landlord is found to be at fault. Although I do not think that people who are unfit to be landlords should remain landlords, this ground penalises the tenants by discouraging them from co-operating with enforcement action. As such, we need either compensation for any no-fault eviction, or an administrative mechanism that keeps the tenant in the property but removes the landlord’s day-to-day control for as long as that tenant wishes to remain.
Grounds 8 and 8A deal with tenants who are in arrears. While there are some protections for universal credit payments, there are no protections where the arrears are irregular under ground 8A. Arrears might be repeated but very short, and the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance has highlighted the risk that this poses to victims of domestic abuse. The courts need to have discretion; these clauses cannot be mandatory.
Lastly, ground 14 is one I have raised with the Minister. We need to ensure that antisocial behaviour is not an excuse for a section 21 eviction by the back door. Equally, the idea of a student eviction clause is very worrying; the National Union of Students does not support it, and I do not see how it could be practically enforced. I would want to see that idea fleshed out in Committee, or a pledge that it will be ditched.
I welcome the Government’s inclusion of two methods of enforcement. The first is local government; the second, which is more encouraging, is the ombudsperson. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has agreed to look at merging the ombudspersons—we have too many at the moment—but we need to make sure that that ombudsperson has the authority to rectify matters in a timely manner, one that still allows people to go to the courts if they wish to pursue that method of redress.
It troubles me that the landlord’s notice period has not been changed from two months. In my view, that notice period should be four months, and importantly, tenants should have the flexibility to move out during a notice period: if a tenant is given notice and moves out the next week, they should not be liable for two months’ worth of rent. That seems wrong to me.
Turning to protection periods, tenants will have protection from eviction for the first six months of their tenancy. Currently, they have six months after they sign each new assured shorthold tenancy, meaning that long-term tenants might have fewer protections than they do at the moment. Renters need to be protected: one proposal is to give them two years’ protection, which is a very good idea that we should explore in Committee.
On rent increases, we must ensure that we do not face a wave of economic evictions. Otherwise, what will happen is that the landlord will whack up the rent, and someone will have to move. The rental tribunal’s decisions being tied to markets means that an increase will be considered valid if the final rent aligns with market rates in local areas. That is clearly unaffordable for the LHA rate, which is under 30%—I remind colleagues that in 2010, that rate was 50%. It has been decreased year after year, and we need to address that. The Bill is also in danger of failing to address the “no DSS” benefit discrimination and the rampant guarantor discrimination that happens all the time in the rental sector, as well as affordability checks, which are used as methods of economic discrimination. Those problems also need to be addressed in the Bill.
I am a fan of the theory behind the property portal, but I fear that it might end up being like the bad landlords list, which never really worked and was never enforced. I appreciate that there are fines for not registering a property, but those fines should be paid to the tenant, as is the case with the deposit protection schemes. That would encourage tenants to make sure that their landlord is registered—they would receive recompense if the landlord was not. We cannot have local authorities doing all the checking: they just do not have the resources at the moment. We need everyone to be able to support these reforms.
Mrs Elphicke
My co-chair of the APPG on this subject is making some very important points. Could he further develop the important principle of the tenant being compensated for some of the no-fault or other fines that he has mentioned?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I would love to, but we do not have much time. However, there needs to be some discussion about what compensation someone will be given if they are no-fault evicted: for example, should they be given two months’ compensation, which could pay for a deposit and the first month’s rent in their new property? If the landlord has not registered, and the tenant is then evicted because their landlord has failed to be a good landlord—which is, of course, one of the grounds—what compensation will that person receive, enabling them to move into new, decent accommodation? Their money is tied up in the deposit and in having paid the rent. There needs to be some serious thought about how we compensate tenants so that they can move on in the private rented sector. Some people have also said that the property portal might be a back-door way of getting rid of selective licencing, which would be a great mistake.
The real story of these reform methods is the work of tens of thousands of hard-working activists, advice workers, policy leaders and organisations up and down this country, many of them in the Renters Reform Coalition, to which I give much praise. We are close to significant reform, but we must be vigilant.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Never a day goes by without a constituent, or more than one constituent, contacting me about problems they are having with their housing. In particular, my caseworkers and I have been startled in recent months by the number of people coming to us who have been served with section 21 notices. I will give just one example.
I was contacted just a few weeks ago by a family in my constituency who had been served both a section 21 notice and a section 13 notice of increasing the rent. The son in the family has epilepsy, asthma and autism, and he attends a local school where he has an education, health and care plan in place. The family cannot afford private rent, but with the social housing stock under so much pressure, they were terrified they would not find a home close enough to his school and to much-needed family support.
Many of my other constituents’ stories reflect this one—families with disabled members who are distraught at losing their homes to landlords who are putting up the rents, making them beyond their reach. These are just some of the 70,000 households that have been unfairly evicted since the Government first promised that they would take forward this legislation. How many more of my constituents will be served a section 21 notice before this legislation not only gets on to the statute book, but becomes effective with the reforms to the justice system and the courts?
I have had so many constituents write to me asking us to press for this Bill to come forward, but I fear we will not have met their expectations and their hopes for the protection of tenants in the future, particularly in relation to section 21. There is no doubt that passing the Bill into law will be a vital step forward, but it needs to be effective as well. So the issues about the courts need to be resolved as a matter of urgency, and I hope that the Minister will address those in her closing comments.
I have some other serious reservations about how some of provisions will work in practice. Just on the issue of section 21 evictions, the new grounds for landlords to reclaim possession make it clear that they will be banned from re-letting their property only for three months after evicting a tenant. The kind of rent increases we are seeing today may well mean that repossession is still well worth it for a landlord, I am afraid. Furthermore, many of the families that come to me after receiving a section 21 notice are currently able to receive priority assistance from the council due to their risk of homelessness, but this Bill appears to remove the right to immediate help if families are served with a possession notice. In the absence of section 21, we desperately need this right to assistance to be reinstated as the Bill passes through its many stages.
Moving away from the specific issue of no-fault evictions, I am concerned about the Government’s U-turn on the promise they made in the White Paper to introduce a requirement that privately rented homes meet the decent homes standard. There was some discussion of this in the opening statements, but I would like further assurance from the Minister in her closing remarks that the issue of decent standards, which are so much needed in private rented housing, will be urgently addressed and brought forward in this Bill.
Earlier this year, I heard from a constituent renting from a private landlord who was left without a cooker for three months of his tenancy, as well as having ongoing issues with his boiler and with rising damp, all of which he had attempted to take up with his landlord. We of course took up these issues locally to try to resolve the problems. In fact, he left the property before they were resolved, leaving the problems for the next tenant, as I understand it. However, at my constituent’s request, I wrote to the Department on 8 August to ask what was being done to stop private landlords from leaving families in homes that are not up to standard, so he was sufficiently concerned to see this as a policy issue, not just an issue for himself. Unless councils are given greater enforcement powers to tackle a wider range of standards breaches, and the resources to deal with those in practical terms, I am concerned that renters such as my constituent will not be protected from landlords who fail to fulfil their responsibilities.
My constituents have also been writing to me about pets, and it is positive that there will be a right to request to have a pet. I hope that during the passage of the Bill we can define the phrase “unreasonably refused”, or I fear that too many renters will find it to be a right in name but not in practice.
The provisions in the Bill are desperately needed by my constituents and those of all hon. Members. I urge the Government to end the dithering and delay in enabling this Bill over the past five years. I also hope they will take the further steps that so many Members have identified and that are required to protect our constituents from homelessness and poor-quality housing.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is about time. It is nearly five years since promises were first made to tenants facing soaring rents, huge energy bills, cold and damp homes, and limited rights. We are now on our 15th Housing Minister since 2010, and the Government are fast running out of time to make good on the promises in the Bill. Unforgivably late though it is, the Bill is important and provides a genuine opportunity to move towards the most basic goal of creating fairer, greener homes. It is clear that the market has become over-commodified and grossly distorted. We have a generation who will never be able to earn enough to have a mortgage, and cannot even afford their rents now. Key workers are being forced out of the places they work in, families uprooted, children forced to move schools, revenge evictions for those who complain—the list goes on.
More people are becoming homeless following rising evictions from the private rented sector. Annual Government figures released recently show a 23% increase in people at risk of homelessness because of a section 21 no-fault eviction. I welcome this delayed but essential Bill, not least because Brighton and Hove is one of the most expensive cities to rent in outside London, with a large proportion of renters being ripped off on a long-term basis with no end in sight. Recent analysis shows that in our city rents have jumped by 47% since 2011, and wages have risen by 35%. To put that another way, since 2011, renters in Brighton and Hove paid £530 million more to landlords than if housing costs had matched wages.
There are some good principles and useful changes in the Bill, such as measures on security of tenure, a new ombudsman and so on, but there are also glaring loopholes and big omissions. In particular, the measures on rent increases are inadequate and rely on a resource-intensive and time-consuming appeals process that could see tenants worse off at the end of it, as the tribunal process includes a power to impose a higher rent than the one the tenant is appealing. At the very least that power needs to be removed. Indeed, Ministers need to go further and get to grips with the fact that many people simply cannot afford their rent as it stands.
Many of my constituents are paying massively more than 30% of their gross monthly income on housing costs. That is unsustainable and we need a conversation about a national system for rent controls with local flexibility. Such a system will need to be both bold and implemented gradually and fairly, introduced alongside a suite of policies to address the housing crisis, including a major increase in social house building and real support for community-led housing.
As well as tackling demand and sky-high rents, dealing with insecurity of tenure is vital, so it is right that the Bill contains measures for periodic tenancies, and to ban section 21 no-fault evictions, and that students in the general PRS are also included. As many have said, it is deeply concerning that last Friday the Government appeared to have kicked that part of the Bill down the road—who knows how long for?—by saying that they first need to fix the mess that they have made of the court delays. We need to know exactly when we can expect that part of the Bill to come back.
Even before last Friday’s attack on the section 21 provision, there had been noises about a possible Government amendment to exclude students from the reforms. I remind the Secretary of State of his own White Paper, in which he says:
“It is important that students have the same opportunity to live in a secure home and challenge poor standards as others in the PRS.”
Well, I agree with that.
As well as ensuring that students remain included, we need to firmly shut another glaring loophole in the no-fault eviction ban. In the Bill, if a landlord seeks to sell or to move in themselves, they can issue a no-fault eviction notice and the no-let period after they use that exemption is just three months. That is too short and could easily be abused. For example, a landlord could evict tenants by saying they want to move in and re-let just 12 weeks later. That no-let period should be nearer 12 months. Good landlords genuinely using these exemptions would have nothing to fear from that.
I welcome the proposals for the portal, although I would like to see far more issues covered on it. That portal has real potential to improve enforcement of energy-efficiency standards and to ensure warm and dry homes. I was dismayed when the Prime Minister announced last month that he would be scrapping the updated minimum energy efficiency standards for private rented homes under the pretext of saving people from expensive upgrades. It is not hard-pressed tenants and families who will be required to upgrade their homes, but the landlords who would no longer be allowed to rent out cold and inefficient homes.
Private renters live in some of the leakiest homes in the UK, with more than a quarter of households living in fuel poverty. As the Climate Change Committee has observed, these regulations would have cut energy bills significantly—by around £325 a year on average at current prices. Ministers need to stop this false dichotomy between climate action on the one hand and costs on the other, and admit that, in cutting our emissions, we can also deliver warmer and more comfortable homes. The Government need to bring forward an amendment in Committee to require all privately rented homes to be energy performance certificate grade C by 2028 at the latest.
Finally, we know that the UK’s inadequate housing stock is eroding not only people’s budgets, but their health and wellbeing. The death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak in 2020 as a result of prolonged exposure to mould in his home environment was a terrible tragedy and an utter scandal in the social housing sector. It is frankly shocking that the decent homes standard still does not apply to private rented homes, with the Government admitting that almost one in four of those homes in the private rented sector would not meet this most basic standard.
The vague commitment for jam tomorrow while children breathe in dangerous mould today is simply not good enough. It is not good enough for the mum in Brighton who emails to say that her daughter has been coughing for two months because of the leaky, unsafe, insecure flat that she is desperate to leave. It is not good enough for my constituents who are ill from long-term exposure to mould, living with walls that are dripping wet and a permanent cough, or those whose rented accommodation was so bad that it was recently filmed by the BBC for their “Rip Off Britain” feature. Again and again in my constituency casework I hear about landlords who blame tenants for the problems caused by structural issues that the landlords have themselves ignored, such as the landlords who kept one family’s £1,730 deposit to pay for mould removal and redecoration. That is frankly outrageous.
Will Ministers give us a timeframe for decent homes legislation and confirm that it will be in the King’s Speech next month? Will they explain how the Government can possibly justify failing to ensure that all landlords are compelled to act on health hazards, such as damp and mould, in a timely manner? Will they act with urgency to apply Awaab’s law to the private rented sector?
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The rights of renters is one of the biggest issues in Putney, Southfields and Roehampton, where the average rent for a two- bedroom flat is £3,900 a month. That is nearly £47,000 a year. Having a safe, secure and affordable private rental property is vital for Londoners, but the current broken system leaves too many renters insecure and powerless if they have an unscrupulous landlord. For too long there has been a power imbalance in favour of landlords over tenants, which is abused by bad landlords, and the Government have done nothing to fix that.
This market failure affects teachers, nurses, doctors, police and prison officers that I have spoken to. They find it very hard to live in south-west London under the current rental market, which makes it hard to recruit into our public services. The effects of this market failure are spilling out into all parts of our life. I thank the London Renters Union, Generation Rent, Shelter, Crisis and the Renters Reform Coalition for their tireless campaigning work to stand up for renters. It is appalling that it has taken so long to bring in this Bill. Since the Government first announced that they would take this legislation forward, people in 70,000 households have been unfairly evicted and threatened with homelessness because of the Government’s delays.
I welcome the measures in the Bill that I believe will make a real difference to renters and start to fix the broken system. I welcome: ending all fixed-term tenancies and replacing them with periodic open-ended tenancies; the creation of an ombudsman that all private landlords must join; the property portal database to better inform landlords and tenants; the duty to provide information to tenants; and the right to request a pet—the most British of rights. But what I want to see most of all is the end of section 21 no-fault evictions, which are used by bad landlords to kick out tenants who ask for repairs or to hike up rents unjustifiably. I was kicked out of my own accommodation by a landlord who said he was going to sell off the property. After huge upheaval, I drove past a couple of months later to see that he had rented it out to different tenants.
Recent research from Citizens Advice found that a shocking 46% of those who complain about their conditions receive a section 21 notice within six months. That reminded me of a family whose door I knocked on, who were moving out. They said, “Goodbye—we are moving out of the area.” Their father, who was clearing out the house with them, said he was absolutely furious. They were a policeman and a nurse, and they had to leave our area because they had complained about the poor state of repair of their house and had been served with a section 21.
I think of another family with children aged six, 12 and 15 who have spent the past four years in a flat that has been damaging to their health, suffering from structural damage, deep-rooted mould and a growing mouse infestation. They asked their landlord to carry out essential repairs and were served with a section 21 notice in return.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
One of my constituents was served with a section 21 no-fault eviction notice on their house: a single parent to two vulnerable children with additional needs whom she had adopted from care after being removed from a situation of domestic abuse. She could not afford to rent any other private property on her single income as she found them to be far too expensive. She has been left to join the council waiting list and been rendered homeless. Is that not exactly why we need to deal with this issue in the Bill?
Fleur Anderson
We absolutely do. I very much welcome that intervention. We all have so many stories and know so many families for whom the Bill and ending section 21 evictions would make an enormous difference. It would also make for a more level playing field for those good landlords who are doing the right thing. I am therefore appalled that the Secretary of State is potentially pulling the rug from under the Bill by saying that no-fault evictions can only be ended once the courts are reformed. That is Conservative failure in the justice system compounding Conservative failure in housing. Who loses out? It is hard-working, rent-paying British people. I urge the Minister to give a clear timetable for putting those legal reforms in place so that the can is not just kicked down the road.
While I am pleased that the Bill sets out new stricter grounds for eviction, I remain concerned that it does not go far, or fast, enough. First, the Bill has taken too long; the Government must speed up its delivery. About 290 Londoners face no-fault evictions each week, so every six months of delay in the Bill will mean another 15,000 more Londoners will face no-fault evictions. We do not have time. Secondly, there should be a requirement that private rented homes meet the decent homes standard. I have been calling for a Minister for mould for a long time.
Thirdly, provision to increase councils’ investigative and enforcement powers is necessary. There needs to be funding for that as well; otherwise, we are shifting the problem from national to local government, which will need to shift around its resources and take funding from other areas.
Fourthly, there are loopholes that must be closed. Otherwise, section 21 could just continue by another name. Unscrupulous landlords could game the system and exploit the new grounds to sell an occupied property, so it is vital that a high level of evidence is required to demonstrate the intention to sell or occupy a property. The change to discretionary grounds from “likely” to “capable” of causing antisocial behaviour is open to so many varying interpretations that it will lead to inconsistent, unfair application, so it will not be the game changer in getting rid of antisocial behaviour that it could be.
Finally, preventing homelessness by preserving the private renter’s right to access to homelessness assistance from their council as soon as a possession notice is served would be an essential addition to the Bill.
The Bill is a first step that only scratches the surface of what is needed to fix the housing emergency that the Conservatives have created. Mortgage bills and rents are soaring, fewer people are able to buy their own homes and more than a million people are stuck on social housing waiting lists, compounded by the threat of no-fault eviction were they to move into the private rented sector. More homes must be built.
While the Government have promised a rebalancing of the relationship between tenants and landlords, unless we see several amendments, the current crisis looks set to continue. The Bill is a good launching point, but Labour would significantly strengthen protections for private renters beyond its scope, so that good landlords can be assured of being on a level playing field, bad landlords will stop misusing their powers and tenants will finally be able to get the long-term security, rights and conditions that they deserve.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I know, always being called last means that we have the enjoyment of listening to the whole debate. Today’s debate has been extremely valuable across the House, going into forensic detail on the Bill.
I want to make a plea for urgency, that is all. I welcomed the inclusion of this issue in the Conservative manifesto. In fact, I congratulated my then constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge, on bringing it forward. I also accused him of plagiarism, because it was in our last two Labour manifestos. I congratulated him because, as many have reported today, my constituents are in a housing crisis. Most of the council housing has been sold off. To go on the housing waiting list, they must have lived in the area for 10 years, and they have to prove that with documentation, which many people cannot. Once on the housing waiting list, they will wait between three and five, maybe seven, years. Their children will have grown up by then.
Four thousand new properties are being built in the middle of my constituency, but there are barely any that my constituents will be able to afford, because the prices are so high and the wages in my constituency—despite high employment levels—are relatively low. Since 2010, rents have gone up on average by three times the rate of wage increases. In London alone, rents over the last year are up 15% on average. In some areas, they are up 20% to 25%. Basically, that means that people struggle to get a roof over their heads, whether from the council or rented, and certainly struggle for owner occupation. I do not know any firefighter, teacher or NHS worker in my constituency who lives there any more—they commute for miles because they cannot afford accommodation in the constituency.
People live in my constituency in slum conditions: damp, cold, unsafe and mouldy, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). I have the phenomenon of beds in sheds. In my office, we have a moral dilemma about whether we tell the council that someone is living in a shed, because we know that if we do, enforcement comes in and that person is then homeless, with nowhere to go whatsoever.
As has been said throughout the debate, as soon as people complain about the conditions or rents, the landlords bring in section 21. That is why it was right for the Conservatives to include the Bill in their last manifesto, and I welcomed it. Landlords always use the excuse that they are moving in a relative. We would need genetic link mapping to identify the relationship between some of the tenants who move in and the family. Landlords might say that they are selling the property but, as has been said, when we tour around, we see that in fact they have not: within days, the “To let” board goes up. They scam us all the time.
My constituents live in fear of complaining at all because they know that if they do, many of them will lose their properties. It is correct that the majority of landlords are good, but it is the rogue landlords that I fear the Bill does not address.
Mr Fysh
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in London, part of the problem is that the amount of rental property available for new renters on the market is 20% down? It is important to encourage good landlords, as he talked about, to have longer rental periods. Should we incentivise them to do that through things such as tax breaks?
John McDonnell
Look, the major problem is that we are not building enough council houses. On the Conservative Benches a couple of Members referred to Harold Macmillan. Harold Macmillan took on from Clem Attlee a huge housing programme and built council houses. My family was a beneficiary of that. We moved out of a slum and into a council house. We just need to build more council houses. We cannot rely on the private market, because it profiteers. In my constituency, landlords can make a profit by leaving the property empty because the price will always go up, and sometimes they do not want to be encumbered by a tenancy. When tenants complain, they get kicked out and are made homeless. In my constituency, people have been pushed all around the country. I have people living in a Travelodge in Slough. They have to bring their children into Hayes each day, which takes an hour and a half. Then there is temporary accommodation with poor conditions and hostels. We have children being brought up in temporary accommodation. I looked at the figures: 131,000 children are now living in temporary accommodation.
I fully support the Bill’s getting rid of section 21, but the problem is exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) said. The sanctions and conditions will render it totally ineffective. Landlords will simply take a three-month hit and then rent it out straight after that. And to rely on the court system! We have to be honest with one another. The Government have closed 300 county courts. There was a cut of 35% in the Justice budget over the last period. In addition, if we are looking to local authorities to enforce, nearly 20 local authorities are under section 114 notices. In other words, they are bankrupt and do not have the staff to do the enforcement. To be frank, in many areas now the lack of access to basic legal advice—not legal aid, but basic legal advice—from local law centres is non-existent. My citizens advice bureau, bless it, works so hard, but it is rushed off its feet so it cannot provide sufficient advice on the scale that is needed.
My plea is for urgency. We have had a really good debate, a forensic analysis of the Bill: the detail and the beneficial elements, but also the gaps and the need for change and amendment. I hope the Committee will, on Report, bring back a significantly amended Bill that will scrap section 21—that is what both parties promised in our manifestos at the last election, and I believe that other political parties did exactly the same. There is unanimity in this House to scrap section 21, but we must do it with a sense of urgency and we must do it effectively.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Opposition Front- Bench spokesman.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to close this Second Reading debate for the Opposition, and I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken in it. It has been a good debate and one defined by a great many thoughtful and eloquent contributions.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) so rightly argued in her remarks at the outset, this is a piece of legislation that is shamefully overdue. As she and other speakers pointed out, not only is it now over four and a half years since the Government first pledged to abolish section 21 no fault evictions, but, for reasons that now appear quite clear, Ministers sat on the Bill for a further five months subsequent to its publication in May. Drawing attention to the lengthy delay in bringing the Bill forward is not simply a parliamentary debating point. As many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Blaydon (Liz Twist) pointed out, it has had very real consequences for private renters across the country.
During the years that Ministers prevaricated and the months this year they clearly spent negotiating with the discontented on their own Benches, tens of thousands of renters have been pushed to financial breaking point by multiple rent rises or threatened with homelessness as a result of being served a section 21 notice. We will continue to justifiably bemoan the fact that the Government have not acted with the urgency that was required, but we do welcome the Bill’s finally progressing. I want to take the opportunity to thank once again, on behalf of those on the Labour Benches, all organisations, particularly the 20 that comprise the Renters Reform Coalition, for not only making the case for change over many years, but for joining Labour over recent months in urging Ministers to get on with the process of turning the Bill into law.
The case for fundamentally reforming the private rented sector is as watertight as they come, and Labour has called for it for many years. More than 11 million people in England—not just the young and the mobile but, now, many older people and families with children—live day in, day out with the knowledge that they could be uprooted from their home with little notice and minimal justification, and a significant minority of them are forced to live in substandard properties for fear that a complaint would lead to an instant retaliatory eviction. Such a situation cannot possibly be justified.
The sector should have been transformed a long time ago. Its regulation should have been overhauled to level the playing field between landlord and tenant decisively. The Bill is a good starting point to that end, and, as the debate has made clear, the principle of it enjoys broad support across the House. General support has been expressed today for the White Paper proposals that have found their way into it, including a new property portal and ombudsman, a simpler tenancy structure, the end of rent review clauses, prohibitions on multiple in-year rent increases, the right to request keeping a pet, and, of course, the abolition of section 21 notices.
However, as nearly all Opposition Members mentioned, a significant degree of uncertainty now surrounds the implementation of the promised section 21 abolition as a result of a concession made by Ministers to appease a minority of disgruntled Conservative Members—seemingly without complete success, given the tone and content of the contributions of the right hon. Members for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) and for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher).
As we have heard, the Government have made it clear in recent days—although it would seem that Members were told two weeks ago—that section 21 notices will not be phased out until Ministers judge that
“sufficient progress has been made to improve the courts.”
Explicit reference was made to end-to-end digitisation of the process, which could well take a great many years to achieve. Private renters across the country, who have been assured repeatedly by Ministers that the passage of this Bill will finally remove the threat of a section 21 eviction, have no guarantee whatsoever that the concession made does not amount to an effective deferral of that change well beyond the phased transition already provided for by the Bill.
If this sounds all too familiar, that is because it is. The Secretary of State has form when it comes to acquiescing in damaging concessions rather than facing down the unruly Benches behind him, with future housing supply in England a notable past casualty.
After 13 years of Tory government, the courts system is on its knees. The Government have had more than four and a half years, since they committed themselves to abolishing section 21 evictions, to make significant improvements to it in order to support good-faith landlords, and they have not succeeded. As things stand, HMCTS does not expect to be able to deliver even the reduced-scope reform programme to its current timetable. Given this Government’s record, why on earth should renters take it on trust that things will improve markedly any time soon? The inefficiency of the courts system is a huge problem, and action must be taken to address its lack of capacity so that landlord possession claims can be expedited, but the end of no-fault evictions cannot be made dependent on an unspecified degree of future progress subjectively determined by Ministers. In the absence of very clear commitments from the Minister on metrics and timelines in this respect, we will seek to amend the Bill in Committee to ensure that it is not.
While Ministers face the prospect of having to give further ground as the Bill progresses to keep their Back Benchers onside, Labour will work in Committee to see it strengthened so that it truly delivers for tenants. We will press for clarification of the new grounds for possession for students’ landlords to ensure that they are not too expansive, and will probe the Government’s intentions in respect of dealing with the complexities of the student market. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), rightly called for that.
We will put forward a number of sensible changes, including an increase in the proposed notice periods from two months to four months to protect renters better. I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) argued for that. We will press the Government to reconsider their position on a range of White Paper proposals that did not make it into the Bill. They include measures to strengthen councils’ enforcement powers—I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and for Blaydon for raising that point—along with powers to limit the amount of advance rent that landlords can ask for, and provisions to expand rent repayment orders to cover repayment for non-decent homes.
We will explore why essential reforms that were outlined in the White Paper, including the proposed legally binding decent homes standard and the proposed ban on landlords refusing to rent to those in receipt of benefits or with children—a point powerfully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East—are not on the face of the Bill. We will explore what more might be done to ensure that the separate measures that have been promised to enact each of those reforms are passed and applied quickly and effectively. We will also look to amend various provisions in the Bill relating to new and revised grounds for possession, including the far too sweeping and punitive proposed new mandatory ground 8A and the proposed change to discretionary ground 14 relating to antisocial behaviour, so that blameless and vulnerable tenants are properly safeguarded.
Perhaps most importantly, we will seek to close the numerous loopholes in the Bill that would allow the minority of disreputable landlords—such as the unscrupulous owner of Dorchester Court mentioned in the powerful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes)—to exploit tenants and jeopardise their security of tenure. Let us take two examples that are featured prominently in the Bill. Even with the proposed expanded right to challenge, it is far from clear that the tribunal system would prevent significant numbers of tenants from being evicted by means of an extortionate rent hike. We need to explore what more can be done to put in place genuinely effective means of redress for them. Similarly, the proposed three-month ban on landlords re-letting properties they have taken back to sell or move into themselves is not only insufficient but appears not to apply in some circumstances and will almost certainly be impossible to enforce even when it does. We need to tighten it.
The Bill is shamefully overdue but imperative. We support it in principle and are pleased that it will progress today, but it needs to be enhanced rather than undermined by concessions aimed at placating a minority of Members. Private renters deserve a piece of legislation that will ensure that they have real security and enjoy better rights and conditions in short order. We are willing to work constructively with the Government on the Bill, but make no mistake, we plan to do everything in our power to see it strengthened to the benefit of private renters who have waited long enough for meaningful change.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
It is a huge pleasure to deliver the closing speech today on the Second Reading of the Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, and I begin by thanking Members across the House for their valuable, thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions to the debate. I have enjoyed and noted the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—the Chair of the Select Committee —my right hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), whom I thank for all his work across a range of all-party parliamentary groups, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield)—I would be very happy to meet him and his APPG—and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who will know about all the work we are doing to help address the second home issue in his constituency. He has spoken to me about that on a number of occasions.
I also thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for the support from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I declare an interest similar to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), as I have four children in their 20s who are renting in London. I know at first hand of the issues that they and their friends face, and that is why I am so convinced that this Bill is the right thing to do for the next generations of our children and grandchildren.
Rachel Maclean
I will come on to that precise point, if the hon. Member will allow me.
I want to thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), whom I will be happy to meet again, as requested. I also thank the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) and the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I am deeply concerned about the case she has raised with me and will continue to work with her. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
It is right to say at this point that we are committed to honouring the manifesto commitment that we made in 2019 to create a private rented sector that works for everyone and to level up housing quality in this country. I am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members who continue to engage constructively with us on the provisions in the Bill so that we can deliver the change needed to create a fairer rental market for both tenants and landlords. Of course, I echo the sentiment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who said in his opening remarks that we will continue to work closely with Members to further hone and refine this legislation as it is put on the statute book.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rachel Maclean
I will make progress, because I have limited time and I must address the points that have been put to me.
First, it is right that antisocial behaviour is a discretionary ground. Judges must decide on the circumstances of a case. Having formerly been Minister with responsibility for safeguarding and domestic abuse, I completely understand the importance of taking such serious issues into account and striking the right balance between tenants and landlords. I was asked whether local authorities will have funding to carry out their enforcement duties. Of course they will have that new burdens funding, as they would with any Government legislation.
I was asked about blanket bans on benefit claimants and families with children, and I make it very clear that we are committed to outlawing the unacceptable practice of such blanket bans. We are carefully considering how to get these measures right. This is a significant reform, as I think all Members understand. We must do it in the right way, while ensuring that landlords rightly have the final say on who they rent their properties to.
Rachel Maclean
I will give way to Members if I have time, but please allow me to make my points.
There have been many questions about the ombudsman. We need simplicity and clarity for landlords and tenants. It is important to say that this Bill does not, in itself, establish a new ombudsman. An existing ombudsman could do the job and, again, we are looking at that very carefully to make sure we get the right solution for this vital part of our regulatory reforms.
I am grateful that many Members have welcomed the point about pets, and I agree that we are a nation of animal lovers. Again, this is about reasonableness. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle is exactly right—the circumstances she set out would constitute a reasonable ground for refusal, but we need to look carefully at how this works.
The decent homes standard has been raised again, and it is a key part of our reforms. We must make sure that the new system we introduce means people are living in decent, safe and warm homes. Everyone in this House will be under no illusion about how importantly this Government take this issue, as they can see the work that has been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to tackle these issues, which have laid unresolved for many years. This Government brought in groundbreaking reforms in the social rented sector, and we will do so in the private rented sector to give tenants the same protections.
It is important to note at this point that the vast majority of possession claims do not end up in the courts—only something like 1% of claims go through the courts. In my capacity as Housing Minister, I work closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is responsible for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. There is a wide-ranging programme of reform in the court system.
The courts have already made huge improvements. It is worth saying that over 95% of hearings are listed within four to eight weeks of receipt, and of course the ombudsman will encourage the early dispute resolution process, taking a lot of claims out of the courts and freeing up court time for more complex processes. When we bring in this reform, however, it is right that we ensure landlords have confidence in the justice system because, as everybody has pointed out, if we do not have good landlords in this country who have confidence in the systems that underpin the justice system, we will not have the rented homes in every constituency that our country needs.
We have always committed to aligning and synchronising the reform of the private rented sector with the court system; we note that that was a recommendation of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. We do not think that a housing court is the right way to do that; nor is that the view of the sector or of the stakeholders, with whom we have engaged in huge detail. This work remains a priority for our Department and for the Ministry of Justice. We want to see landlords being offered a digital process for possession on all grounds.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
If the Bill’s Second Reading receives widespread support because it will rightly ditch no-fault evictions of tenants without triggering an exodus of private sector landlords, that will in no small part be down to the hard work, for which I am very grateful, of Ministers including my hon. Friend. While she is looking at what is a reasonable speed to resolve antisocial behaviour claims in the courts, will she confirm that it is the Government’s firm intention to fulfil our manifesto commitment and implement the Bill as soon as possible?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend very much. I can absolutely give him that assurance.
Mr Fysh
Does the Minister accept that if the Country Land and Business Association’s estimate is correct that the Bill may reduce the available private rentals by 40% in rural areas, that could have a completely deleterious effect on the Prime Minister’s main pledge, which is to get inflation down? Core inflation is driven by rentals. Will the Minister work with me to fix the Bill and ensure that that does not eventuate?
Rachel Maclean
I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend on this and many other issues, but it is important that I say that we have done considerable analysis. There is no evidence, such as the estimate that he has just pointed to, that the Bill will lead to landlords leaving the sector, but it is right that any policy that the Government bring in is based on evidence. That will always be our approach.
Rachel Maclean
I want to wind up now, because I cannot detain the House any longer. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that we are focused on introducing this groundbreaking once-in-a-generation reform. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Renters (Reform) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Renters (Reform) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 5 December 2023.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Question agreed to.
Renters (Reform) Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Renters (Reform) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Question agreed to.
Renters (Reform) Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Renters (Reform) Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the charging of fees under or by virtue of the Act; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Question agreed to.
Renters (Reform) Bill (Carry-over)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Renters (Reform) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Question agreed to.
Petition
Environmental, Social and Governance Developments
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
As the founding chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on environmental, social and governance, I am delighted to have secured the first ever debate on environmental, social and governance developments in the UK in this place. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to the all-party group’s interests as well.
ESG is a set of characteristics that can be used to assess the non-financial elements of an investment or business decision. In its simplest form, ESG is a way to take into account potential risks and rewards that might not be obvious from a balance sheet. Everyone, in their own way, incorporates ESG criteria into each and every economic decision, even if unknowingly.
For instance, the property developer does not buy land next to a crumbling cliff; a family might choose not to go to a particular shop because they have heard that it treats its employees badly; or a woman might change jobs to work for a firm that is fighting the gender pay gap. ESG is simply the use of non-financial criteria in decision making—a way for investors, companies and individuals to get a bigger picture of the impact of their investments, which will help them better understand the risks and, more importantly, the rewards.
Recently, there has been much debate about ESG, as it has risen in prominence. The number of ESG assets under management has grown by more than 150% since 2015, with global ESG assets expected to exceed £41 trillion or about four times the value of all the assets held in the UK. They will also account for a third of all assets under management by 2025. This scale-up has been met with some concern about ESG perhaps having some underlying political current. This is wrong. In its true form, ESG is simply an investment strategy—one that, like all investment strategies, aspires to low risk and high return. ESG is not a political stance, a way of life or a mantra for investors, although of course in some situations it is unfortunately used wrongly to pursue certain political agendas. In others, it is seen as shorthand for ethical or impact investing. However, it is neither.
In this debate, I will be sticking to our definition of ESG as an investment strategy and hoping to make the case to Government for why we should be encouraging it, what problems we have to overcome and how best to claim the crown, and the associated benefits, as the world leaders of ESG investing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Does he agree that if we create a science-based and world-beating taxonomy, businesses that can show alignment with the UK green taxonomy will automatically be in alignment with international taxonomies, which should ensure that there is no divergence, which should subsequently enhance our capacity? Does he further agree that Government and the Minister have a role to play in assisting businesses to achieve that potential, so that all of us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can gain and everybody can be a winner?
Alexander Stafford
I thank the hon. Member for intervening; it is always a pleasure when he joins such debates. He mentioned the Minister, who I know has a good, keen, personal interest in ESG, having worked in the field prior to coming to this place. The hon. Member is completely right about the green taxonomy. We need a robust taxonomy—I will come to that later—but it is a shame that we are behind where we should be with the green taxonomy. We need to be careful to ensure that our green taxonomy is robust and world leading. One of the many benefits of leaving the European Union is that we can define what we want and how we want it ourselves. By having a UK green taxonomy, we can ensure that we are world leaders in the UK, including in Northern Ireland especially, which I know has a high level of financial services.
Let me go back to the meat of my speech. It is not the case that those investing along ESG lines do not want to see good done for planet and people—they do. For example, we know that ESG investors are sometimes willing to pay higher fees and to see lower returns than their more returns-focused peers. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that ESG funds could charge up to three times more. I do not exclude those types of companies and investors from this discussion. Rather, in holding the first ever debate on ESG in the House, I hope that more discourse will lead to more action.
It is clear that using non-financial metrics, and thereby factoring in all the data available to make the most rational, informed investment decision possible, will lead to financial returns. For example, more ESG-aligned employers will be able to hire better candidates for less—something known as taking a green cut, which is the attitude that up to 48% of younger people were recently reported as taking. Equally, improving environmental ratings through technology can lead to huge efficiency savings for companies. For example, some studies have shown that using low-energy lighting has a payback of less than 12 months, which is a win for the company’s bottom line and its sustainability standards. This reflexive impact of ESG is known as “double materiality”, which is how a business is affected by changing conditions—be they climate, social, or governance—and what that company is doing to contribute to or militate against those changes. That is becoming more and more important for investors to factor in.
There are also huge financial benefits to be gained from embracing ESG for the whole country, including Northern Ireland. The UK is already home to the oldest and most trusted conventional financial centre. That is coupled with the City of London’s commitment to sustainability, topping the Global Green Finance Index. Therefore, with a little extra effect, we will secure a home for ESG investors inside our border.
ESG’s recent rise in popularity has caused some growing pains. Primarily, the lack of universal frameworks and metrics mean that trust in ESG is at an all-time low, as we have seen in anti-ESG proposals approved by boards globally. In ESG investing, as in all business, trust is paramount. Just as an investor must be sure that their investment is sound, and that they will not suddenly find themselves out of pocket, an ESG investor needs to be sure that any claims to sustainability are true.
We have a rich history of accounting for financial accuracy in this country, with the Domesday Book perhaps being the earliest example—in that case, the new, or relatively new, King William checking that his investment was as profitable as he had thought. That invasion of 1066 did not come cheap. It took 800 years, and a parliamentary Select Committee to develop something closer to modern accountancy practices, but the UK is now an oasis of bookkeeping and verifiable investing. Fraudulent financial claims can be easily spotted and shut down. Why then, is the same not the case for fraudulent ESG claims?
One of the main causes of the problem is that much of what ESG seeks to account for is intangible and therefore incalculable with our current frameworks. How, for example, might a company begin to calculate its effect on biodiversity? What metric can an investor look for to see an investment’s diversity score? This problem is not insurmountable. Twenty years ago, as major economies were waking up to the true effects of increasing carbon emissions and climate change, the issue of how to count carbon seemed similarly difficult. Today, after much trial and error and leadership from the UK, we can quickly and easily calculate the carbon footprint of any business, person, or product.
Developing frameworks to help business understand, quantify and account for non-financial factors is difficult but very important. Proper frameworks are the first lines of defence against a full breakdown in trust in ESG reporting and investing. They will also help to stop so-called greenwashing, where a product or investment is marketed as being more sustainable than it is. Despite the name, this applies across all three ESG objectives. Such distrust is made worse by some ESG advisers and ratings agencies, whose business plans seem to depend on being able to sell five-star ESG ratings to the highest bidder, without giving any proof of them whatever—a veritable wild west of the ESG world. Of course, many of these businesses are doing comprehensive evaluations of the products, but given the difficulty that an investor would have in distinguishing the good ratings from the bad, it is hardly the confidence-inspiring boost that they need.
I know that the Treasury is well aware of the concerns, and I am pleased that there was a consultation held earlier this year on how best to introduce regulation on ESG ratings. This is a good and necessary step, but we are in danger of winning the battle but losing the war if we delay any further. I urge the Minister to speed up this regulation as much as possible.
We can go further than regulation, however, and set up the frameworks we need to allow any investor or company to understand quickly and easily the ESG impacts of their investments. A taxonomy—essentially a classification of what is and what is not allowed—would do just that, and the Treasury’s plan to develop a UK green taxonomy is exactly the right step. This taxonomy, as well as its social and governance cousins, would clearly outline investments that are sustainable—and therefore could be marketed as such—and those that are not. Given that the EU’s version of a green taxonomy is dead in the water—it is a bureaucratic nightmare that is no longer fit for purpose—we can make our own decisions here.
We are lucky that, thanks to Brexit, we have been given the chance to design our own robust taxonomy, one that could and should lead the world and entrench the UK as the true home of sustainable finance. Sadly, we have seen our taxonomy delayed and delayed and delayed. I was pleased to see the UK green taxonomy mentioned in this year’s green finance strategy update, but on the original timeline we should already be halfway through the legislative process by now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware, but one of the arcane practices is that because the Adjournment debate started before 10 o’clock, we had to move the motion again at 10. The hon. Gentleman has the Floor.
Alexander Stafford
Thank you for that guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, and for explaining some of the wonderful aspects of this House.
I ask the Minister whether he will ensure that investors have a framework to separate the sustainable from the spurious, and whether he will take this chance to outline the full timetable for the taxonomy. He will have plenty of time to do so, as we have more time for this Adjournment debate. I look forward to a full and detailed timeline of when we will get this taxonomy. I am willing for him to intervene now if he so wishes. Clearly he does not.
Perhaps another, less discussed difficulty facing ESG is imbalance. The heavy focus has been on environmental considerations as being the most important, often at the cost of social and governance factors. Let me refer to one recent example of the consequences of failing to take that holistic approach. Dame Alison Rose is clearly a champion for socially sustainable business, particularly around gender equality. She is a torchbearer for women in business, having smashed the glass ceiling to become the first woman to lead a major UK bank. However, despite her very strong credentials in social sustainability and the progressive environmental policy of NatWest Group as a whole, under her leadership there was a clear failure in governance when discussing a customer’s private banking details with a journalist—I think that we all know the gentleman I am referring to.
I am sure that all Members will agree that it is right that Dame Alison resigned over that abject failure of governance, but I also know that many will join me in expressing our disappointment that the further empowering of women in business and entrepreneurship will suffer because of that failure of governance. Excelling in one area does not absolve someone from indiscretions in others. The E, S and G cannot and should not be separated; a failure in one is a failure in them all. Clearer metrics and frameworks, both within each strand of ESG and encompassing all three elements, will allow for better reporting and therefore better understanding for investors and companies. That will, in turn, return the trust that ESG has been lacking.
It is easy to oversimplify the true impact of more data and disclosures, and we cannot ignore the practical implications of such policies, particularly on smaller businesses and individual investors. Since the turn of the millennium there has been a 647% increase in ESG regulations, alongside miles of other red tape in all shapes and sizes. The disclosure burden on investors and businesses is bigger than at any previous point, leading to whole sectors and teams devoted to auditing every aspect of a business. The EU’s own research indicates that its disclosure requirements will cost large firms upwards of €100,000 a year in paperwork alone.
Likewise, the UK green taxonomy, when it is eventually published, will join about 30 other environmentally focused taxonomies across the globe, each needing different types of disclosures. Large companies may be able to absorb that, but it is a potentially lethal issue for small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up 99% of British businesses and have a far more limited staffing and budgetary ability to process those types of disclosures. In pushing for more comprehensive reporting frameworks, we should not bury small businesses under piles of paperwork.
Over the course of my time chairing the all-party parliamentary group, I have been delighted to meet many small businesses that want to integrate ESG into their practices. Many of them, however, have expressed to me their nerves about how to keep up with a continually changing regulatory landscape, and the addition of further disclosures hangs like a dark cloud, so how do we achieve better ESG reporting without overburdening businesses and, perhaps more importantly for those businesses, why should they engage in this space? How do we make ESG work for businesses rather than making businesses work for ESG?
In this debate, I have mostly spoken about ESG as a risk management tool that investors can use as part of their normal investment analysis. There are, however, many upsides for both businesses and the UK as a whole. I have already outlined how a business might utilise ESG to increase efficiency or improve its workforce. For the UK as a whole, though, SMEs are the perfect vehicle for public policy objectives to be achieved without the need for public sector financing or burdensome legislation.
The all-party parliamentary group’s latest report—on women in business, to be published tomorrow—is perhaps a good example. It is a sad fact that women are still under-represented in business today. That is not only a social problem; it also represents a £250 billion gap in our economy. Luckily, as in other areas, the private sector is far ahead of policymakers here. Thanks to private firms and independent groups, the UK has one of the highest levels of female representation on boards in the world; it is beaten only by countries that have legislated to force companies to adhere to quotas. Top-down government can make serious strides, but the home straight will always require us to rely on great British businesses. We cannot let them down.
ESG adds value to business, but it cannot become a barrier. Many Members will, like me, have heard concerning reports about some companies, particularly those involved in defence, being excluded from access to investment and capital on ESG grounds. As the Government’s defence Command Paper points out, there is no contradiction between investing along ESG principles and the defence industry.
I have already spoken about the concerning anti-ESG movement, much of it stemming from the view that a movement for divestment in such contentious businesses is because of a political stance. Again, I argue that that is a mischaracterisation of ESG. Instead, and like the Government, I believe that ESG allows investors to factor in the environmental, social and governance impacts of these firms into their decision-making process and helps firms to take action that will result in better returns. These factors should not be unduly taken out of context for political reasons.
Governments need to create an environment where businesses can disclose problem areas without the fear of backlash, so long as they are responsible. Good investors can be a driving force behind companies cleaning up their acts. We must continue to ensure that all businesses have access to the capital they need from reputable, interested investors. We have seen continued protests as part of an environmental campaign, calling for businesses to divest away from oil and gas. But that would actually be detrimental to the world’s overall climate ambitions.
Once contentious industries such as oil and gas, defence, tobacco or alcohol can no longer rely on investment from large, public companies that are open and clear about their business ethos, they will most likely leverage finance from less savoury investors. It is in our interests to engage, not divest, and make sure that trusted investors retain a hand on the wheel of these industries, to steer them to a more sustainable and better future.
The issue is not just about a handful of industries. When faced with challenges that may bring public and investor backlash, all firms need to feel secure that they are able to disclose bad practices and work to rectify them, rather than quietly divesting of the malpractice. I will give one example: the International Labour Organisation estimates that there are nearly 50 million modern slaves across the world today. It is almost impossible, therefore, for any large company not to use modern slavery at some point in its supply chain. As much as 20% of worldwide cotton production stems from slave-labour—Members in the Chamber today could be wearing slave-manufactured clothing.
What should a responsible clothing business do if it discovers that it has been accidentally buying slavery-produced goods? Should it quietly switch suppliers and hope that the next one does not have the same problem, or should it work with the supply chain to end the practice of slavery? Divestment for fear of repercussions will not solve environmental, social or governance problems, and companies should not be penalised for bringing accidental wrongdoings to light.
Making ESG work for businesses requires that they should be able to show investors what they are doing to tackle poor business practices without fearing that they will be left without access to capital. The frameworks we build must include room for transitional sustainability improvements, allowing investors and companies to own up to their failings and work to improve them, rather than divesting and passing the problem along.
Having outlined why we should be encouraging ESG, what problems we face in doing so and how it can help business, investors and the UK as a whole, we must now ask what real action we can take to achieve this. I have in this debate referred consistently to frameworks or metrics, which will give certainty and clarity, but what form should they take? Any framework needs to be credible, useable and, importantly, international. What is more, we need to act quickly to ensure that the UK is the go-to place for ESG. Will the Minister be sure to look into speeding up the publication of frameworks and regulations designed to restore trust in ESG?
The importance of credibility in a framework was confirmed by the EU’s recent green taxonomy failures. As Members will know, the EU decided to include natural gas in its green taxonomy, effectively allowing any product using energy derived from fossil fuels to claim it was “green.” That is perhaps the most serious and egregious example of greenwashing, and it completely undermines any pretence that the EU’s taxonomy can be relied upon to build the trust that I have been so clear we need. Our own framework, and certainly our own green taxonomy, must not have the same problem. Can the Minister assure me that any framework will be science-led, and that ensuring trust will be a key consideration in the design of those frameworks? We may be delayed in our green taxonomy, so ours may not be the first, but let us make it the best. Let us learn from the mistakes made by other countries so that the UK is the gold standard.
Going further, if the UK is to be the ultimate home for ESG, we need to create metrics for ESG criteria that are currently unquantifiable. Much of the work that has already taken place has gone into fleshing out areas with existing data, but in order to ensure that greenwashing cannot happen across any element of ESG, we need to drive forward progress on creating standardised metrics for areas such as biodiversity, community impacts, management structures and so much more. To ensure that the UK is truly world-leading, will the Minister be sure to speak to his colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Work and Pensions to create cross-governmental taskforces that will be able to create those types of framework?
Usability is also vital. As I have mentioned, particularly in reference to SMEs, burdening investors and businesses with extra regulation should not be the objective of any Government, let alone a robust Conservative Government. Any framework must allow for companies to disclose failures and work hard to redeem themselves. Companies’ work to achieve better results should be what they are judged by, rather than their failures. To encourage businesses to use ESG to their advantage along the lines that I have described, and so that the UK can leverage the firepower provided by our booming private sector, will the Minister ensure that making the UK an ESG hub will not have negative impacts on businesses and investors? We must look after SMEs.
Today’s supply chains, employees and financial flows span the world. It is our duty as policymakers to help British businesses and investors benefit from being part of the global economy. When it comes to ESG, that will mean working with the frameworks of our international partners and using our Brexit freedoms to design a system that allows for international co-operation. The Government’s signal earlier this year that we will be adopting wholesale the international financial reporting standards created by the International Sustainability Standards Board is a great start and will ensure that we remain international players, but I want us to be international leaders, especially as the EU will continue to build its own full disclosure system. Can the Minister confirm that we will continue along this path whenever possible?
ESG is not going away, and the UK should not be concerned about or discouraging of it. I must again pay tribute to the Government for already being proactive in creating a welcome environment for ESG, of which I know the Chancellor is already a keen advocate, but if we are to become the global home for ESG, we must move faster and do ever more. I hope that this place sees many more debates on the topic, and that we continue to open lines of communication and inquiry on one of the fastest growing sectors across the UK. As a home for ESG, we have strong foundations, but before we can fully welcome ESG inside, we must make sure that the structure is solid, or it risks total collapse.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) on securing the debate, not least because, amazingly, it is the House’s first dedicated debate on this subject, which is remarkable—it will certainly not be the last. I know that he cares a great deal about this subject, not only as the chair of the APPG on ESG, but from his career. He speaks with great authority and knowledge of the subject, and I am grateful to him for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the important issues that he raised.
My hon. Friend will be aware of our steadfast commitment, enshrined in law, to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. We already lead the world on tackling climate change: we have decarbonised faster than any other major economy since 1990, reducing our emissions by nearly half while growing our economy by some two thirds. Renewables have gone from less than 7% of our electricity supply in 2010 to 48% in the first quarter of this year, which is fantastic progress. However, as the Prime Minister has said recently, we will not stop there. The Chancellor has set out his view that the UK’s green industries are key to creating growth across this United Kingdom and our whole economy, and the Prime Minister’s announcements have outlined how the Government are working to unblock key barriers to investment and decarbonisation.
Growing the sustainable finance sector to support the transition to net zero is a major priority for this Government, and in March we published our green finance strategy. The strategy sets out the policies, regulatory changes and frameworks that we will be focusing on and taking forward in the next two to three years, helping businesses to have more certainty. It includes, for example, our commitment to deliver a useful and usable UK green taxonomy—an important evidence-based classification tool that will clearly define what is meant by “green” so that the market knows where to channel investment. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly highlighted, that supply of relevant and reliable information will help guide us all in financing activities that actually support our net zero and environmental objectives, while making clearer where damaging greenwashing is taking place.
Businesses that claim to be delivering green outcomes while doing no such thing not only continue to damage our environment, but damage our collective efforts to reduce the impact on the natural world by undermining the efforts of their competitors and the confidence of the public. This is clearly something that we need to tackle. The Competition and Markets Authority has led a crackdown on greenwashing advertising; the green taxonomy will go much further, making it easier to test and verify claims across the board. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley that our next step towards delivering that taxonomy—something that he has directly asked for—is direct consultation, as he would expect. That consultation will take place this autumn, ensuring that we gain market views. It is right that we do so, as that will help build trust in the process and build on lessons learned in other parts of the world.
Alexander Stafford
I am pleased that my hon. Friend is speaking so passionately from the Dispatch Box about the importance of building up trust. Does he agree that if we get this wrong, ESG greenwashing could be the next payment protection insurance scandal—something that everyone signed up for decades ago, for which we are still paying the price even now? If we get this wrong, we will face huge financial disadvantages and penalties down the line, so we must get the taxonomy right.
Gareth Davies
One of the reasons why we are looking at a UK taxonomy and being clear that we want to introduce one is to ensure that there is great transparency and clarity for investors; that, when they buy an investment product, they know what they are getting. One of the things that has historically been lacking in the market is an understanding of what fund managers mean by “green”, so investors are put at a disadvantage and at risk of not purchasing what they believe to be a green product. We will see how that consultation goes, but I assure my hon. Friend that it will take place this autumn.
On a global scale, the markets for ESG ratings and data are rapidly developing, and they are increasingly relied on by investors to guide their decision making. The growth of the integration of ESG into the investment process is expected to continue across all jurisdictions. However, ESG ratings providers currently fall outside the regulatory perimeter. This raises the risk of harm with unrated ratings, which often lack transparency, directing capital flows towards some companies and projects, and away from others. We are therefore exploring action to address these growing ESG investment trends, to ensure that this activity is robust, and that it protects UK markets and, ultimately, consumers. Alongside the updated green finance strategy, the Treasury has published a consultation seeking views for a potential future regulatory scheme for ESG ratings providers. The consultation closed on 30 June, with 94 responses received from industry, and we are reviewing those responses to inform the next stages of our work.
Any potential regulation would be aligned with recommendations made by the International Organisation of Security Commissions on how ESG data and ratings providers could improve their activities, such as improving transparency and mitigating conflicts of interest. It would also seek to be aligned with other jurisdictions, including those of Japan, Singapore and the EU, which are putting forward initiatives in this space. More transparent ESG ratings would build confidence in these products and the wider sustainable investment market, as investors would be better able to understand how their money is put to use.
Since the UK is at the forefront of international efforts on this issue, we have the opportunity to shape the approach of other jurisdictions. If they are to follow us, it is incumbent on us to set a good example, so we must recognise and address where ESG principles are misapplied. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, we have seen concerns around banking raised recently. We have been clear that, as a matter of public policy, it is wrong to remove someone’s bank account simply because of their political views. Free speech and the legitimate expression of differing views are essential British principles, just as much as is ESG.
Let me conclude by saying that I hope that, in the time I have been given, and in the time we had listening to my hon. Friend, he and other hon. Members can now appreciate that this country has built a sustainable finance market, product set and industry of which we should all be proud. We are one of the world’s great democracies, a country that advocates for the fair and considerate treatment of the environment and the people of this world, and one that practises what it preaches. We are determined to carry that on, making conscientious decisions that work for our country, supporting our finance industry to play an important role in our economy and, of course, in society.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 4 September 2023.
Fluorinated greenhouse gases, also known as F-gases, are powerful greenhouse gases used mainly in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, as well as for other uses such as medical inhalers. The most commonly known and used F-gases are known as hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. The purpose of this instrument is to correct a technical error in regulation No. 517/2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases, known as the F-gas regulation, which is retained EU law. The correction will ensure that annual quotas, which limit the quantity of HFCs that can be placed on the market in Great Britain each year, are calculated as intended. Pursuant to the Windsor framework, separate EU F-gas legislation and systems apply in Northern Ireland.
For Great Britain, the F-gas regulation has provisions to phase down the amount of HFCs placed on the market for the first time. This is implemented using a quota system. Importers and producers may place on the market only up to the amount of quota they hold. The regulation sets out the phasedown schedule, with the starting point being 2015.
Every three years, the amount of quota issued to businesses is reduced, thereby driving a move to lower carbon options while giving industry time and flexibility to choose how to transition. The F-gas regulation provides for a 79% reduction of HFCs placed on the market by 2030. We have already reduced HFC levels by 55% since 2015 through quota limits. Annual quota amounts allocated to businesses are calculated based on reference values. Article 16(3) provides for recalculation of the reference values by the appropriate regulator based on the annual average of HFCs placed on the market by a business from a specified start date.
This statutory instrument corrects a technical error made in previous amending legislation relating to that start date. The start date should have been January 2015, but was erroneously changed to January 2021. This SI corrects that mistake. If the error is not corrected, it will result in too little quota being issued to businesses, which was not the intended outcome when the F-gas regulation was retained and amended as part of the UK’s exit from the European Union. The intention was to retain the substance of the regulation, including the calculation of reference values and pace of phasedown of HFCs. Obviously, issuing too little quota to businesses would cause significant problems for HFC supply into Great Britain, disrupting sectors across the economy and the business community.
The territorial application of this instrument is in England, Wales and Scotland. A GB-wide F-gas regime currently operates under the regulation. I am pleased to say that ministerial consent has been provided by the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered this SI and cleared it without reporting it to the House at its meeting on 18 October 2023.
In conclusion, I hope the Committee understands the need for this SI. I reinforce that we have already reduced HFC levels by 55% since 2015 through the F-gas regulation and will continue to make good progress. For the reasons I have set out, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Latham, and thank you for calling me in what I suspect will be a very brief sitting. It is good to see the Minister in her place; it is obviously a very busy day for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the Chamber and here.
I want to start by saying that the Opposition will not oppose the draft regulations, which I am sure will be a huge relief to the Minister. As she indicated, the purpose of the instrument is to correct a technical error in article 16(3) of EU regulation No. 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on fluorinated greenhouse gases, which is retained direct EU legislation, as amended. As the Minister said, the correction will ensure that annual quotas that can be placed on the market in Great Britain each year by producers and importers are calculated as intended.
The fact that this is a technical change means that a long set of remarks from me would be surplus to requirements, but I wonder why the issue was not picked up sooner. Will the Minister set out why the technical correction was not built into the transfer from EU law to UK law at the time of our departure from the EU? It would be helpful for everyone here and all those watching and listening to know why we are here and whether the issue could have been avoided. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline any further technical changes that are required to existing and transferred legislation. Are her officials working on any now? Are they preparing to bring any back before the House? I appreciate that she may not have the answers today, but if she could write to me, I would be grateful.
I understand the very specific nature of the proposals, but I want to caution the Minister on their impact. The accompanying papers state:
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because there is no impact as a result of its implementation.”
I understand that the instrument corrects a technical error, but I urge the Minister to return to her Department and make clear to her colleagues and officials that impact assessments should be the rule, not the exception. Does the Minister agree, and if so what will she do about it?
It was also made clear that consultation “was not deemed necessary”. Who made that call and on what basis? I do not want to understand the precise situation so much as the wider thinking and approach of the Government when it comes to consultation. Who decides when a consultation is necessary, who do they consult when making that call and what information do they factor in?
I will leave my remarks there. I acknowledge the technical nature of the proposals, but I hope the Minister can unpick some of the challenges.
Trudy Harrison
Let me answer the shadow Minister’s questions. We acknowledge that there was a mistake, which is how we are in this situation. There was an administrative error in the dates. Instead of going through the sifting committee, we in DEFRA chose to go for the affirmative option, which is why we are having this debate tonight. There are checks and balances, and that is how we came to discover that the date was not correct. We will continue with those checks and balances. As the hon. Lady will know, because we have left the European Union, there is a huge amount of work going on in DEFRA and, indeed, all Departments. Mistakes will be made, but it is important that those checks and balances are in place to catch any.
I thank hon. Members for their interest in this evening’s debate. The correction is most important because it will ensure that the Environment Agency recalculates the reference value correctly by the statutory deadline date of 31 October—not very long at all—and then it will continue every three years after that. Suffice it to say that everything has been covered, and I will take to my seat.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
Education
(1 year ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
This is yet another error and case of incompetence under this Government. The average primary school is expected to be more than £12,000 worse off next academic year and the average secondary school £57,000 worse off than under the July publication. How will the Government help headteachers in Slough and across the country deal with the extra stress and pressure on account of this error, especially when they have to make difficult decisions on staffing and additional support for those pupils who need it?
Nick Gibb
The actual allocations to schools happen in December each year in the normal way, so this situation will not affect the figures that local authorities have informed schools they will be receiving. Those are based on the October census of pupil numbers and the application of the local formula. We then fund the local authorities on the basis of the national funding. The record funding of £59.6 billion equates to an average of £5,300 per primary school pupil and £6,830 per secondary school pupil.
[Official Report, 17 October 2023, Vol. 738, c. 174.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). The correct response should have been:
Nick Gibb
The actual allocations of school funding to local authorities are confirmed in December each year in the normal way, so this situation will not affect the figures that local authorities have informed schools they will be receiving. Those are based on the October census of pupil numbers and the application of the local formula. We then fund the local authorities on the basis of the national funding. The record funding of £59.6 billion equates to an average of £5,300 per primary school pupil and £6,830 per secondary school pupil.
Treasury
(1 year ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith
I am also happy to give my right hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. She has been very patient and tolerant. I understand her and her constituents’ frustrations, but there will be no further delays. After having consulted earlier this year, we intend to look at how we can improve and reform the anti-money laundering procedures.
[Official Report, 18 October 2023, Vol. 738, c. 120WH.]
Letter of correction from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith):
An error has been identified in my response to the debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst).
The correct response should have been:
Andrew Griffith
I am also happy to give my right hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. She has been very patient and tolerant. I understand her and her constituents’ frustrations, but there will be no further delays. Through consultation this year, we intend to look at how we can improve and reform the anti-money laundering procedures.
Phlebotomy Services
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Honesty in Politics
(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Before the debate begins, I remind Members that the motion is on a general topic. The normal rules about criticism of or accusations against Members of either House are not affected. I remind colleagues of the rules in “Erskine May” paragraphs 21.21 and 21.24 and, in particular, that “Erskine May” paragraph 21.21 makes it clear that it is not in order to try to evade those rules by quoting someone else’s words. I call Martyn Day to move the motion.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 561730 and 576886, relating to honesty in politics.
Both petitions call for it to be a criminal offence for MPs to mislead the public or to lie in the House of Commons. I am delighted to see you in the Chair today, Mrs Murray, and equally delighted to lead this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is perhaps a pity that such major events are being discussed in the Chamber, or we would have had a larger attendance.
On a home visit just the other week to Blackburn, West Lothian, my constituent Glenn told me that
“the problem with Parliament is that it filled with”
a shower of “lying B’s”—Members can fill in the blank for themselves, but they will get the picture. In politics, public perception is everything, and even more so when the public are rightfully scunnered by the actions of some bad apples and by the non-correction of genuine mistakes. Addressing the issue is therefore crucial for all of us if we want to restore public trust in our democratic processes.
The Petitions Committee had to request a revised Government response to the first petition, “Make it a criminal offence for MPs to mislead the public”, because the Committee did not think that the Government’s original response directly addressed the petition’s request. The Government’s revised response stated categorically that the Government
“does not intend to introduce legislation”,
citing the MPs’ code of conduct and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as suitable substitutes. However, I met with the Constitution Unit, the Institute for Government and Full Fact ahead of this debate, and we all agreed that those are not appropriate mechanisms to deal with the problem of MPs’ misleading the public or lying in Parliament. That the Government had to be asked for a response that actually addressed the petition’s request is an indication that this issue was not given due and proper consideration. I hope that today’s debate will correct that, and that agreement can be reached on how we achieve a mechanism that alleviates the existential high public concern over MPs’ misleading Parliament.
Both petitions are now closed, and over two years have passed since the Government responded to them. I will refer to the responses further during my speech, but it is appropriate at this early juncture to state the obvious: events have passed relating to this matter since the responses were given. Indeed, I will discuss one of those events at length to demonstrate how the current Commons procedures hinder accountability for MPs who mislead or lie. It will be interesting to learn whether the responding Minister agrees with the Government’s historical responses, or whether the passage of time and related events have since been given due consideration.
By way of background, it is relevant to note that this debate was originally scheduled to take place on 6 June 2022. However, it was delayed by the related event that I will discuss: an investigation by the Committee of Privileges on a matter referred to it about the conduct of the former Prime Minister and Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Mr Boris Johnson. It concerned whether Mr Johnson misled the House of Commons and whether, in its nature, his conduct
“amounted to a contempt.”
That is an important word to which I will return very shortly. I raise the Privileges Committee’s inquiry because its investigation of six gatherings between 20 May 2020 and 14 January 2021 at No. 10 Downing Street, during Mr Johnson’s residency, substantiates the petitioners’ concerns, even though the gatherings were not public knowledge when the petitions were started in November 2020 and April 2021.
I recently met Mr Baccas, the creator of petition 561730, entitled “Make it a criminal offence for MPs to mislead the public”. I asked him what led him to start the petition more than a year before the allegations that covid rules had been broken in No. 10 emerged. He told me that it was due to the lies that had been told in relation to Brexit, and that he had been influenced by the failed legal challenge on the ground that Mr Johnson had
“repeatedly lied and misled the British public as to the cost of EU membership.”
I am spotting a pattern here.
Mr Baccas believes that if an MP “intentionally or recklessly” does not speak the truth or misrepresents facts, they should face sanctions in the same way that other public servants would. It is simple: as public servants, MPs should face tangible accountability. Mr Baccas further believes that this would improve the quality of our politics, and I am inclined to agree with him. He shared his disappointment at what he described as the Government’s “expected response” to his petition, and revealed that his intention had been that the anticipated response would put on the record, and thereby highlight, the poor quality of UK politics. I agree that the response reflected the poor quality of our politics currently.
Mr Baccas added that he understood it was not in the Government’s interest to face sanctions for misleading people. I believe that self-interest should not be so apparent, given that the Government are supposed to serve the country and that MPs are elected to serve their constituents. Mr Baccas agrees, pointing out that it is in the interest of voters that MPs are expected to tell the truth due to the impact they have on other people’s lives. He believes that MPs are guardians of the morals and standards that create a civilised society, and that they should set an example to which the population aspires. In Mr Baccas’ own words:
“If MPs cannot be relied upon to maintain those standards, why should the electorate maintain them? The passive attitude towards dishonesty in politics opens the door to the breakdown of civilised society.”
Who can argue against improving the quality of our politics? I thank Mr Baccas and all the petitioners for making today’s important debate possible.
After allegations emerged about the Downing Street gatherings in December 2021, Mr Johnson proceeded between then and May 2022 to make over 30 statements to the House of Commons about compliance with covid rules and regulations in No. 10. The Committee of Privileges concluded that Mr Johnson’s statements “misled the House”, and it shared its provisional conclusions with him on 8 June 2023, inviting him to make further representations. That led to Mr Johnson announcing his intention to resign the next day, with his resignation being confirmed three days later. The fact that he made a statement ahead of the Committee’s final report being published on 15 June, knowing that the Committee would not be able to respond publicly, is significant. Indeed, Mr Johnson’s conduct on 9 June was considered
“in itself a very serious contempt”.
That brings me back to the importance of the word “contempt”. It strikes me that, in this context, the word is important for two main reasons. First, the House of Commons initially referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether Mr Johnson’s statements amounted to a contempt. The reason for doing that is that, in parliamentary terms, the word refers to a contempt of privilege, which describes any act that might disrupt Parliament’s work. Additionally, the Committee’s final report used the word repeatedly, indicating its thoughtful consideration, and concluded that:
“Mr Johnson’s conduct was deliberate and…he has committed a serious contempt of the House.”
When the final report came to the Commons for debate on 19 June, the word “contempt” was again used multiple times by Members of different parties. On that day, I joined 353 other Members in approving the Committee’s findings. This is an opportune moment to thank all members of the Committee of Privileges for their diligent work in producing its final report. To be clear, the Committee found that the work of the House had been frustrated by the highest office of Government, and the House of Commons agreed with its findings.
The second main reason why the word “contempt” is important is that the seriousness of the findings is not reflected in the consequences, given that expulsion from the House is the worst penalty a Member can face when they do not speak truthfully in Parliament. Being expelled from the House pales in comparison to the penalties for committing a contempt of court, which can see someone going to prison for up to two years, getting a fine, or both. Being expelled from the House pales in comparison to the legal framework for coronavirus restrictions and fixed penalty notices, some of which amounted to thousands of pounds that ordinary members of the public had to pay.
Let us bear in mind that a false statement made in court amounts to perjury, or lying under oath—a crime treated with great seriousness because the very foundation of the legal system depends on trust and credibility. Let us remember that in many cases perjury leads to justice being perverted. The very foundation of democracy also depends on trust and credibility. Democracy must not be perverted, especially by those who have been entrusted to defend it. Why should lying in Parliament not be treated with the same seriousness?
Contempt is usually associated with legal jargon and is defined as disobedience to or disrespect for the rules or orders of a court or legislative body. The House of Commons is not a court, but it is a legislative body that debates and passes new laws, and changes existing laws as required. The Government introduce most plans for such laws and the Government actively seek public comment on some of the legislative change that they wish to pursue. For that reason, the Government should be cognisant that in this case the rules are perhaps reversed, and the public is asking them to
“introduce legislation to make lying in the House of Commons a criminal offence.”
Why should they not comply with such a reasonable request? After all, it is the collectively held will for the common good that forms the political legitimacy of the social contract and determines that we should all live by a common rule. Why should introducing legislation to make lying the House of Commons a criminal offence be opposed? Or is it indeed a case of one rule for them and another rule for everyone else?
Both petitions are clear that trust, truth and honesty are crucial elements in a modern democracy and that lying in Parliament should carry the same penalties as lying in court. I agree with the sentiments of the nearly 244,000 people who felt compelled to sign the petitions. As Members take an oath before they can take their seat in the House, just as anyone does ahead of appearing in court, the same principle should be applied to this legislative body as in a court.
Let us look again at the Government’s response, which states:
“Once elected to Parliament, all MPs must abide by the seven principles of public life which form the basis of ethical standards expected of holders of public office. These are set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and are: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.”
Honesty is there, but should truthfulness be introduced as an eighth principle in public life just for the avoidance of doubt?
The MPs’ code of conduct states,
“Members have a duty to uphold the law”
and it is part of the parliamentary commissioner’s job to oversee the code of conduct. Despite the Government’s response citing the MPs’ code of conduct and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as suitable substitutes to legislation, it is noted in the code of conduct’s procedural protocol that
“The Commissioner cannot investigate allegations solely about breaches of the Seven Principles of Public Life.”
Will someone please enlighten me as to what sense these myriad procedures make? We have only to look at the length of time between public concerns being raised about Boris Johnson misleading the public and his referral to the Committee of Privileges to see that
“the hurdles to achieve this are very high.”
As the director of the Constitution Unit points out,
“In any less extreme case even triggering an investigation to examine the facts might have proved politically impossible.”
Would it not be more straightforward to make lying in Parliament to be an offence?
The UK Government should take the number of petitioners that want legislative change as a clarion call that legislative change is not just desired, but necessary. We must never forget that we are elected by people across the UK to represent their interests and concerns, not our own. We must never forget that as MPs our primary privilege is that we are elected to serve our constituents, not ourselves. We must also never forget that one of our duties, as laid out in the MPs’ code of conduct, is that we should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in us. At the very least that must mean being truthful.
It is a sign of the backwards nature of the Westminster system that in February 2022, after both of the petitions had closed and it was obvious to many that lies had been told, the then SNP Westminster leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), was forced to leave the Chamber for telling the truth. At the same time, the then Prime Minister, who happens to be the guardian of the ministerial code, was able to use his position to spread misleading information and rebuke facts through lies, without recourse or accountability. The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) was also ejected for calling Boris Johnson a liar—she was expelled for telling the truth. This madness places a stain on both Members’ parliamentary records for getting it right. Can the Minister put on the record whether either Member has even received an apology?
When the House of Commons’ rules eject Members from the Chamber for calling out dishonesty, the rules are clearly not working. Parliamentary privilege grants Members the right to speak freely without fear of legal liability or other reprisal, but that privilege has been abused, and that abuse goes against our code of conduct with little repercussion. We should grab the opportunity to examine the challenges and complexities of this matter and come together to find a solution that works. Legislation should be brought forward that prevents the trust between Government and those who are governed being further eroded. It should be done at the earliest opportunity, so we can move the backward nature of this Parliament forward.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray.
Just one in six people in the UK—17% of the British public—who were polled last year said that they were highly satisfied with how democracy is working. I am afraid that compares very badly with some of our friends and neighbours, such as Canada and Germany, where 36% of the public say the same of their Governments. Clearly, whether we are in government or opposition, we need to take a careful look at issues of honesty and trust in Government.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day). The points he raised about partygate are absolutely central to the issue. I will extend one of those points. On 12 April 2022, the Metropolitan police served a fixed penalty notice on the then Prime Minister and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer for attending a rule-breaking event in the Cabinet Office in June 2020. Newspapers were full of that dramatic news when, just two days later, the Government announced the so-called Rwanda partnership. Whatever one thinks about the Rwanda partnership—the £120-million scheme that would see some asylum claimants having their claims processed while they were in Rwanda—it is, at the very least, newsworthy. My point is that increasingly over the last couple of decades, we have been subject to something that started out as spin but has since become something that verges on dishonesty.
Going back to 11 September 2001, we heard the phrase that it was a “good day to bury bad news”. At the time, that was symbolic of the worst aspects of the dark arts of spin. Since that time we have seen the development of that into an election campaigning technique. We now hear about the dead cat strategy. “Dead catting” is the idea that when something inconvenient is in the news headlines, the masters of spin might slap a dead cat in front of the public—a shocking announcement to divert attention away from those inconvenient headlines. Hon. and right hon. Members, it is time to end “a good day to bury bad news”, and it is time to end the dead cat strategy. It is a good day to bury the dead cat.
We need more honesty in public life, but if the public considered that MPs tell the truth only because it has become a criminal offence to lie, that could reduce trust in MPs. I pay tribute to the people who put the petition together and to the more than 100,000 people who signed it, but if we were to adopt the measures called for, we would need to be careful about a couple of things. First, if it became a criminal offence for MPs to lie in Parliament, what about when MPs are thought to have not told the truth outside Parliament? Could that, by contrast, reduce trust in MPs when they are speaking in other places, such as in the media or in meetings in their constituencies? The other thing that worries me about the idea of making lying an offence for which MPs could be prosecuted is what we see in other countries where political prisoners are made of people who are simply practising opposition politicians. Of course, that is taking the risk to the extreme, but I worry about the idea of opposition politicians getting locked up simply for telling the truth.
We should not need this. We should be able to proceed on the basis of honour, a term that goes in front of our constituencies: we are the hon. or right hon. Member of the constituency that we represent. We need more than a code of conduct or code of honour that binds us to the truth. Back in the days of Boris Johnson, we witnessed the terrible technique of a wild claim being amplified by denial: if a political opponent made a claim that we knew to be untruthful, by denying it we would repeat it, and by repeating it we would amplify it. We have to be aware of these partial truths because they are getting us into great political hot water.
For example, the 2019 Conservative manifesto claimed that 40 new hospitals would be delivered in this Parliament, but since then we have heard that they are not hospitals, there are not 40 of them and they are not new. Instead, the community hospital in Seaton in my constituency is under threat and there are suggestions that part of it might be demolished by a wrecking ball.
We need honesty and integrity to underpin our democracy. As politicians, we have a job not only to call out fake news, but to stand up and act with integrity. Over recent years, we have seen a dangerous rise in misleading statements from political parties and politicians. Clearly, the public feel there is distortion going on. Research from the organisation Full Fact showed that 71% of the public believe there is more lying and misuse of facts in politics now than 30 years ago. Yet the Constitution Unit found that the public admire politicians who are prepared to stand up and admit mistakes, rather than being dishonest about them. On top of that, a wave of sleaze and scandal has emanated from the Conservative party, and it was one such scandal that resulted in me coming to office as the Member of Parliament for Tiverton and Honiton.
In this place, we have a mechanism for correcting the record and inadvertent errors by going before Parliament, but we need a better method for MPs to correct Hansard, rather than things being distorted and going viral over social media. We have to be wary of politicians who cook up half-baked proposals, pretend that they are meaningful policies and then claim they have scrapped them. I take as a case in point the Conservative party conference earlier this year, where ideas about seven bins were magicked up. There was a time when the office of Prime Minister was that of statesman, but to stoop this low is to go to the level less of statesman and more of binman. It is deceitful and against the Nolan principles.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he recognise that some of his proposed solutions already exist, yet we are still in the condition we find ourselves in? They do not work. Somehow or other, we need to shift the dial and, within the politics of the United Kingdom, stop rewarding those who say what they like and get away with it, and rather reward those who stick by the truth.
Richard Foord
The right hon. Member is exactly right. We absolutely need to put on a pedestal those people who are prepared to stand up and admit when they have made a mistake and applaud those who correct their own record.
Before I close, one other aspect that I see increasingly is neighbouring MPs claiming credit for the work and achievements of the community campaigners in my part of Devon. Flattery is clearly at play here; it is sometimes said that mimicry is a form of flattery. However, what we are seeing is against the Nolan principles of honesty and accountability.
Finally, anyone who has joined the House of Commons Chamber at the start of proceedings will remember this part of the prayer that we listen to every day. We pray that Members
“never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility”.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I gently remind hon. Members that accusations of dishonesty against currently sitting MPs should be made via the proper channels, and not in a debate on a general motion.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I was not intending to make any allegations about any sitting Members, but I might refer to a couple of former sitting Members and others. It is a great delight to have you in the Chair, Mrs Murray, and to have this debate. It is only a sadness that, of course, it is in competition with very serious matters in the House of Commons Chamber this afternoon.
There is an irony that it is the fundamental assumption of the House of Commons that every single Member always speaks the truth to the best of their knowledge, understanding and ability. Of course, sometimes we get things wrong by mistake; we accidentally misspeak and all the rest of it, but it is the fundamental assumption of the House of Commons that every single Member always speaks the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
However, it is the absolute presumption of every single member of the public these days that, every time a Member of Parliament opens their mouth, whether in the House of Commons or outside Parliament, we are lying. I cannot tell you, Mrs Murray, how many times I have heard that. We have all known it. We have all seen it on the Twittersphere—I cannot bring myself to call it X any more; it seems a very odd name. It is the working assumption of lots of people, and it is considerably worse than when I first arrived in the House. I cannot remember when you first arrived, Mrs Murray, but I arrived in 2001—I think I am the longest-standing Member present this afternoon. It was nowhere near that bad back in 2001. The statistics have got worse in every decade since the second world war, and the public are now at catastrophically low levels of trust in what politicians say. That is truly problematic.
Of course, as I said, we all make mistakes. I have made mistakes. I have had to correct the record several times. Sometimes, entirely inadvertently, one says “million” when one meant “billion”. Sometimes one gets the name of a country wrong. These things happen. Sometimes I have said “Labour” when I meant “Conservative”, or “Conservative” when I meant “Labour”. Sometimes we just have to correct the record, but it is not that easy for a Back-Bench Member. There is not, at the moment, a formal process for us to do so. We can do a point of order, although sometimes we may feel—I know I can be pompous anyway—
Sir Chris Bryant
Oi.
We can feel phenomenally pompous when raising a point of order about some minor correction of the record and can kind of think that we are wasting the House’s time. I really hope that tomorrow afternoon we vote through the amendment that will allow for the process to correct the record—which we introduced in government in 2007—to apply not just to Ministers but to all Back Benchers. We all know times when we wish we could have been able to correct the record. The good thing about this is that it will correct the original moment in Hansard. At present, if I were to say something foul that I believed to be true about a member of your family, Mrs Murray—I would not be able to say it about you, because of the rules that you have already laid out—but I subsequently found it to be untrue, it would still stand in the original Hansard even if I corrected the record two days later. But if the motion goes through tomorrow, we will be able to correct that problem in the present system.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) spoke very eloquently at the beginning of the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I think his heart was in it and he was not just doing it for the Petitions Committee. He referred to the term “bad apple”. Now, I dislike this term, because I think people believe it means, “Oh, there are just some bad apples, but everybody else is okay.” That has never been the meaning of the proverb, which goes all the way back to Chaucer. In “The Cook’s Tale”, one of the pilgrims refers to the one bad apple spoiling the whole barrel. That is the point—there needs to be just one bad apple to spoil the whole barrel, which I honestly think is what has happened in this Parliament.
We need to be terribly cognisant of the fact that 25 MPs in this Parliament since 2019 have been suspended for a day or more or have left Parliament before a report on their misconduct was produced to the House. That is 25 out of 650 of us, which is a record by a country mile. The Clerk of the House tells me that a country mile is as far as someone can see into the distance, to the horizon. I think that it has become normalised for some of our colleagues. I will not refer to specific individuals, but the whole idea of a meat tax theoretically being proposed by the Labour party—which has never, ever been proposed by the Labour party—is a flat-out, blatant lie.
Liz Saville Roberts
This is why it is so critical, because we have to challenge the advantages associated with the influence that someone can gain under lies; otherwise, the individual is being rewarded by throwing a lie out there, and in no way are they are penalised for bringing it back again. That, in the sense of it affecting all of us and polluting our whole politics, is why we need to address this, in a way that presently this House does not seem to have sufficient resources for.
Sir Chris Bryant
I completely agree. If this Parliament does not get around to doing it, the next Parliament will have to address this issue far more seriously than we have heretofore. I will come on in a moment to some of the problems with the present system. I commend the right hon. Member for suggesting a way to deal with it. She is not the only Member to do so, as a Member from my own party has done the same. I will explain why I disagree with the precise route that she wants to go down, but I do not disagree with what she is seeking to change. Incidentally, what I said about the meat tax could be said about seven bins, and so on.
A legitimate point was made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) from the Liberal Democrat Benches, which is that the public does not draw an enormous distinction between whether an MP has lied in Parliament or out of Parliament. They just think that we all lie all of the time, and that at pretty much the moment our lips start moving, we are all lying. This is surely problematic for the whole of democracy.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk alluded to another problem. We have a rule that states that a Member cannot say that somebody else has lied, unless the motion on the Order Paper is specific on whether that is what we are debating. I remember some people got awfully excited in the Chamber when people started saying that Boris Johnson had lied, when the motion on the Order Paper was about whether Boris Johnson had lied. Of course, we have got to be able to advance that argument and prosecute that case in such a debate, but we have an assumption that we cannot say that a Member has deliberately lied. We have to say “inadvertently”, even though we all know that every time somebody says, “He has inadvertently lied,” the person who is saying “inadvertently” is actually lying themselves. What they really believe is that the other person has not “inadvertently” lied at all, but has absolutely advertently lied, and deliberately and recklessly done so. We then throw that person out of the Chamber for a day if they refuse to retract the point. I do not want us to get to a place where we spend all our time accusing each other of being a liar. That would be a very inelegant way of conducting our business, and it would not enhance political debate in this country. We are, however, going to have to review this rule at some point.
It is also a particular irony that, as has been said, two Members of Parliament were thrown out of the Chamber for calling Boris Johnson a liar when, first, Boris Johnson patently was a liar, and secondly, he was subsequently found to have misled the House on precisely the grounds that had been adduced by the two Members concerned. Yet they are the ones who ended up on the list of bad MPs—they are on my list of 25. I think we will have to review that.
My second point is that it is even more important that a Minister tells the truth, as I said earlier, in so far as they are able to know it to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The reasons for that are, first, Ministers have an army of advisers to make sure that what they are saying is true and to tell them that they must correct the record should that be necessary; secondly, decisions on spending and public policy are made on the basis of what Ministers say in the Chamber; and thirdly, it is a fundamental principle of good Government and written in the ministerial code that Ministers must always tell the truth.
I honestly think that 98% of the time Ministers do tell the truth. I know lots of Ministers who are very rigorous with themselves and their teams: “Can I really say that? Is that really true? Is that a correct interpretation of the statistics?” But there are others who are perhaps a little more casual with the use of statistics and whose approach effectively amounts to being misleading. That is why it is so important that Ministers have the opportunity to correct the record and should do so. They do it hundreds of times every year.
Ironically, Boris Johnson did it only once. Just after the second invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when asked by the Leader of the Opposition whether Roman Abramovich had been sanctioned, Boris Johnson told the House that yes, he had been sanctioned. I quizzed him again, and he said yes, Abramovich had been sanctioned. The next day, however, he corrected the record to say that no, Roman Abramovich had not been sanctioned—he was subsequently, but not at that time. It seems a little odd that the only time Boris Johnson chose to correct the record was when a Russian oligarch, with very deep pockets and very expensive lawyers to hand, called on him and made him do so.
As I said earlier, this system for correcting the record should be available to all Members, and I hope that the motion is carried tomorrow; I am fairly confident that it will be. But what are we to think if a Minister, or a series of Ministers, keeps on repeating something by using a statistic that is false, and that we know to be false because the Office for National Statistics, which consists of a pretty dry set of people who are not all that interested in getting into party political argy-bargy, writes to the Minister, “Thou shalt not use this statistic because it is not true any more”? I have a simple answer: if the Office for National Statistics writes to a Minister to say that they must not mention something again, and copies in Mr Speaker, but the Minister does not correct the record within 28 days, they should automatically be considered to have breached the code of conduct. The Committee on Standards could then decide the importance and significance of the issue. If a Minister were faced with such a situation, I suspect that after the first time they were caught out and suspended from the House by the Committee on Standards, they would never do it again. That is the kind of measure that we need to introduce.
In the present system, someone has to refer the matter of whether an individual Member has lied to the Committee of Privileges. This is phenomenally cumbersome. For a start, they need to get the whole House to vote in favour of it. Therefore, in the main, it is unlikely that Government Members, who, by definition, are in the majority, will vote for one of their own Ministers—let alone a Prime Minister—to be referred to the Committee of Privileges. It has happened once, but I suspect it is unlikely to happen again. It is a very long and cumbersome procedure. It requires Mr Speaker to grant permission for the reference to the Committee of Privileges. We need to reform that.
I note yet another irony: when the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Committee found, in essence, that Nadine Dorries had lied to the Committee, it decided to not seek a reference to the Committee on Privileges—I guess because it thought that it was just too cumbersome and tedious a process. We probably need to make this process simpler, and to not necessarily require a Committee of the whole House to do it.
The Government response to the e-petitions says:
“It is an important principle of the UK Parliament that Members of Parliament are accountable to those who elect them. It is absolutely right that all Members of Parliament are fully accountable to their constituents for what they say and do and this is ultimately reflected at the ballot box.”
Well, yes—sort of. I am conscious that I represent the Rhondda, the only seat in Parliament that has been Labour since 1885, although it is being redrawn at the next election. My point is that some MPs are more accountable to their electorate than others. We have a first-past-the-post system, which means that many MPs are sitting in very safe seats, and so are not as accountable. That is why it is all the more incumbent on the whole House to take these issues very seriously. We cannot just leave these issues to the ballot box.
Various ways of sorting out the issue have been suggested. One is that the Speaker should intervene and decide. I regularly see people on Twitter condemning poor old Lindsay for not having told off such-and-such a Minister for lying. That is not fair. We cannot have the Speaker decide on the accuracy or inaccuracy of comments made by any Member of the House; that way madness lies. I fully support not giving that power to the Speaker; it would be unfair.
There is an argument that there should be a criminal offence of lying, and I understand that. However, I used parliamentary privilege to make allegations about Roman Abramovich in the Chamber, which I think enabled the Government to proceed with eventually sanctioning him under the Ukraine sanctions regime. I am sure that he has very expensive lawyers and would have sought a criminal prosecution. I think I was doing the right thing, and operating under another principle: the principle that all Members should speak without fear or favour. That is of course guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, which says in article IX that no proceeding in Parliament should be questioned or impeached in any court of law, or in any other place. That guarantees that we cannot be sued in other places for the things that we say in Parliament. It is important that we maintain that; otherwise, he would have been seeking some kind of criminal prosecution of me. We MPs need to use that power judiciously and carefully, and I admit that I have sometimes got that wrong. However, we need that power in place to ensure that we have a fully functioning system.
A further point to make about a criminal offence is that it will not deal with what happens outside Parliament. It would be difficult to start having MPs brought to court for what they may or may not have said on Twitter or whatever, unless they were inciting violence or breaking another law.
We must also bear in mind that sometimes two people can, quite legitimately, read the same event completely differently. I use the Evangelists—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—as an example. Matthew and Luke have completely different versions of the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain; they differ on whether Jesus is standing up or sitting down; on whether it is “Blessed are the poor” or “the poor in spirit”, and so on. That is a frivolous remark in one sense, but I am being deadly serious. I really do not want the courts—and, for that matter, the police—to spend all their time analysing whether something is proportionate, deliberate, and so on. That is why I am not in favour of a criminal offence. However, I do think that the offence of misconduct in public office is ripe for reform. It has been around for a very long time. It is rarely used. I am not aware of it ever having been applied to a Member of Parliament, but there is an argument that, if a statutory offence of misconduct in public office were introduced, then it should apply to Members of Parliament in certain circumstances.
I have two final points. First, I cannot tell you, Mrs Murray, how many times I have been told, or have heard on television or radio, during this Parliament: “The public doesn’t care about standards in public life. This is all just Westminster tittle-tattle.” I am sorry, but that is so wrong. If we do not care about it, the public certainly do. I gently suggest that the by-elections last week point to a public who genuinely care about standards in public office and lying. Let us not forget that Boris Johnson was referred to the Committee on Standards over what he said about parties in Downing Street; he was not referred to the Committee of Privileges for what he said about Chris Pincher, which was actually what brought him down—but that was another set of lies. There were dozens of different issues that could have been sent to the Committee of Privileges if necessary.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, was absolutely right: the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy, which has done a lot of work on this subject, said that by far the No. 1 thing that it sought in a Member of Parliament was honesty; that is by far the No. 1 quality it wants in a Member. Its favourite option would be to throw Members out of Parliament if they lie to Parliament. With all the caveats that I gave earlier—that we sometimes make mistakes and so on—if a Member refuses to correct the record, that is by definition a wilful misleading of Parliament.
This is my final point. Why does all this matter? In the end, if people start losing trust in democracy, it may lead to them not voting, or to believing, “Well, it is a lot more efficient just to have an autocrat decide,” as has happened in other places in Europe in recent years. We will then have lost one of our fundamental freedoms, and something that makes this country very special. Parliament is on trial. The linchpin of that is about whether MPs tell the truth or lie; whether we—the rest of the House—care when a Member lies; and whether we do anything about it.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
I gently remind Members that it is appropriate to refer to Mr Speaker as Mr Speaker, not by his Christian name.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I thank my friend, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), for bringing these e-petitions before us. It has been really interesting to hear the previous speakers. Westminster Hall has the advantage of being a place where you feel as though you are actually debating something, rather than just standing up and saying a series of words. It is disappointing that there are so few of us here, although I understand the circumstances, given the statement being made in the Chamber.
Others have touched on partygate. It is timely that “Partygate” was broadcast by Channel 4 a couple of weeks ago, though this debate is over a year later than anticipated. “Partygate” reminded people—we saw this played out in the recent by-elections—of the real, visceral shock at how many people behaved during covid. It was like a slow disaster movie. There was shock that people were behaving in a completely different way from us, at a time when we had taken the Prime Minister on his word and given up our liberties. People were not just breaking the rules, but dispensing with the truth when justifying their actions.
During the conference recess, we heard claims about a meat tax, about proposals for seven different bins in which to separate out our refuse, and about people purporting to be gay to gain asylum. We were even given what we were told were concrete spending plans for HS2, only to be told, conveniently a couple of days later, that those plans were actually illustrative. How can people believe what they are told under such circumstances? In Wales, some politicians have dubbed the 20 mph legislation a “blanket” rule, but in my county, there are 85 exceptions to it, so how can it be a monolithic imposition—unless what we have here is not a nuanced interpretation of various political standpoints, but lying for the sake of division and to stoke emotions? If it is that in action, we need to take a step back and ask where it will land us.
As a number of hon. Members mentioned, I tabled a private Member’s Bill that would make it an offence for politicians to wilfully lie to the public. Like many private Members’ Bills, it is an opportunity to talk about the gravity of the situation and the pros and cons of what we can do to address it, and I think that everyone who has spoken so far agrees that the situation needs to be addressed. The Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill would bring Parliament in line with 21st century standards, and make it an actionable offence for MPs, Members of devolved legislatures, police and crime commissioners, and elected Mayors wittingly to lie in their public statements, including in their public pronouncements on social media, in podcasts, and in broadcasts and printed election material. If found guilty, they could face an unlimited fine and be banned from standing for election for up to 10 years. Yes, those would be serious sanctions, evidently, but the question is: what sort of sanctions will bring about change? The Bill provides safeguards to ensure that only those who wilfully lie are held to account, and that police time is not wasted on frivolous tit for tat or malicious accusations, and of course national security concerns would be safeguarded.
As hon. Members have mentioned, we all make mistakes, but we do not have a culture that drives the admission of having made mistakes. We are penalised more for admitting our mistakes than we are for correcting them, and that is, to a degree, self-perpetuating. My party has been calling for such an Act for a long time. The Member of the Senedd Adam Price, who was the MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, back in 2006 presented a Bill relating to misleading the public over the illegal war in Iraq. It is astonishing that, 17 years later, nothing has changed. A 2022 survey by Compassion in Politics found that 73% of people supported my Bill, including 71% of Conservative voters and 79% of Labour supporters, and the e-petitions show that there is real public support for accountability and integrity, and that purposeful dishonesty and deception should have consequences.
That brings me to the question: why legislation, rather than a protocol? I was holding myself back earlier and not intervening, because I thought, “I will talk about this, so I’ll do it with a bit more decorum and dignity, and at a better pace.” First, let us remember that there is consumer protection legislation about the description of goods and services and, of course, advertising. What is advertising but another industry, alongside politics, that deals in influencing people? When it comes to what is true, and what is unacceptable falsehood, we should endeavour to control how we influence people. Why legislation rather than protocol? Because gentlemen’s agreements work only between gentlemen who play by the rules. When there is a culture of disapplying the rules from people who consider themselves to be, let us say, world kings, we need something more robust than codes of conduct. The ministerial code is, in essence, as strong as the political stature of the Prime Minister.
We have heard about the role of the Committee of Privileges, and I think the phrase used was that it can be cumbersome and tedious. We have seen Ministers referred to previous Prime Ministers. I must say that this also happens with the First Minister in Cardiff. In both instances, there is the same risk of party considerations and immediate political priorities overriding the common ethical good. That holds true in both places.
Recent events have shown that we need to take greater preventive steps to safeguard against polluting public discourse with blatant untruths. I believe that in a democracy, this should be a collective action enshrined in law, not a privileged act of patronage, granted or withheld on the grounds of party political interests. Why does all this matter? To me, it is because politics is ethics in action. The alternative, if we do not safeguard that, is that it becomes self-interest in action. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for opening the debate and for bringing the petitions before us, and I thank all those who signed them. They have to be commended for their foresight, given that they signed up before many of the issues touched on this afternoon even came to light.
We live in strange and turbulent times, and there is a danger that we are slipping into an era of post-truth politics. We need only look across the Atlantic at the situation in the United States, where a former President is still denying the outcome of an election years after it happened; we can see the impact that is having on society. If we do not do something—I am not saying that I have all the answers—there is a danger of sliding down the same slope.
As has been touched on, the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, lied to the public and Parliament. He was found by independent ethics advisers to have broken the ministerial code after being found guilty by a Met police investigation, yet nobody in this place could call him out for lying. Surely it is our job to come to this place to hold people and systems to account. To paraphrase an Australian politician who used a much pithier phrase, we need to keep the scoundrels honest.
The public are sick and fed up of politicians who think they can have one rule for themselves and another for everyone else. They want politicians to be honest and to have integrity, which is surely the very least that the public should be able to expect from us. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) suggested that we need to throw out the “dead cat” strategy, and I entirely agree with him. Perhaps one or two Lib Dem bar charts could go with it, but that is perhaps another matter altogether.
University College London research published last year revealed that the UK public want politicians who, over and above delivering outcomes, operate within the rules. UCL’s report, entitled “What Kind of Democracy Do People Want?”, details the responses of 6,500 people who are representative of the voting-age population across the whole UK, who were surveyed in July 2021. It is the most in-depth report to date on what roles people think institutions should play. It shows that UK voters care about how those in power are held to account, and there is notably higher support for judicial intervention than is often supposed. It reveals that people do not want power concentrated in the hands of a few, but would like it shared among Parliament, judges, regulators, civil servants and the public.
When respondents were asked whether they agreed that
“healthy democracy requires that politicians always act within the rules”,
or that
“healthy democracy means getting things done, even if that sometimes requires politicians to break the rules”,
75% chose the former and just 6% the latter. Professor Alan Renwick, the deputy director of the UCL’s Constitution Unit, said:
“It’s true that few people pay much attention to the fine details of democratic institutions…But people do want a system in which politicians act with integrity and where power isn’t unduly concentrated with ministers in government. Most people, across different political affiliations, think that’s not the case at present.”
These findings show that voters care deeply about integrity and do not want power to be unduly concentrated in the hands of the Executive.
It is beyond doubt that the trust gap between public and politicians is threatening our democracy; as I say, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson have accelerated the slide. Unless we halt the political disinformation, democracy will be in deep trouble. I have previously highlighted the possible need for a truth tsar or truth commissioner to fact-check MPs and hold us to account, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that idea. Clearly, we cannot have a situation where we do that ourselves. In an ideal world we would, but that is what we have got just now and it is not working.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is right that it would be entirely unfair to expect the Speaker to take on that role, but somebody has to, and we need to give that serious consideration. There could be an independent body entirely separate from the political system, which could give confidence not only to those of us in this place but to the public at large. It could have the power to investigate allegations of dishonesty against MPs and recommend sanctions, such as suspension from the House. That would be more than naming and shaming MPs who make mistakes, because mistakes happen in every workplace and every organisation. There is huge merit in the Bill that the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) introduced, which I hope will progress with a lot of support. We need to do something; if we do not, the entire foundations of our democracy are in danger of falling into disrepair.
I will give a case in point. Recently, a Minister—I will not name anyone—commented in the Chamber that Scotland “does not house refugees”. If someone was being fair, they could argue that that was a throwaway line or a flippant comment, but factually it is entirely untrue. I pointed that out through a point of order, but I have not yet seen a correction to the record. That was a very simple case, where somebody could look at the facts and check the statement, and the easiest solution would be for the record to be corrected, but at the moment there is nothing to make that happen.
There are other moves afoot. In Iceland, all major political parties have agreed to a code of conduct, which includes provisions for transparency, accountability and ethical behaviour. Perhaps we could look at that existing model, at least to bring ourselves a bit further forward in terms of what actions we could take.
Public anger about dishonesty in politics runs deep; there is a deep-seated view that there is one rule for politicians and another for everyone else. A small number of people making wildly flamboyant claims undermines all of us; it impacts every single one of us. It is in all our interests to try to do everything we can to get this right.
The UCL experts showed that most people are outraged at the suggestion that they should have to use up the one vote they get every four or five years to make what they think should be the blindingly obvious point that lying in Parliament ought to be punished. They expect politicians to step up and enforce the rules. If that does not happen, they could increasingly support more stringent and perhaps problematic external constraints on Parliament. There would be nothing in that for any of us, so it is in all our interests to get this right.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for leading this debate on a subject—honesty in politics and how MPs can be made more accountable for what they say in public and in Parliament—that was determined by the Petitions Committee but is clearly close to his heart, and for explaining very clearly the intent of the petitioners.
We all know the shocking reason why the issue of MPs telling the truth has become a matter of such public concern over the past few years: while people up and down the country were making huge sacrifices to comply with the covid rules and help to keep us all safe, with families unable to be with their loved ones in their dying moments, friends unable to attend funerals, businesses struggling and young people missing out on education and social contact, there were parties at No. 10 Downing Street. As if that were not enough, to add insult to injury, we had the unedifying spectacle—that is very modest language, Mrs Murray—of the then Prime Minister, himself in denial, squirming around and changing his story at the Dispatch Box. We can understand why the leader of the Labour party, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), called for him to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
The problem, as we all know, is that that behaviour by a former Prime Minister has completely shattered the public’s trust in politics. That is why we have said that, for Labour, it is a priority to try to restore trust in politics and to restore standards in public life. For us, that has to start from the top, with the Prime Minister and the Government. It is of paramount importance that all MPs should be honest, but clearly the influence and impact of what Ministers say is much greater. They affect people’s spending decisions. They affect people’s planning decisions. They are crucial in terms of what the future of the country holds.
We cannot continue with the current situation, in which the Prime Minister appoints his own ethics adviser, who can instigate investigations only on the say-so of the Prime Minister, and in which sanctions can be imposed only with the agreement of the Prime Minister. Sadly, for all the rhetoric, the current Conservative Government have done precious little to restore the public’s trust in politicians.
We have set out very clearly that a Labour Government would create a genuinely independent standards watchdog, the ethics and integrity commission, which would be completely independent of political control and would oversee and enforce standards in Government, ending the current situation in which the Prime Minister is the judge and jury on every case of ministerial misconduct. The current independent adviser on Ministers’ interests and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which advises on former Ministers taking up jobs, would be subsumed into that new ethics and integrity commission.
The new commission would have the power to launch investigations, without ministerial approval, into misconduct and breaches of the ministerial code; to put forward sanctions for breaches of that code; to recommend changes to ensure that the code is fit for purpose; to insist that former Ministers apply to the commission before accepting any job; and to ban former Ministers from lobbying, consultancy or any paid work related to their former job. That is how we want to clean up Government. Disappointingly in the light of the events described by hon. Members today, the Government have not brought forward proposals for much-needed reform to create independence in the system.
The conduct of MPs has traditionally been a matter for the House of Commons and the Speaker. I thank those hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate and set out their proposals for how things could be improved: my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant); the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats; the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the Westminster leader of Plaid Cymru; and the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), the SNP spokesperson . It is an important feature of our democracy that we safeguard freedom of speech and that we should be able to express ourselves forthrightly. Inevitably, there will be strong differences of opinion. The question is this: how do we uphold the highest standards in the House while at the same time safeguarding freedom of speech? How effectively do the current procedures work?
Back in April 2022, the Leader of the Opposition called on Mr Speaker to allow a debate on a motion to refer the then Prime Minister to the Committee of Privileges for assertions that
“appear to amount to misleading the House”.—[Official Report, 21 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 351.]
In the event, the motion was agreed nem. con. As we know, a referral was made and sanctions were imposed. Those included a 90-day suspension, which would have allowed a recall petition had the Member not resigned. Therefore, democratically elected Members were able to do the right thing and back, or at least not oppose, the investigation of a fellow Member, albeit he was the Prime Minister, for misleading the House. However, the day before, Ministers had been minded to table an amendment to the motion, so perhaps there is a case for a stronger ministerial code that would prevent that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has put on record, there are real concerns about that process, and there is potential for streamlining it.
As I said, the conduct of MPs in the Chamber has traditionally been a matter for the House of Commons and the Speaker, but it behoves each one of us not to tarnish the reputation of Parliament by knowingly lying to—or misleading, as it is always put—the House, and therefore lying to the public. I am sure that the majority of Members endeavour to be truthful the majority of the time. However, as Members have pointed out today, a Member is more likely to get into trouble and be thrown out if they point out that another MP has lied than if they are the perpetrator of the lie in the first place.
While there are a number of ways in which a Minister can correct the record, that is not the case for other MPs. They can choose to make a correction by using a point of order, but that is not referenced to their original statement, which remains in Hansard. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, the former Chair of the Committee on Standards, pointed out how it could be made easier for an MP to make a correction and how the information could be made more accessible. What thought have the Government given to that proposal, and what will be their position on the proposed amendment when it is put to the House? What discussions has the Minister had with the Leader of the House and Mr Speaker about ways to foster a zero-tolerance culture towards telling and repeating lies in the House and to rebuild trust in Parliament?
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton explained the potential complications of making it a criminal offence for MPs to lie to Parliament or to the public. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd explained how her ten-minute rule Bill, which would do that, would work. However, this has to be led from the top, which is why we in the Labour party think it very important to get the role of the Prime Minister, the ministerial code and the idea of an independent ethics and integrity commission off the blocks as a starter.
What proposals do the Government have for putting things right now? In the light of the events that have taken place, it is extraordinary that we have not seen significant action to create any form of independence in respect of ethics and integrity. What would the Minister propose to ensure that we have a better culture in Parliament and a better understanding of what honesty in politics means, and that we can demonstrate to the public that we are trying to clean up our act?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to respond in this important and wide-ranging debate, which touches on one of the fundamentals of the unwritten constitution: honesty. It is fundamental not only to our relationship with the public, but to our relationship with each other, and to the relationship that everyone in society has with one another. Without honesty, democracy cannot work properly, and society cannot work properly either.
All credit to Members on all sides of the House: everyone has raised important examples—[Interruption.] This side of the House is being represented—it is being represented now. Members across the Floor have raised important examples of Members being found wanting—often not examples from within their own parties, of course, but examples nonetheless. I toyed with the idea of finding examples of dishonesty from within the ranks of the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but we all know that they are out there and I do not wish to engage in that sort of knockabout, much though the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) tempted me by not mentioning certain things that occurred when her party was last in power.
Through the petitions, the question before us is how we improve honesty. The petitions set out a particular route; the question is whether that is the right and appropriate route. I have to be clear with the House immediately that I do not think it is, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant). If honesty is one of the core values of our system, parliamentary privilege and freedom of speech within Parliament is one of the absolute pillars of the modern constitution—and not just in the modern constitution. The Bill of Rights 1689, in article 9, states that,
“The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”
Perhaps closer to the heart of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk who opened the debate is the Claim of Right Act 1689 from the Convention of the Estates in Scotland, which states,
“That for redress of all greivances and for the amending strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of speech and debate secured to the members”.
That was not even a new idea in the late 17th century. We know that it was a principle upheld in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and there is a case from 1455, of a Member called Younge who proved that he had been unduly punished because of something that he had said in the House. The House agreed that there was
“The olde liberty and freedom of the Commons of this land…to speak and say in the House…without any manner of challenge, charge or punishment.”
Even in 1455, it was considered to be an old privilege. There are examples from the late 14th century that may show likewise, but they are more contested.
It would seem that one of the founding principles of parliamentary debate is that people should be free from interference when they speak. It stands to reason that within Parliament people will not always agree. Of course, that does not give everyone the right to say whatever they like. The House has means of regulating its own behaviour.
The example that the hon. Member for Rhondda gave was far better than the made-up example that I had in my head. The consequences of success for petitions such as these is that the hon. Member will stand up and make a criticism of an oligarch; that oligarch has very deep pockets, and will find a way to get him into court. Even if the hon. Member wins, which he would do, he might find that legal process very expensive—so expensive that the next time he stood up he might genuinely think twice about what he said. It would not just be him; every Member of the House would think twice before they spoke on a contentious issue. That would have a supremely damaging effect on the honesty of discourse. Honesty is not just about what someone says; it is sometimes about what someone chooses not to say, and not to stand up against.
I do not believe it would stop there. Not only would there be rich individuals who sought to intimidate Members of the House, but there would be campaigning organisations with very deep pockets that would go after individuals who spoke on certain subjects and seek to clamp down on debate in certain areas. That would have a very damaging effect on our democracy. That is why, in my opinion and the opinion of the Government, the House has to grant those privileges and find means and mechanisms for self-regulation. That is why it is such an important and long-standing principle.
Hon. Members have raised interesting ideas about how those processes can be improved. I will not go into those today, but it is good that they have had the opportunity to air them here. If we were to accept the ideas put down in the petitions, though, we would be accepting—nay, sanctioning—the legal intimidation of MPs in the House of Commons. I am afraid that is something that this Government will not support.
Martyn Day
We have had a good and wide-ranging debate. We have probably only scratched the surface of what could have been said. We have heard, basically, that it is very difficult for Members who genuinely wish to correct inadvertent mistakes to do so, and it is nigh-on impossible to hold people who deliberately mislead Parliament to actual account. There is no ultimate sanction other than the electorate at the ballot box, and that is not a proper sanction at all.
There is definitely something that we need to do if we are to restore public faith in our democratic processes. We have to send a message that honesty is not out of fashion, and the debate we have had today has helped to do that. We have got to ensure that there are repercussions when people wilfully mislead Parliament, and I hope the Minister will reconsider his position.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 561730 and 576886, relating to honesty in politics.
Written Statements
Infected Blood Inquiry
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
The Infected Blood Inquiry Chair has announced that the inquiry’s final report has been delayed from autumn 2023 and will now be published in March 2024. I recognise the calls for urgency from those who have suffered and continue to suffer, and I remain committed to responding to the inquiry as quickly as the Government are able to do so. However, it is only reasonable that the Government’s response is fully informed by Sir Brian’s final report.
I am aware that for some the inquiry, as well as the ongoing parliamentary and public interest in this important issue, has meant reliving painful memories and feelings of loss and grief. I have been deeply moved to hear of the suffering and trauma that each individual has encountered as a result of this tragedy.
The timetable of the inquiry is a matter for the independent Chair and the Government support his desire to complete the inquiry’s vital work quickly but with the necessary thoroughness. The Government continue to fully support the inquiry in its important work and are working hard to be ready to respond.
I will update Parliament as soon as it is appropriate.
[HCWS1082]
Simpler Recycling and Wider Waste Reforms
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Simpler recycling will help us all recycle more easily, doing our bit to help save the planet and make the best use of precious resources that we use every day.
On Saturday 21 October, we published the Government response to the “Simpler Recycling” consultation—formerly known as “Consistency in Household and Business Recycling in England”.
These new waste reforms make it easier for households and businesses to recycle by introducing a simpler approach to waste collections. This common-sense approach means an end to the postcode lottery so, for the first time, people across England will be able to recycle the same materials, as well as get weekly food waste collections. Whatever product you buy with the recycling logo, and all your food you do not use, you will be able to recycle it at home—wherever you live.
In line with the Environment Act 2021, we are requiring all councils to collect seven different types of waste from your doorstep to be recycled—glass, metal, plastic, paper and card, garden and food waste. We will also require councils to collect other residual waste at least fortnightly.
That does not mean households need seven bins though. The areas with the highest recycling rates use just three bins or boxes for every home to collect this already. If it works for those parts of the country, the Government think that this approach can be undertaken by all councils. To that end, we will be legislating in early 2024 to enable that. It will still be for councils to decide how many bins or boxes they offer households. We have listened to councils and households and as part of the simpler recycling policy, local authorities will have the flexibility to design and implement the reforms that works for their geographical areas and citizens.
We will also bring in stricter laws for those who manage and transport waste in England, and introduce mandatory digital waste tracking across the UK—taking on the dodgy dealers, rogue operators and fly-tipping cowboy criminals who blight our countryside and cost our economy £1 billion every year.
Alongside “Simpler Recycling”, we are also cracking down on waste crime to prevent illegal waste from blighting our communities and damaging the environment. Across England, we will be bringing in stricter regulations for those who manage and transport waste—carriers, brokers and dealers—as well as introducing mandatory digital waste tracking across the UK, using powers in the Environment Act to overhaul existing waste record keeping.
As set out in our landmark resources and waste strategy, we will go further and faster to reduce, reuse, and recycle more of our waste and resources, helping to leave the environment in a better state than we found it for future generations.
Together these measures will help us to achieve our 25-year environment plan commitment to eliminate avoidable waste by 2050, our Environment Act target to halve the amount of residual waste we produce per person by 2042, and our recycling ambition of recycling 65% of municipal waste by 2035.
“Simpler Recycling” will significantly contribute to the net zero strategy commitment to
“explore options for the near elimination of biodegradable municipal waste to landfill from 2028.”
This policy will be the main contributor to reducing residual municipal food waste per capita by the equivalent of 50% from 2019 levels, set out in the environmental improvement plan (EIP).
The Government remain committed to delivering the environmental benefits of their resources and waste package of reforms.
[HCWS1085]
Shared Outcomes Toolkit for Integrated Care Systems
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
Shared outcomes in health and care are a powerful tool for driving integration in integrated care systems. As shared priorities, they bring organisations together to deliver on a common purpose for the people they serve. This is why shared outcomes were an important part of our integration White Paper (IWP), “Joining up care for people, places and populations”, which outlined opportunities to progress further on the integration of health and social care.
Since the IWP was published, we have seen good progress in places developing local shared outcomes focused on addressing the needs of their populations and with a focus on health improvement. We have heard a consistent message from stakeholders that place leaders should have autonomy to select local outcomes that are appropriate to the needs of their populations, while also complementing national priorities. Our approach to supporting the development of shared outcomes reflects this feedback.
I am therefore pleased to update the House that we have published the shared outcomes toolkit.
Just as the Government have provided the NHS with a more focused set of priorities in the mandate published in 2023, we are supporting places through this toolkit to develop local outcomes and priorities that are as impactful as possible for local people. The publication of the shared outcomes toolkit also meets recommendations made in the Hewitt review and the Health and Social Care Select Committee hearing report into integrated care systems, both of which recommended that Government publish the shared outcomes framework as soon as possible.
This toolkit shares the learning from places that are further on in their development of shared outcomes, and includes case studies, examples of good practice, and suggestions for overcoming challenges. It is designed to be a resource to support places in developing shared outcomes, and recognising that places will be at different levels of maturity.
With the support this toolkit offers, we expect all places in each ICS will be able to evidence the work they are doing towards developing shared outcomes by March 2024. Going forward, shared outcomes are referenced as evidence in the Care Quality Commission (CQC) single assessment framework and this evidence may be considered as part of the CQC ICS reviews and assessments.
As places progress with their outcomes frameworks we will consider how the balance between nationally mandated and locally driven priorities is working in practice and review the commonalities that may inform the development of national shared outcomes.
The shared outcomes toolkit is available on the www.gov.uk website, and copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1083]
Bus Funding
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
Buses are the most popular form of public transport in our country. They are an essential part of our national transport system, in both urban and rural areas, playing a vital part in levelling up.
In his speech on 4 October the Prime Minister announced, from the savings made by cancelling HS2 phase 2, that we will channel additional funding into better buses across the north and the midlands.
Today I am pleased to announce £150 million of new funding for local transport authorities in the north and the midlands over the next financial year. This is the first tranche of £1 billion in new funding to improve bus services; £770 million for the North and nearly £230 million for the midlands. This funding is in addition to the £1.1 billion for BSIPs announced in 2022 and 2023, and the £300 million to protect and enhance bus services through bus service operators grant plus (BSOG+) and bus services improvement plan plus (BSIP+) announced in May.
The £150 million committed today is from redirected HS2 funding, part of our new £36 billion Network North plan which will improve the daily transport connections that matter most to people, benefitting more people, in more places, more quickly.
We are giving this funding directly to local authorities, so that they can work in partnership with bus operators to decide how best to use it to deliver better, services that meet the needs of each local area. This new funding can be used to reintroduce evening services to support the night-time economy, provide cheaper fares through ticket price caps, increase service frequency meaning less waiting time for passengers, or introduce new routes to connect previously unconnected areas. We estimate that the £150 million we are confirming today is enough to support up to 25 million miles of new bus services.
Further details and anticipated allocations for next year’s funds will be published today for individual local transport authorities, and details of the remainder of this £1 billion new investment will be announced in due course.
Our support for the bus sector and passengers alike does not end there. The £2 bus fare cap has already made a huge difference, holding down prices and helping protect the bus market as it recovers. First launched for three months, the scheme has proven hugely popular and was extended until 31 October, to be followed by a £2.50 cap until November 2024, with £335 million committed to deliver these caps, save passengers money, and grow the economy. In England, outside London, bus fares last year fell 7.4%, whereas in Scotland, Wales and London, where the buses are devolved, fares increased by 10.3%, 6.3% and 6.0%, respectively.
Again, using the savings from HS2, we will extend the £2 fare right across England until the end of December 2024. This means the Government have committed nearly £600 million to cap bus fares. With over 140 bus operators currently running more than 5,000 routes in the scheme, maintaining the cap at £2 will ensure passengers all over the country can continue to save significant sums of their regular travel costs until 2025 and help encourage more people to get on board buses.
Finally, our support for buses includes community transport too. Community transport offers transport for people who have difficulty using, or no access to, regular bus services or other public transport. Funding until June 2023 supported community transport operators during the covid-19 pandemic by paying operators the same level of the bus service operators grant (BSOG) as they received pre-covid, regardless of services run. This has allowed operators to run services that might otherwise have been cancelled.
I am also announcing today that the Government will continue to provide increased financial support to these community transport operators to help protect these key services by uplifting their bus service operator grant claims by 60%. This significant support will be available to operators for claims from 1 July 2023 to the end of March 2025, matching the duration of the BSOG+ support scheme. This enhanced funding comes as part of the Government’s nearly £260 million annual BSOG to support bus services in England outside of London. BSOG also includes up to £213 million for commercial bus operators and, for the tenth year, £42 million for local authorities.
Taken together, this is one of the biggest ever packages of support for buses and bus users we have ever put in place—vital support for our most used public transport.
[HCWS1084]
Retirement of a Member: Lord Ribeiro
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank him for his much-valued service to the House.
Schools: Catering Facilities and RAAC
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blower
To ask His Majesty’s Government what financial support they are providing to schools whose catering facilities have been affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, every school or college with confirmed RAAC will be assigned dedicated support from a caseworker, who will work with them to assess what support is needed and implement mitigation plans that are bespoke for their circumstances. The Government are funding emergency mitigations and reasonable revenue costs for these settings. This could include establishing a temporary kitchen, help to access catering facilities on another site or supporting deliveries of food prepared elsewhere.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister for Schools in another place reiterated that the Government’s commitment is absolute to tackling health inequalities in education settings, including reference to free school meals. Does the Minister agree that, as providing free school meals is vital to many families and a decent meal at lunchtime is necessary for all, extra funds need to be found to restore catering facilities where they have been lost to RAAC? I declare an interest because my granddaughter, while still enjoying face-to-face education, is in a school that has lost its kitchen, dining hall, gym, science labs and assembly hall thanks to the scrapping of Building Schools for the Future.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sorry that the noble Baroness’s granddaughter is having that disruption to her education. I would, however, stress that a number of schools with RAAC were part of Building Schools for the Future, so I do not think that that is necessarily the main or only reason for what is happening. To be absolutely clear, we are supporting schools in revenue terms if they need to bring in extra staff. For example, some schools have had to bring in extra catering staff and we are funding that. We are of course making sure that they can access all the facilities, including kitchens, which the noble Baroness referred to.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, while I welcome the commitment to free school meals made by the DfE in its guidance, I note that 214 schools are now known to be impacted by RAAC. How many of these 214 schools are now unable to provide catering facilities, and what action is being taken to ensure their continued provision of hot food?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Of the 214 schools the noble Earl referred to, 202 are providing full-time face-to-face education and 12 are in hybrid arrangements. In all cases, we work with the school to make sure it can offer pupils, particularly those eligible for free school meals, a meal. Not all of them will be having a hot meal—in some cases, they are having packed lunches as a temporary measure—but the critical thing is that children are back in face-to-face education.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My noble friend referred to the additional funding the Government were providing. Could she give the House an indication of the extent of that and whether further increases are contemplated?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot give the House an exact figure today because we are working through every school’s exact needs with them, but I would obviously be delighted to report back to the House when we have greater clarity on that. All I can say is that, whether it is revenue funding—which might be for staff, IT equipment or renting local facilities—or capital funding, the Government will pay for it.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister kindly give us an idea of the timing for all facilities to be clear of RAAC? I am particularly thinking of catering, bearing in mind the Minister’s comments about making sure that staff and students remain safe from such problems.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot give the noble Lord an exact timeline because, as the House will have seen from the data we published on 19 October, we are identifying a number of additional schools with RAAC. Obviously, the clock starts for each one to address all its problems. But despite the increase in the number of schools identified as having RAAC, we have gone from about 14% of children receiving hybrid education—and a further 16% having to learn remotely or experiencing a delay to the start of term—to now only 6%. It is not a question of “only” for those children—for them, it is a huge deal—but no children are in remote education at the moment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, things such as good catering and sports facilities are reckoned to help academic attainment, so will the fact that those facilities in these schools have been badly damaged be reflected in their status in league tables, for example?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Schools face different challenges every year, and I am not aware that there are plans to recalibrate the league tables as a result of this—I would be very surprised if that happened. But I reassure the noble Lord that, all around the country, not only the schools themselves but their neighbouring schools are doing everything to offer to share their facilities, and we are enormously grateful for that.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I appreciate that the Minister may need to give a written response to this, but how many children are currently being schooled online in temporary or non-classroom settings because of RAAC? Notwithstanding the Minister’s earlier response, how long do the Government estimate it will take to completely investigate all schools?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It is not so much that I cannot give an answer now or in writing, but rather that the arrangements schools have put in place change frequently, as the noble Baroness will recognise. For example, a school might be delivering classes in a leisure centre this week but will be back in its buildings next week. Our overarching efforts are to get children back to normal education as quickly as possible.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
On league tables, will the department at least conduct some research on the impact of this issue on the children and their long-term future? Just as we have seen the devastating impact on children of Covid and being shut out of schools, surely it would be worth the Minister’s department focusing on and tracking through the young people affected.
Baroness Barran (Con)
We have data that tracks young people, through the LEO survey, and I can check whether we can do that for schools. While this is not in the spirit of the noble Lord’s question, which I completely recognise and agree with—that we want to make sure that these children are given every support to succeed—what I would say is that genuinely, every single case is different. There will be one school that can use two out of their five science labs and another that cannot use any of them, while a third has a neighbour that lends them all theirs, so each one will be different.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, one does not have to go very far in this city to see extensive public infrastructure works which, while no doubt useful, scarcely seem to be essential. What analysis is being made of infrastructure investment at national and local levels to ensure that funding is addressed in areas that are most in need, rather than those that are most useful?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously, each department will look at the priorities for its own policy areas, and in my department’s case a big priority relates to replacing RAAC in schools that include it and making sure that our overall school infrastructure is resilient and safe for children. Clearly, the Treasury, among others, has a critical role in comparing proposals from different departments and making those long-term strategic plans.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, at times like this it is obviously natural for many people to look to government for a solution, but I wonder what conversations my noble friend’s department has had with private companies, local charities and civil society organisations, as well as, dare I say it, faith groups, which may be able to help at times like this.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am aware that in individual areas, a lot of those conversations have been going on. We have certainly received a lot of correspondence in the department with offers of help, but I can think of both faith and non-faith trusts that have been using facilities offered by local community organisations.
Domestic Violence and Brain Injury
(1 year 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 analysis they have undertaken into the links between domestic violence and brain injury.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
In June this year, the Government, through the Medical Research Council, announced the £9.5 million traumatic brain injury platform, which will facilitate research and analysis of victims of brain injury following domestic violence. The platform is being led by the University of Cambridge, with the aim of revolutionising data collection and curation for TBI research. This will include data linkages between the underlying causes of head trauma, such as domestic violence, and health outcomes.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his Answer. The death of Sir Bobby Charlton, that great footballer, has brought attention to the impact on sportspeople of head impacts in relation to an increased incidence of dementia. Professor William Stewart from Glasgow University, who has undertaken much of the work in the sports arena, is doing parallel work in relation to domestic violence. The scale of intimate partner violence, with between 20% to 30% of women affected, is huge, and 90% of those women may suffer brain injury impact. In addition to the welcome news about research, could I ask that the Minister’s department looks very closely at stepping up the research but also at increasing knowledge and awareness throughout the health system, in terms of prevention and treatment as well as research?
Lord Markham (Con)
I add my condolences following the passing of Sir Bobby Charlton—a true great. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the work he has done in this space; it is another example of where being asked a Question forces us to look at the situation. The noble Lord made the point very well. Sport is in the news, and we have all seen the head injury assessment protocols, especially in rugby, but you are 11 times more likely to suffer a traumatic brain injury from domestic violence than you are from sport. When we get the findings from the research, early in the new year, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to join me in ensuring that we have an action-oriented approach to make sure that the awareness and research supports a good action plan.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend assure me and the House that, when he is collecting data, he will also be looking at people from minority communities, particularly those who cannot report domestic violence issues for language reasons? Would my noble friend also talk to his colleagues in education, to ensure that everyone living in this country has access to learning English?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, on both counts. Unfortunately, domestic violence is something that affects all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds and minorities. About 5.7% of women and 3% of men, and a lot of children, are thought to suffer domestic violence. I am absolutely happy to give that undertaking.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has clearly noticed the care taken by both players and officials during the Rugby World Cup to avoid head injury. However, there is no referee on behalf of women suffering brain injury during domestic violence. Will the Government support training programmes, such as those run by Headway, for professionals dealing with survivors and victims, and ensure that that training is extended to the police? Will they ensure that, at the end of those programmes, the trainees have resources to which to signpost victims?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct. We need to make sure that all our front-line services are trained to identify potential brain injuries—that is A&E, GP surgeries, the police and schools. There is already a programme in schools for children affected by domestic violence. We have also made sure that every ICB has to appoint a domestic violence and sexual abuse lead, so that they can identify these sorts of issues.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, data collection and research is very good news. However, under normal circumstances, any person who suffers a head injury, for whatever reason, would be subjected to immediate testing for a brain injury. Why would that not be the case for someone who suffers a head injury from domestic violence?
Lord Markham (Con)
It is a very good point. As all noble Lords are aware, often the challenge is getting people to come forward when they have suffered domestic violence. Some of this research shows that there are tools, such as a spit test, to understand whether someone has suffered from a traumatic brain injury. Bringing some of those things into play, so that people are identified and encouraged to come forward, is vital.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is to be congratulated on his call for more research. Would he care to comment on the use of organoids—clumps of generative stem cells—which act as an artificial brain in culture and show clear evidence of certain injuries, such as whether the brain may be easily propagated? That kind of research is important but is often condemned in the press. Can the Minister make sure that the Government will allow that kind of research to continue? It is completely harmless ethically.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes. The main thing is that £9.5 million is being invested into research on traumatic brain injury, but this is a platform to allow spin-off research from there. When speaking to people on this, I am clear that this is not a cap: if we get good research proposals put forward in areas such as the one the noble Lord mentioned, the money is there to pursue that.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, it is good news that research is going to happen in this area. We all know that women suffer through domestic violence much more greatly. However, there is also research that shows that young girls in sports suffer more from concussion. Can we look at the preventative elements to ensure that girls are safe in sport, and by working closely with DCMS?
Lord Markham (Con)
The hope from this research is understanding all the different causes and some of the protocols. I know it is controversial sometimes, because, speaking as a centre half myself, heading the ball is a key part of the game. However, making sure that children under a certain age are not heading the ball a lot is one of the things that we should be looking at as prevention.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, as not all brain injury from domestic violence is immediately apparent, will the Minister raise with his colleagues in the relevant departments the consideration of a reappraisal in policing and the criminal justice system? Will the Government also work with those supporting victims of intimate partner violence to actually give a name to the brain trauma that victims may be suffering? If victims know that traumatic brain injury is part of their trauma, it can give a source of strength and guidance to those who are suffering, enabling them to seek the right medical support.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point; it is often the hidden side of domestic violence. The problem is that there is not much information on this, but a US study shows that as many as between 30% and 74% of women who suffered domestic violence had suffered from traumatic brain injury. It is about making people aware that this is not an edge case; this is something that unfortunately is all too familiar. As the noble Baroness mentions, every strand of society needs to be aware of this and to act on it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister reflected that many victims of intimate partner abuse sometimes do not report until weeks, months or years later. Will the Minister ensure that there are services available that recognise this medical issue when they may not present primarily as a medical case, making sure that all the support that is available to victims of domestic violence is aware of this issue? In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the Minister said that we will wait for the research. I think there is already clearly enough evidence in what we have heard today, and the fact that 3% of dementia in the community is attributed to traumatic brain injury. We need to act now, not wait for research.
Lord Markham (Con)
It is a good point, and there are already some very good examples, such as in Cambridge, where the ICB has a single front door to make sure that all facilities, whether it is neurologists, psychologists, physios or speech therapists, are there and available. The noble Baroness is correct: there are lessons we can learn and roll out straight away, and we are looking to do that.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, research projects in Glasgow and at Drake Hall prison in Staffordshire have shown a very high percentage of female prisoners to have traumatic brain injuries that have been sustained as a result of domestic violence. Is it now routine to screen female prisoners for brain injuries as they enter the Prison Service?
Lord Markham (Con)
My understanding is that it is not routine at the moment. I know there is some conflicting research as to how much screening should be used as a regular tool. I must admit that I do not fully understand the reasons behind some of that, so I was not quite persuaded as to why that was. It is something on which I want to do more research to understand. I will happily write to the noble Baroness to give her more information.
Residential Accommodation: Empty Homes
Baroness Bakewell
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to convert empty homes into residential accommodation
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
The Government are continuing to take action to bring empty homes back into use and empower local leaders to address the impacts of empty homes. We are halving the time from two years to one year before councils can apply 100% council tax premium on empty homes. We also intend to reform empty dwellings maintenance management orders, cutting the minimum period for action from two years to six months for empty homes that attract anti-social behaviour.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that, and I recognise and appreciate the changes being made by the Government. However, there is more to be done. The number of long-term empty properties in England has increased by 24% since 2016, and in 2022 it reached a quarter of a million such houses. Scotland and Wales have a national empty homes strategy. Can the Government launch an England strategy similar to that, possibly in the Autumn Statement?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness that we need to drive down the number of empty homes across every part of the country, and as a former councillor, I am all too familiar with the issues of getting those properties back on the market. The Government have put in place incentives for local authorities to act. As I just mentioned, they will be able to double their council tax on those homes after one year rather than two years to fund local services, and, through the new homes bonus, local authorities also receive the same funding reward for bringing empty homes back into use. Of course, we will continue to engage with local authorities to drive down numbers. Some statistics on the devolved nations may be of interest to the noble Baroness: 1% of properties in England are currently classified as long-term empty, whereas in Wales the figure is 1.7% and in Scotland 1.6%. Therefore, all nations in the devolved system are trying to get these numbers down.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Would an easier opportunity not be to look at all the empty shops in every town and city in the United Kingdom? Those shops will not come back into use because of the increase in direct-sale opportunities. Will my noble friend therefore take a close look at finding an incentive for local authorities to convert those properties into flats, particularly for our younger people?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The reality is that the Government have taken many steps with regard to permitted development rights to try to get some of those non-residential properties into residential use. I am sure that my noble friend is aware of some of them, but I would be delighted to give him some statistics from the department in writing.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, there is ample evidence that the threshold for a council to prove that a home is empty is too high, either for compulsory purchase or, as the noble Baroness mentioned, to use empty dwelling management orders. Will the Government seriously consider removing the need to prove that there has been either vandalism, anti-social behaviour or dangerous dereliction before a council can even begin to take action? Often, once the action has started it can take years to complete. That is a significant barrier to councils taking important action.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question; I am sure she is aware that the LGA published a report in September which clarifies and helps focus on the practical tools that councils can use to bring empty properties back into use. However, not only the measures I just referred to are available to local authorities; they can of course use money from the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme to bring empty properties back into use. They can benefit from the new homes bonus, incentivising them to find ways to reduce the number of empty homes and to make sure that they remove as many barriers as possible. Local authorities can also use compulsory purchase orders to acquire empty properties where there is a compelling case in the public interest. Lots of tools are available to councils, and we are trying to make it easier by working with them to identify what those barriers are and how we might eliminate them.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, the recent Crisis report indicates that if we had a national empty homes initiative, at least 40,000 genuinely affordable homes could be brought back into service by 2028, enabling families to move from bed and breakfasts, and indeed some homeless people to find single accommodation. How will the Government ensure that this happens?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
As well as all the measures I referred to, joined-up thinking is going on with regard to those homeless initiatives and policies. The support is there for councils to make sure that they have all the tools they require to bring as many of those policies together and free up as much of that accommodation as possible, so that we can make sure people are not homeless or sleeping on our streets.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bakewell mentioned that the number of empty homes is increasing. The Minister mentioned a number of measures that the Government are bringing in or that are available to local authorities. Our concern is that, on paper, local authorities have a range of powers and incentives to resolve this, but it does not seem to make any difference. Can the Minister explain why that is the case and why the new measures they are bringing in will work any more effectively?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness that things are not moving as quickly as we would like. However, the statistics I have here are that since 2010 the number of long-term empty homes is down by more than 50,000. It is still much too high at 248,000 but is following a trend downwards, given all the measures being taken. As well as the measures I have outlined with regard to secondary council tax and EDMO action that is going on, we estimate that the changes we are making in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill could bring a further 71,000 to 85,000 properties into scope of the premium and potentially raise up to £120 million for local authorities. We hope that all these initiatives together, along with the work that the Local Government Association is doing, will empower councils to do what they need to do to get as many homes as possible back in use.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Before we get to an understanding of what the best solution is to the number of empty homes we have, can my noble friend the Minister explain why we see such stark regional variations? A lot is made of the number of empty homes in London, but the proportion of dwelling stock that lies empty is greatest in the north-east. What is driving this increase in parts of the country?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question—some noble Lords will be aware I inherited this file this morning from my noble friend Lord Evans, who is stuck on a train from Manchester. In terms of long-term empty homes—that is, those which have been empty for six months or more—as well as looking at the statistics I have given for England, it is interesting to look at the differences. Empty homes are found in both deprived and affluent areas. As a proportion of housing stock, for example, Middlesbrough has 1.9% and Kensington and Chelsea has 1.7%, so it does not seem to follow that there is an overall trend in terms of long-term empty properties. As I stated, the national average is 1% in England, 1.7% in Wales and 1.6% in Scotland. There are differences, but everyone has the same problem. They all need to find ways of empowering local authorities and giving them the tools to get those properties back in use.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard various statistics from different questioners. I would like to know what the Government’s figure is, not for percentages but for the absolute number of empty houses in England. The Select Committee on the Built Environment gave an estimate of nearly half a million in its report a couple of years ago. Surely there should be a tremendous incentive on the Government, with their 300,000 target, for making more homes available to speed up this process massively, bearing in mind that it is not just that empty houses are a gross waste of resources when there are huge numbers on the waiting list but that empty houses do not just frequently blight near neighbours but can sometimes blight a whole neighbourhood. It really is time that the Government—in their own interests, I suggest—got on with this.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments and question. The number I have here in the file for England is 248,633 empty homes by the definition of six months empty.
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament: China Report
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament China, published on 13 July; and what steps they took to ensure that their response is consistent with their plan to tilt some UK military capability to the Indo-Pacific region, as set out in the Integrated Review and the Integrated Review Refresh 2023.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government have taken a proactive approach in assessing the risks identified in the ISC report and are already addressing a number of the issues raised. Our commitment to the Indo-Pacific region was reaffirmed in the integrated review refresh with continued deployment of HMS “Spey” and HMS “Tamar”, and our maritime presence is set to be bolstered with the deployment of a littoral response group and a carrier strike group in 2025.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer and congratulate the Government on sticking to their guns on this tilt to the Indo-Pac region. Geopolitically, it makes absolute sense for security—both globally and for the wealth of our nation. However, the most important geostrategic base in the Indian Ocean for the Americans and for us is Diego Garcia. With all the threats to our geostrategic position in that region, why are we now conducting negotiations with Mauritius, which has an ill-defined basis for saying that the island belongs to it and has 43 agreements with the Chinese perhaps to give Diego Garcia back to it? Mauritius never owned it.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, our relationships with key partners provide us with platforms across a number of areas in the Indo-Pacific. We have a permanent presence in Brunei, and the British Defence Singapore Support Unit. He is correct that the United Kingdom and the United States share a defence facility in the British Indian Ocean Territory. That plays a vital role in our efforts to keep the region secure. We are very clear about its strategic significance and continue to have due regard to the significance of that location.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Question mentions the two integrated reviews. The first, in 2021, was a very good and helpful document but unfortunately came out before the Russian assault on Ukraine. The second, refreshing the first, was also excellent but unfortunately came out before the present Israel-Hamas horror and the complete change to the map of the Middle East. Can the Minister encourage the Cabinet Office not to be deterred from having a go at a third one, maybe in the early spring of next year, because these documents are genuinely valuable in showing our purpose and direction in a very fast-changing world?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his recognition of the strategic significance of these documents and the enduring messages which both contain and which continue to suggest a pungent relevance to events in the world today. The issues to which he refers are deeply troubling and complex. As to whether the Government would contemplate a further integrated review, I cannot say, but I acknowledge his concern at the extent of global tumult that we are witnessing today.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, the Government of Mauritius have gone on record as saying that they will not interfere with the American use of the Diego Garcia base and that they have no intention to alter its status. I ought to declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party group on the Chagos Islands.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is very much better informed than I am but as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord West, that location is of strategic significance to both the United Kingdom and the United States and we continue to do whatever we can to preserve that strategic presence.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say whether, in relation to the Chagos Islands, the Government are giving any consideration to a solution which would involve Diego Garcia becoming a sovereign base area of the United Kingdom while the rest of the Chagos Islands is returned to Mauritius?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
These details are somewhat beyond my field of knowledge. This principally rests with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office but I shall certainly make inquiries. If I elicit any information I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Changing Character of War Centre at Oxford University. This substantial report rightly focuses on defending our country and our people from the political, economic and military threats in our relationship with China. However, there is an impression of an almost ineluctable trajectory towards war on the model of the so-called Thucydides trap. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that competition, rivalry and challenge, which are all entirely reasonable, do not slide into war with China? Is there an equivalent Indo-Pacific tilt in diplomatic resources and in our thinking about how we share the world with China?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
In relation to China, the integrated review and the integrated review refresh represented a comprehensive approach across three interrelated pillars—protect, align and engage. The noble Lord will be aware that under these pillars there is significant, tangible evidence of how they are being implemented. To reassure him, I say that I have just returned from the Philippines and the Republic of Korea, where I was attending, among other things, the Seoul Defense Dialogue, one of the most significant defence fora in the region. There is an absolutely united desire that those who believe in the same values stand up together and learn more about each other. The warmth of reception that I received indicated that the United Kingdom is a very welcome presence in that region, as we endeavour to play our part in standing up for these values with friends and partners.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I put on record our thanks to my noble friend Lord West for his work on this comprehensive and crucial report. The Government’s response outlined additional funding for capabilities that respond to the systemic challenges posed by China. Given the concerns highlighted in the ISC report about the lack of integration of Defence Intelligence into the wider intelligence framework, can the Minister confirm that DI will receive the additional resource pledged?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
For understandable reasons, in the MoD we regard Defence Intelligence as a pivotal part of our operation and defence capability. Quite rightly, it is highly regarded within the UK and globally. It is important that we share these facilities and what we can do with that capability with friends and allies, which we do. Particularly on the noble Baroness’s question, I say that the report indicated a need for us to have regard to what we are doing in this country to augment the infrastructure for engaging with China. She is aware that there has been increased funding, government wide, for a China capabilities programme that embraces Mandarin language training and in-depth diplomatic expertise. A lot of concerted work has been done across the piece.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I was very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, passed up the opportunity to mention the Commonwealth, so I will jump in in his stead. The Commonwealth is strongly represented in many nations, islands and territories throughout the Indo-Pacific region. What strategy do the Government have to strengthen, reinforce and foster this network, and to counter China’s rather obvious attempts to undermine it?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It is important that we have a coherent approach to the Indo-Pacific, and I strongly suggest that this is exactly what we have. We work bilaterally, minilaterally and multilaterally across a range of fora, with a range of countries in the region, some of which are Commonwealth countries and others which are not. The important thing is that we have a strategic united vision, which was demonstrated when I was at this defence dialogue in Seoul. It was uplifting and encouraging to see a unity of purpose, for everyone to stand together and, by doing that, to recognise the strength that this unanimity represents.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, going back to the question of the Chagos Islands, what steps are being taken to ensure that the views of the Chagossians, who were thrown off those islands, are being taken into account in negotiations about the future of the islands?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I do not have any specific knowledge about that. It is very much a matter for the FCDO but I will make inquiries, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and respond to the noble Baroness.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, is stuck on a train from Manchester. Unlike him. I have made it here on the train in time for Questions. That is very unusual and exceptional for a Monday, but being here has been instructive. From the complacent and lackadaisical replies we have had on education, the health service and housing—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is the exception, as she actually gave us a decent reply—it is clear that the Government have run out of steam. That is why 75% of the British public want an election now. Will she show the courage that I know she has and say that she agrees with them?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, when I receive praise emanating from the noble Lord, I think of Greeks bearing gifts. I have not been present to hear the responses to all the Questions, but my impression is that I am blessed with some exceedingly talented colleagues, who discharge themselves with remarkable aplomb and skill. Lest he gets too excited, I should say that the Government are pursuing an exciting and visionary programme. In preparation for my Question, I was looking at the absolute raft of legislation that has been passed to address the very legitimate concerns of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Directly relevant to those concerns were the National Security Act, a national investment Act, a telecommunications Act and a higher education Act, all about protecting our indigenous UK infrastructure—whether that is essential critical national infrastructure, how our academic communities operate, or how we support the endeavours of the Government with the FCDO and the MoD. Far from running out of steam, this train is rattling along the track in great style.
Royal Albert Hall Bill [HL]
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That this House resolves that the promoters of the Royal Albert Hall Bill [HL] which was originally introduced in this House in this session on 23 January 2023 should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150A (Suspension of bills).
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to raise an issue, which may be more appropriate for the Leader of the House, but it is on this particular issue of a carry-over Bill. This is a private Bill being carried over, and I think on the Order Paper today there is a proposal that a Public Bill, introduced by the Government, should be carried over. The only type of Bill that cannot be carried over is a Private Member’s Bill. I think it is three Private Members’ Bills introduced in the Lords that have actually made it on to the statute book in the last six years—a pretty poor rate of return. So I would like the Senior Deputy Speaker, even if he does not know the answer, to explain why it is that all other Bills can be carried over, given a Motion in the House, but Private Members’ Bills cannot? There is one in particular that I commend to him, which is the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I wondered whether something along these lines might emerge. Perhaps I should say that, as far as my Motion is concerned, this is standard practice at the end of a Session for private Bills and is set out in Standing Order 150A on private business. Obviously, going back through the mists of time, this is how the House has decided which legislation should be carried over. The House has given the noble Lord’s Bill plenty of airing, in a number of Sessions, and discussions have continued. But I beg to move my Motion, because I think it is one of merit.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal
1. That if a Holocaust Memorial Bill is first brought to this House from the House of Commons in Session 2023-24 the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2023-24.
2. That if—
(a) a Holocaust Memorial Bill is first brought to this House from the House of Commons in Session 2023-24, and
(b) the proceedings on the Bill in this House are not completed in Session 2023-24, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which Session 2023-24 ends until Session 2024-25.
3. That if, where paragraph 2 applies, a bill in the same terms as those in which the Holocaust Memorial Bill stood when it was brought to this House in Session 2023-24 is brought from the House of Commons in Session 2024-25—
(a) the proceedings on the bill in Session 2024-25 shall be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the bill has passed in Session 2023-24;
(b) the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in Session 2023-24 or in the current session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in Session 2024-25; and
(c) if there is outstanding any petition deposited against the bill in accordance with an order of the House—
(i) any such petition shall be taken to be deposited against the bill in Session 2024-25 and shall stand referred to any select committee on the bill in that Session; and
(ii) any minutes of evidence taken before a select committee on the bill in Session 2023-24 shall stand referred to any select committee on the bill in Session 2024-25.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 23rd October 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 175-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons - (20 Oct 2023)
15:55 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 183 / Noes: 198 - Motion B1 disagreed.
16:57 - Division on Motion F1 - Ayes: 185 / Noes: 218 - Motion F1 disagreed.
17:12 - Division on Motion J1 - Ayes: 208 / Noes: 199 - Motion J1 agreed.
18:52 - Division on Motion L1 - Ayes: 179 / Noes: 196 - Motion L1 disagreed.
19:03 - Division on Amendment M1 - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 186 - Amendment M1 agreed.
19:14 - Division on Motion N1 - Ayes: 185 / Noes: 186 - Motion N1 disagreed.
19:28 - Division on Motion R1 - Ayes: 176 / Noes: 191 - Motion R1 disagreed.
20:34 - Division on Motion ZE1 - Ayes: 158 / Noes: 176 - Motion ZE1 disagreed.
Earl Howe
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the Levelling up and Regeneration Bill establishes the foundations to address entrenched geographic disparities across the UK. Throughout the Bill’s passage we have listened carefully to the views of parliamentarians and stakeholders and introduced amendments in the other place across a range of issues to strengthen the Bill’s provisions further and address concerns that we have heard in both Houses. In this first group, I beg to move Motion A and will speak also to Motions B, B1, C, D, E, E1 and W.
Let me start with Motion A, which relates to levelling up and, first, the issue around the publication of the statement of levelling-up missions. We have committed within the Bill to publish the statement within one month of Part 1 of the Act coming into force, which will be two months after Royal Assent. We believe that this is an appropriate and prompt timescale—it gives sufficient time to collate materials and data across government departments and to ensure that the data is complete and comprehensive before the report is published and laid. The proposed timetable has been endorsed by the other place. We do not think that it makes sense to accelerate the process, as Amendment 1 would seek to do.
On Report, the House agreed to amendments that sought to introduce requirements for government to set levelling-up missions on child poverty and health disparities. In the Commons consideration we have removed those amendments because, important as those issues are, we do not want the Bill to be too rigid or prescriptive. Missions may need to evolve over time and, if the detail of missions appears in the legislation, the process to adjust them in future becomes unhelpfully complex and time-consuming.
However, we recognise that socioeconomic goals are an important part of missions. We have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu that requires the Government to consider both economic and social outcomes in deciding their levelling-up missions. This means that we retain that vital flexibility for future Governments to set missions according to the most important pressing issues of their day, while recognising that social outcomes such as child poverty and health inequalities are essential factors when deciding missions.
I note Motion B1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which I am sure she will wish to speak to. The amendments in Motion B1 seek to ensure that the Government have regard to child poverty and health disparity when deciding their levelling-up missions. I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness will feel that the amendments are unnecessary in the light of the Government’s amendment in lieu. The Government will already undertake these considerations when they consider economic and social outcomes, as required by that amendment—I underline that because I can undertake to the noble Baroness today that the first statement of levelling-up missions will contain the missions from the levelling-up White Paper, including the mission to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy by 2030 and increase healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035.
On Report, your Lordships also approved an amendment that introduced a requirement for government to include an assessment of geographical disparities as part of the statement of levelling-up missions, and defined metrics that this assessment must consider—Amendment 3 now replicates that proposal. The Government cannot support this amendment because the criteria for assessing geographical disparities will inevitably change as the data evolves. However, we have heard the strength of feeling in this House and, as Ministers set out in the other place, we have committed to publish an analysis of geographical disparities alongside the first statement of missions.
Amendment 6 again replicates a change to the Bill previously made in this House, introducing a requirement for the Government to publish a rural-proofing report concerning levelling-up missions. The Government agree that levelling up must work for all types of communities, including rural communities. To avoid anything which would duplicate the existing annual rural-proofing report, which reflects the Government’s consideration of rural challenges across policy-making, including levelling up, we have tabled amendments in lieu which will require the Government to have regard to the needs of rural communities in preparing the statement of levelling-up missions. This approach is consistent with the approach we have taken in other areas, including with respect to the devolved authorities.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Motion B1, under which Amendments 4C and 4D would amend government amendments 4A and 4B in lieu. I am grateful to the Government for going part of the way in meeting the concerns raised in the original amendments, which were supported by your Lordships’ House. The purpose of those amendments was to introduce levelling-up missions to address child poverty and health disparities throughout the life course. The latter was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is unable to be here today, but we have agreed the amendments that I am proposing. Both amendments received strong support on Report, including from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who regrets that he cannot be in his place today.
I am grateful, too, to the noble Earl the Minister for the helpful meeting we had last week. I am only sorry that the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Scott, is still unable to be with us, and I send her my best wishes. I am, though, disappointed that the Government did not accept the compromise that we proposed—I emphasise that it was a compromise. This compromise no longer pushes for specific missions and it accepts the government amendments in lieu, but would add to them the words
“including child poverty, and health disparities throughout the life course”.
I think they are still necessary—indeed, essential.
In the Commons and today, Ministers have acknowledged that child poverty and health disparities are
“essential factors when deciding missions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/23; col. 182.]
The Government’s argument against our original amendments is that missions may need to evolve over time, so their details should not appear explicitly in the Bill. But does anyone in government really believe that child poverty and health inequalities will not continue to be essential factors in any levelling-up strategies for the foreseeable future?
Just this weekend, the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health emphasised the importance of long-term action on child poverty and health inequalities in the context of the climate emergency. Earlier, the early years healthy development review and the Marmot review into health equity underlined the need for a long-term focus with regard to these issues. This amendment would help ensure such a focus, without introducing the kind of inflexibility that the Government are so frightened of.
Given the time constraints, I will not repeat the arguments we made on Report. Child poverty and health disparities are a terrible blot on our society. Child poverty damages childhood itself and children’s life chances. Health disparities diminish life chances and physical and mental well-being at every point of our lives from before the cradle to the grave. The reference to life expectancy is only one element of health disparities; it is not the whole story by any means. Action on both fronts should be seen as an economic and social investment in the future of our society and as key to any levelling-up missions.
Acceptance of our amendment by the Government would constitute recognition of the importance of child poverty and health disparities throughout the life course and help ensure that, whatever the future levelling-up missions, they take account of these essential factors in levelling up our country and improving the life chances of all its members. Unless the Government are willing, even at the last minute to accept this compromise—and I hope I can persuade the Minister to accept it—I give notice that I wish to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I too speak to Amendments 4C and 4D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. We are essentially discussing four non-contentious words: “throughout the life course”. The Government have gone out of their way to address most of the concerns expressed about the welfare of children, for which everyone is extremely grateful. However, it is puzzling why these four words continue to be resisted. We know that health disparities begin in pregnancy, even before birth, as the noble Baroness said, and continue until advanced old age. Surely any levelling-up Bill has to acknowledge that continuous investment at every stage will result in a healthier and more productive society. The Government argue that this is implicit in the Bill, but why not make it explicit in the Bill? I honestly fail to understand this reluctance on the part of the Government and, should the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, decide to press her Motion to a vote, I will follow her into the Lobby.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Motion D, which relates to rural issues, and my concern about the absence of rural issues in the Bill. Indeed, at Second Reading I made reference to this issue and pointed out the enormous disparities between urban and rural communities. I gave a range of examples from the way in which, for instance, housing costs are higher and yet wages are lower, to that the cost of delivering services such as education, health and policing is higher, yet government funding is lower. There were many other examples. These disparities have been referred to in your Lordships’ House and the other place on many occasions over very many years. Indeed, proposals were made several years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and were responded to by the then Secretary of State, Liz Truss, who said:
“This Government … is committed … to ensuring the interests of rural communities and businesses are accounted for within our policies and programmes”.
More recently, I had the opportunity to chair your Lordships’ special Select Committee on the Rural Economy. Again, we made a number of proposals, in response to which the Government said:
“Without doubt, these distinct characteristics”
of rural areas
“must be recognised in policy making and the government believes that rural proofing is the best”
way of doing it.
The most recent handbook on how to carry out rural-proofing—the Government’s Rural Proofing: Practical Guidance to Consider the Outcomes of Policies in Rural Areas—makes it abundantly clear that the rural-proofing process must take place before the presentation of legislation for consideration in your Lordships’ House and the other place. Yet, looking through the Bill as it was presented to us, I saw an absence of any reference to the distinctive nature of rural communities and the differences between them and urban communities. I also saw no evidence that a rural-proofing process had been done in advance of the Bill being presented to us. So, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I proposed a couple of amendments.
The first said that, in developing the mission statements, the Government must have regard to the specific needs of rural communities. That has been rejected time after time at various stages in the passage of the Bill. However, as we have just heard from the Minister—I am enormously grateful to him for the meeting that we had to discuss this issue—the Government have now conceded that amendment. It is now to be included within the Motion brought forward by the Minister. Again, I am enormously grateful to him.
My second amendment proposed that evidence of rural-proofing should be presented to your Lordships’ House before the Bill is able to be enacted. That has been rejected and, as we have just heard from the Minister, it is to be rejected again. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that I need not be concerned because there is clear evidence that the Government have gone through a rural-proofing process in relation to all government legislation. I will not argue with the Minister, but I gently say to him that, when independent experts have looked at this matter—for instance, the Rural Services Network looked at the most recent government report on rural-proofing—they have made it absolutely clear that, in their view, there is no evidence of rural-proofing processes having been carried out. There are a lot of mentions of some good things that the Government are doing to support rural communities but not of a specific process having been carried out. The precise conclusion of the Rural Services Network was:
“Nowhere … is anything evidenced anywhere to show if these processes were followed”.
I will take the Minister’s word for it that he has been given total assurance that this procedure was adopted for the passage of the Bill. For that reason, I will not press and have not put down an amendment to repeat what my earlier amendment said. But it would be enormously helpful if, for the sake of those of us who are still somewhat sceptical, he could provide written evidence of the procedure having been carried out.
As I have said, I am enormously grateful that—through the amendment he has brought, repeating the one I originally proposed—we now have reference in the Bill that the specific needs of rural communities will be taken into account in drawing up the mission statements. I am enormously grateful for the work he did to ensure that this happened, so I end by once again expressing my thanks to the Minister.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will make a brief comment in response to the Minister’s Motion C in relation to Amendment 3, which I moved on Report. I want to put on the record that I understand the line that the Government have taken. It is difficult to make statutory geographical disparities. What matters is the assurance that the Minister has given on that issue. It will really matter, in respect of policy formulation to address geographical disparities, for the evidence to be constantly collected to identify what those disparities are. I accept the assurances that the Minister has given and I have no intention of pursuing the matter further. I am grateful to the Minister.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I have relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a councillor in West Yorkshire.
I will speak specifically to Motion B1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. The finest achievement of the levelling-up Bill could be putting the reduction of child poverty and health inequalities at its heart. After all, it is levelling up that we have been talking about during the many hours that we have debated the Bill. Unfortunately, the government amendment fails to make it absolutely specific that that is what the Bill is going to try to achieve.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have some amendments in this group. Amendment 1 concerns the timetable for when the levelling-up Statement should be published. I put on record that we are very happy with the noble Earl’s response and accept the Government’s arguments about that.
I also have the amendment on levelling-up funding. We are pleased that the Government have said they will take a new approach to the third round of the levelling-up fund, and that they have listened to the arguments in this House in Committee and on Report. We welcome the fact that the amendment in lieu has been tabled by the Government so that the Minister has a duty to lay before each House the Statement about the third round of the levelling-up fund within three months of Royal Assent.
I also have Amendment 199 on high-street funding, banks and post offices. We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter; I do not intend to press it any further.
I was pleased to hear the response to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on rural-proofing and that the Government have tabled the amendment on having regard to the needs of rural communities. Rural communities often feel left out and forgotten, and more needs to be done to take account of that during any levelling-up and regeneration process. It is important that geographical disparities are taken account of.
I will not say much about my noble friend Lady Lister’s amendment on child poverty and health inequalities because she has laid it out very clearly, as have other noble Lords who have spoken. As others have said, if you are genuinely going to sort out disparities and level up, you really have to take into account health inequalities—they are the basis of so much—and child poverty is impacted by that as well. So it is disappointing that the Government have not gone further on this and recognised the difference that they could make. If my noble friend wishes to divide the House, she will have our strong support.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on the government Motions in this group and on the amendments that have been tabled. As regards Motion E1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about which she has just spoken, and which concerns round 3 of the levelling-up fund, there is little more that I can add to my earlier remarks. She may like to know, however, that policy development relating to round 3 remains ongoing and, for that reason, the Government cannot comment on the specifics of the statement at this time. Nevertheless, I assure the noble Baroness that we have published information on the GOV.UK website regarding allocations in round 1 and round 2 of the fund, and we would expect to do so again in this third round.
Turning to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and spoken to by other noble Lords, while I have spoken about our reasons for not accepting her amendment, I would not want the Government’s policy in both these important areas to go by default. I simply say to the noble Baroness that it is important to look not only at what the missions might be able to do—I have already described what our approach will be in that context—but, equally, at what the Government are doing on the ground.
It remains our firm belief that the best way to help families with children to improve their financial circumstances is through work. As I am sure she knows, because she is an expert in these areas and probably has the statistics in her head, we are supporting working people with the largest ever cash increase to the national living wage. We will spend around £276 billion through the welfare system in Great Britain in 2023-24, including £124 billion on people of working age with children. To help parents on universal credit who are moving into work or increasing their hours, the Government will provide additional support with upfront childcare costs. We will also increase universal credit maximum childcare costs. These issues are not ones the Government regard as trivial—quite the opposite; they are centre stage in the work the DWP and others are doing.
I repeat the undertaking I gave earlier to the noble Baroness. The first statement of levelling-up missions will contain the missions mentioned in the levelling up White Paper, including the mission to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy and increase healthy life expectancy by five years. I hope she will regard that as evidence of the Government’s intent, even if we have to beg to differ on what ought to go on the face of the Bill.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, comments, having heard the arguments I would just like to say that I am sympathetic to the Government not wanting to add these words. Nobody would deny for a moment that child poverty and health equality are important matters in levelling up. But if one puts particular words in the Bill, one implies that other things are less important. For that reason, it seems unhelpful, and one ought to take into account the full measure of inequality and not just pick out two particular factors.
Earl Howe
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 2 and 4 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 4A and 4B in lieu.
“(2A) In the course of preparing a statement of levelling-up missions, the Minister of the Crown must have regard to the importance of the levelling-up missions in the statement (taken as a whole) addressing both economic and social disparities in opportunities or outcomes.”
“(12) In carrying out functions under this section, a Minister of the Crown must have regard to the importance of the levelling-up missions in the statement of levelling-up missions (taken as a whole) addressing both economic and social disparities in opportunities or outcomes.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
At end “, and do propose Amendment 4C as an amendment to Commons Amendment 4A, and Amendment 4D as an amendment to Commons Amendment 4B—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I beg to move Motion B1 because I am afraid that I am not satisfied by the Minister’s response. What policy? There is no child poverty policy. The health inequalities White Paper was abandoned. We need to focus on these issues. The Government have said that these are essential elements of levelling up, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoke to Motions C and D. With the leave of the House, I beg to move them en bloc.
Motion D
“(2B) In the course of preparing a statement of levelling-up missions, the Minister of the Crown must have regard to the needs of rural areas.”
“(1A) In the course of preparing each report, the Minister of the Crown must have regard to the needs of rural areas.”
“(2A) In discharging functions under this section, a Minister of the Crown must have regard to the needs of rural areas.”
“(13) In carrying out functions under this section, a Minister of the Crown must have regard to the needs of rural areas.”
“Levelling-up Fund Round 3
(1) Before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, a Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a statement on Levelling-up Fund Round 3.
(2) A “statement on Levelling-up Fund Round 3” is a statement about the allocation of a third round of funding from the Levelling-up Fund.
(3) The “Levelling-up Fund” is the programme run by His Majesty’s Government which is known as the Levelling-up Fund and was announced on 25 November 2020.”
(a) section (Levelling-Up Fund Round 3) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) the remaining provisions come”
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoke to Motion E, and I beg to move.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, we come now to a group on English devolution and local government. In moving Motion F, I shall speak also to Motions G, H, J, J1, ZE and ZE1. There are three Motions against the government Motions, which I shall address in detail, if necessary, in my closing remarks.
The first topic is combined county authorities, a new institutional model introduced by this Bill. Their core feature is that only upper-tier local authorities can be constituent members, which is crucial to ensuring that devolution and its benefits can be expanded to two-tier areas. At Report, your Lordships approved Amendment 13, which would allow non-constituent members of a combined county authority to become full members. The effect of that amendment would be to undermine this principle and reduce the effectiveness of devolution in those areas.
Amendment 13B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would have the same effect as Amendment 13 but would allow only non-constituent members that are local authorities to become full members. As with Amendment 13, this would undermine the principle of CCAs, that only upper-tier authorities can become full members, and the Government are therefore unable to support Motion F1.
Motions G and H address other concerns of the House about CCAs. The Government have heard the strength of feeling in both Houses about associate member voting rights and combined authority boundary changes, and we are content to accept these. Accordingly, the Government have tabled amendments in lieu—Amendments 14A to 14R and Amendments 18A and 18B, which we hope the House will support.
Motion J addresses the issue of virtual or hybrid meetings by local authorities. I must tell my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that the Government stand by their original opposition to this amendment. We have consistently expressed the view that councillors should be physically present to cast their votes and interact in person with citizens. It is important that they are present, active participants in local democracy. Our position on this matter has not changed. The other place rejected Amendment 22 for that reason, and I am afraid we cannot accept Amendment 22B, which my noble friend has tabled in lieu, for the same reason. On an associated issue, as my noble friend knows, there are no limits placed on authorities broadcasting their meetings online, and I would encourage them to do so to reach as wide an audience as possible.
Amendment 273 reflects a proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, at Report which would see Clause 62 commence nine months after Royal Assent, preventing the transfer of PCC functions to combined authority mayors at the May 2024 elections using this clause. The arguments advanced by the noble Lord in favour of this proposal rested on an important misunderstanding about the legislative effect of Clause 62.
First, I would like to reassure the House that PCC functions may transfer to a mayor only at the point of a mayoral election, maintaining the democratic accountability established by the PCC model. Secondly, on the issue of consent, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is concerned about, Clause 62 amends the statutory consent requirements for a mayor to request a transfer of PCC functions. It does not, however, lessen the importance of engagement between a mayor and local partners, including local authorities and the PCC, to inform a mayor’s decision whether to request a transfer of these functions. Where mayors request the transfer of PCC functions, government will make clear to those mayors the importance of that engagement with their partners. I hope that is useful clarification for the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 13B in lieu—
“(7) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations establish a process for non-constituent members who are local authorities to become full members.””
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as listed in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the District Councils’ Network. Before I speak briefly to the amendments in this group, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for all his time and careful consideration of the outstanding issues we feel remain in this Bill following its consideration in the other place. We also add our best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for a speedy recovery.
Amendment 13B relates to the ability of combined county authorities to agree, as a part of their devolution deal and, if they wish, by local consensus, that district council members be full voting members of the CCA. We have discussed this at length both in Committee and on Report, but there has been no movement on the Government’s part. In a debate in the other place, many Members spoke of the important role districts play in exercising their powers relating to planning, housing and economic development to further the economic growth of their areas. To take these key decision-makers out of the frame would be tantamount to shooting devolution in the foot before it has even got off the ground, not least because in unitary areas where councils have all the powers that districts have and the powers of county councils, they are represented on CCAs.
In the debate in the other place, MP after MP from two-tier areas spoke of the value they place on the work done in relation to development by their district councils. Sir Julian Lewis quoted the Conservative chairman of Conservative New Forest District Council, who supported our original amendment:
“District Councils hold levers which are indispensable in creating jobs, improving economic opportunity, addressing skills shortages, tackling inequalities and reviving local pride—precisely the outcomes at the heart of the levelling up … Bill … It simply makes no sense that districts should be excluded from these new devolution deals”.
Sir Julian appealed directly to the Minister, saying that his local district council will not be
“sidelined or excluded by the Government’s refusal to accept Lords amendment 13”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/23; col. 228.]
Yet the vote went through to disagree with the Lords amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, within this group is Amendment J1 in my name; I wish to speak very briefly to this revised amendment in lieu. First, I send my good wishes to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook and wish her a speedy recovery. She has been indefatigable in her presence otherwise on this Bill, so we wish her the very best for a speedy recovery.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe and others for attending the very useful meeting we had last week, as a result of which I have tabled revised Amendment 22B in lieu. As my noble friend pointed out, both during the meeting and in his response to the revised amendment in his opening remarks, it has been brought forward in recognition of the fact that the Government wish primarily that council meetings be physical. However, the purpose of this amendment is to recognise the position that pertains in the House of Lords, certainly as regards the position of hybrid meetings and some Members being able to attend virtually under certain conditions. It is incumbent on us to extend the same criteria to those who meet in local authorities.
I am grateful for the support I received from both the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils. We debated this in Committee and on Report, and it is fair to briefly sum up that this amendment reflects the challenges of those living in rural areas in particular but also other areas. As we have seen in the flood and storm conditions over recent days, the distances that councillors in rural areas have to travel are much greater than for those in urban areas, and in many cases there is no adequate public transport. In addition, as I mentioned, due to the weather we have seen in parts of the country over recent days, such as in Scotland, North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Derbyshire, councillors have been prevented from attending physically.
I understand from the National Association of Local Councils survey that one in five councillors cited childcare commitments as one of the top four reasons for wanting to attend meetings virtually. There will be other reasons, such as temporary or permanent illness and disability, that, under the criteria that I have set out in Amendment 22B, will permit councillors to attend virtually as opposed to physically.
I accept that a large part of the meetings of local councils will continue to be physical. The terms of Amendment 22B reflect that, but would permit the Government to bring forward, by regulation, conditions which, while mostly reflecting councils meeting physically, would allow councillors to join virtually or remotely in certain circumstances according to the criteria to be set by the Government. One would hope that, in setting the regulations, the Government would consult with councillors and the organisations that represent them to set the criteria.
Amendment 22B recognises the fact that I got the balance wrong in the earlier amendment, with councillors meeting only virtually. I accept that we wish councillors to meet physically, but certain set criteria to be determined by the Government, I hope in consultation with those concerned, would allow councillors to represent their wards and attend remotely. It would equalise the situation between, for example, House of Lords committees and others which can meet virtually, physically or in hybrid form. It seems extraordinary that, despite the fact that this worked so well during the Covid pandemic, when all meetings of councils were virtual, councils have now been excluded from having any form of virtual representation whatever.
With these few remarks, I hope my noble friend will accept that this would work extremely well for councillors. It is not fair that they should be excluded from attending a meeting because they cannot get there physically either because of weather—floods and storms, or snow in the winter—or due to some disability or illness or childcare commitments. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on this amendment, and I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion ZE1 as an amendment to government Motion ZE. My Motion is on the same terms as my amendment on Report which the House was good enough to vote in favour of.
The Mayor of the West Midlands wants to be the police and crime commissioner as well; he is from one political party, the elected police and crime commissioner from another. The mayor wants to ensure there is no election for the post of an independent police and crime commissioner in the West Midlands in May next year. The way he will do that is that he and the Government will abolish the independent role of police and crime commissioner in the second-largest metropolitan area in England by the stroke of a pen. To achieve this extremely undemocratic power grab, the Government’s Motion means that Clause 59 of the Bill will come into effect on the very day the Act is passed, in marked contrast to similar reforms which allow for a longer period.
I am, of course, grateful to both Ministers who have spoken and written to me on this matter, aided by their very able officials; however, disappointingly, no real concession has been offered. This remains an attempt to provide for an elected representative from one party—by a stroke of the pen, as I say—to abolish an elected representative from another party, not while that other one is serving but post election without any real consultation. The Government are not prepared—according to the letter I received from the noble Lord—even to suggest guidance in the statutory instrument that would have to follow this process; they are merely going to advise a mayor that he should do some consulting.
In his letter to me, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, cites Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire as examples of what the Government want to do here, but I am afraid that is incorrect. I have spoken to the chiefs of staff of the mayors of Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, and it is clearly not what happened. In both those cases, the transfer of the police and crime commissioner’s powers to the mayor was an essential part—as my noble friend said a few minutes ago—of the devolution deal, agreed and signed by all parties, from Ministers to local authorities to others, after, inevitably, considerable consultation and, very significantly, general consent. All this happened before the respective mayoralties in Greater Manchester or West Yorkshire began.
Without that consultation and consent, it just would not have happened. Here, no consultation or consent is required: the mayor will ask the Government to abolish the independent PCC role and then there will be no election for a PCC on 2 May next year, even though the devolution deal signed in the West Midlands after consultation and with consent maintained the two roles, both to be elected every four years. The Government will agree with the mayor’s request—I am sure the House is not so naive as to believe this has not been sorted out already—and the abolition will take place, I repeat, without any consultation or consent.
This is close to an abuse of power. It goes against this country’s constitutional traditions and relies, absurdly and ridiculously, on the Government’s insistence that the local consent, which they agree is necessary, is given by the mayor himself. However, the mayor is the guy who wants the job—talk about being judge in your own case. I am of course not referring to the case in question, but it is the sort of device that some tinpot dictator might use to increase his power. You can imagine the conversation, what he tells himself: “I want more power and I therefore give consent for it. That will do nicely”. It is Newspeak at its best and Parliament should not permit it. This unseemly and undemocratic rush to abolish the independent post of police and crime commissioner in the West Midlands is quite unacceptable. If passed, my amendment would attempt to stop it happening.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and if he decides to press this matter to a vote, he will have the support of these Benches.
I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I want to comment on Motion G, which related to Lords Amendment 14 on Report. On the issue of associate members who are co-opted to a CCA and could have been given the right to a vote by the existing members of the CCA, I am very glad that the Minister has made it clear that the Government have had a change of heart on that matter. I record formally that I am content with Amendments 14A to 14R which the Government are now moving at this stage.
I want to ask for reassurance from the Minister on non-constituent members. Some clarity is needed on the role of district councils. In a letter to the leader of South Cambridgeshire District Council dated 17 October, the Levelling Up Minister said
“we remain of the strong view that combined county authorities must engage all relevant stakeholders and we would wish for district councils to have voting rights on issues pertaining to them”.
The letter goes on to say that
“we expect devolution deal documents to set out the involvement of district councils”
but that these matters
“must be established at a local level”.
I understand the argument that the Minister is making, but it would be very helpful if he could confirm at the Dispatch Box that that letter is absolutely accurate and that, given the Government’s refusal to accept Amendment 13B in Motion F1, it is a firm statement of the Government’s intention.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I have one comment in relation to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. He has made a very powerful case for believing that, in this instance, proper democratic standards are not being upheld. The House should take note of that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer the strongest possible Green support for Motion J1 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I have stepped out of an important Peers for the Planet ecocide meeting to do this because at the Green Party conference and in consultation with the National Association of Local Councils and the Local Government Association—I declare my position as a vice-president of both—I was lobbied again and again. It was the biggest topic that came up. People are very concerned about how many people are being excluded from being local councillors by the Government’s failure to adopt a simple, common-sense measure.
In surveys by the LGA and the NALC, over 90% of councils at all levels supported this—and here we are talking about parish and town councils as well as higher-level councils. In the NALC survey, a third of respondents knew of councillors who had stood down since May 2021 due to the return to person-only meetings. Of those, one in five cited childcare commitments as one of their top four reasons for wanting to attend meetings virtually. So this is very much a gender issue. We have a huge problem with the underrepresentation of women in councils. Allowing this simple measure would be a big step forward. Reflecting that, Mumsnet is calling for the return of virtual meetings through its Keep Council Meetings Accessible campaign and a change.org petition has more than 11,000 signatures.
I have one final thought. The Government often like to say, “We want to learn from business and do things the way business does”. Over the past few years, business air travel has dropped by over 50% and there has also been a huge drop in business rail travel. People in business are operating remotely. It is a huge democratic block to not allow these meetings under tight rules. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, the Government can put all kinds of tight rules on this. It is a very modest measure and a step for practicality and democracy. As is reflected by the two sides that have spoken on this, this is not a party-political point; it is point of practicality.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I briefly intervene on this group to make two points, one on Motion F1 and one on Motion J1. I am prompted on Motion F1 by what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was asking about South Cambridgeshire. I declare an interest as I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and used to be the Member of Parliament for South Cambridgeshire.
To set this in context, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority is a mayoral combined authority and is not intending to be a county combined authority, but this does prompt a question. One of the essential problems with a mayoral combined authority is the difficulty of there being both a combined and a county authority infrastructure. For many people in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, this is too confused and duplicatory a structure.
For the sake of argument—this is not one that has been advanced in Cambridgeshire, but it might be—let us say that it moves from a mayoral to a county combined authority. As the legislation is presently constructed, one could clearly not do that as it would, in effect, disempower district councils in the process. So if my noble friend Lord Howe is saying that the nature of a county combined authority requires that it is for upper-tier authorities only—in this context, the county and Peterborough, and not the district councils—and if the local devolution settlement were found to be unsatisfactory and a change were desired locally, why are there no legislative provisions to allow that to happen? That is the question I put to my noble friend.
Secondly, I support my noble friend Lady McIntosh. Her Amendment 22B very reasonably says that the Government may make regulations relating to remote participation in local government meetings. That creates an opportunity for Ministers to think about this and, if necessary, move slowly. It is clearly not their wish to move rapidly but, without dwelling on the detail, there are physical, demographic and personal circumstances that mean that members may wish or need to participate in meetings remotely. Frankly, there might also be meetings where there is a relatively modest need for everybody to come together. As we know, there can sometimes be large numbers of meetings in local government that are not places where large numbers of votes happen and it would be perfectly reasonable for Ministers to enable such meetings to take place remotely. Given the permissive nature of Amendment 22B, which my noble friend has put forward, it is rather surprising that she was not able to find a compromise.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion J1 and then Motion ZE1. I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. There is one element that has not yet been discussed, which is that this House allows for hybrid meetings of its committees. Now, you have to say to yourself, if it is right and proper for this House to enable Members to take part virtually in its committees, why is it not possible for local democracy to have the same rights? The arguments have been made for inclusivity—or, as it will be, exclusivity if the Government unfortunately fail to hear the arguments that have been made.
I will point to one example, which I think shows the strength of the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. The Government have, in their wisdom, created new unitary authorities, one of which is North Yorkshire. Now, North Yorkshire is a very large area to be in one unitary authority. It also does not have the best of weather in the winter. So, if you live towards the south or even the east of the area, because the county council headquarters is more or less in the middle—so it is useful in that sense—you will have a round trip of over 100 miles to go to a council meeting. If, as often is the case, you have to go across the Yorkshire Dales or the North York moors, where roads are impassable, you will be excluded from the meetings—not because you want to be excluded but because the weather is excluding you. And, if you are not able to drive, I can tell you now that you would simply not be able to get to a meeting in Northallerton in the heart of North Yorkshire.
For those reasons alone, it seems to me practical that the Government should allow for flexibility for local government to make those sorts of decisions, to enhance local democracy and be more inclusive. So we support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh in her quest to enable hybrid meetings to take place.
I turn to Motion ZE1. It is a travesty of local democracy if a fundamental change to the constitution of a combined authority—which is what we are considering in the instance of the West Midlands combined authority—can be made without a full consultation and involvement of all those who wish to have their voices heard. I live in West Yorkshire, so I can absolutely confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said: that at the heart of the discussions was the combination of the two roles of mayor and PCC. Not all of us agreed, but the outcome was as it was. The consequence of combining those two roles in West Yorkshire and in the Manchester combined authority is that we elect a mayor and then the mayor appoints one of their colleagues to be police and crime commissioner.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I offer a very brief word in support of what the noble Baroness has just said on Motion ZE1. I know very little about the politics and governance practices of the West Midlands, but when I lived in America I was privileged to watch at close hand the governance practices of the Deep South and of Mayor Willie Brown’s San Francisco and Mayor Daley’s Chicago. As I listened in both the previous debate and this afternoon to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, explaining what looks to me like a rather unusual practice developing in the West Midlands, I was strongly reminded of the practices of state governments in the Deep South of the United States. I do not think that is a road we should go down, and I very much hope the House will once again support the noble Lord, Lord Bach.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am once again grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this group of Motions and amendments. As I indicated at the outset, the Government cannot support the three amendments to the government Motions in this group.
Motion F1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would have the same effect as the original amendment but apply only to local authorities. I urge the House not to go down this road. The basis of the CCA model is that only upper-tier and unitary authorities can be members, not least because they are the bodies in whom financial responsibility will be vested and who will contribute financially to the running of the CCA.
However, as I am sure the noble Baroness accepts, because we debated this at length at earlier stages of the Bill, we recognise the vital role that district councils play. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Lansley, and as Ministers said in the other place, we are sympathetic to the idea that district councils should have voting rights pertaining to them as non-constituent members. We have deliberately left scope for this to happen. However, we are clear that that should be a matter to be determined at the local level. District councils need not be shut out of the room, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, suggested, nor do I expect them to be so. We expect the upper-tier local authorities that we agree devolution deals with to work with district councils to deliver the powers most effectively being provided. In discussions thus far, we are encouraging potential deal areas to consider how best to involve district councils, in recognition of the role they can play. My ministerial colleagues have been engaging personally with district councils and the District Councils’ Network on this issue.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has returned to the charge on virtual or hybrid meetings with her Motion J1. As I stated in my opening remarks, at the heart of the issue is the strength of the scrutiny exercised by local authorities and the importance of maintaining the integrity of local democratic principles. I need not remind the House that virtual and hybrid proceedings have significant limitations for scrutiny and interaction of members of any legislature. As such, we do not agree that councillors should be able to attend these meetings and cast their votes remotely. The Government are therefore unable to support the amendment in lieu. I respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who drew the comparison with committees of this House, by saying that the functions, roles and powers of committees of this House are wholly different from the functions, roles and powers of committees of local authorities.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I remind him that councils have scrutiny committees, which frequently do not vote, so there are similarities between the committees of this House and, for example, scrutiny committees of local authorities.
Earl Howe (Con)
The House will have heard the noble Baroness’s comments, but I draw the distinction between the roles of the two kinds of committee.
Incidentally, the amendment would open up the possibility of councils moving to an entirely remote model of council meetings—something that noble Lords perhaps should ask themselves whether they would favour. My noble friend will doubtless have noted that the Government’s majority in the other place when the amendment was put to the vote was very substantial.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, how far would the noble Earl take this principle in relation to public bodies? I am a member of the GMC. We meet half in person and half remotely. Many other national bodies, some in receipt of government funding and others independent like the GMC, operate in the same way. Would his department say that the principle he is enunciating should be extended throughout the public sector? If not, why not? I do not understand the logic of the Government’s position.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, we have been over this issue almost ad infinitum in Committee. We are not in Committee anymore; we are at Lords consideration of Commons amendments. I hope the noble Lord would agree that we are past the stage of arguing the niceties in the way he invites me to do.
Finally, in his Motion ZE1, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, seeks to insist on his original amendment. I can only reiterate the points in my opening that PCC powers would transfer to an elected mayor only after that individual has become democratically accountable at a local level. The example he sought to cite as a fait accompli is nothing of the kind, for the simple reason that there needs to be an election before the Mayor of the West Midlands could hope to become a PCC. If the transfer is to happen in the West Midlands, the mayor could exercise the PCC functions only if elected to do so at the next election, so there is no compromise of the democratic mandate of the elected mayor to exercise the functions. The choice of who would exercise the PCC functions in the West Midlands would remain in the hands of the people of the West Midlands if the transfer were to happen.
Commencement at Royal Assent enables the Government to adhere as closely as they can to the Gould principle of electoral management, whereby any changes to elections should aim to be made with at least six months’ notice. As the noble Lord knows, the Government wish these provisions to have legal effect in time for the local elections in May next year. His amendment would frustrate that policy intention. I hope he will forgive my pointing it out, but doubtless he will have noticed that the Government’s majority on this issue in the other place was very substantial: 153. I hope that on reflection he will be content to accept the assurances I have given and will not move his amendment in lieu.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Lansley, highlighted the confusion at the heart of the Government’s position relating to district councils on combined county authorities. The Minister’s contention is that there is local discretion to give districts a vote, while his statement was that only upper-tier authorities should be full members. I am not satisfied that the Government continuing to repeat this assertion that CCAs should be made up of upper-tier authorities only when their core business is not housing, planning or economic development but social care, children’s services and highways makes it right or advisable, and neither does it meet the key principles of democracy or devolution. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.
Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 22B in lieu—
Baroness Swinburne
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 30 and 31 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 31A, 31B, 31C and 31D in lieu.
(a) within Scottish devolved legislative competence, or
(b) which could be made by the Scottish Ministers, with the consent of the Scottish Ministers, unless that provision is merely incidental to, or consequential on, provision that would be outside that devolved legislative competence.”
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only make planning data regulations which contain provision that confers a function on, or modifies or removes a function of, the Scottish Ministers after consulting the Scottish Ministers, unless—
(a) that provision is contained in regulations which require the consent of the Scottish Ministers by virtue of subsection (1), or
(b) that provision is merely incidental to, or consequential on, provision that would be outside Scottish devolved legislative competence.”
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Motions K, S, T, U, Y, ZG and ZJ. In light of the growing need for collaboration across the United Kingdom on pressing matters such as climate change and energy security, and to ensure that the UK remains an attractive place to invest and deliver major infrastructure projects, there are substantial benefits to maintaining an effective framework of powers across the UK.
I am pleased to inform the House that, following positive discussions with the Scottish Government, the Government tabled amendments on 28 September to Part 6 of the Bill and related provisions in Part 3. Subsequently, the Scottish Government recommended that the Scottish Parliament provides legislative consent for Part 6 on 11 October. This is a significant milestone on the road to a new, more effective framework for environmental assessment, and it is testament to the strength of the partnership between the UK and Scottish Governments.
In respect of Part 6 and related provisions in Part 3, the Government tabled Motion T to disagree with Lords government Amendments 102 and 103—made on Report in the Lords prior to the agreement having been reached with the Scottish Government—and proposed amendments in lieu, in the House of Commons. Via Motions K and T, these amendments give effect to the position that has been agreed with the Scottish Government and give Scottish Ministers concurrent powers to make environmental outcome reports regulations and associated guidance where they have competence to do so. These amendments also provide assurance that the consent of Scottish Minsters would be required for environmental outcome reports regulations that fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or fall within the regulation-making powers of the Scottish Government.
The Welsh Government had already indicated their support, and the Senedd subsequently passed a legislative consent Motion on 17 October. Through Motions S and ZG, the Commons disagreed with Lords Amendments 90 and 285, putting forward Amendments 90A and 285A in lieu, to support the position with the Welsh Government.
These amendments include a change requested by the Welsh Government, which will bring Clause 222, which makes exceptions for environmental outcome reports provisions to general restrictions on the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru contained in the Government of Wales Act 2006, into force two months after Royal Assent and inclusion of reference to the Environment (Wales) Act 2016.
There are also a small number of technical amendments, bringing various parts of legislation into the scope of the Bill, which are necessary to maximise interoperability across the devolved Governments. These are reflected in government Motions U, Y and ZJ.
I hope that noble Lords will agree with the positive positions that our amendments, and those made to strengthen amendments proposed by the Lords, allow the Government to take, reflecting on the constructive intergovernmental work that has taken place to agree them. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, these are technical amendments to align Scotland, Wales and England, so we have nothing further to add.
Earl Howe
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 44 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 44A and 44B in lieu.
“(4) The only cases in which no consultation or participation need take place under subsection (3) are those where the Secretary of State thinks that none is appropriate because—
(a) a proposed modification of a national development management policy does not materially affect the policy or only corrects an obvious error or omission, or
(b) it is necessary, or expedient, for the Secretary of State to act urgently.”
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion L, with the leave of the House I will also speak to Motions M, M1, N, N1, P, P1, Q, R, R1, V, ZD, ZD1, ZF and ZH. It may be helpful to the House if I draw attention to the advice from the House of Commons authorities, which is that Motions N1 and R1 in this group would attract financial privilege.
I start with Amendment 44, which the Government invite the House to reject in our Motion L. The powers in the Bill relating to planning and the environment have, quite rightly, been of great interest to this House, and I am grateful for the productive discussions that have taken place inside and outside this Chamber. National development management policies are a key part of these reforms, and the amendment that we have brought forward makes clear our intention to consult other than in exceptional circumstances or where changes would have no material effect. That will give everyone, including parliamentarians, the opportunity to scrutinise the policies before they come into effect. I am very aware that consultation was an important issue for noble Lords at earlier stages of the Bill.
Baroness Thornhill
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 44C, 44D and 44E as amendments to Amendment 44B—
“(5) Except in the case where no consultation or participation has taken place or is to take place in accordance with subsection (4), the Secretary of State may not make or revoke a direction under subsection (1), or modify a national development management policy, unless the Secretary of State has laid the proposal before Parliament, and either—
(a) the consideration period has expired without—
(i) a Committee of either House of Parliament making a recommendation relating to the proposal during that period, or
(ii) either House of Parliament making a resolution that the proposal should be modified or that the making or revoking of the direction should not be proceeded with, or
(b) the making or revoking of the direction or the modification of the development management policy has been approved by resolution of each Houses of Parliament before the end of the consideration period.
(6) Before making or revoking a direction under subsection (1), or modifying a national development management policy, the Secretary of State must carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the policy set out in the proposal.
(7) In subsection (5)—
“the consideration period”, in relation to a policy, means the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the statement is laid before Parliament, and “sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons sits;
“the proposal” means (as the case may be)—
(a) the policy that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national development management policy under subsection (1),
(b) the proposal to revoke a direction under subsection (1), or
(c) the proposed modification to the national development management policy.
38ZB Review of national development management policies
(1) The Secretary of State must review a national development management policy whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.
(2) A review may relate to all or part of a national development management policy.
(3) In deciding when to review a national development management policy the Secretary of State must consider whether—
(a) since the time when the policy was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy was decided,
(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and
(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out would have been materially different.
(4) In deciding when to review part of a national development management policy (“the relevant part”) the Secretary of State must consider whether—
(a) since the time when the relevant part was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the relevant part was decided,
(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and
(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out in the relevant part would have been materially different.
(5) After completing a review of all or part of a national development management policy the Secretary of State must do one of the following—
(a) amend the policy;
(b) withdraw the policy's designation as a national development management policy;
(c) leave the policy as it is.
(6) The Secretary of State may amend a national development management policy only if the consultation and publicity requirements and the parliamentary requirements set out in subsections (3) and (5) of section 38ZA have been complied with in relation to the proposed amendment, and—
(a) the consideration period for the amendment has expired without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the amendment should be modified or should not be proceeded with, or
(b) the amendment has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons—
(i) after being laid before Parliament under section 38ZA(5), and
(ii) before the end of the consideration period.
(7) In subsection (6), “the consideration period” means the period mentioned in section 38ZA(7).
(8) If the Secretary of State amends a national development management policy, the Secretary of State must—
(a) arrange for the amendment, or the policy as amended, to be published, and
(b) lay the amendment, or the policy as amended, before Parliament.””
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Earl has said today and what he put in his recent letter to us, and also to what was said by the Minister in the other place last week. The Minister will forgive me if I am not placated by the meagre shift from no consultation at all if we can get away with it to Motion L, which is as little consultation as possible so that we can say we have listened. That is what it feels like, sadly. It is hugely disappointing to see that, while the Government’s amendment in lieu does indeed put public consultation for new NDMPs on a legal footing that cannot be negotiated away, there is still no agreed consultation and scrutiny process enshrined in the legislation. For us, that is the key point.
The scope, level and duration of the consultation that this and successive Governments can use is not defined in the Bill, nor in the accompanying regulation. Most importantly, the Government’s amendment in lieu makes no specific mention of parliamentary scrutiny, which both Houses and the relevant Select Committee had called for. As the noble Earl has said, we understand that individual parliamentarians or committees can indeed participate in consultations, like any other citizen. However, without specific provision, the Bill does not require any parliamentary oversight of approval before NDMPs can come into force.
It is worth reminding ourselves that NDMPs are a new and very radical departure from the current system. I am surprised because, if NDMPs are going to do the heavy lifting in order to streamline and simplify the system, as is often quoted and claimed by Ministers, surely they need to be heavily scrutinised and tested. If they are going to do the job that the Government want them to do and work effectively, I cannot understand why the Government would risk them going forward into law without being test-driven properly through Parliament.
We have all seen the impact of what has been happening recently, with ministerial announcements on the hoof and the very recent arrival of the “refreshed”—I believe that is the word—NPPF. It has thrown the planning system into chaos, with plans withdrawn or paused, and planners not knowing what to do or what to take account of. Similar things will happen again if we do not know what these NDMPs contain. They are currently a blank piece of paper.
In response, my modest amendment is necessary to ensure that the national planning policies for residential and other kinds of development—because, after all, they will take precedence over local policies and will be applied directly by the Secretary of State on called-in applications—are given a similar level of parliamentary attention as infrastructure policies, as surely they should be. My question to the Minister is: why not?
The reality of this offered consultation is undefined in the Bill and is not provided for by the regulations. It is completely at the Secretary of State’s discretion. We on these Benches, the RTPI, the CPRE, and some of the more than 30 professional bodies and groups that form the Better Planning Coalition believe that, given the new and radical nature of NDMPs, that is both unwise and unacceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a director of Peers for the Planet and as a project director working for Atkins. I will speak to Motion M1. I thank the Minister for the time he set aside to explain the government position on this and attempt to reach a resolution.
Planning has dominated much of the national conversation in recent months. We heard in all three party conferences about the need for planning reform and for clarity and consistency in the planning system to help unblock critical infrastructure and homes, and to empower local authorities to play their part in the net-zero transition. Planning is absolutely central as an enabler to net zero, as was set out eloquently by many noble Lords on Report—so I will not repeat those arguments. I know that the Government get this; they are relying in the Bill on a plan-led system and on incorporation of climate considerations in local plans, and, perhaps in the future, on national development management policies.
There are three issues to highlight with this plan-led approach. First, the Committee on Climate Change has found that:
“Most local plans do not acknowledge … the challenge of delivering Net Zero and need significant revision”.
Most local plans are long out of date—some were made in the last millennium—and only around 40% have been adopted in the last decade. We know all about current pressures on local authorities and their ability to devote and manage resources in these areas. Secondly, we are yet to see the national development management policies and any climate provisions they may contain; they are still a blank sheet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, set out. Thirdly, even if all local authorities had a robust local plan, backed up by NDMPs, there will still be an absence of a statutory duty for decision-makers. No matter how robust a local plan informed by national policy may be, it will still be for the individual decision-maker to weigh up all material considerations, with no duty to attribute any planning weight to climate change in the decision-making process. Therefore, rather than a golden thread running through the planning system, we have a somewhat worn and frayed thread that is severed as soon as we get to the decision-making process.
The way to address this and to achieve the ends the Government want is to introduce a new duty that raises the importance of climate change in the hierarchy of considerations but which would still retain flexibility for decision-makers. My amendment would not duplicate existing policy and statutory requirements but rather expand the existing climate duty, which has existed in relation to planning since 2008 and which has been rolled forward in this Bill to decision-making. The amendment would not remove local discretion, as the Government fear, but rather retain the ability of planning authorities to tailor planning decisions to individual circumstances. It would retain the flexibility of planning balance and judgment, which is now well established, and not mean that other planning matters could not be taken into account.
Rather than causing issues of litigation, as the Minister said, the amendment would provide clarity and set a clear direction of travel for planners and developers, leading to greater progress for new developments towards our climate goals. It is derisked by being based on an established duty, the meaning of which has been tried and tested in the courts. It does not raise any novel legal issues, because the principle of special regard is well understood in planning. Therefore, it really should be uncontroversial. It has broad, publicly stated backing across built environment businesses, local government, built environment professionals, including 22 past presidents of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and environmental NGOs.
To finish, I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, can he clarify and expand on what he said earlier about whether the draft NDMPs will include provisions setting out the way in which they will ensure that plan-making and planning decisions consider and contribute to climate change and environment targets? Secondly, can he provide assurances that changes will be proposed to the NPPF to make it clear that planning decisions should take into account the climate impacts of development proposals? The current NPPF does not include that level of clarity. I give notice that I may test the opinion of the House depending on the responses from the Minister.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion N1 in my name. In doing so, I express my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Blunkett and Lord Stunell, who put their names to a similar amendment on Report. I also express my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, with whom I think I have had three meetings over the last few months to discuss all this. They were extremely courteous but, in the end, we did not manage to reach any agreement.
The original amendment that noble Lords supported on Report was that there would be a duty on the Secretary of State—to put it in shorthand—to ensure that all new homes and neighbourhoods promoted health, safety and well-being, and set out some principles about what this meant. In response to what the House of Commons voted on and the advice I had from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I have taken out the principles in putting this forward and left instead the duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the planning and regulation of the built environment should promote health and well-being. It is a very simple, straightforward point in its way, and it leaves the Secretary of State complete discretion as to when they bring this into effect and as to precisely what principles they work for in doing that. However, my point is simply that this is nowhere in planning, and the idea that the built environment should not in some way promote health, safety and well-being seems extraordinary. It is equally extraordinary that in this entire levelling-up Bill there is no reference to the climate crisis, as we have just heard, or indeed to the public health crisis, which I think we are all familiar with. This is an attempt to put health and well-being at the centre of planning.
In response to that, the Government have said three things. First, in the formal minute, they said that this breached the financial privilege of the Commons. That is entirely up to the Commons to decide. I subsequently reduced and removed the principles that I saw as perhaps the area the Commons thought breached that privilege. I understand from the noble Earl that the clerks still consider that it breaches privilege, but that is for the Commons to decide; they can still debate it and, if they choose, put it to one side and record the fact in something called “the journal”, in taking it forward. However, as I will say in a moment, building poor housing is a false economy.
The second point the Minister made was that much of what was in the original amendments was covered by other policy. That is entirely true, and I entirely respect the fact that the noble Earl and the Government want to improve the quality of homes and housing. However, it is important that we have some legislation around that and not just policy; nor does that put health and well-being at the heart of the policy. Most of it is not mandatory, and none ensures that health and well-being are fundamental to creating healthy homes and neighbourhoods.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have Motion P1 in this group. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Howe and others who attended the meeting last week, which was extremely helpful. I refer to my interests on the register and, in particular, that I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Water. As my noble friend referred to in his opening remarks, we are in the midst of yet another storm and widespread flooding, not just in Scotland but parts of Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire and other parts of the country as well. My heart goes out to those families experiencing flooding at this time.
My noble friend mentioned that I may be minded to insist, and I hope that we may achieve a closer meeting of minds on this occasion than on the last occasion when we discussed this. In current planning policy, it depends entirely on local authorities, as I understand it, mapping the divisions between zones 3a and 3b, to which my noble friend referred. As I understand it, this currently is not being done as widely as one would hope. If the mapping is not being done, my first question to my noble friend is: how do we know which properties lie in zone 3b and which in zone 3a? Secondly, the information I have received is that Environment Agency advice, to which my noble friend referred, is currently not always being followed. I commend the fact that the Government of the day called on the Environment Agency to be statutory consultees in planning procedures and what a ground-breaking decision that was at the time. But, sadly, between 2016 and 2021, 2,000 homes were given planning permission against Environment Agency advice. If its advice is not being followed, what is the come back for purchasers who live in those houses where the advice has not been followed?
Post Flood Re—which was a very welcome development—houses built on a flood plain after 2009 are not covered by insurance. In those circumstances, it may be that someone purchases a house in good faith, perhaps without a mortgage, and may not realise that they are not eligible for insurance. As a Flood Re official expressed it, it would be better that houses were simply not built on functioning flood plains. I am afraid the question of whether houses built after 2009 are covered by insurance, or at the very least offered affordable insurance where the excess is not prohibitive, is still one of the outstanding issues that lie behind Amendment 80.
However, I am heartened by my noble friend saying that national development planning policies should express how best to achieve the lifetime protection that the Government are so committed to and which I support. This evening, can my noble friend put more flesh on the bones and particularly specify how he and the Government expect to achieve this? I am not entirely convinced that what my noble friend seeks to achieve is set out in the latest iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework, published as recently as September this year.
The reason why this is so important is set out very eloquently by the National Infrastructure Commission in its quinquennial assessment published on 18 October, in which it recommends requiring
“planning authorities to ensure that from 2026 all new development is resilient to flooding from rivers with an annual likelihood of 0.5 per cent for its lifetime and does not increase risk elsewhere”.
That aspiration could be achieved by regulation or, as my noble friend set out earlier this evening, in the National Planning Policy Framework. I urge my noble friend before we leave this Motion entirely to confirm this and give a little more detail as to how we expect this will be achieved through the National Planning Policy Framework.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will talk to Motion Q, which deals with developments that affect ancient woodland, and I declare an interest as chair of the Woodland Trust. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who supported this amendment at earlier stages of the Bill. Huge thanks go to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has persuaded whoever needed persuading to take the body of my amendment into a government amendment. Although my amendment has not gone ahead, to a large extent it will bring into the consultation direction the ability for the Secretary of State to call in and direct local authorities against developments that will impact on ancient woodlands by destroying them or by influencing them from adjacent developments. That is terrific, and I really thank the noble Earl for his support and help in this.
Of course—conservationists and environmentalists always have a “but” after everything they say—this is very good, but the Government have introduced a couple of additions to the amendment we proposed. One is good: clarification of the definition of ancient woodland; the other is not so good, as it says basically that when we come to review and withdraw or amend the 2021 consultation direction, we could sweep the legs out from under this one, which would be rather short-lived since a review of the 2021 direction is under way at the moment. I hope that justice will prevail and that anyone reviewing the direction will be of the same mind as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and will support the ancient woodland provisions because there is currently no protection for ancient woodland whatever.
I should say that my two co-sponsors and I and many others will be watching the department’s intent intently, both in the review of the direction and, more importantly, in the implementation of the provision. It will be in operation by the end of this year and the way in which the Secretary of State and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities deal with it will be a real test of whether they recognise the importance of what is currently being put into statute. That is going to be the proof of the pudding. If we do not see any real efforts by the department to hold local authorities and developers to account against this provision and stop some of the frequent damage to ancient woodland caused by development, we will not have achieved much.
At that point, I must stop descending into churlishness and once again I say a big thank you to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for putting forward the alternative government amendment. But we are watching.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment ZD1 and declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet.
I retabled my amendment on onshore wind to give the Government the opportunity to provide, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said, clarity and consistency in the planning system in relation to onshore wind; to stop having to eat away at the disastrous effective moratorium on onshore wind by a series of measures and to have one clean, clear way of reverting to the planning system and not putting onshore wind on a special basis—not with any extra consideration—but not putting it out of the normal considerations in relation to planning law that any other infrastructure development would have.
I started fighting the moratorium three years ago in a Private Member’s Bill. As the noble Baroness has just said, it would be churlish not to say that we have made progress from that point. We have seen contracts for difference being made open to onshore wind, then repowering and life extension for existing onshore wind developments, and the recent NPPF changes to which the Minister has referred have been welcome. However, all these have been baby steps. They have not solved the problem. More importantly, the industry as a whole is not convinced that there will be enough to give the onshore wind industry the reinvigoration or the planning framework within which to make the contribution that it needs to make to our renewable energy and net-zero targets—and also to cutting bills to boost energy security. With the costs of developing onshore wind high, the uncertainty that remains in the planning system could curtail investment and lead to supply chain issues and, ultimately, to development going elsewhere.
However, I have to say that the Minister has, as ever, tried to help and has helped. We do have more baby steps and I very much welcome his commitment to monitoring the effects of the changes that have been made—because there is a disagreement as to whether they will be effective and whether they will lead to more onshore wind developments. If we can see the data and if the Government are upfront and transparent about the effects, we can then see whether they are right or whether the fears that some of us have are justified.
So I do welcome that and that the Minister has given us a timeframe this evening for that reporting to come back. He mentioned that the consultation on changes to the NPPF and the implementation of consultation with local communities is soon to be made public. I hope that when the results of that consultation come out, the Government will look very carefully at whether they can offer some guidance to local authorities, because some of the terms about how you assess local support and what is adequate are very difficult on a case-by-case basis. It would be extremely helpful if the Government could look at giving local authorities some guidance in these areas.
So I am trying to strike a balance between saying “Not enough” and “Thank you for what there is” and I will not be pressing this to a Division later.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly, aware of the hour, to offer the Green group’s support for all the alternative amendments in this group and to reflect on how your Lordships’ House is still trying to fix some utterly extraordinary holes in this Bill. If you think of what the holes are that we are filling, they are related to climate but also to public health and the cost of living crisis—the issues that are of great concern to people all round this country, but particularly those in the areas that the levelling-up Bill is most supposed to be addressing.
I must note that at about the same time that we are speaking, in the other place there is a Statement on the impacts of Storm Babet. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to this. We have had tragic deaths. Huge numbers of people have seen their lives torn apart by flooding. There are now 1.9 million people living in homes at significant risk of flooding. That figure will double by 2050. We have a huge problem with public health. We often hear in your Lordships’ House the concern about getting ill people back to work. We must get productivity up. These are issues that the Government are talking about all the time and issues that these amendments are trying to address.
So, once again, we are trying to help and we can only hope that the Government will listen.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Motion ZH, the government amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment 329. The intention of the earlier Lords amendment was to make local plans more specific in spelling out the housing needs of each locality and the ways in which those needs are to be met. This would identify how homelessness and temporary accommodation can be eliminated over a reasonable timescale. The amendment, devised by Shelter, detailed what the local plan should cover, including the needs of all those registered on the local housing authority’s allocation scheme. This would mean all local plans highlighting the need for, and the steps to provide, the homes sought by those now in increasing difficulty as opportunities to buy or to rent have become alarmingly scarce.
The government amendment seeks to take this on board in a somewhat condensed version. It requires the local plan to
“take account of an assessment of the amount, and type, of housing that is needed in the local planning authority’s area, including the amount of affordable housing that is needed”.
This takes us into the same territory as my amendment and would sharpen up local plans to provide more precision in identifying and addressing the need for housing for those who are homeless or in temporary accommodation or on the never-ending waiting list for a home that they can afford. What is on the face of the Bill will now need to be buttressed by guidance for local planning authorities, to put a bit more flesh on the bones of this legislative measure. It would be good if the Minister could provide an assurance that this ingredient will be incorporated in forthcoming planning guidance.
The government amendment in lieu also raises the thorny question of defining “affordable housing”, which has been debated in this House on numerous occasions and not resolved. The government amendment adds that “affordable housing” means social housing as it has been defined—very broadly and often misleadingly—since 2008. However, the amendment adds some new, encouraging words that “affordable housing” could mean housing of
“any other description of housing that may be prescribed”.
This is helpful. It opens the door for a new definition of affordable housing which, in the future, this or another Secretary of State may prescribe. It would be good to see whether agreement can be reached in the months ahead on a more satisfactory definition, to update the old one from 2008 in readiness for the first opportunity to substitute a better version.
With these comments, I say that I feel that the Government have made a serious effort to take on board the need to sharpen up the local plan in respect of meeting housing need. I am grateful to the Government, and to the Minister in particular, for this change that they are willing to make to the Bill.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have one remark to make in support of Motion M1, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. The noble Earl, with whom it is always so difficult to disagree, stated that the reason the Government are unhappy with the idea of climate change becoming more central is that it opens up a wide range of challenge. But climate change is going to be the central, existential issue of planning beyond our lifetimes. It is not an add-on; it is not planting a few trees in order to get planning permission. It is absolutely core, and dealing with that will make life very difficult for planning applications. I support this amendment so that climate change becomes central to the decision-making process, not an adjunct.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will intervene briefly to speak to three Motions in this group—first, Motion ZH, to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just spoken. It is the substitute for an amendment on housing need that he promoted on Report. There is a crucial difference between the original amendment, which required local authorities not just to assess need but to make provision for it. The Government’s amendment deletes that last half—making provision for need. None the less, we have heard some encouraging words about social rent. It is a brave man who seeks to outbid the noble Lord, Lord Best, when it comes to speaking or voting on amendments on housing, so I am happy to follow his lead and not press that. I pay tribute to the work that he has been doing on this.
Secondly, it was disappointing to hear my noble friend Lord Howe say that Motion N1 on healthy homes, from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, still had to be resisted. Ever since the Private Member’s Bill was introduced, we have had numerous debates in Committee and on Report, and each time, in response, the noble Lord has moved further and further towards the Government. There never was a wide disagreement, because the Government always said that they agreed with the thrust of what he was trying to do.
It is worth reading out what may be the only sentence of the original amendment that remains:
“The Secretary of State must promote a comprehensive regulatory framework for planning and the built environment designed to secure the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people of England by ensuring the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods”.
That is apparently too much. It continues:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a system of standards”.
In other words, how that objective is reached is left entirely to the Secretary of State. Far from cutting across, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, the amendment seeks to bring it all together under a comprehensive framework to promote healthy homes.
The last point I want to make is on Motion R1 of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It repeats an amendment that I originally proposed in Committee that gives local authorities powers to fix their own planning fees. In the other place, the amendment was resisted on these grounds:
“It will lead to inconsistency of fees between local planning authorities and does not provide any incentive to tackle inefficiencies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/23; col 186.]
Central government should be quite careful before it preaches to local government about inefficiencies. This is the month in which we abandoned most of HS2. Pick up any NAO report and you will find criticism of the MoD on procurement. There has been criticism of the new hospitals programme and of HMRC in its response to taxpayer inquiries. If I were running a planning department in a local authority, I would be slightly miffed if I were told that, if I had the resources I needed, it might lead to inefficiencies.
There are problems in planning departments, but they are because a quarter of planners left the public sector between 2013 and 2020, so of course they cannot turn around planning applications as speedily as they might. The argument about promoting inefficiency does not really hold water. If one were to take that argument, why stop at planning fees? What about taking books out of a public library, swimming or parking? Are these not areas where local authorities might conceivably be inefficient?
Almost the first sentence of the White Paper introducing the Bill said that it would promote a “revolution in local democracy”, but allowing planning departments to set fees, so that they can recoup the costs of planning, is apparently a step too far. Yes, you will have inconsistency of fees, but that will happen if you have local democracy. We already have inconsistency of fees in every other charge a local authority makes, including building control fees. The argument that it will somehow confuse individuals or developers does not hold water. How many individuals make planning applications to a range of different local authorities and then express surprise that the fees are different? Yes, developers will be confronted with different fees, but they want an efficient planning department that processes their applications quickly.
I cannot understand why the Government are digging in their heels on this amendment, which empowers local government and gives them resources. It does not get resources at the moment because, in a unitary authority, the planning department, which does not get enough money from planning fees, has to bid for resources from the council tax in competition against adult social care and other services. It is no wonder that it misses out. At this very late stage on the Bill, I ask my noble friend whether the Government could show a little ankle on this, move a little towards empowering local government and trust it to get this right.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for intervening before the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has a chance to speak to Motion R1, but I have to disagree with my noble friend on this occasion. Last week, we had a debate on planning fees, in which I participated. The risk in what the noble Baroness proposes is that it would lead to local authorities significantly increasing the fees that would be charged for householder applications.
I remind the House that I chair the Cambridgeshire development forum. As far as larger developers are concerned, the point I made last week is that we should promote planning performance agreements to enable local authorities and developers to come to proper agreements, with potential sanctions and performance obligations on the part of the local planning authority. They would give them access to greater resources in dealing with major developments. I fear that what the Liberal Democrat Front Bench proposes would just lead to increases in fees for householder applications.
I also want to say a word about Motion M1 on climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, knows that I thoroughly agree with what he proposes but, at this stage, sending back the same amendments is inherently undesirable if it can be avoided. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us more about how the Government will use the new national development management policies, which will have statutory backing. If the Government set down NDMPs in terms that are clear about the importance of decisions that take account of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, they will have the effect that my noble friend and other Members of the House look for from this Motion.
The distinctive point of the original Amendment 45 was that it would extend specific consideration of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change to individual planning decisions—there is plenty in the statute about the application of this to plan-making—so that is where the gap lies. That gap can be filled if national development management policies are absolutely clear about how decisions are to be made on the impact of climate change. I hope that my noble friend says something that allows me to feel that we do not need to send the same Amendment 45 back to the other place.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl most sincerely for the time he has spent with me and my colleagues in discussions about these issues. They were, of course, of great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and I repeat my good wishes to her for a speedy recovery.
It is not often that you get a Motion both agreed and disagreed with before it is proposed, but here we go. I will speak to Motion R1, about planning fees, which is in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support. He has made the powerful case in favour of enabling local authorities to determine their planning fees to cover costs: no more, no less.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but surely we discovered from the documentation that came with the statutory instrument last week that after the increase in fees, the great majority of that subsidy would be to householder applications? What the noble Baroness is looking for is for householder application fees in effect to be doubled.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his comment. What we did discover, and I have the papers with me, was that there would still be a subsidy for major applications—that was in the papers—and that there would be a subsidy for householder applications. But the case I make is this: if householders wish to add an extension to their house or improve it in some other way, then there is a cost to that, of which the planning application fee is a minor part. Why should their next-door neighbour subsidise it? I do not think it is a just or fair way of spending taxpayers’ money. If we told them that this was happening, I think they would be as cross as I am.
We need to recover costs because the principle that I have just outlined, but also because without local planning authorities being fully resourced, they will not turn around the situation that is well recorded by professional bodies, by the Local Government Association and by the Government in the papers that we had for the statutory instrument last week—that there is a significant shortfall in planning officers in local government because of the lack of resources. If we are going to reverse that, local planning authorities need to be properly resourced, so that in a plan-led system we have experienced and well-qualified planners who have the responsibility of ensuring that local and national plans are respected.
The only other point I want to make on this issue is this: many councils across the country are under severe financial pressure—let us put it like that. Some, as we heard from Birmingham, which was the latest council, are on the brink of having insufficient resources to fulfil their statutory obligations. Particularly in those circumstances, it seems quite wrong to expect councils to use council tax payer funding to subsidise planning applications, hence my continuing pursuit of a fair and just planning application fee process.
I suppose my final point on this is to totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, when he asks why on earth in a local democracy cannot local government have the right, responsibility and duty to set its own fees? It does on everything else, so why not on that? I will push this to a vote if the noble Earl fails to agree with me and others’ powerful speeches on this.
On the other amendments, I endorse the “healthy homes” Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has pushed again today. He is absolutely right: why do we continue building places that produce problems, when we could solve it from the outset? If the noble Lord wishes to press his Motion, he will get our full support, as will the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his Motion on climate change. He is absolutely right; it is an existential threat to our country. We must take it seriously, and here is one area of policy where we can be seen to be doing that.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. This has been quite a long debate, and we have a number of votes at the end of it.
First, on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, regarding NDMPs, we agree with her that the Government’s amendment is not sufficient to answer the concerns that were raised in Committee and on Report. If the noble Baroness wishes to divide the House, she will have our full support.
Secondly, on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on planning and climate change, we consider this an extremely important issue, as other noble Lords have mentioned. If he wishes to divide the House, he will have our full support.
On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on healthy homes, which he spoke to so eloquently—as did the noble Lord, Lord Young—we also believe that health needs to be at the centre of planning when making decisions about housing. If the noble Lord wishes to press this to a vote, he will have our full support.
We welcome the fact that there have been concessions on ancient woodland and offshore wind, and some concession for the noble Lord, Lord Best, on his amendment. We would have preferred to see mention of social housing, as well as affordable housing, in the Government’s Amendment 329A.
On the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on floods, it is very important and the Government need to get a grip on whether people can get insurance—ideally through Flood Re—because we cannot have insurance with excess that is so huge that it makes the insurance pointless. We have a debate tomorrow on Storm Babet; I am sure these issues will be raised again then.
Finally, on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on planning fees, we believe that this is an important point that we need to continue to discuss. Therefore, if the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, she will have our strong support.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, once again I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments and questions.
Motion L1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, relates to national development management policies and the process by which they are made. We do not agree with the principle that the process for making national development management policies should be based on that for national policy statements. National development management policies will serve a broader purpose than national policy statements, which are used by Ministers to make planning decisions for major infrastructure projects, so it is right that their requirements should be suited to their purpose, not based on the provisions of a different regime.
That said, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness’s characterisation of Motion L. The parliamentary scrutiny proposals in Motion L go even further than the provisions for national policy statements. The NPS provisions refer to the House of Commons where these proposals refer to both Houses. The NPS provisions require the Secretary of State to respond to recommendations of a committee of either House before they can be made, while this Motion would require a vote in favour of the proposals if a committee of either House made recommendations about a draft policy. This Motion would limit the circumstances in which no consultation is necessary to those in the interests of public safety or national security. That would be too narrow for the exceptional circumstances in which we expect this provision to be used. Examples we have given—such as our changes during the pandemic offering protection to theatres that were temporarily vacant—would not have been able to be made with such a narrowly drafted provision. This is because, although the policy change was in response to the pandemic, it was not in the interests of public safety or national security itself. We do not think this part of the amendment is necessary, as NDMPs will be a programme of policies that we anticipate will be captured by the requirement to undertake statutory environmental assessment.
Motion N1 from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, requires the Secretary of State to
“promote a comprehensive regulatory framework for planning and the built environment designed to secure the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people of England by ensuring the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods”.
While the Government, as I have said on many occasions, support the principle raised by the noble Lord, I say again that these matters are already taken into consideration and addressed through existing systems and regimes. That includes through building safety, building regulations, the National Planning Policy Framework, the national design code and the national model design code. The creation of an additional regulatory framework would cut across these regimes. I know he said that was the whole point, but I contend that those regimes are already comprehensive, and the Government therefore cannot support his Motion.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response to Motion L1, and particularly for reinforcing the weight and importance of NDMPs, so much so that he said that he felt they needed their own specific processes, not to be misunderstood with national planning statements and infrastructure policy. But at the heart of this problem is the unknown nature of the NDMPs and a very firm belief from these Benches and the Labour Benches, for which I thank them, that these very weighty and important NDMPs are important enough to warrant upfront formal parliamentary oversight. Therefore, I wish to ask your Lordships whether they agree.
Earl Howe
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 45, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 45A.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion M. I beg to move.
Motion M1 (as an amendment to Motion M)
Lord Ravensdale
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 45.”
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I hoped for some further movement from the Government on this vital issue. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion N. I beg to move.
Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N)
Lord Crisp
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 327B and 327C in lieu—
“Secretary of State’s duty to promote healthy homes and neighbourhoods
(1) The Secretary of State must promote a comprehensive regulatory framework for planning and the built environment designed to secure the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people of England by ensuring the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a system of standards that promotes and secures healthy homes and neighbourhoods on condition that certain requirements prescribed in the regulations are met.”
“(ba) under section (Secretary of State’s duty to promote healthy homes and neighbourhoods);””
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion P. I beg to move.
Motion P1 (as an amendment to Motion P)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 80.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank those who supported the original amendment at earlier stages. I thank the Minister for the certain assurances that he has made this evening, on which I will press him further, but I will not move the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
Motion P1 has been moved as an amendment to Motion P.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I am so sorry; I did not hear the noble Baroness.
“Development affecting ancient woodland
(1) Before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must vary the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021 (“the 2021 Direction”) so that it applies in relation to applications for planning permission for development affecting ancient woodland.
(2) In subsection (1) “ancient woodland” means an area in England which has been continuously wooded since at least the end of the year 1600 A.D.
(3) This section does not affect whether or how the Secretary of State may withdraw or vary the 2021 Direction after it has been varied as mentioned in subsection (1).”
“(e) section (Development affecting ancient woodland) extends to England and Wales.”
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion R. I beg to move.
Motion R1 (as an amendment to Motion R)
“Planning application fees
(1) Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (fees for planning applications etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the income from the fees set by regulations does not meet the cost of performing the function, a local planning authority may make provision as to how a fee or charge under this section is to be calculated (including who is to make the calculation).”””
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I want to be sure that I have heard it right. Is the noble Baroness moving this one?
(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State acting alone or jointly with a devolved authority, the current environmental improvement plan (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021),
(b) in the case of regulations made by the Scottish Ministers acting alone, the current environmental policy strategy (within the meaning of section 47 of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 (asp 4)),
(c) in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers acting alone, the current national natural resources policy (within the meaning of section 9 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016), or
(d) in the case of regulations made by a Northern Ireland department acting alone, the current environmental improvement plan (within the meaning of Schedule 2 to the Environment Act 2021).”
(a) within Scottish devolved legislative competence, or
(b) which could be made by the Scottish Ministers, with the consent of the Scottish Ministers, unless that provision is merely incidental to, or consequential on, provision that would be outside that devolved legislative competence.”
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only make EOR regulations which contain provision that confers a function on, or modifies or removes a function of, the Scottish Ministers after consulting the Scottish Ministers, unless—
(a) that provision is contained in regulations which require the consent of the Scottish Ministers by virtue of subsection (1), or
(b) that provision is merely incidental to, or consequential on, provision that would be outside Scottish devolved legislative competence.”
(5) Regulations under this section may not amend or repeal—
(a) sections 9, 10 and 11,
(b) section 12(2), or
(c) section 21, of the Building Safety Act 2022.” LORDS AMENDMENT 237
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving this Motion I will also speak to Motions ZC and ZC1. Together, these Motions address two matters relating to the building safety regime that we have established through the Building Safety Act 2022. I turn first to the power the Government have taken to transfer the building safety regulator out of the Health and Safety Executive in the future.
I recognise the concerns that many noble Lords expressed when they amended these proposals to add formal protections for the important statutory committees established through Sections 9 to 11 of the Building Safety Act. I must particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for his continued interest and constructive engagement with me and my officials. However, we have further considered his amendment and, unfortunately, our conclusion is that it would force us to lose these important committees should the building safety regulator be moved out of the Health and Safety Executive, by preventing the Government amending these sections to change the key references to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act under which they have been established. We are therefore unable to accept the proposal and have made Amendment 231A, removing the relevant section from Amendment 231.
However, let me repeat the strong commitment that I gave on Report in this House: the Government have no intention to amend the make-up or role of these committees, and fully intend that they should be retained and their important work protected. On this basis, I hope that your Lordships will agree to Amendment 231A. I will respond to Motion X1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in my closing speech.
Amendment 242, originally put forward by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to secure parity between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022, extending the protection to three properties for all types of leaseholder. It would also amend the Building Safety Act to exclude shares in a property of 50% or less from being counted as wholly owned.
The Government cannot accept Amendment 242, for a number of reasons. First, we do not believe that it would have the intended effect. It may in fact undermine the protections currently in place. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised concerns with it on Report because of this. He pointed out that, under my noble friend’s amendment,
“post-remediation qualified status would disappear. If some further defect is found at a later date, the building owner would then impose the cost of sorting it out on all the leaseholders”.—[Official Report, 18/9/23; col. 1239.]
That is not, I am sure, what my noble friend intends. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, also observed that the amendment does not deal with minority shared ownerships.
Secondly, I can only repeat what I said to my noble friend on Report. The range of issues the amendment attempts to deal with is so extraordinarily complex that it requires rather more time for our lawyers—and. Indeed, lawyers externally—to address fully. As will be clear from our Amendments 288A to 288D in lieu of Amendment 243, this is a complex area of law and, with the greatest respect to your Lordships, Amendment 242 does not deal comprehensively with the difficult and overlapping pieces of legislation in this space. As my noble friend Lady Scott and I have made clear in this House, the Government are looking at these issues carefully, but they are not straightforward and the potential for rushed change to have unintended consequences is high. I therefore ask your Lordships not to insist on Amendment 242.
As my honourable friend the Housing Minister explained in the other place last week, the Government accept the principle of Amendment 243, originally put forward by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. We have therefore proposed Amendments 288A to 288D in lieu of Amendments 243 and 288. This will ensure that the statutory protections for leaseholders continue where qualifying leases are extended, varied or replaced by an entirely new lease. This amendment will be retrospective, so it will apply to qualifying leases extended, varied or replaced since 14 February 2022. This means that those qualifying leaseholders who have, for example, extended their leases, or are in the middle of the process, will be covered by the protections. I hope that noble Lords will therefore not insist on Amendments 243 and 288 and instead accept Amendments 288A to 288D. I do of course note my noble friend Lord Young’s Motion ZC1, which I will respond to in my closing speech once he has spoken to it. I beg to move.
Lord Stunell
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 231A and do propose Amendment 231B to Lords Amendment 231—
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his kind words and for the time that he devoted to this particular aspect of a very long and complex Bill. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that he has not yet seen his way to accept the sensible and reasonable amendment that noble Lords sent back to the Commons on Report. Its purpose was to safeguard the rigorous safeguards built into the Building Safety Act 2022, which this House was united in supporting and which was designed to establish a robust regulatory regime that would ensure there was never another Grenfell Tower disaster. Less than 12 months later, and before the new regulatory regime even comes fully into force, the Government are giving themselves and their successors sweeping powers to rip it up—save only for a very flimsy affirmative Motion on a statutory instrument as a defence.
The modest amendment your Lordships sent to the Commons simply required the Government to accept that, if they wanted to change the fundamental structure and mechanics of delivery of the building safety regime, that must be justified to and approved by Parliament. The Government’s response, which the noble Earl has just repeated, is that they do not want to change the fundamental structure and delivery of the building safety regime. All they want to do is take it away from the Health and Safety Executive, lock, stock and barrel, with no changes at all, except in the nameplate and the branding. If that is true, the amendment before your Lordships today is exactly in line with their intentions.
Motion X1 picks up the point the noble Earl made about the original amendment to the Commons—that it was flawed because the wording would obstruct the transfer of the statutory committees from the HSE to the new, completely unspecified and unknown safety regulator. The revised wording in Motion X1 therefore makes it clear on the face of the Bill that it will be lawful to make that transfer. This amendment is designed simply to avoid changes in how the new regulator is structured and organised and to prevent changes to the tasks that are entrusted to it and the statutory committees that underpin its work. The amendment, if agreed, would ensure that the Government’s replacement regulator retains those duties and timescales: for instance, to review the regulations relating to electrical fire safety, the safety of staircases and ramps, safe escape routes for people with mobility issues and fire suppression systems such as sprinklers.
There is other detail, but in the interests of time I will simply say that the original arrangement in the Building Safety Act was that those committees and tasks could be changed only by the Secretary of State if he or she received a proposal from the regulator to put into place. That was because it was seen as very important that the regulatory regime should never again be captured, as it had been in the past, by departments and Ministers taking short-term political decisions, and that the regulator would always be able to independently assess needs to improve safety and then make recommendations in public to Ministers for them to decide on action.
The noble Earl has offered us a sincere undertaking that, at least for the time being, nothing will change; that Ministers will not be tempted to steer away from making essential safety improvements that they deem politically difficult or a bit too costly; and that they will faithfully press ahead without delay when those fire safety reports come in, however revealing and unwelcome they prove to be. Of course the noble Earl is absolutely sincere, but I say to him that Ministers and Secretaries of State come and go, and the sincerest of undertakings can be withdrawn when the facts are said to have changed. The accountability given by an affirmative resolution is tenuous.
I urge the Minister to retain the progress made during the enactment of the Building Safety Act by safeguarding those statutory committees, reinforcing the obligation for those long-awaited safety studies and making sure that the three-year timescale is retained. The way to do that is for him to say that, on mature consideration, he will accept Motion X1. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion ZC1 in my name. I pay a heartfelt tribute to my noble friend for the real progress that has been made since we last discussed this matter in helping qualifying leaseholders who extended their lease after the Building Safety Act came into effect. In a nutshell, the Act extended protection to qualifying leaseholders against the costs of remediation. However, inadvertently, it said that, if you renewed your lease after it came into effect, you lost that protection.
The Government recognised that there had indeed been a mistake and, on Report, I moved what is now Amendment 243, which would retrospectively have put the leaseholders who extended their lease back within the protection of the BSA. At the time, before the Bill went back to the other place, my noble friend resisted my amendments and said that the issues require
“very careful legal dissection and working through, and that is what we are doing”.
When I summed up, I said:
“In a nutshell, the Government made a mistake when they drafted the Building Safety Act. Unwittingly, they have removed the protection that some leaseholders were entitled to. They have known for months that there has been this defect, and I do not accept that the defect is so complex that it cannot now be put right. That is what my amendment does. I seek leave to test the opinion of the House”.—[Official Report, 18/9/23; cols. 1248-95.]
I do not know what my noble friend said to the department when he got back, but what had previously been impossible to do within the context of the Bill suddenly became possible. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling Amendments 288A, 288B, 288C and 288D, which, in effect, do what I asked the Government to do last time. As I said, I am grateful to my noble friend for the pressure that he put on the parliamentary draftsmen to correct an injustice that had unwittingly been perpetrated.
Against that background, it might seem churlish of me to have tabled Motion ZC1, but there remains a problem: leaseholders who extended their leases, and therefore lost the protection of the BSA, will have received invoices and bills for payment, and some may have made payments. As drafted, the government amendments do not entitle those qualifying leaseholders to a refund. I am grateful for the Public Bill Office’s help in drafting my Motion ZC1—I hope that will inject a note of caution into any remarks that the amendments are imperfectly drafted. The Motion seeks to say that, in those circumstances where a qualifying leaseholder has already paid the remediation costs, but need not have, they are entitled to a refund.
Under the Government’s amendment, there is a provision whereby the Government have powers, under regulations, to make certain provisions. I want my noble friend to answer a question that was put twice in the other place. The Opposition spokesman on housing, Mr Pennycook, said:
“we welcome the concession that has been made, albeit with one proviso: Ministers must take steps to ensure that leaseholders who paid service charges over the past 15 months in the belief that they were not eligible for the leaseholder protections under the Act, because of the Government’s mistake, are reimbursed. Those individuals should not suffer financially as a result of a drafting error that should not have been allowed to occur in the first place. If the Minister—I hope she is listening to this point—can provide us with some reassurance on that point, we will happily accept the Government’s amendment in lieu”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/23; col. 199.]
My honourable friend the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley, made the same point.
In winding up, Rachel Maclean was under tremendous time pressure because of the timetable Motion in the other place, and she was not able to answer either of those two questions. So if my noble friend is unable to accept my amendment, as he implied, I ask him for an assurance on the provisions of his amendment, which enable certain regulations to be made in proposed new subsection (11):
“The provision that may be made in regulations under this section includes … provision which amends this section; … provision which has retrospective effect”.
Can he assure me that, if a leaseholder has paid a bill and need not have, my noble friend will use the powers under his own amendment retrospectively to entitle that leaseholder to a refund? That is the import of my amendment, which I do not wish to press to a Division—but I hope that, in return, my noble friend will be able to give me that reassurance.
My noble friend’s Motion ZC knocks out a whole range of amendments that were passed without a Division in this House and that extended protection to non-qualifying leaseholders. These are basically leaseholders living in buildings under 11 metres; enfranchised leaseholders, who are counted as freeholders for the Act; and those who own more than three properties in buy-to-let investments. There are real problems: people in buildings under 11 metres get no protection at all, cannot get a mortgage and cannot sell. They have to pay the cost of remediation, because that is the only way that the building can get insured. They face exactly the same problems as people in buildings over 11 metres, but they get no protection at all. There are also leaseholders who, following government advice, enfranchised and became freeholders. Despite assurances I was given by the then Minister that they would be treated as leaseholders, the Bill treats them as freeholders and denies them the protection extended to leaseholders.
There is also the problem of those who have buy-to-let properties. A person who owns a £1 million property and other properties overseas is protected, but someone who owns three properties worth £100,000 each gets no protection at all. People who jointly own a property with their husband are counted as wholly owning. There is a whole range of outstanding issues from the Building Safety Act that I understand cannot be addressed in the Bill, but, again, I hope that my noble friend is able to say that, in the proposed leasehold reform Act, it will be open to the Government to reopen these unresolved problems in the BSA and that legislation will be proposed to address at least some of the issues arising from the BSA that I have outlined and that I believe remain unsolved.
In conclusion, I thank my noble friend again for his efforts in response to my original Amendment 243, but I hope he can give me the assurances I seek for leaseholders who have paid bills that they need not have.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I have an interest in both the items that we are considering in this group. For the avoidance of doubt, I declare my involvement as a practising but nearly completely retired chartered surveyor with a knowledge of the leasehold and construction sectors.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, deserves the full appreciation of the House for what I can only describe as a progressive defenestration of the fuzzy edges that have surrounded the question of the building safety regulator. He has whittled it down to the last elements, as to whether this is a proposal for a like-for-like transfer from one jurisdiction, if I can term departments in that sense, to another—or whether, as he had previously identified, some other morphing process was going on behind the scenes. I supported him previously in this, and I support him again in his endeavours here. This really boils down to the last element, as to whether there is a change.
One could be forgiven for suspending a certain amount of belief here. If there is going to be the process of transferring a body from the Health and Safety Executive to some other framework, known or unknown, why would one run the risk of the delays, disruption and everything else that would be involved with that if it were not for the fact that some other factor was involved? Motion X1 as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is a significant litmus test of what is involved. I encourage the Minister to consider very carefully whether the Government mean what they say in saying that it is a like-for-like transfer from one authority to another, or whether in reality it conceals some other paradigm shift. That is very important.
I turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I apologise for the fact that his colleague has had to use my comments from a previous stage in this debate to tell him that his approach is no good. Of course, my comments were made in the context of saying that it has a technical deficiency. I was not in any way intending to suggest that the direction of travel in which he was engaged was faulty or in any other way imbued with anything other than the highest principles. He and I share a great deal of what has happened here.
Again, the noble Lord is absolutely right in proposing Motion ZC1—and I was pleased that he referred, obiter as it were, to the problem with the exceptions. What has happened here is a sort of drawbridge approach to the liability and scope of the Building Safety Act, and it is that which creates these cliff-edge approaches to who is qualified, whether their funding qualifies or excludes them, and so on and so forth. That is what has been dogging everybody all the way along the line. In reality, that delineation of the protections under the Building Safety Act is pernicious, because they are protections that any Government should apply in response to a serious and systemic failure in the home building industry to deliver adequate quality in building safety terms—and, may I say, presided over by nearly 40 years of ineffective regulatory control of building standards.
To expand a little, the Government’s resistance to anything beyond the straitjacket of parameters relating to the scope of leasehold protections seems to be governed by an entirely arbitrary approach and unwillingness even to collect data, understand implications or assess risk—I refer specially to those non-qualified leaseholders to which the noble Lord referred. My aim in all this has been to approach the matter on a much broader spectrum. The noble Lord and I shared an amendment to the Building Safety Act 18 months ago, and I think he has felt obliged to whittle it down evermore to try to get to something that he can achieve here. I absolutely applaud his persistence—but I am forced to suggest that, in the absence of any risk assessment, any government response to what may come down the road will be blindsided and ineffective. Hearing or speaking no evil does not prevent evils occurring—in this case, to hundreds of thousands of innocent lease payers, to market sectors, to valuation, to lending, to regeneration of urban areas and to new homes targets generally. I have said all this before, and I apologise for repeating it.
The noble Lord has been assiduous in his campaigning. With regard to Motion ZC1, I do not know how many leaseholders might be affected by this, but I suspect that it is actually quite a small cohort, and the Government should accept it and not allow this exclusion process or drawbridge approach to cut them off. Of course, I tried to address the whole thing on a much wider scope, but to no avail, which is why, when my words are used as a reason for denying the noble Lord the fruits of his endeavours, I have to bear in mind that I seem to have been assiduously ignored throughout this, up until today, when my words are used by the Minister against his own Back-Bencher. There is something faintly quizzical about that whole arrangement.
I hope that the Minister will at least indicate that the Government are cognisant of the serious, ongoing and growing problems arising here—to finance, to a whole sector, to hundreds of thousands, a very large number, of excluded leaseholders, and much more besides. If the Government do not recognise that, we are in for very serious problems indeed.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the very fact that these two issues remain for this Bill demonstrates that the Building Safety Act is, sadly, unfinished business. Although the matters will not be concluded today, I can be sure that they will be raised in future legislation in this House, because they need to be resolved. Having said that, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said about non-qualifying leaseholders. It is a large group which deserves not to be neglected, and I support my noble friend’s valiant efforts in getting the regulation appropriate to the need.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the building safety parts of this Bill, which have been complex, but it was all done in the interests of the leaseholders who are at the end of this process. The noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Young, have outlined the reasons for their amendments. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider these outstanding matters. We are all mindful in your Lordships’ House that behind all the technicalities and complexities of the Building Safety Act and attempts to right its deficiencies in this Bill is a group of leaseholders, many of whom were or are first-time buyers, who have had the start of their home-owning journey blighted by the worry and concern of remediation and uncertainty over service charges. They have been let down by errors in the original Bill, which meant that the status of their leasehold determined what charges they would have to pay.
The Minister reassures us that further review of these matters will be undertaken. I hope that will be the case, and that further thought will be given by the Government, if there is to be no compensation to those who have already had significant costs, to how that might be dealt with in future.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this group. I thank my noble friend Lord Young for his kind words on government Amendments 288A, 288B, 288C and 288D. He asked about his Motion in relation to leaseholders who have paid remediation costs since losing the protections. Like my noble friend, the Government are concerned about leaseholders who have paid a significant service charge where they have lost the protections upon extending their leases. Those who have paid out remediation costs while outside the protections may be able to bring a claim for unjust enrichment.
I should point out to your Lordships that we are not aware of this issue being raised with us by any affected leaseholders, so it may well be theoretical in nature—my noble friend may contradict me on that. That said, if we do come across any cases where remediation charges have been paid and are not returned, the Building Safety Act contains a power to make secondary legislation that we believe enables us to provide a bespoke remedy to this issue. If cases do come to light, we will consider carefully whether that is the right thing to do.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am very grateful for what my noble friend has just said. However, will leaseholders first have to go through the process of claiming unlawful enrichment before the Government introduce the provisions he has outlined—which I welcome—or will the Government use the provisions under subsection (11) of new Section 119A to give them the protection without first obliging them to go through a complex process of claiming unlawful enrichment?
Earl Howe (Con)
As I said, we will carefully consider what is the right thing to do. I have no briefing on whether it will be necessary for leaseholders to make a claim either directly or through the courts. We will make a decision as to what is right in all the prevailing circumstances. I am afraid I cannot go further than that.
I can assure my noble friend that we completely appreciate the point that he has raised, and the Government are looking into what we can do for leaseholders who have had to pay excessive service charges where they have lost the protections. For the reasons I have set out, including the potential for unintended consequences which I described in relation to Amendment 242, I ask my noble friend not to press his Motion on Amendment 288E.
On the other issues he raised, I cannot, as my noble friend will understand, pre-empt the forthcoming gracious Speech or what may be contained in it; it would be quite improper for me to do so. However, I can tell him that the issues he has drawn our attention to will be carefully considered in the department I am representing.
On Motion X1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, I recognise his continued concern and repeat my earlier assurances that the Government do not intend to interfere with these important committees. Section 12 of the Building Safety Act contains appropriate provision to change the statutory committees of the building safety regulator as needed in the future. This gives the Government and regulator the flexibility needed to adapt the role of the regulator and its statutory committees.
We do not agree that it is appropriate or necessary to impose restrictions on the use of that section. We are concerned that, as drafted, this restriction would cause confusion while potentially preventing the use of the powers in Section 12 of the Building Safety Act to make changes to the statutory committees of the regulator in the future.
The Government do not intend to use the power in any way imminently. We consider it necessary to create the ability to move the building safety regulator to an existing or a new body in the future, but we would look at any options very carefully and consider the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower inquiry before confirming the best way forward.
This does not affect the timeline for the building safety regulator’s important work. We expect the regime to be fully operational by April 2024, and we are determined to support delivery of the programme to that timetable. The changes will make sure that we are ready and have the flexibility in place to respond quickly to the Grenfell Tower inquiry report when it is published and that we can be radical and long-term in our thinking.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I heard his reassurances and I understand his good intentions. I believe that this is a fundamental mistake, but I understand that it is necessary to make progress this evening. I hope that we will not live to regret this. I have to say that there will be some bad actors in the construction industry who will be only too grateful for the moves that the Government are making. I hope that the Government and the regulator will stay alert to the activities of such bad actors and ensure they do not exploit the gaps which are now opening up. With that said, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Earl Howe
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 237A and 237B.
“(4) In the Procurement Act 2023—
(a) in section 118 (concurrent powers and the Government of Wales Act 2006), for paragraphs (c) and (d) substitute—
“(c) at the end of paragraph 11(6)(b)(x), omit “or”, and
(d) in paragraph 11(6)(b)(xi), at the end insert “, or
(xii) the Procurement Act 2023.””;
(b) in Schedule 11 (repeals and revocations), for paragraph 1 substitute—
“1 In Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (general restrictions on devolved competence)—
(a) paragraph 9(9)(d) (as inserted by the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023), and
(b) paragraph 11(6)(b)(x) (as inserted by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023).””
“Powers of local authority in relation to the provision of childcare
In section 8 of the Childcare Act 2006 (powers of local authority in relation to the provision of childcare)—
(a) in subsection (1)(c) omit “subject to subsection (3),”;
(b) omit subsections (3) to (5).”
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Motion Z I will also speak to Motions ZA, ZB and ZB1. As in the earlier group, I draw the attention of the House to the advice from the House of Commons authorities that Motion ZB1 is financially privileged.
The Government listened to the arguments made about local authorities opening their own childcare provision, as reflected in Amendment 239, which was carried on Report. While we did not feel that there was a legislative gap, we have proposed Amendments 239A to 239C in lieu. Amendment 239A removes restrictions on the powers of local authorities to provide their own childcare, as intended by Amendment 239, but does so in a way that is legally sound. Amendments 239B and 239C relate to the extent and commencement of Amendment 239A. On this basis, I hope that your Lordships will agree to these amendments in lieu.
On Report your Lordships also approved Amendment 240, which would require that a Minister publish an assessment of the impact of the enforcement sections of the Vagrancy Act 1824 on levelling up and regeneration. Once again, we have listened to noble Lords’ desire to see something tangible about the Vagrancy Act in the Bill. Given our commitment to the repeal and replacement of this Act, and because identifying, gathering and analysing the information will take significant time, we have agreed to publishing a report but propose that a year should be provided for this, instead of 90 days. To that end, we have tabled Amendments 240A to 240C in lieu, which commit the Government to providing the report within a year. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will be able to support these amendments.
I turn now to the final issue in this group, as reflected in Amendment 241, which was also carried on Report. This amendment would require the Government to maintain a register of school and hospital buildings in serious disrepair, and to update the register every three months. The safety of our school and hospital buildings is of paramount importance. That is why we invest significant capital funding into improving the estates each year and provide targeted support on issues such as RAAC. We regularly and routinely collect and make available extensive data on the condition of schools and hospitals.
The proposed amendment would drive a number of unintended—and I would say unwanted—consequences. Most concerning is the burden it would place on the school and hospital estates sector and departments, given the volume of relatively minor issues that would require reporting, analysing and following up in order to maintain such a register, ultimately drawing focus away from the most serious issues that require additional support to keep our schools and hospitals safe. The amendment would also carry inevitable financial implications for both the NHS and school systems to collect and maintain such a register, at a time when we all recognise the importance of maximising the front-line impact of resources going into public services.
The House will therefore wish to note that the reason given by the other place for rejecting Amendment 241 is because of the costs that it would impose on public funds through new data collection requirements. In the light of the Commons reason, I trust and hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, will not wish to take the issue further and will instead be content to accept Amendment 241A. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has tabled an amendment in lieu that would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on schools and hospitals in serious disrepair within 12 months, and every year thereafter. The Government already publish a wide range of information on the school and hospital estates as a matter of course. For example, on health, the annual Estates Returns Information Collection report contains detailed data on individual hospital condition and safety.
For schools, the department has already run two major condition data collections in recent years, made individual reports available to the sector, and published a summary of findings in 2021. In July, detailed data on all 22,000 schools within scope of the condition survey was deposited in the House Libraries and made available on the Parliament website. A third data collection is under way, covering all 22,000 schools and colleges in England. The Government have also published information about schools and hospitals with buildings confirmed as containing RAAC. The education department does not own or manage the estate, as I am sure she knows, so collecting and reporting additional information would have resource implications for both the department and the bodies responsible for school buildings, and take focus away from supporting schools with the most serious issues. Parliament is routinely updated on these issues already, and they are subject to frequent scrutiny and debate among colleagues. That will clearly continue to be the case, and the Government’s view is that the amendment is not required. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to thank the Minister for his introduction regarding the two amendments that were moved by the Front Bench here. The first was in my name, relating to childcare. We thank him for listening to and recognising our concerns, and thank the Government for tabling an amendment that does exactly what we asked for; we very much appreciate that. My noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage had an amendment down on vagrancy, and again, we are very pleased that the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu on the Vagrancy Act. I will say only that this was promised two years ago, so in our opinion the sooner that action is taken on this, the better.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has an amendment in lieu on RAAC. The Minister is aware, as are other noble Lords, of increasing concerns about the number of schools, hospitals and in fact other buildings that have been affected by this. It is important that there is proper information regarding the extent of the problem, and that schools and hospitals, and other organisations which have buildings that are affected have the support that they need, because this is extremely concerning.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the detailed arguments he has put towards Motion ZB1 in my name, which I recognise have substance. However, the levelling-up Bill, which includes missions relating to education and health, means that we need to think about the quality of the public buildings provided, because they have a substantial impact on the quality of the services that are then received by those in both schools and hospitals. To have higher-quality buildings inevitably leads to better outcomes for patients, students and children.
Given that, there are two issues. One is that these are public buildings that are publicly funded, and there ought to be greater transparency for users and employees in those buildings of the state that they are in. The Minister has carefully explained the vast data collection that goes on regarding the buildings, both in the school and NHS estates. He is right—there is a vast collection of data. However, there is not transparent, easily accessible data for people who use those buildings and work in them. If, as he said, safety is paramount—I totally agree—the public need to see that there is transparency around the data on the state of those buildings.
I am asking the Minister and the Government to accede to easily accessible data concerning these public buildings because of safety concerns. That has been highlighted by the recent RAAC issue, and more and more buildings have been discovered with RAAC as a safety issue. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote today, but I hope that the Government will consider greater publicity and accessibility of the data that they collect already so that people can see what state their buildings are in.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, it may be helpful to the noble Baroness to say that I agree with much of what she has just said. We need to think all the time about the quality of our school, college and hospital buildings. As the House will know, her amendment sprang from a concern about RAAC in particular. I know she understands how seriously we are taking that, and we have been engaging with the sector since 2018. Since last year we have taken a more direct approach with responsible bodies to identify and manage RAAC in the estate, and that exposes these issues to greater scrutiny. Every school and college affected is receiving support from the department. That causes some disruption but we are working with schools and responsible bodies to minimise that. I will take away the points she has rightly made about this issue which, I am sure she will know, is not going to go away in a hurry.
“Report on enforcement of the Vagrancy Act 1824
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the impact of the enforcement of sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 on the levelling-up missions (within the meaning given by section 1(2)(a)).
(2) The report must be published within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(3) This section ceases to have effect on the day on which section 81 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824 etc) comes into force.”
“Qualifying leases under the Building Safety Act 2022
(1) The Building Safety Act 2022 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In section 119 (meaning of “qualifying lease”) after subsection (3) insert— “(3A) A connected replacement lease (see section 119A) is also a “qualifying lease”.”
(3) After section 119 insert—
“119A Meaning of “connected replacement lease”
(1) For the purposes of section 119 (and this section) a lease (the “new lease”) is a “connected replacement lease” if—
(a) the new lease is a lease of a single dwelling in a relevant building,
(b) the tenant under the new lease is liable to pay a service charge,
(c) the new lease was granted on or after 14 February 2022,
(d) the new lease replaces—
(i) one other lease, which is a qualifying lease (whether under section 119(2) or (3A)), or
(ii) two or more other leases, at least one of which is a qualifying lease (whether under section 119(2) or (3A)), and
(e) there is continuity in the property let.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d), the new lease replaces another lease if—
(a) the term of the new lease begins during the term of the other lease, and the new lease is granted in substitution of the other lease, or
(b) the term of the new lease begins at the end of the term of the other lease (regardless of when the lease is granted).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), the circumstances in which the new lease is granted in substitution of another lease include circumstances where—
(a) the new lease is granted by way of a surrender and regrant of the other lease (including a deemed surrender and regrant, whether deemed under an enactment or otherwise);
(b) the new lease is granted under—
(i) section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (renewed business leases),
(ii) section 14 of, or Schedule 1 to, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (extension of leases of houses), or
(iii) section 56 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (extension of leases of flats), in a case where that provision of that Act applies by virtue of the other lease.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(e) there is continuity in the property let if—
(a) the newly let property is exactly the same as the already let property,
(b) the newly let property consists of some or all of the already let property, together with other property (whether or not that other property was previously let) (a “property combination”), or
(c) the newly let property consists of some, but not all, of the already let property (but no other property) (a “property reduction”).
(5) But there is no continuity in the property let by virtue of a property reduction if, as respects any lease in the relevant chain of qualifying leases, there was continuity in the property let by virtue of a property combination.
(6) For that purpose, the “relevant” chain of qualifying leases is the chain of qualifying leases of which the new lease would be part were it a connected replacement lease.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (1)(e) there is also continuity in the property let if the new lease is granted to rectify any error in the lease, or any lease, which the new lease replaces.
(8) Where a dwelling is at any time on or after 14 February 2022 let under two or more leases to which subsection (1)(a) and (b) apply, any of the leases which is superior to any of the other leases is not a connected replacement lease.
(9) For the purposes of sections 122 to 125 and Schedule 8, all of the leases in a chain of qualifying leases are to be treated as a single qualifying lease which has a term that—
(a) began when the term of the initial qualifying lease in that chain began, and
(b) ends when the term of the current connected replacement lease in that chain ends.
(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the meaning of “connected replacement lease” (including provision changing the meaning).
(11) The provision that may be made in regulations under this section includes—
(a) provision which amends this section;
(b) provision which has retrospective effect.
(12) Provision in regulations under this section made by virtue of section 168(2)(a) (consequential provision etc) may (in particular) amend this Act.
(13) In this section—
“already let property”, in relation to a new lease, means the property let by the lease or leases which the new lease replaces;
“chain of qualifying leases” means—
(a) an initial qualifying lease which is the preceding qualifying lease in relation to a connected replacement lease (the “first replacement lease”),
(b) the first replacement lease, and
(c) any other connected replacement lease if the preceding qualifying lease in relation to it is— (i) the first replacement lease, or
(ii) any other connected replacement lease which is in the chain of qualifying leases;
and a chain of qualifying leases may accordingly consist of different leases at different times (if further connected replacement leases are granted);
“current connected replacement lease”, in relation to a particular time, means a connected replacement lease during the term of which that time falls;
“initial qualifying lease” means a lease which is a qualifying lease under section 119(2);
“new lease” has the meaning given in subsection (1);
“newly let property” means the property let by the new lease;
“preceding qualifying lease”, in relation to the new lease, means—
(a) in a case within subsection (1)(d)(i), the lease which the new lease replaces;
(b) in a case within subsection (1)(d)(ii), a lease which—
(i) the new lease replaces, and
(ii) is a qualifying lease.
(14) The definitions in section 119(4) also apply for the purposes of this section.”
(4) In section 168(6)(a) (affirmative procedure for regulations), after “74,” insert “119A,”.
(5) The amendments made by this section are to be treated as having come into force on 28 June 2022.”
“(e) section 58 comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;
(ea) section 59 comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed;
(eb) sections 60 to 62 come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;”
Lord Bach
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 273 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 273A.”
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, a few hours have passed since this matter was debated. My Motion argues that it is fundamentally and constitutionally wrong to allow the mayor in the West Midlands without any consent—except of course his own and that of the Government—and without any real consultation, certainly no statutory consultation, to abolish out of existence a separately elected, independent police and crime commissioner in the West Midlands so that that there can be no PCC election next year. This is all in the second largest metropolitan area in our country.
I thank noble Lords who have supported me—the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, from the Cross Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, from the Conservative Benches. I beg to move.
“(6B) The local plan must take account of an assessment of the amount, and type, of housing that is needed in the local planning authority’s area, including the amount of affordable housing that is needed.”
““affordable housing” means—
(a) social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, and
(b) any other description of housing that may be prescribed;”
“• Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964 so far as relating to environmental impact assessments in Scotland;”
“• The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005;”
Israel and Gaza
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, last week I visited the Middle East, bringing a message of solidarity with the region against terror and against the further spread of conflict. I met with the leaders of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to co-ordinate our response to the crisis before us, but also to renew the better vision of the future that Hamas is trying to destroy.
I travelled first to Israel. It is a nation in mourning, but it is also a nation under attack. The violence against Israel did not end on 7 October. Hundreds of rockets are launched at its towns and cities every day, and Hamas still hold around 200 hostages, including British citizens. In Jerusalem, I met some of the relatives, who are suffering unbearable torment. Their pain will stay with me for the rest of my days. I am doing everything in my power, and working with all our partners, to get their loved ones home. In my meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Herzog, I told them once again that we stand resolutely with Israel in defending itself against terror, and I stressed again the need to act in line with international humanitarian law and take every possible step to avoid harming civilians. It was a message delivered by a close friend and ally. I say it again: we stand with Israel.
I recognise that the Palestinian people are suffering terribly. Over 4,000 Palestinians have been killed in this conflict. They are also the victims of Hamas, who embed themselves in the civilian population. Too many lives have already been lost, and the humanitarian crisis is growing. I went to the region to address these issues directly. In Riyadh, and then Cairo, I met individually with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman from Saudi Arabia; the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani; President Sisi in Egypt; and President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. These were further to my meetings with the King of Jordan last week and calls with other leaders, and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary’s extensive travel in the region.
There are three abiding messages from all these conversations. The first is that we must continue working together to get more humanitarian support into Gaza. The whole House will welcome the limited opening of the Rafah crossing. It is important progress and testament to the power of diplomacy, but it is not enough. We need a constant stream of aid pouring in, bringing the water, food, medicine and fuel that are so desperately needed, so we will keep up the diplomatic pressure. We have already committed £10 million of extra support to help civilians in Gaza, and I can announce today that we are going further. We are providing an additional £20 million of humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza, more than doubling our previous support to the Palestinian people. There are major logistical and political challenges to delivering this aid, which I discussed with President Sisi. My right honourable friend the Development Minister is leading an effort to ensure the maximum amount of aid is pre-positioned, with UK support ready to deliver. We are also working intensively to ensure that British nationals trapped in Gaza are able to leave through the Rafah crossing when it properly reopens.
The second message is that this is not a time for hyperbole and simplistic solutions. It is a time for quiet and dogged diplomacy that recognises the hard realities on the ground and delivers help now, and we have an important role to play. In all my meetings, people were clear that they value Britain’s engagement. The UK’s voice matters. We have deep ties across the region—ties of defence, trade and investment, but also of history. President Abbas pointed to that history—not the British mandate in Palestine or the Balfour Declaration, but the UK’s efforts over decades to support the two-state solution.
That brings me to my third point. Growing attacks by Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border, rising tensions on the West Bank and missiles and drones launched from Yemen show that some are seeking escalation, so we need to invest more deeply in regional stability and in the two-state solution. Last night, I spoke to the leaders of the United States, Germany, France, Italy and Canada. We are all determined to prevent escalation. That is why I am deploying RAF and Royal Navy assets, monitoring threats to regional security and supporting humanitarian efforts. Our support for a two-state solution is highly valued across the region, but it cannot just be a clichéd talking point to roll out at times like this. The truth is that, in recent years, energy has moved into other avenues such as the Abraham accords and normalisation talks with Saudi Arabia. We support those steps absolutely and believe that they can bolster wider efforts, but we must never lose sight of how essential the two-state solution is. We will work with our international partners to bring renewed energy and creativity to this effort. It will rely on establishing more effective governance for Palestinian territories in Gaza and the West Bank. It will also mean challenging actions that undercut legitimate aspirations for Palestinian statehood.
Hamas care more about their paymasters in Iran than the children they hide behind. Let me be clear: there is no scenario where Hamas can be allowed to control Gaza or any part of the Palestinian territories. Hamas is a threat not only to Israel, but to many others across the region. All the leaders I met agree that this is a watershed moment. It is time to set the region on a better path.
I also want to say a word about the tone of the debate. When things are so delicate, we all have a responsibility to take additional care in the language we use, and to operate on the basis of facts alone. The reaction to the horrific explosion at the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital was a case in point. As I indicated last week, we have taken care to look at all the evidence currently available, and I can now share our assessment with the House. On the basis of the deep knowledge and analysis of our intelligence and weapons experts, the British Government judge that the explosion was likely caused by a missile, or part of one, that was launched from within Gaza towards Israel. The misreporting of this incident had a negative effect in the region, including on a vital US diplomatic effort, and on tensions here at home. We need to learn the lessons and ensure that in the future there is no rush to judgment.
We have seen hate on our streets again this weekend. We all stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people—that is the message I brought to President Abbas—but we will never tolerate anti-Semitism in our country. Calls for jihad on our streets are a threat not only to the Jewish community but to our democratic values, and we expect the police to take all necessary action to tackle extremism head on.
This is a moment for great care and caution, but also for moral clarity. Hope and humanity must win out against the scourge of terrorism and aggression. The 7 October attack was driven by hatred, but it was also driven by Hamas’s fear that a new equilibrium might be emerging in the Middle East—one that would leave old divisions behind and offer hope of a better, more secure, more prosperous way forward. It is the same motivation that drives Putin’s war in Ukraine—the fear of Ukraine’s emergence as a modern, thriving democracy, and the desire to pull it back into some imperialist fantasy of the past. Putin will fail, and so will Hamas. We must keep alive that vision of a better future, against those who seek to destroy it. Together with our partners, that is what we will do, and I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating today’s Statement. He will have recognised that it was welcomed across the whole House.
Last week, following the previous Statement, I met Noam and Sharone, both of whom have parents who have been taken as hostages. It is impossible to imagine how any of us would react in such circumstances, but they both bore their fear and pain with a dignity that served only to emphasise the depth of their emotions. As they still pray for their release, they also pray for peace.
The horror and the suffering of the brutal attack on 7 October are seared into memories, with images of the dead and dying that can never be unseen, and Israel remains under attack, with rockets still being launched against it. That suffering is compounded by the continuing plight of over 200 hostages, with so many families not knowing whether loved ones or friends are alive. The glimmer of hope of the release of the two American hostages was a relief beyond words for their families, and noble Lords may have heard the news in the last hour that two older women have been released by Hamas. It just shows that Hamas can and must go further. These are innocent people—men and women, young and old, some ill and infirm. We stand united with all of those who have called for their immediate release.
As I have said, we understand the individual pain of those who wait, but there is also collective pain across Israel and the Jewish community worldwide. On Friday evening in Tel Aviv, the families of the hostages came together for the traditional Friday night Shabbat dinner, with 200 empty place settings marking each and every one of those taken. It was a sombre and almost unbearable scene.
Israel has the right—indeed, the duty—to bring home all hostages being held by Hamas and to weaken the capabilities which made Black Saturday possible. A military response from Israel is justified in these circumstances, and it must be within those sacred parameters of international law and the protection of human life. It is, after all, these values, and the upholding of international norms, which separate lawful states from terrorists.
The purpose of military actions will be to deliver peaceful security. Israel’s objectives—to bring home the hostages and to protect itself by defeating Hamas—are to ensure that no one should endure such suffering again. During this period of conflict it is imperative that humanitarian aid reaches those in need and that corridors are established to allow civilians to escape violence. Where Palestinians are forced to flee, they must not be permanently displaced. Hamas may not care for the safety and security of the Palestinian people, but we should make it clear that we do. We cannot and will not ignore their suffering. Life is precious and fragile, and we must play our part.
Gaza is now a humanitarian emergency. Life was a struggle before, and now hospitals are trying to provide care without the medicines they need, and with food, water and electricity running out. It is desperate and people are suffering. Gaza needs aid and it needs it now. The “logistical and political challenges” that the Prime Minister referred to will have to be addressed urgently, because without immediate aid more will die.
The Lord Privy Seal will know that the EU has promised to treble humanitarian aid and that the US has appointed a special co-ordinator. The opening of the Rafah crossing is welcome progress, but more is needed. We welcome that the Prime Minister has announced an additional £20 million today. Is the Lord Privy Seal able to say anything more about the ongoing urgent support to get aid to where it is needed, but also to help British citizens leave? Our international standing—our ranks of humanitarian experts and our role in UN agencies—means that Britain has influence. We must use it. Alongside our international partners, we need to ensure that the UN agencies have the resources and the expertise they need, and that this is not just for the short term.
As I said last week, we all know of Jewish and Muslim leaders and those active in their communities who seek to bring people together in support of mutual understanding, acceptance and the celebration of shared and diverse religious views and cultures. Yet when someone is afraid to leave their home for fear of attack or abuse, we must stand side by side with them. When someone is attacked, not for what they have said or done but for the very essence of their being, we stand with them. Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia have no place in the UK. All of us must unite in condemnation of those who seek to exploit the pain of the other community.
When we debated the Statement last week, we were rightly totally united in our support for Israel to protect itself against Hamas. We unite for a future where Israel can live free from the fear of terror and where the children of Palestine can enjoy the freedoms and opportunities that we take for granted. The Lord Privy Seal is right to place so much emphasis on the two-state solution, but it can be a reality only when Israel and Palestine have confidence in a peaceful future—a future based on a two-state solution of a safe and secure Israel alongside the dignity of a Palestinian state, a future where peace can be a reality, and a future which together we have to work to deliver.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I commend the Prime Minister not only for visiting Israel but for undertaking a series of meetings in Egypt. At the beginning of the Statement, the Prime Minister set out the twin tracks of our immediate response to the crisis, both of which we support—namely, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorist attacks and the need to do so in line with international humanitarian law, taking every possible step to avoid harming civilians.
The Prime Minister takes three principal messages from his meetings in the region. The first is the need to work together to get more international aid into Gaza. We agree, but are baffled and frustrated as to why this is not yet happening at scale. The Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Archbishop of Canterbury have called for a temporary humanitarian ceasefire to allow essential supplies to reach Gaza and to provide time for the negotiation of the release of hostages by Hamas. We agree with this call. Do the Government also agree that such an initiative is now needed and, if not, why not? One of the problems around the supply of aid appears to be the constraints at the Rafah crossing. Given that Gaza has a long coastline and that the UK, the US and other allies have warships in the area, is there any reason why humanitarian supplies cannot be landed by sea? Again, a humanitarian ceasefire could surely facilitate such a move.
The second message the Prime Minister received was that this is not a time for hyperbole and simplistic solutions but for quiet, dogged diplomacy, and that the UK is in a strong position to play a full part in this because of its deep ties across the region. This is surely true and should be the basis of the UK’s response, not just by the Prime Minister and other Ministers but by our diplomats across the region. Is the Minister satisfied that our diplomatic representation is adequate for this task? Have the Government any plans to beef up the number of diplomatic staff who could be engaged in this work?
The third message was to invest more deeply in regional stability and the two-state solution. This again is welcome. Did the Prime Minister discuss with Prime Minister Netanyahu the need to commit to the two-state solution and, if so, what was his response? As the Prime Minister points out, if the two-state solution is to be achieved, this will require more effective governance of the Palestinian territories and a situation where Hamas does not control any of them. Sadly, we are very far away from that today. Worse than that, there are very few practical steps which can be envisaged, in the short term at least, that are likely to bring this more closely to fruition.
The immediate prospects are truly exceptionally bleak. Intensified Israeli military action looks unavoidable. This will cause many civilian casualties in Gaza and probably many casualties among Israeli forces. In the north of Israel, intensified Hezbollah attacks look highly likely.
In planning its next steps, Israel must—at the same time—seek to hit Hamas hard, do so while minimising civilian deaths, and try to avoid igniting a greater conflagration. Getting this right will be exceptionally difficult. I suspect that none of us in your Lordships’ House would like to be a senior military or political decision-maker in Israel today, trying to make those really difficult judgments and strike that almost impossible balance.
Finally, we stand with the Prime Minister in supporting the Jewish community in the UK. We can understand why events in recent days have roused passions on both sides; but now is also a time for tolerance and for determination to seek a way forward that will make a repetition of the events of the past fortnight simply unimaginable.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their constructive and thoughtful responses in this difficult situation. I of course begin by echoing, as the Prime Minister did in his Statement, the profound feelings of concern and solidarity, and the prayers to those in all nations who are caught up in having family members who are hostages or who have lost members of their families.
The position remains that Israel suffered an appalling terrorist attack. We support Israel’s right to defend itself, to go after Hamas and free hostages, to deter further incursions and to strengthen its security for the long term, because the only basis of a long-term solution is for Israel’s security to be accepted and recognised.
Humanitarian aid, about which both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord spoke, is of course profoundly important. I am grateful for the recognition in the House of the Prime Minister’s concern and the practical actions that he has taken in this respect, both in seeking to promote humanitarian aid and, indeed, in his efforts to try to prevent escalation of the conflict.
As the noble Baroness said, we support Israel’s right to defence but, equally, we have to keep humanitarian support going. We must support the Palestinian people, who are victims of Hamas too. As I said in in the Statement, both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have held calls. The Prime Minister has also seen the President of the state of Palestine to express condolences and discuss practical ways forward.
The noble Lord spoke of possible ways forward. I think that he and the whole House will recognise the extreme delicacy of the situation, given the activities and the presence of Hamas. I have to say to him that I think it is difficult for Israel to ask for a ceasefire when its citizens have been slaughtered and others are being held hostage by a terrorist organisation. I repeat that we support Israel’s right to defend itself and take action against these terrorists. As I said in the Statement last week, the Israeli President has made clear that Israel’s armed forces will operate in accordance with international humanitarian law.
Getting aid in is going to be a difficult task but we welcome the progress that has been made already. The opening of the Rafah crossing into Gaza is highly welcome. It is a testament to the power of diplomacy, with the US, Israel and Egypt brokering an agreement to ensure that vital aid reaches the Palestinian people. I will give credit to the Prime Minister for his personal engagement in that activity. I am struck by the open door that was shown to him by leaders across the Middle East on both sides; that is of great importance to our country and to the region.
I agree that we need to see a stream of trucks rolling in through that crossing to bring aid to the civilian population. We also need to see all water supplies to Gaza restored where physically possible, and all sides should commit to the sanctity of UN installations, hospitals and shelters. Some of the money that the Prime Minister has already announced is being made available for the positioning of humanitarian supplies in the region to ensure that they can be distributed as quickly and effectively as possible, and the FCDO is working with aid agencies to ensure that those supplies can be distributed.
The noble Lord asked whether we had the diplomatic capacity to achieve what we seek to. The endeavours that we have seen in the last few days underscore how fortunate we are to have a Diplomatic Service and a national effort working hard on the three strands that the Prime Minister set out. We are confident that we have that capacity, and that has been led politically from the top.
I strongly agree, as I tried to emphasise the last time we discussed this issue, that there is no place for extremism—for violence of tongue or of action that spreads fear to members of any community in our country. This is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No one should live in fear, as I said last week, for who they are or where they come from. As the Prime Minister said, the Government will look extremely carefully at the activities of those who do not accept that basic, civilised tenet of coexistence in a society where disagreement is valuable but violent disagreement, terror and fear have no place.
I was asked about the Prime Minister’s meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Prime Minister underscored the UK’s firm belief in Israel’s right to self-defence but also the need to act in accordance with international humanitarian law. Both leaders underscored, once this crisis is surmounted, the need to prevent any regional escalation in the conflict and the importance of restoring long-term peace and stability to the region. Any sensible, civilised person must believe that there is something better than the prospectus offered by Hamas.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Statement and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, rightly emphasise the plight of the hostages, more than 200 of them, including children, the disabled and the elderly, the taking of whom is a despicable crime. The International Committee of the Red Cross has said that it is in
“sustained, daily contact with Hamas”.
Will the Government urge the Red Cross to demand access to the hostages and to do everything it can to ensure their welfare, pending what we hope will be their return home?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we are making every diplomatic effort to secure that. Obviously, one is constrained by the environment in which everybody is operating and the people who have authority in that area. The United Kingdom Government certainly wish to see all hostages returned, and they should be returned forthwith. We hear that four have been released and that is very welcome, but these are human beings, not bargaining chips to be played with by terrorists to command media attention.
I focus on British nationals: we have to remember that not only were 10 British nationals, tragically, killed in the Hamas attacks but a further six British nationals are missing, some of whom are feared to be among the dead or kidnapped. Unfortunately, the reality of this situation is that the details of the effects of that monstrous attack are still only becoming clear, but we are working with Israel to establish the facts. We are keeping in close contact with other nations—and agencies, to respond to the noble Lord—to try to find a route to get the hostages released. The reality is that if Hamas had a single ounce of humanity, it would release all the hostages immediately but, sadly, they have already shown the type of people who they are.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Lord Privy Seal, and I thank the Prime Minister and congratulate him on his courage and moral clarity. In the Statement, he talked about the incident at the hospital and said:
“The misreporting of that incident had a negative effect in the region”.
It was far worse than a negative effect in the region. The Prime Minister went on to say:
“We need to learn the lessons and ensure that in future there is no rush to judgment”.
What conversations have the Government had, especially with broadcasters—the BBC, specifically, and Sky—and, if I may say so, some parliamentarians who were a little too trigger happy with their phones and made statements which ended up not being true? Perhaps I can point to one tiny shred of light. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, when she talked about the people she met. There is one tiny bit of good news: that Sharone’s mother has been released this evening and is in the hands of the Red Cross. Let us hope she is just one of the 200 or whatever to come out, yet the game is being played by Hamas because of Noam’s mother there is no news. Those are the games being played, so I repeat my thanks to the Prime Minister for his leadership.
Lord True (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his comments about my right honourable friend and for his general comments. He picked up what the Prime Minister said in the Statement: that we must not rush to judgment before we have all the facts. I think my noble friend implied that it was something of an understatement by the Prime Minister on the effects of the misreporting. It is important that the Prime Minister is seeking to use measured language, but there is no doubt that widespread unrest followed the reporting around that hospital blast. As my noble friend said, misinformation also spread across social media from various sources.
The Culture Secretary has spoken to Tim Davie on several occasions. The BBC and other broadcasters recognise that they have a duty to provide accurate and impartial news and information, particularly when it comes to coverage of highly sensitive events. The BBC has admitted that mistakes were made. It should reflect on its coverage and learn lessons for the future, but it is an important part of our free society—I underline this—to recognise that the BBC is independent of government. Editorial decisions are rightly not something that the Government interfere with or should interfere with. However, we would expect all media outlets to report on this inflammatory situation responsibly and accurately.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, would the Leader of the House say a few words of gratitude and admiration, which I hope would be in the name of the whole House, for the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency? It is reported that some 17 from that agency have lost their lives in Gaza. They are working day and night, in Gaza and of course in the West Bank, and it would be good if we could send them a message of support. The £20 million announced today is of course enormously welcome, but is that the final word or will a revisiting of that be possible if this crisis, alas, continues?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, on the second part I am not able to comment. I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to the degree of support the Prime Minister and Government have already announced.
The noble Lord is quite right about the important role of the UN agencies; they are, in effect, the conduit for aid going into Gaza. UNRWA has a unique mandate from the UN General Assembly, as the noble Lord knows, to protect and provide protection and core services to Palestinian refugees across the Middle East. It is a vital humanitarian and stabilising force in the region.
The Government are clear that the final status of Palestinian refugees must be agreed as part of eventual peace negotiations. Until then, the UN remains firmly committed to supporting UNRWA and those who work with it. It is worth recalling that it provides basic education to more than 500,000 children per year, half of whom are girls, access to health services for 3.5 million Palestinian refugees and social safety net assistance for around 390,000 of the most vulnerable across the region. So, yes, I can give the noble Lord the assurance he asked for.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I also welcome the kind and supportive Statement we have just heard. It comes as a ray of light in the farrago of disinformation that we are getting. I have three points to raise.
First, on the question of aid, over the last decades billions of dollars have been channelled into the Palestinian territories, largely through UNRWA. Where has it all gone? The concrete that was supposed to build houses has apparently been used for nefarious purposes and for hiding. What has happened to all that money from all over the world, which appears to have been used by Hamas to get rockets and to make trouble, rather than supporting their people?
Secondly, the two-state solution is all very well. However, as long as the call goes out “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, we know that “From the river to the sea” means the total annihilation of Israel and its replacement with one state. A state has been offered on four occasions to the Palestinians and rejected.
Thirdly, I hope the Government will have a mind to the trouble going on in our universities. Just today I heard from someone connected with Warwick University that two Jewish students there who refused to join a pro-Palestine march have been ostracised and made to feel extremely unwelcome, and that the Jewish society app has been hacked with all sorts of nasty messages. This is simply an example of the sort of thing going on in our universities. Vice-chancellors need to be told to take care of all their students, bearing in mind, of course, freedom of speech, but also bearing in mind the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. Our young people are on the front line and they are suffering.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes three challenging contributions. It is not the case that every part of aid offered and sent is used for the purposes it ought to be. That cannot be the case, sadly, in what is effectively a terrorist-controlled entity. What we can do, working with the agencies and the UN, using them as conduits, is to ensure that as much as possible goes to the support of the people. I gave some figures in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The fact that some aid has in the past been stolen and misapplied, and may be in the future, surely does not absolve us of the moral duty to seek to assist those in danger and those who are in need.
On the noble Baroness’s second point on the security of Israel, it is obvious that there can be no diplomatic two-state solution while Israel feels that it does not have the basic security of the right to survive that any people and nation have.
Thirdly, having not strayed into trying to direct broadcasters, I will not try to direct universities. However, all in authority need to have a care that their campuses are not misused or penetrated by malign organisations. Every student, in that glorious nobility of youth, should realise that treating others with respect is one of the most wonderful aspects of the human condition. If the story that the noble Baroness told is true, it is appalling and I hope that it is not replicated elsewhere.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I assure my noble friend of how much the Jewish community appreciates the words of the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition and other Members of Parliament today. We have appreciated the messages of support we have received from not just non-Jewish but Muslim members of the public, and not just non-Jewish but Muslim Members of this House, who reached out to us. In this country, dialogue exists between moderate Jewish and Muslim people, and that is to be encouraged and welcomed.
The Prime Minister specifically said:
“let me be clear: there is no scenario where Hamas can be allowed to control Gaza or any part of the Palestinian territories”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, predicted—correctly, I am sure—there will almost certainly be a ground invasion of Gaza. Innocent lives will almost certainly be lost, and conscript soldiers will be injured and killed. Does my noble friend agree that it is now up to all of us to prepare the ground for what is ahead? We have to explain why electricity and, in particular, fuel are being withheld, and why every inch of aid, while it must be supplied, has to be examined when it goes through the crossing to ensure that what is in those lorries is not capable of being misused. We have to explain why a ceasefire is not possible at this time. An enormous task is ahead of us, and it is all very well to say these fine words now, but we will repeat them time and again over the next few weeks.
Lord True (Con)
I agree with a great deal that my noble friend said, and I echo his words about the support that has come from all communities and across parties. There will be difficult and sad times, and Israel has the right to defend itself. We need to cherish not only the Jewish community but the Muslim community, because I believe that so many Muslims—my daughter-in-law is one—will recoil with horror and outrage at the thought of people crying “God is great” while they are butchering babies.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, in response to a question, the Minister referred to UNRWA, but is he aware of Medical Aid for Palestinians, a charity operating in the region? Have the Government made any contact with it in order to enlist, as part of the government position, its assistance as well?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not have an answer to that specific question. A voice in my ear says that we are talking to all NGOs, but I will confirm the situation in that respect and must write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join many other speakers this evening in welcoming the release of two hostages tonight, and in wishing that the other hostages are able to reunite with their families and communities as soon as possible.
In the other place, my honourable friend Caroline Lucas asked whether withholding fuel from Gaza is in line with the Government of Israel’s responsibilities under international law. The Prime Minister’s response was that they will “manage their behaviour” in line with international law, but surely the UK Government can and should make their own judgment about what is happening, in terms of international law.
The Leader of the House tonight said that water supplies need to be restored to Gaza. The Financial Times yesterday reported that Gaza is “consumed” by the “hunt for water”, and that UN agencies are warning that many are being forced to drink dirty water and are becoming ill as a result. The temperature in Gaza yesterday was 31 degrees Celsius. Much of the supply comes from Israel through a pipe currently opened for only three hours a day. Does he agree that these are issues on which the UK has to make its own judgment?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the position that the Prime Minister expressed was that the United Kingdom would of course wish to see humanitarian aid flowing. I think the phrase that the Prime Minister used was “a stream of trucks”. But I repeat that the difficult and delicate situation arises from the activities of the people who have power in Gaza, who started this terrible war. The United Kingdom will support every effort to get supplies of humanitarian aid flowing for the people who are suffering—not from Israel but, ultimately, from Hamas.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, we have heard a lot about moral clarity and we have also heard some references to the United Nations. I suggest that the United Nations finds a little moral clarity. On the Monday afternoon—and I mean the Monday afternoon after the massacre, so 48 hours later, while the bodies were still warm—the United Nations Human Rights Council observed a minute’s silence. It observed that minute’s silence, to quote the council itself, for the
“loss of innocent lives in the occupied Palestinian territory and elsewhere”.
For 2,000 years, the Jewish people had nowhere. Now it would appear, according to the United Nations Human Rights Council, that they have an “elsewhere”. Does my noble friend the Leader of the House think that some moral clarity is also needed on the part of the United Nations?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I had not seen those particular remarks. To say that they were disappointing would be a bit of an understatement. However, I repeat that there are many working with United Nations aid agencies who are doing outstanding and brave work for people in all parts of this crisis.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, throughout my political life I have always supported the right to peaceful protest, but the marches that have taken place in London, particularly during the past two Saturdays, supporting the Palestinian cause, have clearly been hijacked by hostile groups, chanting dreadful things, as the noble Baroness noted, along with calls for jihad. It was obvious to anyone that this would happen. Could my noble friend the Leader please find out who signed off on these marches and whether there will be another one this coming Saturday?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, marching is part of a free society, as is protest. I venture to say that my first move out into the streets was marching against the provision of arms to apartheid South Africa. That is a long time ago.
I understand what my noble friend is saying, and certain things that have happened will need very close examination. The Home Secretary spoke with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner today, as part of an extraordinary meeting of the Jewish Community Police, Crime and Security Taskforce, to discuss some of these matters. The Government recognise the complexities of the law in policing aspects of protest and prosecutor decisions. We will support the police as they continue to enforce the law against anyone suspected of committing an offence, and we will back them in that. There are currently more than 200 live police investigations over suspected offences, as a result of protests and online incidents linked to the Israel/Hamas conflict, but the House would not expect me to go into details of ongoing investigations.