House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Last year’s strikes were one of the biggest outbreaks of industrial action in a generation. Over 25 million school days were lost, with far-reaching consequences across our society. We cannot afford a repeat of that disruption, and it is my duty to protect children’s education. That is why we are consulting on minimum service levels to end further disruption to education, while providing certainty to parents. MSLs will balance the right to strike with children’s fundamental right to a good education.
Mark Pawsey
The issue extends to university students as well. My constituent’s final degree papers were not marked this year because of industrial action. That put in jeopardy her postgraduate course and her employment offer. Her degree was issued only after her mother personally visited the dean of the university involved and demanded action. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that degree exam papers are marked on time in the current academic year?
Gillian Keegan
Our young people should never be pawns in the disputes of adults. The behaviour of University and College Union members was disgraceful, and their actions caused untold disruption and stress for thousands of students. Although the higher education sector is independent of Government, the damaging impact of strike action cannot go unchecked. That is why we are consulting on minimum service levels in this sector, unlike the Labour party, which always bows to its union paymasters.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to be called to ask a supplementary to the first question.
I am ever mindful of the importance that the industrial action finishes. Has the Secretary of State had any opportunities to discuss this with the Department of Education in Northern Ireland? I understand that she has no responsibility for Northern Ireland, but it is important that we work together to try to solve the problems of industrial action. It is affecting loads of schools, particularly those whose pupils have special educational needs. I am really concerned.
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Member puts his finger on it. Industrial action has a massive impact, particularly on vulnerable children, those with special educational needs, and those in exam cohorts. I am always happy to share with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations, and I am very happy to share what we are doing on minimum service levels.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
Nationally, school funding will rise to over £59.6 billion next year, the highest ever in real terms per pupil. This year, the north-east had the largest percentage increase in per pupil funding in the whole of England.
Grahame Morris
I welcome the Minister to his place.
Every day is a school day, but I wonder whether the new Schools Minister is familiar with the School Cuts website, which indicates that 214 out of 240 schools in County Durham face spending cuts in 2024-25. The cumulative impact of cuts in County Durham amounts to £113 million, equating to a £175 cut per pupil. Does he believe that restricting school budgets will help or hinder the educational opportunities and life chances for children in my east Durham constituency?
Damian Hinds
I have seen the website that the hon. Member mentions. Its calculations are based on some very speculative assumptions, and the conclusions that it reaches should therefore be treated with great caution. Next year, County Durham will receive over £391 million based on current pupil numbers, which is an extra £7.8 million for schools.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Minister to his place.
On Friday, I joined Labour’s candidate Alan Strickland on a visit to Ferryhill School in County Durham. The staff team and students are amazing, but staff are left teaching in portacabins, the dining room and the sports hall, the staff room is behind a curtain on a stage, and years 10 and 11 are in a different town. Last week, yet more schools were added to the list of those with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, and the Secretary of State could not confirm how many will need complete rebuilds. Given the urgency, can the Minister tell parents, children and staff when this chaos will end?
Damian Hinds
Mr Speaker, allow me to take this moment to pay tribute to all school staff, leaders, children and their families, who have shown great fortitude in dealing with the disruption caused by RAAC. We have moved quickly to make sure all schools with suspected RAAC are surveyed and to work with schools to put in place alternative arrangements. Of course none of that is perfect, but schools have shown great flexibility in working towards that, such that we now have 99% of affected schools back with full-time face-to-face education.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
The Government announced earlier this year transformative reforms to childcare to benefit children, parents and the economy. By 2027-28, we expect to spend in excess of £8 billion every year on free childcare hours and early education, representing the single largest investment in childcare in England ever.
James Sunderland
In recent months, I have visited several early years providers across Bracknell Forest, where it is clear that the improved provision and ratios will make a big difference both for working families and for the providers. Could the Minister please outline what more could be done to better incentivise working parents to return to work?
David Johnston
Last week the Department for Business and Trade published its response to its consultation on flexible working, making clear that this Government are committed to changes to legislation that will enable more flexible working. Together with our expansion of childcare, that will ensure parents have more choice over how, when and where they work.
Siobhan Baillie
Welcome back, Mr Speaker.
The Early Education and Childcare Coalition has found that 57% of nursery staff and 38% of childminders are considering leaving the early years sector in the next 12 months, and Stroud businesses say the same thing. That absolutely cannot happen. They are a skilled and amazing workforce, whom parents trust with the most precious things, and the Government have backed the industry as integral to the growth strategy. What evidence does my hon. Friend have that the UK is retaining nursery staff and childminders, and what can we be doing to ensure the new system is successful?
David Johnston
I thank my hon. Friend for her work championing the early years workforce and join her in the tributes she pays to them. The total number of paid early years staff has remained stable in recent years, and between 2021 and 2022 the number of staff increased by 2%, or 5,900 people. We will publish updated statistics in the coming weeks.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not a fact that after 13 years of the Conservatives in government, our country is in a situation where preschool and out-of-school care is the most expensive in Europe and beyond? We have so many talented people—especially women, but men as well—who are not coming back to use their high skills to recharge the economy, because they cannot afford childcare. What is the Minister going to do about it?
David Johnston
What we are doing is making the single largest investment ever made in childcare. That is going to save the average family up to £6,500 per year on the cost of childcare, in contrast to the hon. Gentleman’s party, which has no policy for this area whatsoever.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
I am very proud that more than 4,000 students now have T-levels on their CV. In the summer, 3,190 students completed their T-levels with a pass or above, meaning that we had a pass rate of 90.5% before factoring in remarking and retakes. We will publish a T-level action plan with more information early next year.
Janet Daby
In my constituency, Christ the King Emmanuel sixth form college does fantastically well in educating young people, but an Education Committee report stated that in the first year of the T-Level transition programme, just 14% of students went on to start the T-level. The Government have yet to publish the data for subsequent years. Can the Minister outline when the new data will be published and whether that progression rate has improved?
Robert Halfon
I am very glad that Christ the King Emmanuel sixth form college is offering T-levels, and that the hon. Lady has had 8,300 apprenticeship starts in her constituency since 2010. Our T-level transition year is a new thing that we have introduced—it is now called the foundation year—and very close to 50% of students go on to do a level 3. However, I said in my opening answer to her, we will have more information about these matters in the next year.
Bill Esterson
Welcome back, Mr Speaker.
According to Make UK, 36% of manufacturing vacancies are hard to fill because of a lack of skills. There are 170,000 fewer apprenticeship starts than in 2017. The Prime Minister cast doubt on the future of T-levels in his conference speech, when he said that he thought they should be scrapped. Just what is the Government’s plan, or will they leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) to address the chronic shortage of technical skills over which they have presided?
Robert Halfon
I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would celebrate the 9,000-plus apprenticeship starts in his constituency since 2010. We have built our skills revolution in everything from apprenticeships and our T-level programme to our higher technical qualifications, free boot camps and free level 3 courses, and that is driving the increased skills uptake. It is worth noting that we have had 337,000 apprenticeship starts over the past year. He should welcome that.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Shockingly, results last summer revealed that one in three students dropped out of their T-level course, which is higher than for earlier cohorts. Something is going very wrong. In April, the Education Committee raised major concerns about T-level roll-outs, regional variations and falling employer engagement. Access to opportunity really matters, so should the Minister not now pause and review the defunding of alternative qualifications, as Labour would, and urgently bring forward the 2023-24 T-level action plan in order to address concerns raised by the Select Committee and Ofsted and bring much-needed clarity and support for colleges, employers, parents and students?
Robert Halfon
Not content with being in the anti-apprenticeship party, given her plans to weaken the apprenticeship levy and halve the number of apprenticeships, the hon. Lady is also taking on the mantle of T-level denier. We have 18 T-levels; we have, as I mentioned, a 90.5% pass rate; we have 10,000 students doing our T-level programme; and we expect the data that we will release early next year to show that many thousands more students are doing the T-level programme. I am very proud of our T-level programme. I know that the hon. Lady will be eating mince pies at Christmas, but I suggest that early next year she may be eating humble pie, because our T-level programme is something to be proud of.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
In October, the Government announced the allocation of £289 million of start-up funding to local authorities for wraparound care, which we know supports parents to work, as well as having the potential to improve attainment, engagement and attendance.
Elliot Colburn
I recently visited Muschamp Primary School in Carshalton and Wallington, where I observed the Junior Adventures Group UK—a leading provider of school-age childcare in my constituency—in the crucial support that it gives children, particularly those with special educational needs, beyond school hours. However, it is evident that school-age childcare needs reform. I welcome that £289 million, but can my hon. Friend explain how the frameworks will ensure that that investment effectively supports families, specifically those with requirements for special educational needs and disabilities?
David Johnston
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have set out clear expectations that all wraparound provision should be inclusive and accessible. We have given local authorities flexibility in how to spend their funding, but we expect them to distribute it in a way that ensures equal access to provision for parents of children with special educational needs.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
We want all children to receive the right support to reach their full potential. That is why, since March, we have opened 14 new special free schools, with 78 more approved; we have launched our £70 million change programme, benefiting every region in England and testing key SEND and alternative provision, including innovative approaches to speech and language therapy; and, to help young people with special educational needs into work, we are doubling the number of supported internships to 4,500 by 2025. By next year, we will have increased high-needs funding by 60%, to over £10.5 billion, in just five years.
Sarah Green
Last year in Buckinghamshire, one in three education, health and care plans were issued outside the legally required 20-week timeframe. Will the Secretary of State outline what concrete steps the Department is taking to improve access to educational psychologists and reduce waiting times for EHCPs?
Gillian Keegan
I know how hard parents fight to get the right support for their children. Sometimes that takes too long, and I am determined to make that easier, which is why we are simplifying and standardising the EHCP process. However, to deliver that support, we need our fantastic teachers, teaching assistants and specialist SEND teachers; without them, we could not provide children with the support they require. That is why we are boosting training opportunities through a new national professional qualification for special educational needs co-ordinators, which will be launched in autumn 2024, and investing a further £21 million to train 400 more educational psychologists. We are also training up to 7,000 early years specialists, over 5,000 of whom have begun their training. We now have 280,000 teaching assistants in our schools, an increase of over 60,000 since we have been in office.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
One in 10 children in education in my constituency receives special educational needs support. Thanks to the Department for Education, we have had a new special school, the Austen Academy—that is a free school—and significant increases in budgets, but can we also ensure that teaching children with special needs is a mainstream part of teacher education? Supporting children with special educational needs every day is now a mainstream part of school.
Gillian Keegan
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. That is exactly why we are developing a new NPQ for SENCOs, which will launch in autumn 2024, and are inputting into the standards for teacher training to ensure that everybody has an understanding of how best to support children. There are now a lot of children with special educational needs, and we all need to know how to support them better.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
From my citywide consultation of parents of children with SEND, it came to light that the particularly harsh and punitive disciplinary processes being exercised in schools are having a very harmful effect on many of those children. Will the Secretary of State or the Schools Minister meet me to discuss a particular multi-academy trust in my constituency where those processes are having a very negative impact on young people?
Gillian Keegan
I am very happy to confirm that the Minister for children and families will be happy to meet the hon. Lady.
Sir Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking Julie Nixon, head of the Spectrum of Light charity in Rossendale and Darwen, for the work she did on Saturday by bringing together parents from across Lancashire and Rossendale and Darwen on a Zoom call? Those parents were exactly the same as me, in that they all had an autistic child, and I was appalled to hear from them about the time they are having to wait to see an educational psychologist. Will the Secretary of State agree to write to Lancashire County Council to find out what the heck is going on with those parents whose children are missing school and are unable to access an education, health and care plan?
Gillian Keegan
I am very happy to work with my right hon. Friend to improve things in Lancashire. Spectrum of Light sounds like it is doing an amazing job—there are many people who are looking to better support our children with special educational needs. Of course, we recognise that we need to improve aspects, which is why we published an improvement plan in March this year.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Would-be educational psychology trainees for September 2024 have been left in limbo because of delays in the Department confirming the available funding. The number of educational psychologists has fallen since 2010, despite requests for education, health and care plans increasing every year. That national shortage of qualified practitioners is contributing to the crisis in SEND that is affecting so many families across the country. Does the Secretary of State agree that this uncertainty about Government funding for educational psychology training is unacceptable, and when does she expect it to be resolved?
Gillian Keegan
We announced in November 2022 that a further £21 million was going to be spent to train more than 400 educational psychologists.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
In our improvement plan, we set out plans to deliver consistent early support through our new national standards, backed by a 60% increase in high-needs funding and in programmes such as our £13 million investment in the Partnerships for Inclusion of Neurodiversity in Schools programme, which supports the needs of neurodiverse children.
Mrs Hamilton
More than half of children with an education, health and care plan are now experiencing a delay, and even after receiving an EHCP, my constituent’s child was held back a year and had to wait another year before finding a space in a special school. Over 1.5 million children in the UK have special educational needs, so can the Minister tell me what he is doing to ensure that parents and children such as my constituents get the support they need quickly?
David Johnston
We are investing £2.6 billion to transform the special educational needs and alternative provision system. That has included a 36% increase in funding to Birmingham, where the timeliness of EHCPs has been getting better each year between 2020 and 2022.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Beyond the traditional methods of support for SEND, the Minister will know that councils give specialist provisions, and we have heard a lot today about some of those longer-term provisions, for children in particular, and the time involved. What assessment does the Department make when looking at the distance that some of these children need to travel to get this specialist support, particularly when it is out of county—for example, Shropshire into Staffordshire? It may not seem a long distance, but on some of those meandering, serpentine roads it can take a very long time to travel 20 miles.
David Johnston
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Out of county placements are not ideal for the child and their family or for the cost to the local authority, which is why we have 78 new special schools in fruition. We are also committed to seeing the children whose needs can be met in a mainstream school being supported at an early enough stage with their special educational needs.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Thank you, Sir. It is good to see you back safe and well in the Chair. As this is the nearest I am ever going to get to it—No. 10, please! [Laughter.]
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
I wondered what was happening there, Mr Speaker.
As part of our £2.6 billion investment to reform the SEND and AP system, we have announced 41 new special free schools, with a further 37 in the pipeline. We have also set out plans for new national standards to make clear the support that should be available in mainstream settings for children with special educational needs.
Mr Francois
Can I take this opportunity quickly to thank the Secretary of State, her junior Ministers and officials for all the help for the schools affected by RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—in my constituency?
Turning to SEN, demand in Essex far outstrips supply. The Secretary of State will know that just prior to the summer recess, I launched a campaign for a new SEN school in south Essex. I am delighted to tell her that we have a trust that is seriously interested, we may have a site and we may even have some money. On that basis, could I meet her or one of her junior Ministers—early in the new year, please—to update her on where we have got to and to ask for help to make this dream a reality?
David Johnston
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his campaign, with which we are very familiar in the Department; we would be delighted to meet him. Where local authorities do feel there is a need, they can open a new special school through the free school presumption route, which I would be happy to discuss with him further.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister mentioned the £2.6 billion that the Government have invested, but this is not filtering down. That is the key issue for parents accessing SEN provision, and so many parents are raising it at my surgery. One concerned mother told me:
“Parents and children are being put under intolerable stress and anxiety with a system which is inefficient and creating a significant mental health burden”.
The Minister mentioned the national standards. Will the standards include the fact that SEN children and children with autism are being arrested and their mental health is not being treated properly because schools simply do not have enough training and support? Will the Minister please address that?
David Johnston
I thank the hon. Lady. We are keen that schools are as inclusive as they say they will be when it comes to children with special educational needs. We have nine change programme partnerships to try to make sure that the system works a lot better. The money is given to local authorities, and we should already be seeing an improvement, but I would be happy to discuss it further with her.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
We are transforming skills through our local skills improvement plans, backed by £165 million and supported by business, further education and higher education, and though a £300 million investment in institutes of technology, which are collaborations between business, higher education and further education to revolutionise our tertiary education offering.
Jack Brereton
I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Stoke-on-Trent College has recently launched its new “Skills Ready, Future Ready” strategy and has been working with a number of employers locally to fill skills shortages, and it is very welcome to see the local skills improvement fund investment of around £3 million for Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, but given our industries locally and the skills shortages, we need to go further, so what will my right hon. Friend be doing to help fill some of those skills shortages—to support our industries to help people earn better wages and get skilled now?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is a true champion of skills in Stoke-on-Trent and, as he mentioned, we strongly support the £3.2 million we are investing through the local skills improvement fund. That is underpinned by £3.8 billion of additional national investment and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know we will be opening the Stoke-on-Trent Staffordshire institute of technology in September 2024, with £13 million of capital funding as part of our revolution in tertiary education.
Greg Smith
My constituency is at the beating heart of motorsport valley and it is critical for motorsport’s future success that we get skills training and education right for young people who want to go into that sector. The Grand Prix Trust is supporting that effort, having launched a £100,000 annual bursary scheme to help disadvantaged college students become part of the dynamic British motorsport sector, a partnership with the National College for Motorsport and Silverstone University Technical College. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this fantastic initiative, and tell me what more he can do to help promote this important work?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend highlights the skills revolution we are having in this country, and the initiatives he has mentioned increase the collaboration between business and skills providers to help disadvantaged students in his constituency to climb the ladder of opportunity in a high-profile industry. I extend my thanks to Pat Symonds, chief technical officer of Formula 1, and Martin Brundle, chairman of the GPT trustees. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the South Central Institute of Technology based in Milton Keynes is also exploring opportunities to work with motorsport in the area.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Plymouth is home to world-class skills in marine and nuclear engineering. Demand for apprentices in our city is growing, especially with the construction of new berths and docks for nuclear submarines at Devonport dockyard. Does the Minister agree that skills training and apprenticeships are just as important as new cranes and new docks in making these projects a success and supporting our armed forces, and will he meet me, a delegation of Plymouth businesses, our city council and City College Plymouth to look at how we can turbocharge creating more apprenticeships in our city to deliver these exciting and innovative projects?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that his constituency has received over 14,910 apprenticeship starts since 2010, which is really good news, but he is absolutely right that our skills offering is the key for future employment and jobs and to ensure people climb the ladder of opportunity. We have the apprenticeships, the bootcamps, the higher technical qualification and the free level 3 courses, but I will look at what he says and would be happy to meet him and other Plymouth MPs to work through the important issues he mentions.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Tertiary education providers are themselves businesses that seek to meet local skills needs, and the University of Exeter is no different. It hosts international students who contribute £486 million to Devon’s economy. People in Devon do not think of these students as immigrants, given how this funding helps boost skills among local people, so will the Minister talk to his counterparts in the Home Office about taking students out of the net migration figures?
Robert Halfon
As a former Exeter University student myself, I know how brilliant it is, and it also has a huge and incredibly successful programme of degree apprenticeships. I am very supportive of international students; they bring a lot of income to our country. Visa matters are always matters for the Home Office but I am sure there will be discussions about the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
Support staff play a vital role in our schools. We have given schools the freedom to recruit the staff they require to meet their own needs; although we do not collect central data on vacancies as a result, I can tell the hon. Lady that the number of support staff working in schools has increased for the past three years.
Cat Smith
We have already heard in this Question Time about delays in getting the education, health and care plans in Lancashire. As a consequence, rural schools like Quernmore, which I had the privilege of visiting on Friday, are left with more children with special educational needs in mainstream but without the financial support package that should come with that. These small rural schools are therefore having to support children with additional needs and do not always have the right number of staff to be able to do so in the way they would like. Is support available to rural and small schools, especially in Lancashire, to meet the needs of all children?
Damian Hinds
We must meet the needs of all children; and at some level, every teacher is a teacher of special educational needs and disabilities. I recognise that there can be particular difficulties for smaller schools in rural areas, as the hon. Member mentions. We have the wider EHCP system, which is better than the previous system. On places available in special schools, where children are in mainstream schools, I recognise the central role played by teaching assistants. That is why we have set out in the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan how we will look to consolidate that position and give further advice on the best deployment of TAs.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
Reducing unnecessary workload is a priority for the Department and for me. We have convened a workload reduction taskforce of experts, teaching unions and practitioners to make recommendations on how to minimise workload for teachers and school leaders.
Mrs Drummond
It is good to see you back, Mr Speaker, and looking so well.
The last-minute nature of Ofsted inspections is causing huge anxiety to my small rural schools in Meon Valley. That means that teachers and in particular headteachers are putting off activities, such as residential school trips, educational trips and professional development courses, in case they get that call from Ofsted. Will my right hon. Friend consider changing the notice period for inspections so that teachers can plan their workload better?
Damian Hinds
I value all those activities that my hon. Friend sets out that schools undertake for their children. Like her, I represent a rural constituency—indeed, we have next-door constituencies. I recognise what she says about small rural schools. Inspections have an important role to play, but Ofsted also has the flexibility in the framework to take account of the particular position of smaller schools.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Teacher workloads are being exacerbated by teacher vacancies that schools are struggling to fill, and funding pressures are resulting in cuts to support staff, who often support the most vulnerable and needy children. That is leading to an exodus of teachers from our schools. Just last week, we saw the staggering figures from the Government that teacher training recruitment targets have been missed by a whopping 50% in our secondary schools, with the sharpest fall in maths, which is allegedly a priority for the Prime Minister. How bad does it have to get before the Government will produce and implement a proper workforce strategy?
Damian Hinds
I can confirm that there are 27,000 more teachers and 60,000 more teaching assistants in our schools compared with 2010. We have the most talented generation of teachers ever, and we continue to focus on a strong recruitment and retention strategy, so that we continue to get the best talent to teach our children.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The workload and stress levels of teachers rise exponentially during an inspection. I am sure that the Minister will join me in offering condolences to the friends and family of Ruth Perry. In the light of the coroner’s verdict that the “rude and intimidating” nature of the Ofsted inspection contributed to Ruth Perry’s tragic suicide, how is the Minister ensuring the welfare of school leaders is prioritised during inspections?
Damian Hinds
I of course extend my condolences to the friends and family of Ruth Perry. It was the most awful tragedy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say a word on that tragedy and Ofsted in a moment. For now, let me just say that of course the inspection framework and process must both be fully informative to parents, and supportive to teachers and schools.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
Free school meals support disadvantaged families to the value of £480 a year, ensuring that eligible pupils receive a healthy, nutritious meal. The Government have expanded free school meals more than any other in recent decades; now, more than a third of pupils in England receive them, compared with a sixth in 2010.
Mrs Murray
Recently, we have had high food inflation. While I welcome the fact that the Government have now halved inflation, one of my small schools has told me that it is unable to provide free meals within the money allocated, as it cannot benefit from the same economies of scale as larger schools. Will my right hon. Friend review the funds available for small schools?
Damian Hinds
I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point. The national funding formula recognises that some schools are necessarily small and do not have the same opportunities to realise economies of scale. Every school receives a lump sum, irrespective of its size—£134,000 for next year—and the Government have reformed the sparsity factor, increasing funding for that from £42 million in 2021-22 to £98 million in 2024-25.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
I am pleased that we have surpassed our target, with well over 600,000 international students. They remain an important source of income and a source of pride for our universities, and the total impact of international students was worth £37 billion across the duration of their studies.
Dame Nia Griffith
As the Minister has just mentioned, the economic benefit of overseas students is some £37.4 billion spread between universities and economies across the UK, but applications in this UCAS admissions round are down. With increasingly stiff competition from elsewhere, UK institutions cannot simply rely on their excellent reputations, so what more can the Minister do to ensure that the UK remains an attractive place for international students to study?
Robert Halfon
As I said to the hon. Lady, we have something like 689,000 international students and our target is 600,000 a year. We are working very closely with Sir Steve Smith. We want to diversify to a whole range of different countries to advertise ourselves to international students but, as I say, the trends are good. The hundreds of thousands of international students who are here benefit our economy and provide an important source of income for universities.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is great to see you, Mr Speaker.
As well as contributing to Britain’s world-leading research, the financial contribution of international students is vital to UK universities, particularly at a time of rising cost pressures and real-terms fee value erosion. Any sudden changes in the number of international students coming to the UK obviously puts the higher education sector at risk. The Minister speaks of his pride, but I would like to stress the point and ensure that he puts this on record. Can he absolutely give his assurance to the House that the Government remain robust in their ambition to continue to attract 600,000 international students a year, as laid out in the international education strategy?
Robert Halfon
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question. I am absolutely committed to the target of 600,000. As I said in response to the previous question, we have surpassed that, with well over 680,000 students. As I say, they are of benefit to our universities and our economy, and they are a very important source of income for all our higher education institutions.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
Of course, no one should face violence in school. In England, we have taken decisive action to improve pupils’ behaviour through strengthening the behaviour in schools guidance and investing in giving support and propagating best practice through the behaviour hubs.
Michael Shanks
The latest PISA figures, which were released in the last few weeks, show a stark picture of violence in schools across the whole UK. Nowhere else in the OECD do rates of violence reach anywhere near the levels in the UK. Pupils are almost twice as likely as the OECD average to witness a fight in their school—39% in England and 36% in Scotland—and, as a teacher, I can say from experience that violence in schools disrupts every part of pupils’ learning. Exclusion clearly is not working, and the Scottish Government’s recently announced proposal in Scotland is to put all the responsibility on teachers. What more can the Government do to illustrate a way forward for schools to deal with this problem, so that young people’s learning is not hampered by violence in the classroom?
Damian Hinds
For completeness, we ought to note that the PISA study noted that the great majority of pupils in England reported feeling safe in school—very similar to the OECD average—and were less likely than the OECD average to see the most serious manifestations of such behaviour, such as seeing gangs at school or seeing somebody with a weapon.
It is absolutely true that schools must have the full range of measures at their disposal. There is no right level of exclusion, and it should not be used lightly, but it has to be there; it has to be available. Early in our time in government, we made it clear that teachers can use reasonable force. We also extended searching powers, removed the requirement to give parents 24 hours’ written notice for after-school detentions and simplified advice on how to prevent and tackle bullying, because a safe and ordered environment is essential for both children’s education and their general wellbeing.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Ruth Perry’s death was a tragedy that left a hole in the hearts of her family, her community and her school. Throughout this year, I have been honoured to work closely with Ruth’s sister Julia and her friends Lisa and Edmund to introduce important changes to inspection practice alongside Ofsted, which ensure that headteachers can share their inspection outcome, including with colleagues, friends and family. Our new changes mean that if a school is graded “inadequate” due to ineffective safeguarding but all other judgments are “good”, it will be reinspected within three months. That has now happened at Caversham Primary School, which was regraded as “good” this summer. We also doubled the wellbeing support for our school leaders. In life, Ruth dedicated herself to her school, and we will build on her legacy to help ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.
Simon Jupp
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement; I agree with those sentiments.
This Conservative Government will fund a new school to replace the flood-prone Tipton St John Primary School, which has had to close three times this year and had another near miss last week due to intense heavy rainfall. It is vital that spades are in the ground next year for the new school. Will she meet me to discuss this urgent matter further?
Gillian Keegan
Our school rebuilding programme is transforming 500 schools across England, and I am delighted that Tipton St John Primary School is one of them. The school is currently in a flood zone and was impacted by the recent storms. We are working actively with the diocese of Exeter and Devon local authority to identify suitable sites for the school. I am happy to agree to meet my hon. Friend very soon.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
May I start by again sending my condolences and those of the entire Labour party to the family of Ruth Perry? We must all now listen and learn to deliver an inspection system that works in the best interests of children, school staff and communities.
The Education Secretary has said that her Government are doing everything to get children into school, yet this term the attendance rate has declined consistently, hitting a terrible new low in the latest figures. Is not the real truth simply that the Government see attendance as a problem affecting other people’s children?
Gillian Keegan
Absolutely not—attendance is my No. 1 priority. I regularly meet and chair the attendance action alliance group, and we are determined to help ensure that children are in school, because that is where they can get the best education. We are working with GPs and other medical professionals to ensure that everybody is aware that, first, school is a good place to be—actually, a better place to be—for those with mild anxiety and, secondly, we are there to give support in school, and we want everybody to be in school. Those efforts are starting to pay off—we now have 380,000 fewer children missing school—but it is very much at the top of my agenda.
Bridget Phillipson
If it is the Secretary of State’s No. 1 priority, why is she not legislating for a register of children not in school? That measure has wide support right across this House, but it was missing from the King’s Speech despite the Secretary of State’s repeated promises to legislate, despite it having been in the Government’s abandoned Schools Bill and despite it being in her Department’s submission, according to the permanent secretary at the Department. Will the Secretary of State confirm, as the permanent secretary suggested, that it was blocked by No. 10?
Gillian Keegan
No, absolutely not. Of course, more things go into King’s Speeches than there is legislative time; that is a process that the permanent secretary laid out. But it is my priority, and I hope to legislate on it in the very short term.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. We know that school-based provision works best when all staff are clear about how to support mental health, which is why we are providing senior mental health lead training grants to all state schools, 14,400 of which have claimed a grant so far. We are also working with the Department of Health and Social Care to extend mental health support teams to cover at least 50% of pupils by spring 2025.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
If there is to be hope for a peaceful solution in the Israel-Gaza conflict, the input of Palestinian academics will be crucial, but many have already lost of their lives. Could the Minister make a statement about representations that he has made to Cabinet colleagues about introducing an emergency humanitarian visa for academics in Gaza?
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
My right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour has been a long-time champion on this matter, and I know his local work well. There are 701 free schools open, and a further 140-plus are in the pipeline. There is a current round of applications for consideration of special and alternative provision free schools, but further capital would be a matter for future spending reviews.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
Damian Hinds
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are conducting a review of RSHE guidance. These are important and sensitive topics and it is important to get them right. He will not have long to wait to see the results.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Gillian Keegan
The temporary classrooms at St Andrew’s Junior School were delivered by Essex County Council, which I thank once again for its exemplary leadership managing RAAC in Essex. The Department is working closely with all parties to ensure that any concerns are addressed quickly. Work is ongoing today to fix a disabled access door. I can confirm that we will remove RAAC from all schools and colleges. Settings will be offered either grant funding or rebuilding projects. We are assessing the right solution for each case and we will update the House shortly.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Swallowfield Primary School has a space-constrained site in my constituency, and relies on temporary accommodation to provide important special educational needs and disabilities interventions for pupils. However, because of an inadvertent breach of section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, it has had a loss of space and may lose that unit because of the compromising effect on outdoor space. Given that the space lost could never have been used for recreational purposes—
Damian Hinds
It sounds like there are important details to get to grips with, so I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
My hon. Friend is a champion for UTCs and technical education. I am delighted that the Secretary of State recently approved two more UTCs. A couple of weeks ago I visited the brilliant Harlow BMAT STEM Academy, which is a UTC, and UTC Portsmouth. We will respond shortly to Lord Baker’s request for a UTC sleeve pilot, as she mentioned.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Corpus Christi junior school on Brixton Hill has been closed since July due to RAAC. We now have tenders approved for the significant works that the Department for Education said were necessary and that it would pay for, but they must begin in January to ensure that they are completed in time. Could the Secretary of State explain why, despite repeated requests, her Department has still not approved the necessary funding? Any further delay could mean that my young constituents are left with further disruption and no building to learn in for the next academic year.
Damian Hinds
We are, as the hon. Lady will know, committed to ensure that reasonable costs for temporary accommodation and so on are covered in the immediate term and beyond, to make sure that capital costs are covered for either refurbishment or, in some cases, rebuild. There will be further detail to come before long.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Gillian Keegan
Yes. We have to compare and contrast that with Wales, which has the lowest educational standards in the UK. The simple answer to why that is, is that it is run by Labour. Under Labour, our education standards plummeted from eighth to 27th in maths, from seventh to 25th in reading and from fourth to 16th in science. Thanks to the hard work of our teachers and pupils, and the reforms under this Conservative Government, we have rocketed back up the tables to 11th for maths and 13th for reading and science. Every time Labour gets power, education standards fall. The Conservatives are the only ones taking the long-term decisions to deliver a better education for our children.
Mr Speaker
Please work with me to enable everybody to get in.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Despite my private Member’s Bill on statutory guidance to reduce the cost of school uniforms—the Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Act 2021—far too many schools require a plethora of logos and branded items. When can we expect more robust intervention from Ministers to deal with this issue?
Damian Hinds
Schools should be reasonable in what they do and that is what our guidance sets out.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Staff at Bramhall High School have worked extremely hard to maintain the education of students following the discovery of RAAC. I am grateful for the support given by the Department and Stockport Council to ensure that temporary classrooms will be in place in the new year. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the headteacher and the staff for all their hard work? Given the existing condition of the school, will he join me in calling for it to be included in a new build programme?
Mr Speaker
Can you just help me to get through? Members have not got in yet and I really do want to help everybody.
Damian Hinds
I join my hon. Friend in thanking and paying tribute to all the staff, children and families at Bramhall High Street. She is a great advocate for them. Schools and colleges will be offered either capital grants to fund refurbishment or permanently remove RAAC, or rebuilding projects where they are needed.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Last week, the Government published an update of the list of schools with RAAC. Will the Minister confirm that the Department is seeking to cross-check its list of schools affected by RAAC with the BBC, because it remains the case that the BBC journalists have more of a grip on this crisis than the Government?
Damian Hinds
We have a lot of people working on this and rightly so, including making sure that all the surveys get done. We have also committed to being transparent, which is why we publish regular updates to the list. We continue to work at pace to try to resolve the problems as quickly as possible for the good of the children.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Malvern College in my constituency employs hundreds of local people, supports the local economy, earns export earnings for our country, ensures that people around the world love the UK, and is a huge supporter of our local schools. What kind of destructive ideology would put all that at risk and make the UK the only country in the world to tax education?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a dreadful policy and it will have exactly the opposite impact. It will probably actually cost money and mean children moving schools, and all because the Labour party just plays the politics of envy.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I offer my deepest condolences to the family of Ruth Perry. Following the inquest last week, will the Secretary of State now consider the removal of the single-word judgment from Ofsted inspection reports?
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and for arranging the initial meetings with Julia Waters—Ruth’s sister, who I know is his constituent—and attending the first few. I will be working very closely with the new chief inspector of schools when he starts three weeks today to see what more we can do, but we must remember that Ofsted plays an important role in keeping children safe and standards high.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I ask everyone to help me out in future, please? Some may not realise that topical questions are meant to be speedy, so that all Members can be accommodated.
Israel-Hamas War: Diplomacy
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the international diplomacy surrounding the Israel-Hamas war.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The Government are undertaking extensive and global diplomatic engagement to get much greater aid into Gaza, support British nationals and the safe return of hostages, and prevent dangerous regional escalation. Days after Hamas’s brutal attack, the then Foreign Secretary was in Israel to see for himself the devastation wrought by this heinous act of terrorism, and his successor visited in late November to continue dialogue with Israeli leaders. Last week the Prime Minister discussed the latest efforts to free hostages with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and stressed the need to take greater care to protect civilians in Gaza. Two days later, the Foreign Secretary discussed the future of the middle east peace process with the US Secretary of State in Washington.
The situation in Gaza cannot continue, and we are deploying all our diplomatic resources, including in the United Nations, to help to find a viable solution. The scale of civilian deaths and displacement in Gaza is shocking. Although Israel has the right to defend itself against terror, restore its security and bring the hostages home, it must abide by international law and take all possible measures to protect civilians. We have called for further and longer humanitarian pauses. It is imperative that we increase the flow of aid into Gaza, but as we have said at the UN, calling for a ceasefire ignores the fact that Hamas has committed acts of terror and continues to hold civilian hostages.
We remain committed to making progress towards a two-state solution. Britain’s long-standing position on the middle east peace process is clear: we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.
Mr Lammy
I know that you continue with your best endeavours, Mr Speaker, but when it comes to a matter as important as this, I think we see why it is so problematic that the Foreign Secretary is not in this House.
The scale of death and destruction seen in Gaza over the last two months has been intolerable: the children left under the rubble, the families displaced from their homes, and the many innocent Palestinians facing the threat of starvation and disease. Despite international pressure on Israel to change the way it is fighting—to not replicate the kind of devastating tactics that it used in the north, to protect schools and hospitals, and to ensure that humanitarian aid is ramped up—Labour shares grave concerns that those conditions are not being met.
Diplomacy, not bombs and bullets, is the only route to a lasting peace. The grave warnings from the United Nations cannot be ignored, and they show the urgent need for action to relieve the suffering. It is right that the UN Security Council has been debating this war, but it constitutes a failure that it has been unable to reach a consensus and to speak with a collective voice. Labour wants a resolution to pass the UN Security Council —a resolution that properly condemns Hamas terrorists and the appalling 7 October attacks on Israel, and calls for the release of all hostages; a resolution that demands a renewed cessation of hostilities and the protection of Palestinian civilians; a resolution that acts as a stepping-stone towards an enduring end to this war.
We cannot give up. Too much is at stake. Can the Minister explain what steps he will now take to help reach that consensus? Can he update the House on any progress to open up the second crossing at Kerem Shalom? International diplomacy must focus on Gaza, but it must also focus on further escalation in the west bank and the wider region, including Lebanon. Will the Government therefore increase pressure on the Israeli Government in the west bank by imposing travel bans on illegal settlers involved in attacks, serious criminal activity and the fostering of hatred? Will he say unequivocally, like Labour, that we will not tolerate the expulsion of the people of Gaza or the west bank, and that they must be able to return to their homes? Finally, will the Minister and the Government back Labour’s call for a joint western and Arab-led international contact group to replace the defunct Quartet?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. I recognise the enormous authority that Lord Cameron holds in these matters and the right hon. Gentleman’s request that he should be available in the House. I will do my best to satisfy him on the questions that he has asked. As he knows, Lord Cameron is keen to engage with the House of Commons in every possible way.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why Britain did not support the UN Security Council resolution. I can tell him clearly that there was a lot good stuff in the resolution that Britain does support, but there was no condemnation of Hamas, and for that reason we felt unable to support it. However, we did not oppose it, because it had a lot of useful and important stuff in it, and we therefore abstained. He will recall that there have been a number of resolutions. We voted yes to the UN resolution drafted by the Americans, but that was vetoed by China and Russia, apparently because they could not bring themselves to condemn what Hamas had done on 7 October.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about settler violence. The targeted killings of civilians are completely abhorrent and we are seeking that those responsible should be not just arrested but prosecuted and punished. On his comment about travel bans, I can tell him that planning is going on. The Foreign Secretary discussed this with his US counterpart last week and I hope it may be possible to say something about that shortly. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about Kerem Shalom. I think that the position of Kerem Shalom is being enhanced at the moment and I hope very much that that will lead to some facilitation, but those discussions are ongoing at this time.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I am sure that the Minister will want to condemn the gratuitous signs of antisemitism that we saw on the streets again this weekend, which led to Karen Pollock from the Holocaust Educational Trust describing London as
“a no-go zone for Jewish people”.
I know that he will want to condemn that. On the broader issue of a negotiated ceasefire, will he confirm that the Government’s position is as it has been throughout —namely, that Hamas can play no role in the future of the governance of Gaza and that it is Hamas who are responsible for what is happening in Gaza today?
Mr Mitchell
I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. On his point about a ceasefire, at the moment a ceasefire is wholly implausible. First of all, Hamas would not agree to one. They have made it absolutely clear that they want to replicate the terrible acts that took place on 7 October, so I fear that that is not going to happen. That is why we call for extended humanitarian pauses, and as I understand it, that remains the position of His Majesty’s Official Opposition.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Humanitarian aid agencies are now repeatedly warning in strong and unmistakable terms that they simply cannot fulfil their mandate in Gaza. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency has said that Gaza is “hell on earth”. Over 2 million Palestinians now need food assistance. What the hell are the UK Government doing allowing people to starve to death when they could do something about it? What in God’s name makes them think it is acceptable to stand by as more than 49,000 people are injured and the hospitals that would have treated them are being bombed and starved of supplies, when they could have an influence over that? How on earth have we reached a time when 18,000 people have been slaughtered in Gaza by Government say-so and still they are not calling for a ceasefire? Do they know that thousands of people in the UK are now screaming in horror at their TV screens because they just cannot believe what they are witnessing in Gaza, and that they are stunned by the UK’s response, which is to say that Israel has the right to defend itself? All countries have the right to defend themselves, but how can killing the former Glasgow University student Dima Alhaj and her six-month-old baby ever be described as self-defence? Why did the UK abstain on the UN resolution calling for a ceasefire? The former Home Secretary called that disappointing. I call it shameful.
Mr Mitchell
I recognise the passion with which the hon. Lady speaks, but I have explained in some detail why the Government felt it was not possible to support the resolution. We did not oppose it; we abstained.
I urge the hon. Lady to think again, as a ceasefire is wholly implausible. It is much more sensible to try to get these humanitarian pauses, where we have seen some success. We urgently need to see more, for the reasons she set out so eloquently.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Prime Minister has repeatedly expressed his unequivocal support for Israel’s right to defend itself. May I urge the Government to maintain that position, to stay the course and to ensure that we continue to give Israel our strong support?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have made it clear that Israel has every right to defend itself, but that it must abide by international humanitarian law and the laws of war.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is
“wrong and illegal to target civilians…international law is very clear that there mustn’t be the targeting of civilians”.
Those are not my words, but the words of the new Foreign Secretary, and then Prime Minister, during the 2014 war in Gaza. Given that over 10,000 Palestinian children alone have been killed, can the Minister confirm whether the Foreign Secretary, and therefore this Conservative Government, still believes that Israel’s targeting of civilians is wrong and illegal? What steps is he taking to hold the Israeli Government to account?
Mr Mitchell
Again, I recognise the integrity with which the hon. Gentleman speaks. I can tell him that, no, the Israeli Government never target civilians, but they are pursuing a strategy of degrading and eliminating the appalling perpetrators and the military machine that wrought the terrible disaster that took place on 7 October, which I remind him was a pogrom. More Jewish people were killed on that day than on any single day since the holocaust in 1945.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Even if the Foreign Secretary were at the Dispatch Box today, I doubt if he would do a better job than my right hon. Friend. Can he say whether the Government have made any estimate of the number of Hamas fighters who have been killed? We seem to get very precise estimates of the number of civilians who have been killed but, clearly, a large number of Hamas fighters are engaged in opposing Israeli forces on the ground. Are any other people, other than Hamas fighters, resisting Israeli forces on the ground?
Mr Mitchell
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind personal remarks. Truth is often the first casualty in war, and none of the figures that we are hearing can be relied upon.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Words now fail to describe the despondency felt by those of us who stand for peace. When I say “us” I do not just mean those of Palestinian descent; I also mean people in Israel who have fought for peace over many years. The only way to have a lasting peace—a peace without fear—is to have two states, so I will repeat the question that I put last time: what are this Government doing? Later today, I will table a Bill to recognise Palestine. Will the Minister meet me to discuss it? How do we prevent this from happening ever again?
Mr Mitchell
I will, of course, be very pleased to meet the hon. Lady. We have previously discussed the contents of the Bill in another situation, but I will be very pleased to meet her.
We are developing proposals. The hon. Lady specifically asks what we are doing and, obviously, we are trying to lift people’s eyes to the political track that will, at some point, be possible. We are looking in detail at developing proposals for support for the Palestinian Authority to build up the sinews of statehood, in pursuit of the established policy of both the major political parties in this House that there should be a two-state solution, with Israel living behind secure borders and Palestine as a free and independent state.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister did say that too many Palestinians have died in pursuit of a solution to the Hamas problem, but I wondered: does he genuinely believe, and is it the Government’s position, that a military solution—a military defeat of Hamas—is possible?
Mr Mitchell
I have no doubt that it is possible to degrade and stop the military machine that wrought the terrible disaster on 7 October. When addressing an ideology, however, it is extremely important to recognise that a political process is absolutely essential. That is why the Government are spending, along with our allies, enormous amounts of time in trying to work through how that could be achieved.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Shamefully, our Government refused to back the ceasefire at the UN Security Council last week, when a motion was supported by 100 countries, including France, Spain and Portugal, among other European nations. In the face of the indiscriminate killing and suffering that we are seeing day after day in Gaza, is it not a failure of moral leadership to refuse to back a ceasefire? Will this constant refusal to back a ceasefire not be seen as giving the green light to Israel to commit yet more war crimes?
Mr Mitchell
I think the hon. Gentleman would receive the same response from those on his own Front Bench as he will receive from me. As I have already said to the House, a ceasefire is simply impractical, because we have to have two sides that are willing to sign up to a ceasefire and there is absolutely no suggestion, at any point, that either of them will.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
A Minister in the Iranian Government, General Ezzatollah Zarghami, formerly of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has told Iranian media that this “first mission” as the “production manager” of Iranian-made rockets is to supply those rockets to be fired into Israel and hit civilians. He openly told Iranian media that he lived in Hamas terror tunnels “for some time”. That is an Iranian Minister openly admitting to having lived in terrorist tunnels and supplying rockets. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about Iran bankrolling and arming Hamas?
Mr Mitchell
Yes, I share that concern very much, as do the Government.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
On illegal settlements, does not the experience of the past two decades show that words have absolutely no impact on Prime Minister Netanyahu? I welcome the Minister’s announcement today that the Government are examining sanctioning the violent illegal settlers, following in America’s footsteps, but why can we not have a ban on all trade between the United Kingdom and the illegal settlements?
Mr Mitchell
The Government have always made it absolutely clear that the settlements are illegal under international law, and we will continue to make that case as forcefully as we think appropriate.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I agree with the deputy Secretary of State’s comments on degrading Hamas, but does he agree that the malevolent force in the region is Iran? Although, obviously, we do not want a direct conflict with Iran, what more can the Government do, with our partners and allies, to ensure that we can degrade the capacity and capabilities of Iran to inflict the suffering that it has inflicted on the region?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend will know that the Government have been clear that measures need to be taken, and we have used our own military assets in this respect, to make sure that the conflict does not widen. We have sent a very clear warning to Iran in that respect, along with our allies, and he may rest assured that we continue to watch this issue with extreme care.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
In response to an earlier question, the Minister talked of dangerous regional escalation and the scale of the loss of life. How do his Government hope to prevent either, and support a just and lasting peace, without calling for a ceasefire? How can they claim to support a two-state solution when they do not recognise the state of Palestine? One plus zero has never equalled two.
Mr Mitchell
It is, I think, the policy of both sides of the House that we should not pursue the possibility of a ceasefire, because there is no possibility, for very trenchant reasons that have been set out. The hon. Lady is, however, right to point to the political horizon, to ensure that we take advantage, as soon as the moment is plausible, of building a political track. As part of that, we are looking to build Palestinian state capacity. We know that Gaza should be under Palestinian control when this is over. Hamas has no place in a future of Gaza and we must never allow them ever to be able to entrench themselves in the civilian population again.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. What recent engagement has my right hon. Friend had with Qatari counterparts in relation to their pivotal role as mediator between Israel and Hamas?
Mr Mitchell
Discussions with Qatari go on all the time. Indeed, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad, the Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for the middle east, has been in Qatar recently.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will have seen pictures of the horrific loss of life in Gaza, which started up again over the weekend, and of half-naked men being paraded through the streets. The Geneva convention prohibits turning prisoners of war into objects of “public curiosity”. He will also know of the grave concerns about reports of the use of rape by Hamas fighters on 7 October. All of this shows that we will need a very clear mechanism for the investigation of allegations of war crimes and for accountability, if war crimes are found to have happened. Will the Minister set out what the UK Government, who have said that international law must be upheld, believe that mechanism should be?
Mr Mitchell
I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that the hon. Lady makes. The British Government have made it clear that all parties in this terrible conflict must abide by international humanitarian law. We continue to identify and look for mechanisms for ensuring that there can be no impunity in that respect, and that there will be transparency over the actions that the forces take.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Speaker. The humanitarian pauses gave an opportunity for the welcome release of Israeli hostages. However, as a result of Palestinian prisoners being released, there is a concern that Hamas are gaining ground in the west bank and could end up being the major force in the whole of the area that we call Palestine. What efforts is my right hon. Friend making to ensure the release of the hostages without any conditions?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the terrible plight of the hostages. I cannot give the House a running commentary on what is happening in respect of the hostages, but there have been no new developments. He will know that the Ministry of Defence is supplying surveillance flights over Gaza to assist in that general endeavour, but he may rest assured that the plight of the hostages is at the top of our list of concerns.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Israeli Defence Ministry has told the UN that it “must do better” at delivering aid to Gaza. This is not a natural disaster; it is deliberate military action, during which Israeli forces have so far killed 130 UN aid staff, mostly alongside their families. How many more innocent people must die before Members on both Front Benches realise the scale of the atrocities and demand a permanent ceasefire as the only way out?
Mr Mitchell
I understand the right hon. Lady’s strength of feeling, but she does no service to Members on either Front Bench, who have made it clear that the reasons why a ceasefire would not work are known to the House and that trying to secure humanitarian pauses—the longer the better—is the way to release humanitarian support to those who are suffering in the way she describes.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The despicable actions of Hamas and Iran are responsible for this conflict, but proportionality is important in the rules of war, as my right hon. Friend knows. Can he explain what we are doing, working with our friends in the middle east, to encourage a sense of proportionality in Israel’s response, so that we minimise the many civilian casualties while respecting their need to take military action?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend expresses the balance very clearly and very well, particularly in the first part of his question. The important point, which Britain makes continually to Israel, is that its response must be proportionate, and it must operate within international humanitarian law.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
We urgently need to see steps towards a permanent ceasefire and an end to hostility on all sides, but the Minister is right that neither Israel nor Hamas have agreed to that. In seeking the release of hostages, and knowing that we need to see an end to Hamas’s influence and place in Gaza, there ultimately needs to be an alternative to Israel’s current strategy, with hospitals now at breaking point, food and medicine not getting through, and effectively the de-development of Gaza. What are the Government doing to push for a consensus at the UN, and for a strategy to ensure that the International Criminal Court will be able to hold all parties to account for their conduct?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the critical need to get support into Gaza. Yesterday, 100 trucks got through, and 300,000 litres of fuel got through during 9 and 10 December. It is nothing like enough, but we are doing everything that we can in respect of the humanitarian effort, alongside our likeminded partners, to galvanise the international humanitarian community to get aid into Gaza. It is not an issue of getting aid into the region; the aid is there, and there is plenty more back-up to come. It is about actually getting it into Gaza. We are stretching every sinew to try to achieve an increase in humanitarian support as fast as we can.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Few would deny Israel’s right to defend itself against an internationally proscribed terrorist organisation, but as a military man, I do not always find it easy to reconcile that with what we are seeing on the ground in Gaza, or the broader operational nature of that campaign. Could the Minister please assure me of the efforts being conducted behind closed doors to ensure Israeli restraint?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right to underline the concern about the humanitarian casualties, but as I have said repeatedly in response to this urgent question, we are doing everything we can to make the point that he has emphasised.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Hamas are an obstacle to peace and a two-state solution, and they must release all hostages now. While pushing for that as a means to further pauses in hostilities, can the Minister confirm what discussions are taking place with international partners to create the conditions where Israel is secure and Palestinians can see a path to reconstruction, renewal and statehood in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
I reassure the hon. Lady that those discussions are indeed taking place. The Foreign Secretary was in Washington DC last week, and he had discussions with his counterpart. The Prime Minister had a lengthy conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu on 5 December, and at COP the Prime Minister met Israel, Qatar, Egypt and Jordan. He emphasised throughout the importance of providing a political horizon. The hon. Lady is right to identify the set of actions that are required, but she may rest assured that the Government are doing everything we can to pursue them.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I was profoundly disappointed by the Minister’s comments when he dismissed calls for a humanitarian ceasefire as being implausible. If it is so implausible, can he explain why that is the position of every other country in the world with the exception of the United States of America, and does he not understand that it is damaging this country’s credibility to be an honest broker in the necessary international discussions that have to follow? Can he name one action by his Department that has been designed to try to gain the trust of the Palestinian people in this conflict?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, I am in no doubt that Lord Cameron’s visit to the west bank will have done just that. On his first point, perhaps he should ask those who are advocating for a ceasefire the question that I have sought to answer: how can there be a ceasefire when neither party to the military action would be willing to accept one?
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Since the terrible attack by Hamas on 7 October, more than 250 Palestinians have been killed by illegal settlers in the west bank and there are unconfirmed reports of the involvement of the Israel Defence Forces in the violence. The criteria outlining who can receive arms export licences from the Government include strong wording on violence against women and children. What diplomatic engagement has the Minister had to ensure that any arms exported from this country are not used to facilitate unlawful military activity?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to make it clear that the targeted killing of civilians is completely unacceptable. That is why I said in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary that we seek not just the arrest but the prosecution and punishment of those responsible. In respect of arms licences, she may well know that Britain has the most demanding export licence regime of any country in the world. I think that can give us all confidence that those export licences are granted on the right terms.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Is it not very obvious that Israel is herding the entire population of Gaza, in a state of utter desperation and poverty, with a lack of food, medicine and water, and with serious injuries that cannot be treated, and that its ultimate aim is to expel the population of Gaza and to reoccupy it? Does the Minister not think it is time that we supported the call for a ceasefire, as every other nation in the world has done, and stopped being isolated in this ridiculous approach of saying that somehow a ceasefire cannot work? We have to start somewhere to save life. We have to start somewhere to prevent this catastrophe from getting even worse, on top of the 18,000 already killed in Gaza.
Mr Mitchell
I have set out what we are trying to do to relieve the suffering the right hon. Gentleman so eloquently describes in Gaza, but I have to caution him that a simple call for a ceasefire is not the answer. Much better, in the view of the Government, is to make it clear that humanitarian pauses—preferably extended humanitarian pauses—offer hope of the sort of relief that he and I both wish to see.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
When this terrible conflict comes to an end, as all wars must, both Gaza and the west bank will require substantial investment to restore and enhance the economic wellbeing of the Palestinian people. What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with other countries about how they may take a role in an economic revival of the area, which could play a role in a lasting peace?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise that the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of Gaza will be an essential element in any political settlement. More widely, as I have set out, the Government are trying to make sure that, when there is an opportunity to drive forward that political horizon, that is precisely what we will do.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I have just met with Othman, a constituent from Halifax, who is originally from Gaza and is utterly distressed about what his family back home are enduring. The UN Secretary-General has declared that
“nowhere in Gaza is safe”
for civilians. We know that the aid getting in is utterly insufficient and the humanitarian situation cannot be addressed until the violence ends. I have heard what the Minister has to say, but the humanitarian pauses that have been secured might have felt impossible at the start of this conflict. We urge him to redouble his efforts to work towards an enduring humanitarian ceasefire, which surely is the next logical step.
Mr Mitchell
I agree very much with the hon. Lady about the importance of securing a humanitarian pause. That is exactly what we are doing; she will be pleased, like me, to hear that the United Kingdom permanent representative at the United Nations is on a visit to the region at this time to see, among other things, how we can achieve precisely that.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister talks up the UK’s arms export licences, but Amnesty International has identified a particular loophole in those licences: the 2002 incorporation guidelines allow UK components to be sent to third destinations for onward export to Israel. Can he give me any assurances that, unlike in 2009 and 2014, that is not happening right now?
Mr Mitchell
I have set out the fact that Britain has the toughest export licences and regulations anywhere in the world. Of course, if the hon. Lady has any evidence of those licences being infracted in some way, she should bring it to the attention of the authorities.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will be aware that, as far back as 10 October, the independent UN commission of inquiry said:
“There is already clear evidence that war crimes may have been committed in the latest explosion of violence in Israel and Gaza, and all those who have violated international law and targeted civilians must be held accountable for their crimes.”
As of Saturday, the death toll is more than 17,000 people, of whom nearly 13,000 are women and children, and thousands more are believed to be buried under the rubble. Every passing day is another day of children dying. Like so many of my Vauxhall constituents who email me, it is hard not to feel powerless when we watch the scale of death and destruction day after day. Does the Minister agree that the International Criminal Court should be the jurisdiction that addresses the conduct of all parties in adhering to international law?
Mr Mitchell
The Government have made clear what the role and remit of the International Criminal Court is. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the British Government are a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court. The situation that she described only emphasises the requirement—the demand—that we achieve another humanitarian pause and are able to get deeply needed humanitarian supplies into Gaza.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
With hundreds of thousands of Palestinians now homeless and parts of northern Gaza rendered effectively uninhabitable, there is understandably real concern that many people will not be able to return to their homes. Can the Minister tell us what representations he has made to make it absolutely clear that permanent forced displacement of the Gazan population is unacceptable, not just across international borders and into the west bank, but within Gaza itself?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady will know that, in order to help those people, the possibility of providing safe areas in which support can be given is being actively looked at by the United Nations. The problem with safe areas is that they have to be absolutely safe, and we must have the understanding that both Hamas and Israel, and every other entity, will guarantee safety when people are brought there to receive support. That is an ongoing discussion, but it is an area of considerable concern to the United Nations and other humanitarians, which are seeking to operate in this space.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Labour party continues to call for a cessation of hostilities in Gaza to give us the time and space to alleviate the immense suffering of Palestinian civilians by getting the required food, water, medicines and other aid into blockaded Gaza, and to facilitate the release of all remaining hostages. Does the Minister agree that the international community can and must use the next cessation of hostilities to make political progress towards what we all want: an end to the conflict and a permanent ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is not, I think, straying from the policy that has been set out by his Front Benchers. We all want to see those pauses develop so that urgently needed humanitarian aid can get into Gaza, so in that respect, I think that he and the Government are in agreement.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I have heard the Minister’s explanation of why the UK made the deeply disappointing decision not to support the UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire. Over the weekend, he may have heard the comments of Tom Fletcher—a former ambassador and No. 10 adviser—who said that when the UK supported such a resolution in 2009, it helped to move the US away from a veto and towards abstention, ultimately securing a ceasefire. Is the Minister at risk of letting the best be the enemy of the good, when we should be grabbing every possible opportunity to end the bloodshed and the suffering that we see in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
The Government are doing everything we possibly can. I have set out clearly the difficulties of achieving a ceasefire when neither of the prime parties to it is willing to accept it. I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect on that.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The UK’s abstention on the UN Security Council resolution on Friday was shocking and wholly wrong. It has been reported today that Egypt has invoked resolution 377 to circumvent the US veto on the Security Council, acting to maintain peace. Two million Gazans are displaced and facing disease and starvation, and 18,000 people have been killed, 70% of whom were women and children. Will the UK now back a ceasefire—I implore you, Minister—at an emergency session of the UN General Assembly? That is the only way peace will be achieved.
Mr Speaker
We have quite a few people standing. I am going to finish at 4.30 pm, and I do not want Members to miss out.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady makes an eloquent call for a ceasefire, but she needs to address the points that have been made elsewhere in the House about why a ceasefire cannot be achieved. I hope she will feel that the Government are doing the right thing in trying to secure humanitarian pauses and increase the flow of humanitarian supplies through Rafah and other entries into Gaza.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my upset and deep concern that the UN Security Council was unable to find the wording for a resolution to end fighting in Palestine that all its members could agree on and to make political progress towards the permanent ceasefire we all desperately want? If he does agree that a newly worded UN resolution is needed, what role will the UK Government play?
Mr Mitchell
I pay tribute to the British team at the United Nations under its leader, Barbara Woodward. That team has an extraordinary effect, punching above Britain’s weight in trying to corral people to agreement, but I hope the hon. Lady will understand that in the circumstances of last week, it was not possible for Britain to agree to a resolution. In many respects, it was a very good resolution, but as I pointed out, if there was not the will to condemn Hamas for the appalling atrocities committed on 7 October, we simply did not feel we could support it.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I have to tell the Minister that a humanitarian pause is merely a delay: innocent children are being bombed, and a humanitarian pause does not stop that. However, can he tell us what consideration is being given to the huge number of Gazans injured in the IDF’s indiscriminate attacks, for whom proper treatment is utterly impossible? Constituents who are NHS clinicians have got in touch with me, looking to offer their assistance in the region just as soon as it is practical and safe to do so. Have any discussions taken place about facilitating such offers?
Mr Mitchell
If, as I think the hon. Gentleman is saying, those are offers to provide hospital and medical support, we—along with others—are actively looking at what support we can give to those who are injured in Gaza and may come out of Gaza.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
The Minister said earlier that international humanitarian law must always be upheld with no impunity, but what does that mean in practice? What mechanisms is he proposing we use, and what specific conversations has his Department had with the International Criminal Court to investigate potential breaches of humanitarian law? Has it withdrawn from the position of the former Prime Minister that Israel is outside the jurisdiction of the ICC?
Mr Mitchell
I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s position on the International Criminal Court has been well set out—not least that it is not for Ministers to make those judgments, but for judges, the prosecutor and the court itself. I am afraid that I cannot help him on that point, but on the importance of abiding by international humanitarian law, of there being no impunity and of there being retrospective judgment on that, the hon. Gentleman will know that the British Government have been one of the foremost Governments around the world in insisting that impunity should never exist.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with Labour that Israel must not besiege or blockade Gaza, must comply with international law, must protect innocent lives and must not replicate the devastating aerial bombing tactics that have been used in northern Gaza and, according to Israeli reports, have resulted in 61% of deaths being civilians?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady asks whether the Government agree with Labour on these matters. As she knows, there is agreement on many of these things across the two Front Benches, in particular that calling for a ceasefire is not the right thing to do.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Ind)
Israeli Defence Minister Gallant has been reported as saying that,
“Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything”,
and that,
“We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.”
He is not the only Israeli political leader to make such dehumanising statements. All the while, war crimes are inarguably being committed by Israeli forces, who have killed close to 20,000 Palestinian people. Does the Minister believe that such statements indicate genocidal intent, and what concrete steps is he taking to sanction those responsible?
Mr Mitchell
What I can say is that, in Gaza, there will in the future be no place for a Hamas Administration.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The IDF promised us precision and intelligence, but what the world is witnessing is the wholesale destruction of a society and a people. What must change for the UK Government to vote tomorrow for a UN Security Council motion for a cessation of hostilities that will ultimately lead to a ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
The two points I have mentioned about the UN are that there were plenty of good lines in the UN Security Council resolution on which we abstained, but that we will not support a resolution that does not condemn Hamas for the appalling events that took place on 7 October.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I welcome the shift in the UK Government position to abstention at the United Nations last week, a different position from that taken by the United States. Qatar says that the former willingness to discuss pauses is not in place at the moment, and the Minister has rightly said that events in Gaza cannot be allowed to carry on. What does he think it will take to re-establish the willingness to discuss pauses as a first step, hopefully, towards the permanent ending of the conflict?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Member is right to focus on securing these pauses, because there is precedent and the hope that we can achieve that. What is most important is that everyone should press for these pauses for as long as possible—previously, we were asking for five-day pauses as a minimum—so that the humanitarian supplies and support can get into Gaza.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
To clarify something the Minister said about the United Nations resolution, if it had rightly condemned Hamas, would the UK Government have voted for it so that we can all see an end to the killing?
Mr Mitchell
Unfortunately, it was not possible to achieve that compromise when it came to negotiating the UN resolution, but the hon. Member may rest assured that in all these matters Britain is a force for good at the UN in trying to achieve the end aim that everyone in this House agrees is required.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Could the Minister clarify whether the UK Government failed to support the UN Security Council resolution because it did not mention Hamas or because they oppose a ceasefire in any event, or both? If the Government have doubts about Israel’s adherence to international humanitarian law, should they not call for a ceasefire observed by all sides until they are persuaded that Palestinian civilians are not subject to collective punishment?
Mr Mitchell
It is the plausibility of a ceasefire that informed our decisions on that matter, but on the hon. Member’s specific question, we were unable to support the resolution because it did not make an absolute condemnation of what Hamas did on 7 October.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Does the Minister now accept that if Israel’s intention is to raze Gaza to the ground, which it seems as though it is, that cannot possibly help move the situation towards a long-term two-state solution, or does he suspect there may be some in the Israeli Government who have no intention of wanting to achieve that solution?
Mr Mitchell
I do not believe it is Israel’s intention to raze Gaza to the ground. Israel’s intention is to ensure that Hamas terrorists can never inflict on the state of Israel the appalling events that took place on 7 October.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that the UN Security Council was unable, regrettably, to achieve a ceasefire because of the decisions of the US and UK Governments, what discussions have taken place about creating a ceasefire in the south of Gaza, to which many Palestinians in Gaza have been sent for their security and safety, and would the Minister advocate such a position?
Mr Mitchell
For reasons the hon. Member will understand, there was no discussion about a ceasefire within the Government—I have very clearly set out the reasons—but on southern Gaza, we are exploring every possible mechanism to bring the relief of humanitarian supplies, including the extremely difficult but plausible advent of safe zones.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is possible to condemn both the brutal rapes and murders carried out by Hamas and Israel’s indiscriminate and illegal killing of women and children, and we now have 800 scholars of genocide stating that this continued bombardment of Gaza is at grave risk of being genocide. With that in mind, at what point will the Government consider supporting a permanent ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
As I have repeatedly set out to the House, the reasons why the Government, and indeed the Opposition Front Bench, are unable to call for a ceasefire are very clear.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
At the end of last week the US vetoed a Security Council resolution brought about by the UN Secretary-General triggering article 99. What are the Government doing to encourage our friends in Washington to support, or at least abstain on, a resolution that does refer to Hamas and that is acceptable to other permanent members of the Security Council?
Mr Mitchell
The team in our mission at the UN in New York works night and day to try and get progress on the terrible events taking place in the middle east and it will be encouraged by the hon. Gentleman’s words that more can and should be done.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
United Nations Secretary-Generals initiate article 99 very rarely; I understand this is only the seventh time that this has happened, and it is only initiated when the Secretary-General believes an event threatens the maintenance of international peace and security. As the UK abstained on the resolution and 13 members supported it, with the US against, the UK are in an isolated position; does this mean the UK Government disagree fundamentally with the position of the UN Secretary-General?
Mr Mitchell
The UN Secretary-General and the British Government work extremely closely together; it is an extraordinarily important and close relationship for both parties. But I have set out very clearly why it has not been possible for Britain to support a ceasefire, and above all it is because of the impracticality of calling for it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his clear answers and clear understanding of the conflict. The destruction and dismantling of the Hamas terrorist group must be achieved and concluded before any permanent peace can be found. Stories in the press today told of those who came so close to being released; the return of hostages is an urgent matter for the families, who have waited over a month imagining the horrors being faced by their loved ones. What progress is being made to see at least the women and children returned, and can our Government and our Minister say whether anything further can be done to help to see this war ending and people returning to a semblance of normal life?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend speaks for many in the House with his compassion and determination to improve what is a dreadful position, as has been so clearly set out throughout this urgent question, and the whole House will join him in hoping we can make progress in the coming days and weeks.
Former Afghan Special Forces: Deportation
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on former Afghan special forces facing deportation from Pakistan to Afghanistan.
The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I thank the shadow Minister for asking this urgent question.
The Afghan relocations and assistance policy is far more generous in design than predecessor schemes such as the ex-gratia scheme. None the less, ARAP is a specific scheme intended to support those who worked for, with or alongside the UK armed forces in support of the UK mission or national security objectives in Afghanistan. While we are acutely aware of the difficult circumstances in which many Afghans find themselves, not everyone will be eligible even if they worked for the Afghanistan security forces. Many Afghans have worked in proximity to UK armed forces but this may have been in service of the Afghan Government, in a nation-building capacity, or though working directly with other nations.
CF333 and ATF444, known as the Triples, were Afghan-led taskforces set up to counter drug trafficking and organised crime and they reported into the Afghan Ministry of Interior Affairs. They are therefore a component of the Afghan national security forces and are not automatically in scope for relocation under ARAP. Regrettably, we cannot relocate all former members of the Afghan national security forces under the ARAP scheme. That means that some Afghans, whose bravery and heroism are in no doubt whatever—indeed, I served alongside many of them myself—such as certain members of the CF333 and ATF444 taskforces, will not be eligible for relocation under ARAP. Each ARAP application is assessed on a case-by-case basis. All applications, including those from former members of the Triples, are scrutinised on their own merits and in line with our published policy and eligibility criteria, available on the Government website, and in line with the immigration rules. All applicants, irrespective of job role, will be eligible only if they individually meet these criteria outlined in the published policy.
I must emphasise this point for the record: any suggestion that we are making blanket decisions—eligible or ineligible —for any cohort of applicant, or that we have any preconceived position on any application to the scheme, is simply untrue. That is not the approach that Defence takes on processing applications as a matter of policy. The MOD consults the evidence provided from each applicant and our own internal records and engages with internal stakeholders and other Departments when determining eligibility in line with the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the immigration rules.
Luke Pollard
Since before the fall of Kabul, the Government’s treatment of Afghans who worked alongside British troops has been a shameful saga of failure. Ministers have failed to deal with the ballooning backlog of ARAP applications, broken housing promises, data breaches and Afghans stuck abroad in limbo fearing for their lives. Today, we have learned from reports that former Afghan special forces who served alongside British troops are possibly facing deportation back to Afghanistan. Let us be clear: that means that lives could be put at serious harm from the Taliban.
All of us in this House want to see the Government finally and fully honour the commitments given by Britain as a nation to these Afghans. That is why we are all here today. Urgent detail is now needed from the Minister about this escalating situation. First, how many former Afghan special forces who served alongside our forces are at risk of imminent deportation from Afghanistan to Pakistan? What assessment has been made by the Ministry of Defence of the threat to these Afghan elite forces if they are deported back to Afghanistan? What assessment has been made of the threat to their families, and is it as grim as we all fear?
What is the current backlog in ARAP cases? In a parliamentary question answered last week about the safety of Afghan refugees in Pakistan, the Government said that they had
“received assurances from the Government of Pakistan that Afghans being supported…under the Afghans Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) and Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS) will remain safe in Pakistan while they await relocation to the UK.”
In light of today’s news, what were the original assurances given to the UK by the Pakistani Government? Can the Minister confirm that zero Afghans pending ARAP or ACRS application decisions or relocations will be sent back to Afghanistan?
General Sir Richard Barrons, who served with the British Army for 12 years in Afghanistan, described the failure to relocate these former Afghan special forces to the UK as a “disgrace” and a “betrayal”. He is right, is he not? There can be no more excuses. Ministers must fix their ailing Afghan schemes and honour the commitment given to our Afghan friends before they are deported back to Afghanistan and potentially killed by the Taliban.
James Heappey
I am not sure where to start on that. What the hon. Gentleman I think is knowingly doing is conflating a number of separate issues. There is the issue over the processing of those who can legitimately come to the UK under the ARAP scheme. Finding those applicants in among tens of thousands of applications —many of which are duplicates and many of which are bogus, though plenty are not—has been a heck of a task for the team within the MOD that have been tasked with that over the past two years. However, we are getting to the bottom of the pile.
Crucially, those who are eligible under category 2, which is those who worked directly for the British armed forces, whether as patrol interpreters or cultural advisers and so on, are known to us. We have the employment records, so, as I have said to the House many times, we have been able to go into the list of applications, find those whom we are looking for and whom we know to have worked for us and accelerate their approval. As we get through the tail end of the applications, we are seeing lots of rejections, because frankly we have already gone ahead and found those who matched the employment records that we had from our time in Afghanistan. On those who are eligible for the core of the scheme, I have a great deal of confidence that we really are reaching the bottom of the list, and we are moving at pace to bring them out. I will first answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about the deportation of those who are eligible.
I spoke to both the UK high commissioner to Islamabad and the Pakistan high commissioner to London this afternoon before coming to the House. Both are entirely comfortable with the assurances we have received from the Pakistan Government that those for whom we have made an eligibility decision will not be deported. I know of one case where somebody who had received a rejection was deported before their appeal was heard. I am not sure that there is necessarily anything we can do to mitigate that—Pakistan is, after all, a sovereign country and has every right to say who can and cannot be in the country—but that person, whose review was successful, was successfully brought back into Pakistan and is now waiting to come to the UK.
As for those in Islamabad, wider Pakistan or any other third country and who may have worked for the Afghan special forces, the answer is that we cannot possibly know that, because we do not have the employment records of the Afghan special forces. Therefore, we cannot say who did and did not work with them. We know who has applied to ARAP, and every time someone does, we make an individual judgment about what that person did. Were they just a member of the Triples—heroic and important, but not necessarily working directly for and with us—or were they a member of the Triples who routinely worked with UK special forces or the intelligence community, who would thus be eligible under ARAP category 4? I appreciate that that is a suboptimal answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but if we do not know who worked for the Afghan special forces because they work for the Afghan Ministry of Interior Affairs or the Afghan Ministry of Defence, it is impossible to say how many of those people may or may not now be in Pakistan.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I think I am right in saying that the International Security Assistance Force was officially a NATO assistance force to the then Afghan Government, so what is there to prevent NATO countries from banding together and making joint representations to the Pakistani Government that whatever they do with former service personnel who, at our request, fought against the Taliban, they should not now mercilessly deport them to the tender non-mercies of the Taliban, who are currently out for vengeance?
James Heappey
I understand my right hon. Friend’s question. He is a great champion of this cohort. NATO countries—and, indeed, countries beyond NATO, like Australia—routinely make representations to the Pakistani Government, who have been incredibly flexible and supportive in working for us. The challenge—it is sad to have to say this—is that there are many people who claim to have served in the Triples who may well not have done. If my right hon. Friend were to go through the casework files on our system, he would see the same pictures submitted again and again as evidence by people claiming to have worked in the Triples. Absent those employment records from the Afghan MOIA or the Afghan MOD, it is incredibly hard to say who is and who is not legitimate, given that often people are accessing on social media stock photographs that they seek to use as evidence. I have every confidence that the Pakistan Government are being incredibly flexible and supportive, but it is very difficult to ask them to allow everybody who claims to have served in a unit to stay when that is incredibly hard to verify, other than when people in the UK MOD, the US DOD, the Australian Department of Defence or wherever else can personally vouch for the relationship they had with that operator.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am sure the Minister will recognise that it is not only Members of the House, but some of his ex-comrades in arms—even people like my own brother, who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan—who are deeply concerned about the idea of their former comrades in arms being forced back into the hands of the Taliban. To them, it seems to reflect a reality: there is a lack of clarity about why some people are not getting access to schemes to access the UK, especially those who fled without paperwork—because, as I am sure we can imagine, the Taliban will not be giving ex-special forces any passports anytime soon.
I wonder whether the Minister answer two specific points. Does he recognise the reality that ex-special forces from Afghanistan would face if they were given back into the hands of the Taliban? Does he agree that while Pakistan may have the right to do so, it has not always been the best arbiter of relationships with the new regime in Afghanistan and has sometimes gone out of its way to undermine a collective approach to them?
James Heappey
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, I am reluctant to join him in making that criticism, because, in my experience of dealing with the Pakistan Government—of whom I have asked an awful lot, as did the Chief of the General Staff when he recently visited and was hosted by the Pakistan chief of the army staff—they have been incredibly accommodating; they have arguably been more accommodating to the UK’s requests than those of other allies and partners.
On the hon. Gentleman’s first question—a deeply uncomfortable one—I do indeed recognise the danger. I recognise the danger faced by the kandak that I served alongside in the upper Helmand valley. I recognise the danger that exists for every other Afghan army and air force unit, which were undoubtedly closely related to ISAF forces throughout the campaign. But, for them, none of the resettlement schemes from any of the ISAF countries or their partners allows them to come, because they are not set up for those who served in the wider Afghan forces. As a veteran of that conflict—someone who lived cheek by jowl with a kandak—I can tell him that it makes me sick, but that is the reality. To make them all eligible would be to give eligibility to hundreds of thousands of servicepeople, and five times that again to bring their dependants. That is simply not an endeavour that the UK can undertake.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I know from working with the Minister on Operation Pitting the passion that he brings to this work and the deep debt of gratitude he personally owes to those who fought alongside him. He will appreciate the House’s concern that we could see someone who fought alongside our forces forced from Pakistan back to Afghanistan. I take on board his point that the entirety of the special forces worked with the whole mission, and not just with the UK, so what discussions is he having with our allies about perhaps having a quota for moving people over? That is a clumsy way of putting it, but it is the best way I can summarise it. What work is he doing with Home Office resources to ensure that there is no backlog in ARAP places, and what is he doing with colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure that housing is available for those who need to be relocated from Pakistan?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend is right to ask whether it is possible for countries that have relocation schemes to club together to share the burden of any particular grouping. The difficulty is that, without the employment records, there is no way of knowing the entirety of those who served in that grouping. Thus, as I said previously, members of the Triples or other units—the National Directorate of Security, for example—tend to be granted category 4 because there is a member of the UK armed forces or UK intelligence community, or veterans, who can personally vouch for the role they played in the conflict. That will be the same for the Australians, the Canadians, the Americans, the Danes and whoever else. It would be impossible to say that an entire taskforce—CF333 or ATF444—could all come without knowing the totality of the employment record, because there would be simply no way to determine who did or did not serve with those units.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I have a constituent who was a member of the special forces in Afghanistan—I will not name him—and who approached me several months ago about his family stuck in Pakistan. The bureaucracy and disconnection between different parts of Government are astounding. Finally, we have relocated his family to the UK, but it was not an easy process. It took a long time for me to wade through the treacle of the various Government Departments. Who is in charge of that? We have just spent £200 million on the Rwanda resettlement scheme. Surely, putting some money and effort behind the scheme would solve the problem.
James Heappey
A number of policy decisions and realities around wider immigration in this country have meant that ARAP has moved at a variable pace. Ultimately, ARAP sits under the MOD and, thus, me. ACRS sits elsewhere. Since the Pakistanis made it clear that they would start to deport those without documents, we have been able to accelerate movement both from Afghanistan to Pakistan and from Pakistan to the UK. I regret that it comes on the back of a number of months of relatively little movement, but we are now moving with an urgency that I feel much more comfortable standing in the House and talking about.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I have just come off the phone to a friend who lived in the mountains and worked with the 333. He explained how the Foreign Office paid them through the Ministry of Interior Affairs, but he and his colleagues gave them cash to top up their payments—effectively to pay them special forces pay. He said that the MOD position is
“the most ludicrous argument I have heard in my life. If it was not so sad, it would be hilarious.”
The 444 worked with every single brigade in Helmand and was described as an indispensable part of Task Force Helmand, doing outreach and reconnaissance. Do the Government not need to take a slightly harder look at this?
James Heappey
The Government are looking at it very hard indeed. We consider every case on its individual merits. If an individual served in one of those taskforces or in the National Directorate of Security and is not entitled to come, but there is evidence that they worked closely with UK intelligence community, UK special forces or our embassy, we are making the case for them to come under category 4. As I could have said in response to many questions, where a colleague feels that they have the evidence needed to show direct connection between the individual and the UK, rather than simply their service within a unit, we will consider that evidence on the individual basis that we set out.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I was in Afghanistan at the very beginning with the Triples. It is particularly painful that, despite commitments and assurances from the UK Government, this cohort of Afghans and their families are left fearing for their lives. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say, but I have seen credible evidence of an individual who served with the Triples and who was rejected for the ARAP scheme by the MOD. He was subsequently arrested by the Taliban, beaten and killed. Does the Minister know of any Triples who have died under similar circumstances? If he does, what more can be done to prevent the loss of life of the heroes we served alongside?
James Heappey
The House may think that I am speaking relatively plainly in response to these questions. Undoubtedly, a significant number of people who served in the Afghan national security forces, like the person the hon. Gentleman referred to, are in mortal danger as a consequence of having served in the Afghan army, air force or special forces. It is also a reality that no country has set up a relocation scheme that extends beyond those who worked directly for that country and that verifies the service of those people, unless directly alongside the UK special forces or UK intelligence communities. That is extraordinarily hard. I would like to sit down with the hon. Gentleman, who is a great champion of this cause, to talk through the case that he knows of. There is no point pretending that there are not many others. But there is also the reality of how hard it is to verify the service of those who just served in the unit rather than explicitly alongside UK personnel.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Given the contrast between the rhetoric and promises of resettlement, and the shambolic reality facing many Afghans who worked for us, with us or fought alongside our troops, as detailed by many Members across the House, what assessment has the Minister made of the likely impact of his apparent bad faith on the willingness of foreign nationals to offer us their assistance in future?
James Heappey
I push back on the idea that this is all some sort of failure. The reality is that we have moved out very nearly 14,000 people. We have continued to do so against incredible difficulties in Afghanistan and while needing to work very carefully alongside the Pakistan Government to meet their requirements, so I do not accept that initial characterisation. As for the hon. Lady’s wider question about what impact the scheme may have on our ability to work with partner forces and locally employed civilians in future, I would turn the question round the other way. My grave concern is that, while I think we are doing the right thing by those we served with and alongside in Afghanistan because of the circumstances of our departure from Afghanistan, if we set the precedent where every time our military works anywhere in the world those who work for us or alongside us in a partner force have an expectation of immigration rights in the UK, that will make it incredibly difficult to operate. That was not the question she asked, but I think the counterfactual is equally worth considering.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Earlier this year, the Minister said that the backlog for ARAP would be cleared by August, and earlier he said that he was getting to the bottom of the pile. Exactly how many applications are still outstanding?
James Heappey
I apologise to the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I said that we would do it by August and we have not. I own my words and thank the right hon. Lady for pointing out that I have not achieved that. My knowledge is that there are less than a few hundred eligible applications that we need to find. There are around 2,000 people in Afghanistan who we need to move out and around 1,800 left in Pakistan who we need to bring in. In all, I would expect another 4,000 to 4,500 arrivals. We are aiming to that get done as quickly as possible, because the Pakistan Government are keen that we do so without delay. We are working with them to achieve that.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining what engagement he has had with representatives of Pakistan’s Government in Islamabad. Does the assurance he received from Islamabad in relation to personnel who will not now be deported to Afghanistan extend to their families?
James Heappey
Yes, absolutely. For those who are in Pakistan with an acceptance or eligibility, we have been working with the Pakistan authorities through our high commission in Islamabad to make sure that the Afghan principal and their family are protected from the work the Pakistan immigration service has under way. If the hon. Gentleman, or indeed other Members shaking their heads knowingly know otherwise, I would be grateful for the names of the people they are concerned about and I will make sure that is discussed with the Pakistan high commission without delay.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister said that he was processing the people who have been accepted for ARAP to come to the UK from Pakistan at a pace. Since the hotels they were staying in were closed down, including in my constituency, how many who are eligible and have been given the paperwork have actually come to the UK? Secondly, where somebody believes they have been wrongly denied ARAP, will he undertake to look at cases where there is very clear evidence that a decision may have been made wrongly?
James Heappey
In the last couple of weeks, I think—off the top of my head—about seven flights, so about 1,700 people, have come to the UK. In December, we will move significantly more than in any month since August 2021, when Operation Pitting happened. Those moves are a combination of ARAP and ACRS. The reason we are able to move them at such pace is that we have mobilised quite a significant amount of the MOD training estate to act as transitional accommodation. We are trying to move people through as quickly as possible into service family accommodation which we have made available. We are hugely grateful to local authorities all over the country for how closely they are working with us to deliver that.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
While no one doubts that this is a complex situation, the cases that we are bringing up reflect how it has been managed, and I think that that is what presents the challenge. I have two separate constituents who were under the direct supervision of UK forces; indeed, the UK paid for them to be trained, so there should be a record in the UK that they were working for the Afghan forces. The Minister said himself that he felt sick about people who would have worked alongside colleagues who may now be at risk of harm as a result of being deported back from Pakistan to Afghanistan. Will he meet those of us who have constituency cases that we believe should meet his threshold for an intervention so that we can establish whether anyone has been missed out, and ensure that we do not miss out people who served with our colleagues for want of a piece of paper?
James Heappey
Of course I would like to meet the hon. Lady to discuss those cases. Given the way she described them, my instinct suggests that these may have been people who served in units that were mentored or partnered by the UK armed forces; indeed, my own battalion, on the tour on which it went shortly after I left, did exactly that with the kandaks who were based in Helmand at the time. That does not quite constitute what ARAP was set up to do, but I would love to sit down with the hon. Lady to talk through the details of the cases. If I am right and she is wrong, I should like to explain, and if she is right and I am wrong, we will of course look at the eligibility of those people.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will have heard some of the comments from senior former UK military leaders who have spoken about this issue in the last day or two. It sounds as if, somehow, the UK Government have deserted these Afghan heroes who supported us through the conflict. Can the Minister tell us whether any Afghans awaiting an ARAP decision have been deported from Pakistan to Afghanistan and are now at risk from the Taliban?
James Heappey
I do not have the number, and I am not sure how I would obtain it, but I will inquire within the Department whether I can. If I can, I will write to the hon. Gentleman, and if I cannot, I will write to him to say that I cannot.
To those of us who have served, the term that the hon. Gentleman used in the first part of his question has a particular meaning. I suspect that he meant it in that way, but that is not what has happened here. The offer that the UK has made in comparison with that of every other country, given our size and the size of our military commitment, is one of the most, if not the most, generous. We have worked incredibly hard to bring people out in very difficult circumstances, and it breaks the heart of all those who had anything to do with operations in Afghanistan—on the military side, in the intelligence community or in a diplomatic context—not to be able to bring everyone here, but that is simply an unrealistic aim. ARAP was set up to be what it is, likewise the ACRS, and the hon. Gentleman, while disappointed in the Government’s policy, will need to accept from me that we are working as hard as we can to bring both those schemes to a resolution as quickly as we can.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for the helpful clarity that he has provided today, in particular on the eligibility of members of Afghan special forces for the ARAP scheme. That having been said, however, I would suggest that whether, and wherever, people are fighting alongside UK or other NATO troops in Afghanistan, they are still fighting the Taliban. They are still causing them attrition and losses and pressure, on whichever front that might be. I should have thought, at the very least, that under the ACRS, members of special forces have assisted in standing up for values such as free speech, women’s rights and the rule of law. Given that they have done that, would not discretion be the better part of valour, especially when we are speaking about people who potentially fought with great valour? The Minister has talked about getting to the bottom of the list. That is great, but it is not the target; the target is to get everyone we possibly can back to safety in the UK and free from the clutches of the Taliban. Is that still the Minister’s position?
James Heappey
I think I have answered that question, in different forms, over the past half-hour. It is the case, sadly, that not everyone who served alongside the British forces within an Afghan unit will be eligible. It is also impossible, I think, to verify the service of those who did not serve directly alongside the British armed forces, in circumstances in which there is someone within the British system who can vouch for the closeness of that service.
The sad reality is that there are tens of thousands of desperate people in Afghanistan who are wrongly applying to the ARAP scheme out of desperation—the same is happening with the ACRS—and showing evidence that is not real. We have done our absolute best over the last two years to find the people we are looking for and to verify the service of those who are not on employment lists. Our efforts in those regards across the UK special forces intelligence community and the military have been extensive, but it would be impossible to just say that everyone who had served in one unit could come, because we would have no way of knowing who had and who had not.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for responding to urgent question. We are now going to move on to the presentation of Bills, which should at least shorten our winter because we have a number of them. In order to save time and get on with today’s main business, for Members presenting more than one consecutive Bill, I will accept private notice of the Second Reading dates for those Bills. Those dates will be minuted accordingly in Hansard and in the Votes and Proceedings. Members presenting individual Bills will name the date for Second Reading as usual.
BillS presented
International Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Fiona Bruce presented a Bill to require the Prime Minister to appoint a Special Envoy for International Freedom of Religion or Belief; to establish an Office of the Special Envoy; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 39).
Children in Hospital for Extended Periods (Report to Parliament) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Oliver Heald presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of providing financial support for parents of children receiving care in hospital for extended periods.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 40).
Child Criminal Exploitation Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Paul Beresford presented a Bill to create an offence of child criminal exploitation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 41).
Arms Trade (Inquiry and Suspension) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Zarah Sultana presented a Bill to make provision for an inquiry into the end use of arms sold to foreign states to determine whether they have been used in violation of international law; to immediately suspend the sale of arms to foreign states where it cannot be demonstrated that arms sold will not be used in violation of international law; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 42).
Online Services (Cancellation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Natalie Elphicke presented a Bill to provide that, if a service can be subscribed to online, it must be possible to cancel that subscription online; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April 2024, and to be printed (Bill 43).
Access to Telecommunications Networks Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Helen Morgan presented a Bill to require providers of electronic communications networks to grant other such providers access to their apparatus where that is necessary to ensure consistent network coverage; to prevent those providers from charging more than the standard market rate for such access; to require the regulator to impose penalties on providers who unreasonably fail to grant such access; to make provision for the purpose of incentivising providers to allow customers of other providers to use their networks where access cannot be granted to their apparatus; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 44).
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Thérèse Coffey, supported by Sarah Dines, Sir Robert Goodwill, Selaine Saxby, Philip Dunne, Caroline Nokes, Stephen Hammond, Virginia Crosbie, Craig Williams, Alicia Kearns, Kit Malthouse and Robin Millar presented a Bill to make provision changing the law about the offence of livestock worrying, including changes to what constitutes an offence and increased powers for investigation of suspected offences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 45).
Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Maria Eagle presented a Bill to increase the minimum required height of guarding in multi-storey car parks; to make provision about the height of guarding in existing multi-storey car parks; to require 24 hour staffing of multi-storey car parks; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 46).
Health and Social Care (Recruitment and Retention of Staff in Rural Areas) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jamie Stone presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for the recruitment and retention of health and social care staff in rural areas; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 47).
Consular Assistance Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Christine Jardine presented a Bill to make provision for a right to consular assistance for British citizens abroad in cases where there has been, or where there is a risk of, a breach of human rights, denial of access to legal representation, or torture or other human rights abuses; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 48).
Children Not in School (Registers, Support and Orders) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mrs Flick Drummond, supported by Mr Robin Walker, Ian Mearns, Sir Gavin Williamson and Dr Caroline Johnson presented a Bill to make provision about the maintenance of registers by local authorities of children in their area who are not full-time pupils at any school; to make provision about support by local authorities to promote the education of such children; to make provision about school attendance orders; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 50).
Bullying and Respect at Work Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rachael Maskell, supported by Andy McDonald, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, John McDonnell, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Imran Hussain, Caroline Lucas, Andrew Jones, Beth Winter, Rachel Hopkins, Ian Mearns and Yasmin Qureshi, presented a Bill to provide for a statutory definition of bullying at work; to make provision relating to bullying at work, including to enable claims relating to workplace bullying to be considered by an employment tribunal; to provide for a Respect at Work Code to set minimum standards for positive and respectful work environments; to give powers to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to investigate workplaces and organisations where there is evidence of a culture of, or multiple incidents of, bullying and to take enforcement action; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 June 2024, and to be printed (Bill 52).
Groceries Code Adjudicator (Powers and Duties) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Alistair Carmichael presented a Bill to make provision about the powers and duties of the Groceries Code Adjudicator; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June 2024, and to be printed (Bill 53).
Prison Media Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Katherine Fletcher presented a Bill to prohibit the creation and uploading of unauthorised media content relating to prisons.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 55).
Pets (Microchips) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
James Daly presented a Bill to make provision regarding pets with microchips; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 56).
Puppy Import (Prohibition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to prohibit the import of young puppies; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 57).
Workers (Rights and Definition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision about workers’ rights; to amend the definition of worker; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April 2024, and to be printed (Bill 58).
Courts (Remote Hearings)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Andy Carter presented a Bill to allow for certain civil and family court hearings to be conducted remotely.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 59).
Titles Deprivation Act 1917 Amendment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Bob Seely presented a Bill to amend the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 to deprive in certain circumstances Princes of their British Dignities and Titles.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June 2024, and to be printed (Bill 60).
Support for Infants Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sally-Ann Hart presented a Bill to require the provision of information relating to support available for parents and carers of infants for the purpose of supporting those infants; to require the Government to publish an annual report on the support available for infants and the impact that that support has had on outcomes for infants and children; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 61).
Animal Welfare (Responsibility for Dog Attacks) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Anna Firth presented a Bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to require a person in charge of a dog to take all reasonable steps to ensure that that dog does not fatally injure another dog; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 May 2024, and to be printed (Bill 62).
Vaccine Damage Payments Act (Review) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to review, and publish a report on, the merits of increasing the relevant statutory sum under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 for all claims since 1 January 2020 by an amount representing the amount of inflation since 2007.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June 2024, and to be printed (Bill 63).
School Attendance (Duties of Local Authorities and Proprietors of Schools) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Vicky Ford presented a Bill to make provision requiring local authorities to exercise their functions with a view to improving and promoting regular attendance by registered pupils at schools in their area; and to make provision requiring school proprietors to have an attendance policy to promote regular attendance.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 64).
Local Government (Pay Accountability) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Paul Bristow presented a Bill to make provision about the approval of remuneration paid to local government employees.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 65).
Chalk Streams (Protection) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Green presented a Bill to provide for a category of protection for chalk streams for the purpose of providing additional protections from pollution, abstraction and other forms of environmental damage; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 66).
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity (Ratification of Treaty) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Kevin Foster, supported by Dr Thérèse Coffey, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the ratification by the United Kingdom of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 67).
Members of Parliament (Oil and Gas Companies) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Richard Burgon presented a Bill to require the Leader of the House of Commons to move a Motion prohibiting Members of Parliament from receiving any financial or other benefit from oil and gas companies; to require the Leader of the House to publish proposals for divestment of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund from oil and gas companies; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 68).
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Fleur Anderson presented a Bill to require landlords in the private rented sector to remedy hazards in leased dwellings; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 69).
Zoological Society of London (Leases) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Bob Blackman, supported by Dr Thérèse Coffey, presented a Bill to amend the Crown Estate Act 1961 to increase the maximum term of the lease that may be granted to the Zoological Society of London in respect of land in Regent’s Park.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 70).
Fertility Treatment (Employment Rights) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Nickie Aiken presented a Bill to require employers to allow employees to take time off from work for appointments for fertility treatment; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 71).
Water Quality Monitoring Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Richard Foord presented a Bill to confer powers on and place duties on the Environment Agency in respect of the monitoring of water quality; to make provision about environmental permits for water discharge activities; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 72).
Cancer Research Funding (Report to Parliament) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Daisy Cooper presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual report on the allocation of research funding into cancers with the lowest survival rates in the UK, including lung, liver, brain, pancreatic cancer, and certain childhood cancers, including an assessment of the options for increasing funding for research with the aim of increasing survival rates for those cancers; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 73).
Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Layla Moran presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the recognition of the State of Palestine.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June 2024, and to be printed (Bill 74).
Social Energy Tariff Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Marion Fellows presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a social tariff for energy.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 77).
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Consultation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dame Diana Johnson, supported by Karl Turner and Emma Hardy, presented a Bill to make provision about mandatory local consultation in relation to the installation of telecommunications infrastructure in residential areas; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 79).
Carers and Care Workers Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Helen Morgan presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish and implement a Care Workers Employment Strategy, with the aim of improving the recruitment and retention of care workers; to establish an independent National Care Workers Council with responsibility for setting professional standards for care workers, for establishing a system of professional qualifications and accreditation for care workers, and for advising the Government on those matters; to require the Secretary of State to commission an independent assessment of the support available to unpaid carers, including financial support and employment rights; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 80).
Bus Services Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Helen Morgan presented a Bill to place a duty on the Government to ensure that every town with a population of more than 10,000 people has a regular bus service operating seven days a week, and that local health services, including hospitals and GP surgeries, are served by those buses; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 81).
Veterans (Non-custodial Sentences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Owen Thompson presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish annual data relating to veterans who are given non-custodial sentences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 82).
Nuclear Veterans (Compensation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Owen Thompson presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a compensation scheme for veterans who have experienced ill health as a result of exposure to radiation while on active service.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 83).
Employment Equality (Insurance etc) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mrs Natalie Elphicke presented a Bill to amend Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010 to prohibit age discrimination by employers in relation to the provision of insurance or a related financial service; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 84).
Public Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mrs Natalie Elphicke presented a Bill to require companies and certain other persons to insure against their liability for injury to third parties and premises; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 85).
British Goods (Public Sector Purchasing Duty) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to place a duty on public bodies to have a presumption in favour of purchasing goods of British origin in purchasing decisions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 86).
Consumer Pricing Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to prohibit the practice of offering preferential pricing to new customers compared to existing customers; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 87).
Broadcasting (Listed Sporting Events) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to expand the list of sporting events that must be made available for broadcast by free-to-air television channels; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 88).
Employment (Application Requirements) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to regulate the use of minimum qualification or experience requirements in job applications; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 89).
Public Sector Website Impersonation Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to create the offence of impersonating a public sector website for the purpose of collecting payment or personal data; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 90).
Armenian Genocide (Recognition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to require His Majesty’s Government to formally recognise the Armenian genocide of 1915-16.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 91).
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers (Abolition of By-Elections)) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to amend the House of Lords Act 1999 so as to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary peers.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 92).
Food Poverty Strategy Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for ending the need for food banks by 2030; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 93).
Deductions from Universal Credit (Report) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of deductions from Universal Credit on levels of destitution among claimants.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 94).
Corporate Homicide Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 to make provision about the offence of corporate homicide; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 95).
Asylum Seekers (Accommodation Eviction Procedures) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for asylum seekers to challenge the proportionality of a proposed eviction from accommodation before an independent court or tribunal; to establish asylum seeker accommodation eviction procedures for public authorities; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 96).
Health and Safety at Work Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to make provision about civil liability for breaches of health and safety duties, and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April 2024, and to be printed (Bill 97).
Benefit Sanctions (Warnings) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for warnings to be given to benefit claimants before they are given sanctions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 May 2024, and to be printed (Bill 98).
Housing Standards (Refugees and Asylum Seekers) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for national minimum standards in accommodation offered to refugees and asylum seekers; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 June 2024, and to be printed (Bill 99).
Disability Benefit Assessments (Recording) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that applicants for Disability Benefit are given the option of their eligibility assessment being audio recorded; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June 2024, and to be printed (Bill 100).
Full Employment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to place a duty on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pursue a policy of full employment; to make associated provision for an employment guarantee scheme for benefit claimants who have been unemployed and looking for work for longer than six months; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June 2024, and to be printed (Bill 101).
Universal Credit Sanctions (Zero Hours Contracts) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Welfare Reform Act 2012 to provide that a Universal Credit claimant may not be sanctioned for refusing work on a zero hours contract; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June 2024, and to be printed (Bill 102).
Social Security Benefits (Healthy Eating) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish annual calculations of benefit and tax credit rates that would be required for a representative household to afford to buy meals in accordance with the Eatwell Guide to eating healthily; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 103).
Devolution (Employment) (Scotland) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to grant legislative competence for employment matters to the Scottish Parliament.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 2 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 104).
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Powers) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to grant powers to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to identify and investigate systemic problems in the benefits system and make associated recommendations to the Secretary of State; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 105).
Under-Occupancy Penalty (Report) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of repealing those provisions of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 which provide for persons to be paid reduced rates of housing benefit or universal credit because their accommodation is deemed to be under-occupied.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 106).
Evictions (Universal Credit) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to prevent the evictions of Universal Credit claimants in rent arrears; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 107).
Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for granting permission to work to asylum seekers who have waited six months for a decision on their asylum application; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2024, and to be printed (Bill 108).
Highways Act 1980 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to amend section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 to restrict the defences available to highway authorities; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 109).
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to make provision about financial assistance to persons who have suffered disablement following vaccination against Covid-19 and to the next of kin of persons who have died shortly after vaccination against Covid-19; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of a no-fault compensation scheme to provide such financial assistance, on whether there should be any upper limit on the financial assistance available, on the criteria for eligibility and on whether payment should be made in all cases where there is no other reasonable cause for the death or disablement suffered; to provide for a special time limit under the Limitation Act 1980 for actions in respect of personal injury or death following a Covid-19 vaccination; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 110).
Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to provide that a draft statutory instrument which is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure may be amended by either House before it is approved; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 111).
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to provide that, before making any order to designate a type of dog for the purposes of section 1 or 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation and publish a comparative review of data showing the incidences of fatalities resulting from bites of dogs of that type in the last three years.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 112).
Dangerous Dogs (Licensing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to provide for an exemption from the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 relating to dogs bred for fighting and other specially dangerous dogs for persons who hold a licence; to make provision relating to such licences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 113).
Arm’s-length Bodies (Accountability to Parliament) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for Arm’s-Length Bodies to be directly accountable to Parliament.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 114).
Exemption from Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to exempt from Value Added Tax goods or services which are beneficial to the environment, to health and safety, to education or for charitable purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 115).
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to amend the Mobile Homes Act 1983; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 116).
Anonymity of Suspects Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to create an offence of disclosing the identity of a person who is the subject of an investigation in respect of the alleged commission of an offence; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 117).
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish an independent review of disablement caused by Covid-19 vaccinations and the adequacy of the compensation offered to persons so disabled; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June 2024, and to be printed (Bill 118).
Covid-19 Vaccine Diagnosis and Treatment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to improve the diagnosis and treatment of persons who have suffered or continue to suffer ill effects from Covid-19 vaccines; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 119).
Domestic Energy (Value Added Tax) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to exempt from VAT supplies of electricity, oil and gas for domestic purposes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 120).
Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to amend the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to make provision about parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under that Act; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 121).
Caravan Site Licensing (Exemption of Motor Homes) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to exempt motor homes from caravan site licensing requirements; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 122).
NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision about arranging alternative non-NHS England treatment for patients who have waited for more than one year for hospital treatment; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 123).
British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation)Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for the privatisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 124).
Children’s Clothing (Value Added Tax) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to extend the definition of children’s clothing for the purposes of exemption from VAT; to extend the VAT exemption to further categories of school uniform; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 125).
BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to de-criminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee by persons aged over seventy-five; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 126).
Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to require a Regulatory Impact Assessment to be published for all primary and secondary legislation introduced by the Government; to make provision for associated sanctions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 127).
Barnett Formula (Replacement) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report to Parliament on proposals to replace the Barnett Formula used to calculate adjustments to public expenditure allocated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with a statutory scheme for the allocation of resources based on an assessment of relative needs; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 128).
Rule of Law (Enforcement by Public Authorities) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to require public authorities to exercise their statutory powers to investigate and take enforcement action for breaches of the law; to make provision for sanctions for failing to take such action; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 129).
Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to create offences in respect of persons who have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 130).
National Health Service Co-Funding and Co-Payment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision for co-funding and for the extension of co-payment for NHS services in England; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 131).
Caravan Sites Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to amend the requirements for caravan site licence applications made under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 132).
Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to limit exit payments made by some public sector organisations to employees; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 133).
Green Belt (Protection) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Sir Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to establish a national register of Green Belt land in England; to restrict the ability of local authorities to de-designate Green Belt land; to make provision about future development of de-designated Green Belt land; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 134).
Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Caroline Johnson presented a Bill to make provision about the notice period for termination of funding agreements for secure 16 to 19 Academies; to make provision about the Secretary of State’s duty to consider the impact on existing educational institutions when it is proposed to establish or expand a secure 16 to 19 Academy; and to alter the consultation question required when it is proposed to establish or expand a secure 16 to 19 Academy.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 135).
Affordable Housing (Conversion of Commercial Property) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Vicky Ford presented a Bill to make provision to enable local authorities to establish planning obligations relating to affordable housing in respect of the conversion of commercial property to residential use; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 136).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We have a lot to look forward to on Fridays next year. I look forward to seeing you all. [Interruption.] Well, some of you.
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill
Monday 11th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 View all Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 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 proceeding to the heart of the Bill, may I offer a few words of thanks to those who have laboured long in this field? We all know that leasehold and freehold legislation has preoccupied the House not just in this Parliament, but in many Parliaments in the past. Indeed, in the 1860s, 1870s and 1880s, much of the House’s time was taken up debating the finer points of such legislation. I was once described as a young man in a hurry. I am now an old man, but I am still in a hurry, in order to make sure that this legislation makes progress and that we liberate leaseholders from many of the unfair practices to which they are still subject.
I will say a bit more about that in a second, but I want first to say a special word of thanks to my predecessors as Secretary of State, who helped to issue the consultations and lay the groundwork for the measures that we are introducing today. I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), but in particular I thank the late James Brokenshire, who did so much work to get us to this point. Having thanked them, I cannot but thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who was a brilliant colleague in the Department and did so much of the heavy lifting to ensure that this legislation was ready to be introduced. She has been a brilliant colleague and a great Minister in so many ways. All the good things in the Bill are down to her; anything that is lacking is down to me.
I also thank members of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, who have worked so hard for so long to ensure that the ground could be laid for today’s legislation. I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for his work and, in particular, his predecessor, the former MP for Poplar and Limehouse, Jim Fitzpatrick. I must thank the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who has been the single most consistent and bravest voice in standing up for leaseholders. I also thank—even though she is not in the Chamber—the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats and has contributed to the work of the APPG.
The APPG would not have been able to do its work without the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership. In particular, I thank Martin Boyd, who has been hired by the Government to head up our Leasehold Advisory Service, and Sebastian O’Kelly. Both have contributed to helping leaseholders and providing them with the advice and counsel they need to navigate this tangled landscape. I also thank the campaigners, some of whom I had a chance to talk to earlier, who have been indefatigable in making it clear that the law needs to change. I thank, in particular, Katie Kendrick, Cath Williams and Joanne Darbyshire, all of whom have made an impeccable case for change throughout.
What is the problem that we are trying to solve? Basically, it is this: leasehold as a form of tenure is essentially a deal where someone is invited to buy a home and then, instead of becoming a full homeowner, they are treated, or can be treated, as a tenant. It is a fundamentally unfair system and a fundamentally inequitable tenure, because those who buy flats and—increasingly, in recent years—houses, in good faith, paying market rates, assuming and hoping that they would be homeowners in the fullest sense of the word, have found that, rather than being homeowners, they are at the whim of the ultimate owner of the freehold, who is in effect their landlord.
In the past, there were justifications. There were cases and examples where those who held the freehold operated in an enlightened and paternalistic way. For example, the freehold of properties was sometimes held by trade unions or other enlightened organisations that would ensure that the common interests of all those within a particular building were looked after. It is still the case that some landowners and freeholders take their obligations towards leaseholders seriously, ensure that the service charges are levied in an appropriate way, keep the ground rent at an appropriately low level, and ensure that the building is maintained in a good state of repair. However, individual leaseholders should not simply have to rely on the good will and good character of whoever the freeholder is; they need better protection in law, which is what we seek to achieve with the Bill.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Many of the leasehold homes in Rother Valley were built by the National Coal Board to provide homes for miners and their families, with the intention that the ground rent would be peppercorn, but since the closure of the pits many of those freeholds, especially in areas such as Thurcroft, Wales and North Anston, have been sold to private developers who are taking advantage of their leaseholders. For example, in Thurcroft, leaseholders were forced to represent themselves in court when the freeholder tried to raise the ground rent from £10 a year to £2,500 a year, which is absolutely shameful. How can we ensure that freeholders must act reasonably, and not stray too far from the spirit of the original legislation?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The miners’ families and their descendants, whom he represents so well, were originally in homes that the NCB established to ensure that those in the pit villages he represents would have a proper landlord, providing stewardship, care and support, but as he rightly points out, the freehold ownership has subsequently been used not as an obligation towards the leaseholder but as a commodity to be traded. More and more freeholds are in the hands of entities, often based offshore, that regard them as a licence to extort from the leaseholder, rather than as an obligation to be discharged.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have raised concerns on behalf of leaseholders in my constituency on many occasions in this House—particularly on the issue of service charges, which the Secretary of State referred to a moment ago, and the lack of transparency around them. I have seen again and again cases where certain information is not provided to leaseholders, where they are not sure that the moneys are being spent on what they have provided funding for, or where it is not clear whether, for example, there has been an adequate tendering process for works, insurance and so on. Can he explain what will be done on that, and whether it will fully extend to England and Wales? What co-operation has he had with the Welsh Government about those provisions?
Michael Gove
It is the case that this Bill covers England and Wales. Obviously the hon. Gentleman is aware that there are slightly different tribunals that operate in each jurisdiction, but it will precisely address the situation he mentioned: it will ensure there is transparency over service charges and, through the appropriate tribunal in each jurisdiction it will become easier on the part of the leaseholder to contest any unfairness.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I just want to make one or two additional points and then I am happy to give way.
Personally, one of the moments where I realised that the system, which is hard to defend in any case, was fundamentally broken was in the aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy. We knew then that it was important that responsibility be taken for remediating buildings that were unsafe. We knew then that individuals and organisations had to take that responsibility on their own shoulders. We knew then that freeholders, if they were true to the spirit of the original legislation, would say, “Yes, we have a responsibility for this building and for all those within it. We have a responsibility to make sure this building is safe. Therefore, we should have a responsibility to pay for the remediation.”
But did we find freeholders queueing up to do that? Absolutely not. They were there ready to extract income at the highest possible rate whenever they could, through ground rents and service charges, but when they were called upon to discharge their responsibility to the leaseholders within those flats, they were absent. They ran away from their responsibilities. That is why I have limited to no patience now with the well-funded lobby groups that stand up for those freeholders and seek to ensure that they can continue to extract money from leaseholders. It seems to me that, at a critical point, the argument that is sometimes made on behalf of those people disappeared because of their negligence and their moral fault.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman says that traditionally it was flats that were leasehold, but increasingly it was houses, mainly fuelled by the Government’s Help to Buy scheme. In my constituency, Persimmon Homes’s business model was structured around not only selling on the leaseholds, but the tactic of including areas of the estate that traditionally would have been passed over to local authorities as the responsibility of the leaseholders. Would he agree that the Government need to take some responsibility for the tsunami of money they threw at some of those developers, and for turning a blind eye to what they were doing in their business models?
Michael Gove
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but he is conflating two things. Help to Buy can be criticised or defended on its own terms, and I believe it was the right intervention to ensure, in particular, that more first-time buyers could get on to the property market. However, he is also right that leasehold, which as he says was originally a tenure designed for flats, was then extended to houses, and in a way that is difficult to defend. It has expanded over recent years. That is why we are legislating now to ensure that we can stop it. There are two separate arguments that can be had there.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I particularly look forward to that part of the Secretary of State’s speech when he will tell us whether this will apply to new leaseholds or will be retrospective on those suffering under existing leasehold arrangements. However, there is one step the Government took that has not been helpful to leaseholders, and of which I have personal experience: creating a presumption in favour of developments where the airspace above a block of flats is sold and the freeholder then insists on having one or two more floors built on top. That can cause immense damage to the building, not to mention disruption, and then who gets the bill for paying for the damage? It is transferred from the freeholder to the leaseholders. The Government should think again about that presumption in allowing that sort of ill-considered development.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes an important point on permitted development rights. On the whole, I am in favour of the extension of permitted development rights, because I want to see an increase in housing supply overall, but it is incumbent on the Government to review how those rights have been operating. He raises one concern, but there are other legitimate concerns about the way permitted development rights, when commercial buildings have been turned into residential, have meant that the quality of those new residential flats has been insufficiently high. I also know that colleagues, not least in London, are concerned about potential future extensions of permitted development rights. There is a responsibility on me and others to review their impact, and that is what we are doing, separate from this particular legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
An embarrassment of riches! I will give way to all colleagues currently standing, and then I will try to make progress.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I represent an area with a lot of leasehold houses. It is just a cynical money-making scam. Some people own a house but are required to pay an admin charge to change the flooring or have a pet, so it does not feel as if they own it. I can understand the flooring thing if they are in flats, but not if they are in houses. It is just a con.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the challenges here is the lack of voice for our constituents in trying to address the problems. The Secretary of State says that he cannot defend leasehold. None of us can. It is a feudal process that still denies our constituents a voice over the thing that is most precious to them: their home. If he agrees with that, why will he not agree with us that we should move forward to commonhold, whereby everybody has a voice and a say in their own building?
Michael Gove
I actually agree that commonhold is the ideal form of tenure, but there are certain technical questions about when commonhold can apply, not least if a building also has commercial uses on the lower floors.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When we come to clause 27, will the Secretary of State clarify whether “best value” applies to leaseholders or to freeholders? It certainly seems that leaseholders do not get best value when testing what additionalities and enhancements are put into their schemes.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State was talking about leasehold houses. I was recently visited by a group of residents from Hampton Wick in my constituency who have been collectively trying to buy the freehold on their houses. They have a very obstructive freeholder and are now resorting to an enfranchisement notice under section 5 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, but that requires a valuation from 1965, for which there are no records available, so they are now being obstructed in buying the freehold by that legislative basis. When the Bill introduces a new methodology for calculating the value of enfranchisement, will that old provision be got rid of?
Michael Gove
I believe that it should be, and I encourage the hon. Lady’s constituents—as I am sure she has done—to be in touch with Martin Boyd’s Leasehold Advisory Service to be absolutely clear that they are getting the support they need.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
It is a little disappointing that the Secretary of State did not refer to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee’s report of 2019. The Government, working with the APPG, have followed many of the report’s recommendations, but some of those recommendations —we will come to them later, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker—have not been included, so I will make just a couple of points.
The real challenge is, first, that freeholders who will not comply with any legislation, or will try to avoid it, do not reply to letters. I have exchanged information with the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety on how to deal with Coppen Estates and what the penalties will be for non-compliance. Secondly, there are freeholders who seek to move the ownership of a property around in order to avoid the legislation. Why not give existing leaseholders the right of first refusal before any freehold is sold?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his Committee for all their work—it was discourteous of me, when running through the names of those to whom I am grateful, not to mention them. His broader point, about not just the operation of the freehold system but the way in which different aspects of the property market work, is a fair one. The use of opaque overseas entities and special purpose vehicles—the way in which ultimate beneficial ownership can be hidden—are all problems that require to be addressed. The Bill is pretty lengthy and substantial, and deals with many of the issues—I will go on to explain why we have taken the approach that we have—but there are other abuses within the property and land market system that require to be addressed, which we will address, and not just in this Parliament but after we are returned at the next general election.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and for the pragmatic approach that the Government have taken in this very complex area. In my constituency of Dover and Deal, we have a failed development—Sunningdale homes—and a long-standing problem with Persimmon Homes in relation to Sholden. Both situations relate to the lack of adoption by local authorities, and to service charges and other management arrangements. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could say more about the way in which those sorts of situations will be helped, and whether there will be any retrospective help for situations that have remained unresolved for many years.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. She and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) have been particularly energetic in pressing me to deal with this issue of leasehold homes—fleecehold estates, as they have become widely known—which is, I believe, precisely the phenomenon that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was also referring to.
The Bill will ensure that there is a ban on new leasehold homes, but as well as averting that problem in the future, we are attempting to deal with the difficult situation we have all inherited. We will do so by making sure that we squeeze every possible income stream that freeholders currently use, so that in effect, their capacity to put the squeeze on leaseholders ends. That will mean the effective destruction of the leasehold system. Do not take my word for it: as Sebastian O’Kelly of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership has made clear in his writing,
“The Bill is a full-on assault on leasehold’s income streams”.
First, we have a consultation on ground rents. I cannot pre-empt that consultation, but at its conclusion, we will legislate on the basis of that set of responses in order to ensure that ground rents are reduced, and can only be levied in a justifiable way. As I say, I cannot pre-empt the consultation, but in a way I already have, because I was asked by the Select Committee last week what my favoured approach would be, and I believe that it should be a peppercorn. Of course, if compelling evidence is produced, as a Secretary of State with great civil servants, I will look at it, but my preference is clear, and I suspect that it is the preference of the House as well.
Indeed, it is important to say that that particular squeezing of the freeholder’s income stream goes beyond what the Law Commission recommended. We are really grateful for all of the Law Commission’s work, but it was a little bit cautious in this area; we are deliberately saying no. I know that some people will say, “What about A1P1 rights under the European convention on human rights? You are taking property away from people.” I respect the ECHR, but if it stands in the way of me defending the interests of people in this country who have been exploited by ground-rent massaging, I am determined to legislate on behalf of those people, because their interests matter more than that particular piece of legislation.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the way he is addressing this issue. Can I draw his attention to a particular variant of this practice that exists in my constituency? Between a developer and a local authority, a scheme was allowed whereby residents were—and continue to be—charged for access to public open space on their estate and, indeed, to maintain a neighbouring park that residents across the district can enjoy. That is surely wrong, and I hope he will look into that matter.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: a number of the people who have built, operated and retain the freehold on these estates levy service charges for all sorts of things that, in my view, are totally inappropriate. That is why the Bill makes clear that service charges have to be issued in a standardised format, so that they can be more easily scrutinised and challenged. It also makes clear that those charges can be challenged in such a way as to ensure that egregious examples, such as the one the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, will end.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am not against what the Secretary of State is trying to do, but philosophically there is a reason why the Conservative party has been the defender of property rights. It is to do with freedom and established rights, so it is nothing to do with the ECHR or anything like that. Before this debate becomes just about bashing landlords, what about the Duchy of Cornwall? There are excellent freeholders that have traditionally maintained properties and done wonderful work in ensuring that properties are well maintained and in looking after their tenants.
Michael Gove
I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. There are good landlords, and the Duchy of Cornwall has been a stand-out example, as have been the Cadogan estate, the Howard de Walden estate and so on—they are responsible landlords, absolutely—but an individual leaseholder should not have to rely on the good will and the grace of His Grace, as it were, to get the protection they need.
There is no stauncher defender of capitalism and property rights than me, but what has happened is that freeholds have become utterly torn away from the warp and weft of the capitalist system as we understand it in this country, and have become tradeable commodities that foreign entities are using to exploit our people who have worked hard and saved to get their own home. So whose side am I on—homeowners who have worked hard and saved up to secure a mortgage, or shadowy foreign entities that are essentially attempting to rip off British citizens? I am on the side of homeowners.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
When the Secretary of State is considering the evidence from the consultation he mentioned, will he adhere to his own adage of “follow the money”, and remember that those people advocating for a higher ground rent probably have a motivation for doing so?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is completely right. I will be looking at the responses to the consultation, and I am sure that some of London’s finest legal firms and most eloquent solicitors will be putting in some very thoughtful contributions, but the question will be: who is paying for them and how much are they being paid? To my mind, people can buy silver-tongued eloquence, but what is far more important is actually being on the right side of justice.
Michael Gove
I believe that most of the people in the House are on the right side of justice, especially the hon. Lady.
Marsha De Cordova
On ground rents, shared owners who have staircased their way up to 100% and become leaseholders obviously have a long lease of 999 years, but face the issue of having their ground rents doubled every, say, 20 years. Clearly, that is an unfairness in the system, so will the Secretary of State’s consultation address that point?
Michael Gove
I believe it will. I must now make progress because I know a number of people want to contribute, so I will try to run through the other arguments about why we are taking the approach that we are.
I mentioned service charges, and one other example, to which the Father of the House has of course persistently drawn our attention, of where those who have been managing properties on behalf of the ultimate owners have abused their position is that of insurance commissions. We will be taking steps in the Bill to make sure that insurance charges are transparent and that fair handling fees are brought in. The fact that I can list all these examples just shows hon. Members the way in which freeholders have operated. Many who have got hold of such freeholds have been thinking, “Right, okay, we can jack up the ground rent, great! We can have service charges, keep them opaque and add something. Tell you what—insurance; let’s try to get more out of that.” It is a persistent pattern of behaviour that does require reform.
Another pattern of behaviour is the way that lease extensions and the whole question of enfranchisement have been going. If someone’s lease goes below 80 years and they want to enfranchise themselves, they have to pay what is called marriage value. That is the principle that, by bringing together the ownership of the freehold and the leasehold in one by enfranchising themselves—bringing those two together in a marriage—people are enriching themselves. Again, however, it has been used by freeholders to bilk leaseholders overall, which is why the approach we are taking will in effect eliminate marriage value. It is also why, when we talk about lease extension, instead of people having to extend and extend again generation after generation, we are saying that leases can be extended to 990 years. In effect, as I say, this will make sure that one of the approaches that freeholders have taken to extracting more cash from leaseholders will end.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I agree with the Secretary of State about the seriousness of the problem of excessive insurance premiums being charged to leaseholders, and I will give an example if I am able to contribute later. Does the Secretary of State agree that the solution requires risk-pooling among insurers? The initiative on that seems to have stalled; can he hold out the prospect of the delay being resolved?
Michael Gove
Broadly on the whole question of insurance, I am due to meet the chair, Baroness Morgan of Cotes, and the chief executive of the Association of British Insurers later this week to address not just that question but some other related questions.
Michael Gove
I won’t at this stage.
I freely admit that this Bill does not go as far as some in the House and elsewhere would like. Strong arguments have been made about how property agents can be better regulated and Lord Best in another place has made arguments that I find incredibly persuasive—so why not legislate for them now? Well, as I mentioned earlier, this Bill has many clauses, deals with technical aspects of property law, requires close scrutiny and is likely to face a lobbying exercise from deep-pocketed interests outside attempting to derail it. Legislating to give effect to Lord Best’s proposals and to set up a new regulator—I am always a wee bit wary about setting up new quangos but on this occasion he makes a good case—would require significant additional legislative time of a kind we simply do not have in the lifetime of this Parliament. There are changes we are making overall in order to deal with some of the abuses for which managing agents are responsible, but there is still some unfinished business. I happily grant that, and there are organisations like FirstPort, which many of us will be familiar with from our work as constituency MPs, that require some gentle direction towards behaving in a better fashion.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) and Ministers for bringing the Bill forward. The Secretary of State spoke about leasehold improvements and improving the rights of leaseholders, but he will be aware that part 4 of the Bill looks to protect and improve the rights of families who hold the freehold of their property against the estate management charges about which he is speaking; the Bill does a lot to meet some of the requests of many of my Conservative colleagues on this matter.
One issue that is not addressed in the Bill, however, is the right to manage. In the 2019 response to the 2017 consultation, the Government said they would look at that and introduce legislation. What is the current Government thinking on giving people the right to manage, and therefore to take back control from the estate management companies?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was going to say there are two other areas in particular that we should look at in Committee: the right to manage; and the abuse of forfeiture, which is sometimes used by freeholders to intimidate leaseholders. I am very open to improving the Bill in Committee; we will be improving it ourselves by bringing forward the legislation that will ban new leasehold homes in the future, so I hope we will have a chance to do that.
I mentioned earlier that we have been debating leasehold and freehold in this place for a long time. In the preparation of this Bill, one of the brilliant civil servants in the Department drew to my attention comments made by Harry Levy-Lawson, 1st Viscount Burnham and MP for St Pancras, as it happens, when the Leasehold Enfranchisement Bill 1889 was brought forward by another great reforming Conservative Government under the Marquess of Salisbury.
Michael Gove
Exactly: the Minister is, like me, a great fan of the Marquess.
In that debate the opening remarks of the Minister were:
“We do not claim for this Bill any perfection of draftsmanship, but it is so far complete that if it pass through Parliament, we believe it would be smooth, just and reliable in its working. The principle, however, is now exactly what it has always been, viz., the grant to urban leaseholders, with a substantial interest in their holdings, of the power to purchase the fee simple”—
the ownership—
“on fair and equitable terms.”—[Official Report, 1 May 1889; Vol. 335, c. 889.]
This Bill does so much more. Is it perfect? No, I would not claim for this Bill any perfection of draftsmanship. Is it substantive—does it move the dial, does it change the business model, will it effectively mean that leasehold will become a thing of the past? I believe absolutely it will, and I am fortified in that belief by the strong support for this legislation shown by leasehold campaigners. I commend the Bill to the House.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of the Opposition. Let me say at the outset that we do not intend to oppose the Bill today. Simply, it is better late than never. May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments at the start of the debate, because many people have contributed and campaigned on this issue over the years that it has been spoken about? Many have long needed this overdue Bill, and they need it to be improved. Leaseholders across the country have been waiting for years—six years, to be exact—to see the Government’s flagship Bill to end leasehold and to break free the millions of people trapped in what the Secretary of State himself describes as a feudal and absurd system of home ownership.
If this is the Secretary of State going in a hurry, I would hate to see his normal pace. It was back in 2017 that his fifth predecessor as Housing Secretary pledged action. He talked a good talk today, and he is theatrical. I love the passion—it is really there—and I love the “squeeze”. We want to see the squeeze, but frankly I have lost count of the number of times Ministers have promised to finally put Britain in line with other developed countries across the world that have all ended this medieval system. To be fair to the Secretary of State, none of them has said it is an assault on leasehold and a squeeze on income, so he is going a little bit further, but after all that time and all those promises and after that theatrical squeeze, we still have a Bill that does not actually abolish leasehold. I suppose that that is no surprise, as it comes alongside a Bill that pledges to ban section 21 no-fault evictions that does not ban no-fault evictions and a Bill to stop the small boats that does not stop the small boats.
It is all well and good for the Secretary of State to say that the Government plan to amend the Bill in the usual way, but is it too much to ask for the Government to include a clause that bans leasehold in a Bill whose stated purpose was to ban leasehold? Why make those promises, only to produce a Bill that does no such thing? In a word, it sounds like chaos. Even the day before it was published, the Department’s press release said that the Bill would ban developers from selling new houses under leasehold. Given the tiny proportion of leaseholds that are houses, rather than flats, it is hardly an ambitious pledge, but the Bill does not even introduce that ban.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree with what I said to the Secretary of State? The Government could have stopped this, if they had not done the Help to Buy scheme, which fuelled this practice among large developers. They could have stopped it in its tracks, if they had stopped the finance to those companies. Does she also agree that expectations have been raised among a lot of the leaseholders who were put into the trap of their houses being leasehold? They thought they were going to get out of that trap, when actually they are not.
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. The Government have been in government for 13 years. We have had six years of these promises, and he is absolutely right that there is more than one way that the Government could have ensured that leaseholders were not treated in this way. The botched drafting of the Bill means we are still waiting to see a single clause that prohibits a single new leasehold property, whether it is a flat or a house.
It was on 30 January this year that the Secretary of State promised my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy),
“we will maintain our commitment to abolish the feudal system of leasehold. We absolutely will. We will bring forward legislation shortly.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2023; Vol. 727, c. 49.]
In February, he said he aimed in the forthcoming King’s Speech
“to introduce legislation to fundamentally reform the system…to end this feudal form of tenure”.—[Official Report, 20 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 3.]
In May, the then Housing Minister told this House that
“my Department are working flat out”—[Official Report, 23 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 214.]
on the legislation. If it has taken them this long with not a word to show for it, can they guarantee that they will put their amendments to the House by 30 January next year—a full 12 months after the Secretary of State’s promise at the Dispatch Box?
We have heard the Secretary of State say that it is perfectly normal to bring forward vast swathes of amendments in Committee—believe me, the Committee will be doing some considerable heavy lifting. Having shadowed him through the final stages of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, I would say that perhaps he does think that making endless last-minute amendments to his own Bills is a normal way of legislating, but the anonymous sources close to the Secretary of State may have let the cat out of the bag about the real reason the Bill is so empty when they briefed the press last month. We know from them what he cannot admit today: the Prime Minister was blocking this Bill from the King’s Speech in the face of lobbying from vested interests opposing the reform. In the chaos of this Government, it was added only at the very last minute. We may have heard many warm words, and the Secretary of State was very theatrical about his ambition for reform, but he is stuck in the daily Tory doom loop in which vested interests always come before the national interest.
The truth is that the time wasting and backtracking all go back to the Prime Minister’s desperate attempt to extend the lease on No. 10 Downing Street. The fact is that even if the Government belatedly fix their leasehold house loophole, flat owners will be left out of the picture, yet 70% of all leasehold properties are flats and there are over 600,000 more owner-occupied leasehold flats than houses in England. Having listened to the Secretary of State, those owners will still be wondering just when the Government will fulfil their pledge to them. As I am sure everyone in the House will agree, property law is, by nature, extremely complex, but we cannot and must not lose sight of the daily impact that these laws have on the lives of millions across our country, including over 5 million owners of leasehold properties in England and Wales. I am sure that most of us in the House know what that means in human terms for our constituents.
For most freehold homeowners, ownership means security and control, yet for far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership falls woefully short of the dream they were promised. Too many leaseholders face constant struggles with punitive and ever rising ground rents—rent for a home that they actually own, in exchange for which the freeholder needs to do nothing at all. Leaseholders are locked into expensive agreements and face unjustified administration fees and extortionate charges. Conditions are imposed with little or no consultation. For leaseholders also affected by the building safety crisis, the situation is even worse.
Michael Gove
The right hon. Lady has made it clear from the Dispatch Box that she opposes excessive ground rents. Can she explain why the Labour leader made it clear at the Labour party conference that he would get new houses built by creating “attractive investment products” that had residential ground rents at their heart? How can it possibly be the case that she intends to deal with excessive ground rents, when the leader of the Labour party wanted to fund new development by pursuing precisely that policy? Which is it: against them or for them?
Angela Rayner
I thank the Secretary of State, but he has just used the word “excessive”. If he wants to let me deal with this problem, I am happy to take over and show that I am not just about theatrical performances at the Dispatch Box; I will actually deal with it. He has been given 13 years on the Government Benches and has failed to do that. This Bill still fails to do that, so I would like to see where he will deal with this issue.
Regulation of freeholders has fallen behind that of landlords, leaving leaseholders stripped of the rights enjoyed even by tenants in the private rented sector. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us what measures exist that prevent the worst actors in the market from repeatedly ripping off leaseholders in one place after another.
Stephen Doughty
My right hon. Friend is making a strong speech, and she accurately describes the mental and financial anguish that has been felt by many leaseholders in my constituency. She is absolutely right. In my constituency, this issue predominantly affects those in flats, not in leasehold houses, and what they have gone through with service charges and fire and building safety remediation has taken a toll on many of them. They have found themselves in despair. Does she agree that much more needs to be done to deal with managing agents on the transparency of service fees? It was good to hear the Secretary of State mention FirstPort, and I hope to meet it soon, but does she agree that this is a much wider problem that needs to be addressed?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree. As I said before, and as I think the Secretary of State acknowledged, there is a lot of work to be done in Committee on these issues. Hopefully, we will be able to help the Secretary of State improve his own Bill, which needs significant improvements.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I suspect that my right hon. Friend will welcome the strengthening of the regulation of management companies in the Bill, but we need to go further. Just last Friday, I had some heartbreaking conversations with residents on the Froghall Fields estate in Flitwick—a lovely part of the world with which I am sure many Members will be familiar from the by-election—who have been left brutally exposed to successive failed management companies by ongoing adoption conversations with the council that are dragging on and on. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is more we can do to strengthen the proposed regulations in this area, to ensure that my long-suffering residents finally get the redress and resolution they deserve?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am so pleased about the work he has been doing since he was elected to this place and the way in which he has been a real champion of his constituents, which they did not feel they had previously. He makes a really important point, and he is right to point out the huge problem of estate agent charges and fees. The steps the Government are taking to address the issue are welcome, of course, but we absolutely believe there is room to improve the measures in the Bill. The shadow Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), will look to do so in Committee.
Mr Betts
Following on from that point, when the Select Committee looked at this issue—it is a real problem—we said that whenever a property is sold, the purchaser or leaseholder, and in some cases the freeholder, should have a right at the beginning to see precisely what the agreement was between the local authority and the developer about where responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the estate and so forth rests. Many purchasers simply do not know who to go to and who is responsible. It would be helpful if that was set out very clearly at the beginning of the purchase.
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his fabulous work in this area. Transparency is incredibly important because it is the first step towards getting accountability.
We spoke before about pets—we all love our pets—and the Secretary of State has rightly protected the reasonable right of tenants to keep pets, yet it is not clear whether he intends to extend that right to leaseholders. I have seen leases that contain an outright ban, so I hope he ensures that the Bill reflects that. It is just one example of the restrictions that terms in leases increasingly impose, but I could cite many more—for example, basic modifications or decorations to flats, or the right to conduct business from home. I know that some Government Members may not be keen on working from home, but it is quite another thing to say that someone could lose their home over it. They might be more sympathetic if I point out the impact on the self-employed, who are often banned from running their own business from their own home.
There are basic principles at stake for the Opposition, and I hope the whole House can agree that people’s rights to bring up a family, to care for a loved family pet, to own and run their own business, and to pay a fair price and receive what they have paid for are basic British rights and values. The incredible thing is that they are being denied to people in their very own homes—homes that they own. That is surely at the heart of today’s debate, because for leaseholders, their flat or house is not an investment; it is their home—a place to live, to grow up, to grow old, to raise a family, to get on in life and to be part of a community. A home is more than bricks and mortar; it is about security and having power over your own life.
As a leaseholder, someone may have ownership but not control. The dream of home ownership has already slipped away from far too many, but it is less of a dream and more of a nightmare for too many who now achieve it. From what the Secretary of State has said, there is some agreement between us on the problems those people face, but the contents of the Bill do not quite match up to his sentiments or the energy that he brings to the Dispatch Box. So I hope that in winding up, the Minister will not just tell us exactly how far the Bill addresses the problems raised today but accept that we can work together in later stages to go further.
Rachael Maskell
This is a point that I wanted to make to the Secretary of State as well. There is a long-standing injustice for leaseholders who experience flooding as they currently do not have access to the Flood Re scheme. Will my right hon. Friend seek—I hope she will—to ensure a level playing field for leaseholders and freeholders in accessing the Flood Re scheme?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for that. Just as the Secretary of State earlier brought enthusiasm to the Dispatch Box on cladding and some issues we faced there, I hope that, in Committee, we can explore that and the effect on people who have been affected more and more by flooding.
The Secretary of State may not have the support of his Prime Minister, or his Back Benchers—[Interruption.] Many of them are not here at the moment—watch this space!
On the Labour Benches, we are united behind the decisive action that leaseholders need. If the Government cannot deliver it, we are ready to do so. A Labour Government will make commonhold the default tenure for all new properties as part of our commitment to fundamentally and comprehensively reform the leasehold system. We will also enact the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, commonhold and the right to manage in full.
The fact is, unless and until leaseholders of houses and flats get a renewed commitment from Ministers on all the Law Commission’s recommendations, leaseholders will reasonably conclude that the Government have scaled down their ambition with the scaled-back Bill before us. Leaseholders deserve to know the real reason why they are being fobbed off with such limited steps. Unfortunately, the answer, as ever, lies in the chaos of this Government. The Secretary of State has talked a good game, but he might be the only functional cog in a dysfunctional Government—there is a compliment in there; I am trying. [Laughter.] I hope that he will face down his Prime Minister and his own Back Benchers and accept Labour’s proposals to make the Bill meet the challenges of the moment. But if he does not, a Labour Government will.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Father of the House.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The House will be grateful to know that the official Opposition support what the Government are trying to do. I pay tribute, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did, to the people in the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform—Liberals, Labour, Conservatives and others—who, over the last 11 years, have worked together to try to get to a situation where it is not possible for freeholders, on purpose or by mistake, to exploit residential leaseholders.
When I first spoke on this issue about 11 years ago, I declared my interest as a leaseholder in my constituency with no problems whatsoever. Six of us bought the freehold willingly from a willing seller—the person who developed the block of flats—when he retired. I have since acquired an interest in another leasehold property. I do not take part in these debates to try to feather my own nest; I am trying to ensure that the 5 million people who are in a worse position have as good an experience as I have had.
It is 10 years since I first started quoting Leasehold Knowledge Partnership. In addition to Sebastian O’Kelly and Martin Boyd, whom the Secretary of State referred to as well as the campaigners in the National Leasehold Campaign, I would like to name one or two journalists who have helped—in particular, the people at “Newsnight”—and the people who have batted away at the issue. Major media organisations ought to have a housing correspondent or editor rather than putting it with home affairs. We cannot expect Mark Easton at the BBC, when he covers the Home Office, to be able to become expert in residential leasehold in the way that is needed.
I hope that in Committee, and especially in the House of Lords, the parts of the Law Commission’s recommendations that have not been incorporated in the Bill will be put forward for decision by the House and the other place. The three reports that it produced in 2020 should be implemented in full, or else, when those reports came out the Government should have said what was wrong with the proposals.
May I emphasise what the Secretary of State said about the ongoing consultation and continuing conversation on modern leasehold—the ground rent issue—where the period of consultation has been extended from, I think, late-December to the middle of January? People will be grateful for that. There are five options. As Dean Buckner, a trustee of LKP, the campaigning charity, has said, those who own freehold interests have known since Scotland abolished leasehold that the gravy train was going to end. When the Government came forward with the proposal that ground rent should not be more than 0.1% of the capital value, they knew that their value was not as high as some were estimating, and when people start looking at the discount rate—I think in the impact assessment it is about 3.5%; in fact, long-term debt for the Government is now at 4.5%—they see that that again will reduce it. I make the suggestion, which is also on the LKP website, that the Government can deal with any possible compensation by saying that they will tax it at 45% or higher, which will make attempts by people to take it to judicial review or challenges to the Government on human rights terms null and void, or at least not worth trying.
May I say to the Government that after the Grenfell fire tragedy, while it became clear that up to £15 billion of remediation was needed not just for cladding but for other fire defects and that the only people who could eventually pay those costs by law would be the leaseholders who own not a brick in the building, the people who ought to be paying are the insurers for those who were responsible—the designers, the architects, the builders, the developers, the subcontractors, the component manufacturers and the like; they were all insured? I commend to the House that, in Committee, it should somehow be written into the Bill that potential claims by leaseholders be gathered together in an agency, which could sue the insurance companies and those they insured to get a contribution from them. That would reduce the costs both to leaseholders and to the Government, who have been providing a lot of money to try to ensure that remediation has happened.
I pay tribute to successive Secretaries of State, who have had to give written instructions to their permanent secretaries for some of the compensation for fire defect costs, and I say to the Government that the artificial distinction of 11 metres is unjustified. Actually, fire death certificates show that more people die in fires in lower buildings, and higher buildings are not riskier. We ought to try to recognise the realities. It is also worth saying in passing that when Dame Judith Hackitt produced her report and recommendations, I do not think she was well briefed on the law on leasehold, which is why some of her recommendations were not properly appropriate. I am glad that since Gavin Barwell we have had a succession of Ministers who have put the Government on the side of leaseholders; we now know that there are 5 million to 6 million of them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for what he is saying. Does he agree that, at some stage or other, these unsafe buildings were signed off as fit and proper buildings under building regulations and that leaseholders also have a valid claim against the individuals who signed them off, who are also insured?
Sir Peter Bottomley
I agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for his work in this field. It is worth noting that building standards were set not by those who sign buildings off—the building control people—but by the Government or quasi-Government agencies, so the Government bear some responsibility as well, as I think they recognise.
In my thanks. I want to include Katherine O’Riordan, who has helped the secretariat of the all-party group and worked remarkably well. Given that my involvement as an active campaigner on this matter came through a constituency case, I pay tribute to my senior caseworker, Colette Hanson, who for many years—over a decade—has helped to support constituents facing awful problems, whether on this matter or others.
The Secretary of State referred to James Brokenshire, who carried forward many leasehold reforms. I also thank Sir Nigel Shadbolt and Sir Tim Berners-Lee and their Open Data Institute for providing help to LKP, the campaigning charity, in getting information that is publicly available and putting it together so that we could know the scale of the problem that we are facing. I pay tribute to the law commissioner Professor Nick Hopkins and his team for their 13th programme of law reform. I also pay tribute to Wendy Wilson at the House of Commons Library, who has since left, and Hannah Cromarty, who have produced briefings for Members of Parliament, which I commend to those outside this building. If they look at the House of Commons research and the LKP site, they will be as knowledgeable as me and will put across these points as effectively or more so.
Over and again I want to emphasise that people must respond to the Government’s very good consultation on ground rent. It is well-written and brings out the issues properly. I would be surprised if the dominant view were anything other than that ground rents should be reduced to peppercorns. At one stage, the Government suggested bringing it down to £10, but that still leaves most of the superstructure and the problems with leaseholders. It should be brought down to a peppercorn to eliminate those. When the consultation is analysed, I ask the Secretary of State to look with favour on reducing ground rents to zero. If I get any benefit, I will give it to a good cause, but I am not saying this for me.
I could go on at length, and at some stage I probably will. Having made my preliminary remarks, I want to say to the House that this is the opportunity, before a general election—whoever wins—to get legislation through that may be complicated in law but not in politics. Are we on the side of the people who have been at risk or exploited by interests who have owned freeholds? I have given my list of past shame, and I will not trouble the House with it now. If people have problems with their landlords or freeholders, they should tell their Member of Parliament so that they can bring it up in Committee or on Report.
I suggest that those who have used expensive lawyers to screw residential leaseholders use their money on something else. When a notable charity uses expensive lawyers to raise the cost of enfranchisement or lease extension by a third—an issue that should have come to Parliament rather than be done in the privacy of an upper property tribunal—we know that those running charities can get it wrong, too. We have left this too long. Let us now get on with it.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Generally, I welcome what is in the Bill, as does the Select Committee, based on our 2019 inquiry. It is what is not in the Bill that is disappointing—that is the difference. Let me go back to our report, which built on the work of the APPG—I congratulate the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who is now a shadow Minister, on their work. That report led to the work of the Competition and Markets Authority on mis-selling and the Law Commission report.
I want to go through some of the Select Committee’s recommendations and what the Government have followed through on, which we welcome. I also want to look at the matters omitted from the legislation, which could easily be added in Committee if the Government want to. Leasehold flats are more complicated, and they will probably not be added to the Bill in Committee. The Select Committee accepts the complications, particularly where properties are part commercial, part residential. However, our report was four years ago, which is a long time for the Secretary of State to work up a scheme to deal with leasehold flats, but we are not there. In the meantime, I hope that he will commit to the Committee’s recommendation for a programme of education and information for leaseholders, to ensure a better understanding of what commonhold is all about. There is a lack of understanding and information, and if we are to move to commonhold for new properties and encourage leaseholders in existing properties to convert, that programme is needed.
The legislation deals primarily with leasehold houses. We welcome the commitment to no new leasehold houses—or we will when the clauses are added to the Bill. We understand that that is for Committee. We welcome the commitment to removing onerous ground rents. The Select Committee looked in detail at the argument about the European convention on human rights.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill does not address issues associated with the growth in leasehold houses over the last few years? Earlier, I mentioned Persimmon, which has left a lot of residents with leases that include not only their own properties but common areas. Traditionally, when my hon. Friend and I were in local government, those would have been taken over by a local authority.
Mr Betts
There are real issues with that, which I was going to address later, but I will do so now. It is important to strengthen the right to manage, both for leaseholders and for freeholders in these estates who own the freehold of their house but not of the communal areas. I said earlier that in all property purchases where common areas remain in private ownership, there should be, at the point of purchase, a clear understanding of the agreement between the local authority and the developer about who is responsible for those common areas. In many circumstances it is simply opaque. Often, purchasers do not know who is responsible and are sent on a wild goose chase to find out once they have bought their property.
Returning to onerous ground rents, the Select Committee took counsel’s opinion, which was quite interesting, and made recommendations in paragraphs 114 to 116 of our report. There were two clear arguments why removing onerous ground rents from leases retrospectively was completely compatible with the European convention on human rights. The first, which most of us may not have thought about, is that controlling or changing rent is not confiscation of property but control of its use, so it does not conflict with the article on removing people’s property rights. Secondly, the convention includes a justification where the proposal has a wider beneficial impact on society, which can be offset against any impact on the property owner. Counsel’s opinion was that it was therefore perfectly justifiable under the European convention to remove onerous ground rents on existing properties.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will remember that when the Labour Government overturned the case of Custins v. Hearts of Oak in 1967, they used exactly those grounds to justify doing so.
Mr Betts
I do remember that far back. Many will not remember the Labour Government’s ’67 reforms, but they were quite important on those grounds—absolutely.
Other good aspects of the Bill include its reducing the price of enfranchisement and trying to make it simpler. Now, I am not sure that it makes it simpler; it is still a bit complicated. In the end, it partly depends on the capitalisation rates that the Government introduce, which will determine the price. But a lot of my constituents who are leaseholders live in houses, and they often face enormous barriers to carry through the enfranchisement process. I have referred to Coppen Estates in my constituency, which is notorious for simply not replying to letters. I once got it to reply to a recorded letter at the third time of asking. Normally, it ignores everything. That is just its way of trying to hang on to its ground rents and its income from leases. How will we deal with those sorts of individuals and companies, and the fact that they transfer ownership around from one company to another?
Why is there no right of first refusal for leaseholders in the Bill? I was pleased that, some years ago, Sheffield Council agreed that when it sold freeholds, the right of first refusal would go to the leaseholder. That would be a simple reform, and I hope the Secretary of State will consider it. The improvement of the enfranchisement process to make it simpler and reduce the cost is right, but I would like further improvements to ensure that it will work.
I welcome the standardisation of service charges. One big complaint to the Committee was that leaseholders often simply do not know what they are paying and why. They cannot work out which services are supposed to be provided and which are not. That is an important step forward.
On commission fees, we heard about the £150 to change a doorbell and the £3,000 to put up a conservatory—complete rip-offs. There is no justification for them in houses in particular, and very little justification in flats. I am pleased that freeholders will now have to provide a schedule of rates that will be charged. We called for a cap on rates, which might have taken reform a little further, but at least there now has to be clarity and transparency. I also welcome the clause that means leaseholders will not end up paying for the legal and other costs of freeholders where there is any conflict or dispute.
A number of other measures have been omitted from the Bill, but they could be included very easily. The Secretary of State mentioned forfeiture. If leasehold is a feudal tenure, then forfeiture is prehistoric—it really is. If a leaseholder in a very small way fails to comply with an element of their lease, they could have the property taken off them. That is just unacceptable and unjustifiable. The Secretary of State was right in what he said. Forfeiture is not necessarily something that gets used, but the threat of its being used puts the onus on leaseholders to “behave” or do what the freeholder wants them to do. The removal of that with a simple clause would be really welcome.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I should have included the hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee in my thanks, and I do so belatedly. On forfeiture, we could ban it completely, although there may be times when it is necessary to have an order to sell a property to pay debts. The limit should be raised from £350 to a significant figure such as £5,000, and any remaining equity should go back to the person who owned the lease and not be pocketed by the freeholder.
Mr Betts
The Father of the House makes a very reasonable point. My point is simply that forfeiture is currently a blanket possibility that can apply to any breach of a lease, however minor, and non-payment of a very small amount could cost the leaseholder the total of the value of their property. That is what we have to stop.
Why do freeholders not have to join a redress scheme? The Committee called for them to be included in the redress schemes. The Secretary of State is bringing in a number of redress schemes and ombudsmen extensions, so why can freeholders not be included?
One of the big issues raised with us, where again there is a lack of transparency, is that many leaseholders have to pay into a reserve fund—a sinking fund—for their property. Can we not have some protection for those funds formally written into law? Currently, many leaseholders have no idea what the money is being spent on. There is no obligation on the freeholder to explain it and certainly no protection that funds have to be used for the purpose for which they are paid.
On mis-selling, one of the big complaints we heard when we met leaseholders—this related to houses in particular; Persimmon Homes has been mentioned, but there were other developers too—was the fact that they were being sold a leasehold as though it was the same as a freehold. The solicitors were compliant in that, because they had been recommended by the developer. Often, a bonus was thrown in: “We’ll give you new carpets in the living room if you use that solicitor.” The Competition and Markets Authority investigated at our request and said there was mis-selling, but so far nothing has been done about it. The Government have done absolutely nothing to rectify that injustice. Can we not see something on that again? I do not think that there is any great conflict across the House, or between anyone who has been involved in this matter. It is wrong—absolutely wrong. Solicitors should not be induced in this way to provide conveyancing to a purchaser, when the developer is recommending that solicitor. It simply is not right and it needs addressing.
My final point is one that we raised on the private rented reforms that the Government will hopefully pursue —and hopefully this year coming, rather than waiting any longer with regard to section 21. We have called repeatedly for a housing court. I know the Secretary of State will explain again why he does not want to do that, but I think we ought to keep asking. There are so many issues in the housing field that need a specialism, and need quick decisions and quick resolution. A housing court would be one way of doing that and of trying to improve the process.
Stella Creasy
One thing I think so many leaseholders find frustrating with our current court system and the first-tier tribunals is that they do not set a precedent, so even if we identify something with a freeholder who may have multiple thousands of properties, every single individual has to go through the process if they were not a party to the original case. Does my hon. Friend agree that a specialist housing court could at least have precedent built in?
Mr Betts
That is an extremely good point. I do not think the Select Committee actually made that point, but it adds to its recommendations in a very thoughtful and helpful way.
There are a lot of issues, and I am sure we will not resolve all of them in today’s debate, but they need to be addressed in Committee. There are reforms to the proposed legislation that could be made, most of them quite easily. The bigger issue of leasehold flats is for another day, but it ought to be kept on the agenda. I welcome what is in the Bill, which could be the basis for a much-improved piece of legislation. Perhaps we will see an improved Bill come back to us on report.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I am delighted to speak on this flagship piece of legislation, which will restore true home ownership to millions, end rip-off charges and introduce fairness to the leasehold market. I am confident that it is a good piece of legislation not because I did all the preparatory work on it, but because I worked with brilliant officials, whom I thank.
We heard the testimony of so many thousands of leaseholders who struggled with blighted properties that led to blighted lives. There are too many of them to mention individually, but the strength and tenacity of the campaigners—and the organisations, such as the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the Leasehold Advisory Service, under the leadership of the superb Martin Boyd, which helped them—is enormously impressive. Take, for example, Liam Spender, who was able to show that leaseholders in his block had paid £1.6 million in excess service charges to their freeholder, FirstPort. Incidentally, FirstPort is one of the worst offenders I heard about in my time as Minister. Yet freeholders still had the audacity to sit in front of me while I was a Minister and claim that
“some people like the security of paying service charges”
and that there is no evidence that they oppose ground rents. Yes, truly, that is what they said. Shockingly, I understand that Mr Spender and his tenants have received nothing yet, and now the freeholders are appealing the decision with the leaseholders’ own money. I would like the Minister to set out clearly how the Bill will tackle their situation and end that scandal once and for all.
We got here because of the greed and unethical behaviour of predatory freeholders who have treated leasehold properties as a cash cow and the leaseholders as a milking machine to produce an endless stream of income for no work at all. It is the ultimate definition of rent-seeking behaviour. In its worst excesses, it is frankly disgusting. I and many others find it appalling.
Sir Peter Bottomley
On the case that Liam Spender has so rightly been pursuing for his fellow leaseholders, does my hon. Friend think it would be a good idea if the Select Committee considered inviting in the people he has been engaging with to ask why they did not put their hands up straightaway, settle and give back all the money they wrongly took from leaseholders, without having to have extended legal proceedings?
Rachel Maclean
That is an excellent suggestion from my hon. Friend the Father of the House, with which I strongly agree—as I do with everything he says about this issue.
Despite the theatrics we heard from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who spoke for the Opposition, it is the Conservatives who are finally bringing in sweeping reforms. It is right that we note that Labour ducked the issue while they were in office. They could have fixed it then. They could have saved millions from misery—nearly 5 million homes, accounting for 20% of the entire housing market, are owned on a leasehold basis across the UK—but it appears they bowed to pressure from freeholders. We will never know why, but thankfully things will now change.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Lady may not remember—but I do—that before the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was passed, a great deal of pressure had been applied since 1999. At that stage, however, their lordships down at the other end of the building threatened to block all of Labour’s legislation if we insisted on putting through some of the measures that were ultimately taken out of that Bill. The hon. Lady is right; those measures should have been included. I lobbied and campaigned for them to be included, and made my speech in the House accordingly, but their lordships were in the majority—and, at the time, 66% of their lordships had declared in the Register of Interests that they derived most of their income from the management of land.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Member for the history lesson but, regardless, we are determined to fix this now.
Rachel Maclean
No, because I need to make progress. Perhaps I will allow the right hon. Gentleman to intervene a little later.
The key factor here is choice. At present, leaseholders do not have a choice, or they have a fake choice. The Bill will give them a genuine choice when it comes to how they manage and own their homes. However, while I warmly welcome these measures, we can and must go further. May I draw the attention of the Secretary of State and the Minister to a few of my suggestions?
The measures in the Bill will clearly be of enormous benefit to individual leaseholders, making it easier and cheaper for them to buy freeholds or extend leases, but of course this is a very complicated area, and I know it will be difficult for many leaseholders to understand exactly how much they will benefit financially. My first suggestion, therefore, is the provision of an easy-to-use digital calculator enabling people to see what the Bill means for them.
Then there is the issue of commonhold fixes. I know that the focus here is on ensuring that leaseholders cannot be exploited and can take control of their homes, but there is a clear Conservative and free-market rationale for accepting the Law Commission’s recommendations on reforming commonhold so that more developers choose it, rather than leasehold, for new blocks of flats—not because they are forced to do so, but because it is the best option for their business model. Can the Government look at that again? All the work has already been done.
I strongly welcome the Government’s consultation on capping ground rents. As I said in an intervention earlier, the Secretary of State must look at who is making the representations, and bear in mind the old adage, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” when people oppose such caps. We know that ground rents are sheer exploitation. Let us call a spade a spade: this is money for nothing. Can the Minister assure me that there will be time to get a cap into the Bill once the consultation has closed?
We have all heard of too many sad cases involving a hard core of truly exploitative and dodgy freeholders—the bad apples—ripping off and exploiting leaseholders. We know that there are some freeholders who treat people properly, but the others know that going to court will be too much hassle for most people, and indeed that the odd tribunal defeat is just part of the cost of doing business. We must do something to ensure that there is a real cost to those unscrupulous companies and their directors.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for the work that she has been doing on this issue. However, she implies that the rip-off merchants constitute only a certain proportion of freeholders. Is she not aware that these people have been working in cahoots over the past 10 years, attending conferences, identifying the weaknesses in the law, sharing information and forming links with professionals such as agents and solicitors in order to rip off innocent leaseholders? This is a consistent, organised scam that has been growing over 10 years, which is why there are so many more problems now than there were, say, 15 or 20 years ago.
Rachel Maclean
Of course I am aware of that. When I was privileged to hold the position of Housing Minister, I strongly supported the relevant legislation, because those people sat in front of me and cried crocodile tears, telling me that if we went ahead with it we would destabilise the pensions industry and leave lots of little old ladies with no pensions—which is obviously complete and utter nonsense, as I am sure the Secretary of State and the current Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), will be able to tell me on the basis of the analysis that they have conducted.
We also need assurances about section 24 managers. I note that, in recent weeks, at least one freeholder has tried to wrest control of a building back from a court-appointed manager—a so-called section 24 manager—claiming that it is incompatible with the Building Safety Act 2022. That is obviously nonsense. If a freeholder has been found not to be managing his building properly, it shows some cheek to try to ditch a court appointee on such spurious grounds. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity later to give us the Government’s view.
I welcome the Government’s intention of introducing building safety measures to ensure that remediation continues to accelerate, and to make it easier to ensure that the right people pay, but may I press the Minister for a little more detail? I know that, even as we speak, people are making serious decisions about their own finances.
My constituents in Brockhill, especially those in the Persimmon Homes development, have faced innumerable issues relating to freehold estates, and I must press the Minister on what measures he will introduce to help them and, most importantly, when he will do so. I know that the Government intend to introduce a right to manage for freeholders, and to challenge arrangements and charges through the first-tier property tribunal. However, I urge him to read again the Hansard report of the Westminster Hall debate in which I responded, on behalf of the Government, to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who had told a story about one of his constituents who had had to pay thousands of pounds for one lamp post. This is an outrageous state of affairs, and I want the Government to introduce measures that will tackle it and many others. Currently, throughout the country, people’s new dream homes are turning out to be a nightmare. They are being ripped off by small-print clauses that turn into big bills, and they have no redress. That must be fixed.
Finally, there is a need for regulation of the property management sector more broadly. I recognise that the Bill was not the right vehicle for it, but I urge the Minister to continue to push ahead with a reform that must happen, if not on this side of a general election, then on the other side.
We Conservatives believe that the opportunity to own one’s home is sacrosanct, and the Bill takes another important stride towards the creation of a true property-owning democracy. While, as we have made clear, we stand firmly on the side of fairness and those who want to own a home, we are still none the wiser when it comes to where Labour Members stand. One week they are on the side of the builders, not the blockers—or so they say. The next week, they are blocking our proposals to build 100,000 new homes that first-time buyers and young families would desperately want to possess. While they decide whose side they are on, we are taking important steps to improve the lives of millions up and down the country. I look forward to working with Ministers on the Bill as it goes through the House to strengthen some of its measures, particularly those on commonhold and freehold estates, and to ensure that we deliver on the promise that it holds.
Let me end by wishing my hon. Friend the Minister better luck than I had in his tenure of this important role. I especially hope that he can remain to finish the vital job of leasehold and freehold reform and restore true property ownership to millions. He will have my full support in the Lobbies.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), the former Housing Minister, and I congratulate her on her work in this regard. I was disappointed that she chose to adopt a rather partisan tone in some of her remarks—unnecessarily, I thought—but I was grateful for the more generous tone taken by the Secretary of State. I especially welcomed his generous and appropriate tribute to our former colleague, Jim Fitzpatrick, for his work in the all-party parliamentary group—I am glad that he was mentioned.
Let me begin by identifying a specific concern that the Bill has raised. I am aware of it because of the work that the Work and Pensions Committee has done on asbestos. Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, premises can be sold while containing asbestos; ownership can be transferred. Asbestos management is regulated in relation to workplaces, where it is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, but not in domestic properties. In a lot of shared dwellings, such as flats and conversions, the landlord or freeholder has regulated duties under the existing regulations to manage asbestos in the shared areas in those developments. This legislation, as I understand it, may well give rise to the transfer of those obligations to domestic owners.
The existence and extent of asbestos in a building might not be known, leaving homeowners taking on these responsibilities with a hidden liability and, potentially, a life-threatening risk to handle as well. Homeowners are unlikely to have the wherewithal to manage asbestos in situ effectively, and this could leave a complex set of responsibilities and liabilities between owners in shared properties or where the nominal landlord no longer exists. At the moment, there is tax relief for businesses removing asbestos from a workplace—they can offset it against corporation tax—but there is no support for homeowners to remove or manage asbestos.
It has been suggested to me—this is something I am looking at—that there should be an amendment proposing that change in ownership of a property in the circumstances envisaged in the Bill, or a change in the extent of landlord control, should be a trigger for removing asbestos. Otherwise, more asbestos will move outside effective control under this legislation, meaning that nobody will be responsible for managing it and potentially creating a significant public health risk.
I will focus the rest of my remarks on part 3 of the Bill and draw attention to some particular instances that have arisen in my constituency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), in opening the debate, rightly expressed the disappointment of many that the more radical ambitions for the Bill have been dropped, at least for the time being, but there are lots of practical problems for our constituents that need addressing and that the Bill can potentially help with.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, who is in his place, is aware of Barrier Point in my constituency, which comprises eight towers and 257 apartments. Tower 8, the largest of the towers, has 50 apartments and a flammable cladding problem. In 2017, buildings insurance for the whole of Barrier Point cost £104,000. Last year, Aviva, which insured the block previously, refused to quote, so this year residents have ended up paying £443,547 for insurance, and Tower 8 residents have shouldered that huge increase at a cost of between £6,000 and £12,000 each. I am grateful both to Aviva and to Barratt, which built the development, for meeting residents to try to find a way forward. I am also grateful to the Minister for the interest he has shown in this and for his agreeing to visit—I hope we will have a date for that soon.
I can see that the Bill could go some way towards tackling those problems. I particularly welcome clauses 27, 28 and 29, which increase transparency around service charges and give occupants the right to obtain information about service charges and costs on request. Clauses 30, 34 and 35 will help tenants to enforce those rights and rebalance the costs of litigation in their favour. The Financial Conduct Authority’s 2020 report on insurance for multi-occupancy buildings found that commission was often at least 30% on a transaction, and it found one case where it was over 60%. The FCA was worried that insurance commissions lacked transparency and it feared the conflict of interest that stemmed from brokers regularly sharing half their commission with the freeholder or managing agent. Replacing commission with transparent handling fees, as clauses 31 and 32 envisage, should certainly help.
Barry Gardiner
I appreciate everything that my right hon. Friend is saying. He will be aware, though, that many companies holding freeholds will also set up an arm’s-length company that is the broker, thus taking a double take in terms of the commission. It is not just that they get cut from the broker; they are the broker.
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend makes an important point and I welcome his work in this area over a long period.
The changes in the Bill are not likely to do much to help the residents of Barrier Point who have exercised their right to manage. The FCA has argued that
“the intervention most likely to reduce prices for the minority of multi-occupancy buildings with the most substantial price increases would be cross-industry risk pooling”.
I was pleased to hear from the Secretary of State, in answer to my intervention, that he will be meeting representatives of the Association of British Insurers this week. The ABI initiative on this issue appears, up to now, to have stalled. The FCA recommended that the ABI should work with it and with the Government to introduce a risk pooling scheme in 2022. The scheme was expected to come forward last summer, but we are still waiting. I am hoping that, as a result of the meeting this week that the Secretary of State has told us about, things will get moving.
I checked with the FCA last week about this. It said that the ABI plan is
“credible and capable of delivering savings to those worst affected buildings”,
but it went on to add that the plan is delayed with “no firm launch date” because the ABI is struggling to secure “the reinsurance capacity required”. That seems to be the obstacle. I very much hope that the Secretary of State can find a way to push this forward at his meeting. The ABI urged the Government to increase capacity by backing catastrophic losses in the scheme. It did that most recently in June. Can the Minister tell us whether that appeal has been considered by the Department and whether that might be taken forward at the meeting with the Secretary of State later this week? When does he think risk pooling will commence?
On remediation, there is a power imbalance between leaseholders and freeholders. That has been highlighted to me by Barrier Point residents. The Bill does not really address that. Section 72 of the Building Safety Act 2022 makes a right-to-manage company the “accountable person” for a high-risk multi-occupancy building, making the directors criminally liable if negligence can be proved. The same Act, however, requires only that freeholders “co-operate” with accountable persons, without any enforcement mechanism in place at all. The freeholder at Barrier Point has held up remediation works for several months and is refusing to sign off on them. The directors of the right-to-manage company desperately want to fulfil their legal obligations but they are left liable because of the refusal of the freeholder to say okay, and there is no comparable liability on the freeholder. That seems wrong, and I wonder whether that imbalance can be addressed in the course of the Bill’s passage through the House.
The Minister said in oral questions just last week that the Government plan to make changes to the Bill as it goes through Parliament, and I hope he will consider how that imbalance can be addressed to ensure that remediation work can go ahead in a case such as that, which I suspect is by no means unique. The residents of Barrier Point want to purchase their freehold. To do so, they need to get at least 50% of all the leaseholders to agree to, and be able to afford, a freehold purchase. That is very difficult in a building with 257 households. I do not think the Bill does anything to make that process easier, so I very much hope that Ministers will be open to further improvements as it progresses through the House.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
My speech will be brief, as I want to concentrate on one aspect of the Bill. Estate management companies are a massive and growing issue in my Dartford constituency. Some 7,000 new homes have been built in my constituency over the last 10 years, and they are predominantly “looked after” by management companies.
I welcome the measures in the Bill that will rightly allow residents to challenge the invoices and bills they are sent by management companies. This will help to transfer some of the power back to residents, by giving them a tool to say, “This invoice is unfair,” “This bill is not right,” or, “These accounts are not right.”
It is absolutely right that power is transferred away from management companies and into the hands of local residents, because at the moment management companies seem to do pretty much whatever they like. They can put up the charges they levy on residents way above inflation while providing a very poor service, and local residents can do very little about it. Local residents find themselves completely restricted in challenging what is, on occasion, a hideously poor service with extortionate fees. They are trodden on by the management companies.
Of course, residents question why they have to pay council tax at the same time as paying management fees, as they often find that their management fees are used to pay for, say, play parks that the whole community can use for free. They have to pay for it, they have to pay for the maintenance and they have to pay council tax, too, which seems very unfair.
In my experience, local residents want to be able to change their management company. They want to be able to switch over and to say to their management company, “No, you have not provided a good enough service. You are charging us too much money, and therefore we are going to use a different management company.” If that happens, it will help to tackle most of the problems we are experiencing with management companies. It will end the monopoly by returning competition to the system, enabling the good management companies to prevail and the poor ones to fall by the wayside.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The whole House will accept that my hon. Friend is rightly arguing for total transparency. There ought to be open-book accounting by these managing agents, so that those who are paying can see what is happening.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the amalgamation of managing agents is a dangerous trend? It means that the choice is reducing, not increasing. Given that some managing agents are very large and people’s experience of them is not very good, we ought to try to make sure that there is not this continual amalgamation and that there is a good choice of good managing agents that want to earn a better reputation.
Gareth Johnson
The Father of the House makes a very good point. I would like to see co-operation between companies, rather than amalgamation. In my constituency, we often see two management companies sending two people to mow the grass on the same estate. Residents look out of their window and see the grass on one side of the estate being mowed by one company and the grass on the other side of the estate being mowed by a different company. Of course, they have to pay twice for that pleasure. If the companies co-operated, that situation would not arise.
Some 20% of the people attending my surgeries are there to complain about management companies. Even a constituent of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) came to my surgery—with two of my constituents, I hasten to add—to raise issues about management companies. She was very complimentary of the hon. Gentleman, by the way, but I put her straight. However, she was not very complimentary about the management company that she was suffering from. This problem happens in Greenwich, in Dartford and across the country, and we need this Bill to get to grips with it.
Mr Kevan Jones
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that management fees slowly go up in some retirement villages and retirement complexes? Older people do not challenge them, and it ends up making their flats either unsellable or worth less than they paid.
Gareth Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and it highlights how management fees undermine the whole housing sector. We will end up in a situation where people do not want to buy nice homes because of the management companies that operate on these estates.
It undermines freehold, because people living on these estates have to go to the management company to get an information pack in order to sell their home. Of course, the information pack does not come free. On most estates in my constituency, people have to pay the management company £350 effectively to ask for permission to sell their house.
A lady contacted me and, apart from the cost, some of the information in her information pack was wrong. When she contacted the management company to ask some questions about the information it had provided, she was told that each question would be charged at £60 plus VAT, but this was the management company’s fault, not hers. That is just one example—I could give thousands—of just how horrifically some management companies behave. The Bill needs to deal with these organisations.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points. Is he aware that some companies managing residential properties for the elderly charge 10% of the property’s sale price, which they take to themselves for the privilege of allowing it to be sold?
Gareth Johnson
I have heard of those kinds of things. The same happens with park homes, and we are also trying to tackle that. It is only right that we tackle this issue with management companies, because it totally undermines the concept of freehold. The Secretary of State rightly says that he supports home ownership, yet we have a system that undermines the principle of home ownership.
People bought these houses in my constituency because they are nice homes in a nice area, and they often bought them in a seller’s market. They were literally standing in a queue, with other people waiting behind them to buy the same property. If they had not signed on the dotted line there and then, there were plenty of people behind them who would have. They signed without a full appreciation of the terms of the contract, which effectively said that the management company can put up its management fees way beyond inflation, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
I echo the Father of the House. As we consider the Bill throughout its passage, Members have to decide which side we are on. Are we on the side of the management companies, or are we on the side of local residents? It should be a no-brainer for every Member of the House, and I hope we will come together. After the Bill gets its Second Reading, I am sure we would all like to see some amendments in Committee.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). He is absolutely right about management companies needing more transparency and more accountability.
Today’s Second Reading of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is long overdue for my Battersea constituents. Many are trapped in the exploitative leasehold system, which denies them control, safety, security and a future in their home. Unfortunately, the Bill falls short of what the Secretary of State committed to when he said that the Government
“will maintain our commitment to abolish the…system of leasehold. We absolutely will.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2023; Vol. 727, c. 49.]
This is yet another broken promise by the Tories.
We all know that everyone deserves to live in a safe, decent and affordable home, and that means abolishing the unfair and outdated leasehold system. In London alone, leasehold accounts for more than 30% of homes. Some 74% of homes sold in Battersea in 2022 were leasehold transactions, making Battersea the 18th highest constituency in the country for leasehold. So this Bill really matters to the people of my constituency.
I have been in this House for only six and a half years, and we have debated leasehold reform continuously. Indeed, we have passed legislation, by way of the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, which followed the awful, awful tragedy at Grenfell Tower. However, we know that even with all that legislation and despite all these debates, the system is still flawed and not all leaseholders are protected. In England and Wales, our approach has not been in keeping with that of the rest of the world, because many countries have chosen to do away with this feudal system or have reformed it; we are still in this state of stalemate. The Law Commission’s proposals back in 2020 had cross-party support. Everybody was in favour of them all, so it is disappointing that the Bill does not include all of its proposals and recommendations. That is sad because the Government have missed an opportunity to make some positive change that would protect our leaseholders. The Government’s inaction and delay in tackling the extortionate costs associated with being a leaseholder have had an impact, not least on people’s finances, as well as on their mental health and wellbeing. Many of my constituents regularly tell me about the range of problems they face: surging ground rents; high service charges; a lack of transparency over charges; poor customer service; excessive administration charges; charges for applications to extend lease agreements or enfranchise; and a lack of knowledge and information about their rights and obligations. The leaseholders in Battersea do not receive value for money on service charges, which can be increased at the last minute; they can go up drastically, with little warning. In one case, someone had their service charge increased by 30%, without any breakdown of costs or transparency as to why that had happened. At that time, the management company was—I am not sure of the best way to describe this—not forthcoming. In addition, it was abrasive, belittling and rude in its responses to us. So it is important that the role of these management companies and the way they are handled is addressed.
I am pleased that the Government are introducing long overdue measures to improve home ownership for many leaseholders. The Bill will make it cheaper and easier to extend a lease or buy the freehold; and it will increase the standard lease extension term from 90 years to 990 years, with the ground rent reduced to a peppercorn—obviously, upon payment of a premium. That is good and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State said today that the Government will be consulting on grounds rents. Sadly, he did not address my point about shared ownership and those who staircase to 100% and then become leaseholders, so I hope the Minister will clarify whether the consultation will seek to address that issue as well. We need more transparency on things such as service charges, and it is right that the Bill will provide that. It will also provide for a right to request information about those charges.
However, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and many others, despite multiple assurances from Ministers, the Government have U-turned on their commitment to end the leasehold system. After all that they had been promised, my constituents would have expected the Government to go further and end this outdated system. The Bill does not even contain provisions to ban the creation of new leasehold houses, as was promised in the King’s Speech. I understand that that will be brought forward in Committee, but why on earth was it not in the Bill today? There is never going to be enough time to really go into detail about the challenges with the Bill, but it is important to note that housing is a human right. Everybody should be able to live in a safe, decent, warm and affordable home. Homeowners should be able to have security and have the power of their own home, regardless of the type of tenure. If you buy your home, you expect it to be yours; you do not expect there to be a freeholder who owns this aspect of it. The Government could take some lessons from Labour, as we will protect leaseholders through making commonhold the default tenure for all new properties and by overhauling the system so that existing leaseholders can collectively purchase more easily and move to commonhold if that is their wish. We are also committed to supporting house building, in order to deal with the housing crisis that the Tories have created and not addressed. That is why we need this leadership on housing; we do not need any more broken promises and failed policies from this Government, which have really left this country in a mess.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova). Let me start by paying tribute to the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who has been campaigning on this issue for many years, to great success, eventually. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who is no longer in her place, for all the work she has done in the preparation of this Bill. I welcome the principle of the Bill. Some Opposition Members may say it is too timid, but with 58 pages of detailed legislation and equations, which remind me of my time studying physics and maths at university, it can hardly be said to be less than complex. The key issue is: have the Government gone far enough in what they intended to do?
Our manifesto commitment was clear: to promote fairness and transparency for leaseholders, and ensure that consumers are protected from abuse and poor service. Clearly, that is a fundamental requirement. The Law Commission’s 2017 review of leasehold law represented it, and it is has taken us six years to get to this point in dealing with some of the abuses. We have to remember that 94% of people who have bought leasehold properties regret buying them and 70% of leaseholders are worried that they will not be able to sell their homes because they are leasehold. That is one fundamental thing we need to answer. We also need this leasehold reform to reform and support the housing market, because almost half of leaseholders are first-time buyers and 28% are under 35. At a time when fewer and fewer people are buying their first home at such an age, it is vital that we not only encourage people to buy their first home, but simplify the system.
So I welcome the overarching aims of the Bill to modernise this complex system, but clearly there is still a lot of work to do. Obviously, making it cheaper and easier for existing leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease and buy their freehold is a key point. The so-called “marriage rates” make it almost impossible for leaseholders to buy properties with fewer than 80 years left on the lease and to extend that lease to 990 years, which is what we are now going to be looking at. Having that as the standard position for houses and flats has to be the right thing to do. We should remember that the original position on extensions was 90 years for flats and 50 years for houses, so we are introducing a massive change and it is extremely welcome.
Barry Gardiner
I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way; if he is fortunate at the next election, he may inherit some more leasehold flats. As he will know, in this country a freeholder holds their freehold for a period of 999 years from the Crown and that may run out before any new leasehold is able to conclude its 999 years. Does he understand what the Government propose to do in that situation?
Bob Blackman
Longevity may run in my family, but not to the extent of 1,000 years. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I am sure the Minister will seek to answer it in his summing up.
Introducing new rights for long leaseholders to buy out the ground rent without needing to extend the term of the lease is another extremely welcome move, as is removing the requirement for a new leaseholder to have owned their house for two years before they can benefit from the changes. The new right to require the freeholder to take a leaseback of non-participating units when a collective enfranchisement claim is made is also vital. We do not want to get to a position where people are deterred from enfranchisement because they cannot take on those who do not take on enfranchisement.
A new costs regime for enfranchisement and right-to-manage claims so that each party bears their own costs is vital. Far too often, the freeholder has sought to obtain their costs from the purchaser, which is clearly unfair and unjust. Moving jurisdiction for enfranchisement and right-to-manage disputes to the first tier tribunal and the leasehold valuation tribunal in Wales makes it much easier for parties to identify how they can bring about a dispute. I note the point the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), raised when he said that freeholders often make it as difficult as possible for enfranchisement to take place.
The issue of transparency of service charges is vital. One of the benefits of serving on a Select Committee for a long time is being able to remember the reports the Committee was involved in, and I well remember an inquiry into this issue. We wanted all service charges to be transparent and fixed to the cost of providing that service, as opposed to a figure plucked out of the air and then passed on to the person supposedly receiving the service. It is welcome to see that the Bill contains measures for minimum key financial and non-financial information to be supplied to those receiving the service on a regular basis, including through a standardised service charge and an annual report. That means leaseholders can scrutinise and better challenge costs if they are unreasonable.
Equally, replacing buildings insurance commissions for managing agents, landlords and freeholders with transparent administration fees stops leaseholders from being charged exorbitant, opaque commissions on top of their premiums, an issue that has already been raised in the debate. I welcome scrapping the presumption for leaseholders to pay their freeholders’ legal costs, which in my opinion is outrageous, as well as granting freehold owners on private and mixed-tenure estates the same rights of redress as leaseholders, by extending their equivalent rights to transparency over their estate charges and to challenge the charges they pay by taking a case to a tribunal.
All these measures are welcome, but there are many other areas where we need to go further. The promise to do away with leasehold—or fleecehold—completely was clear in the manifesto; in my view, that promise should be honoured, particularly on the sale of new-build flats. In London, they are now the most common property type; almost all flats are sold on leasehold basis, compared to just 6% of houses.
On the individual building firms, we have heard about Persimmon, but we should also remember Bellway, whose chief executive came in front of our Select Committee and told us—I repeat what they said almost word for word—that it was the company’s policy not to offer the freehold to leaseholders at the first opportunity. Instead, six months after building the properties and selling the leaseholds, it would transfer them to a finance company, which would go through the detail of all the charges it could make and then really leverage up those charges, and the finance company would refuse to allow the leaseholder to even consider buying the freehold. That was the policy of that company. I think Permission admitted that that was its policy too, and other building companies do exactly the same. That is a scandal and it should be stopped, and we should legislate for that.
Clearly, we all want to see the promotion of commonhold. However, as the Chairman of the Committee said, we need more education for individuals, so they understand not only their rights but the responsibilities they would take on with commonhold.
One concern that has been raised with me on several occasions is about what will happen, once this welcome Bill is on the statute book—we look forward to the amendments that are made—to existing leaseholders who bought their leaseholds in good faith but are not being dealt with properly or effectively. We need to ensure that squeezing out the bad practices of freeholders and managing agents, which are unfair to individuals, is part and parcel of the legislation.
There is also the issue of conveyancing. Most people who buy their first property pay the minimum legal costs they can get away with. As a result, they often are not given proper advice about the consequences of their decisions. We need to ensure that individuals are given the opportunity to understand the responsibilities they are taking on and, more importantly, what will happen to them in the future if there are service charges involved.
Local authorities hold a huge number of properties under lease conditions and, if they want to sell the freehold to leaseholders, they are often among the worst sets of people to deal with across the country. I agree that a leaseholder should have the right of first refusal if a freehold is being offered. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give a commitment that, after we have engaged in consultations on service charges, the results of those consultations will be reflected in Committee so that we can strengthen the Bill?
Finally, I want to refer to a particular building in a constituency that neighbours mine. It has 13 floors and still has the old, Grenfell-style cladding. We all know the tragedy of Grenfell, but the owners of the building are refusing point blank to remove the cladding unless and until they are given planning permission to build on top of the building, so that they can sell more property to pay for the cost of remediating the cladding. The self-same company, Ballymore, although it has yet to submit a planning application, wants to build 29 blocks of flats, the tallest of which will be 29 storeys and the majority of which will be more than 20 storeys, at a density greater than Manhattan, Singapore or any other place in the world. That is a scandal. When the Secretary of State named certain building companies, he promised that if they refused to carry out the work that they should do, they would not be given planning permission to enable the development of more leasehold flats. I call on him to ensure that they are not given planning permission until such time as they are putting right what they have put wrong.
I pay tribute to all those who have fought for so long and so hard to achieve this limited reform. I will support the Bill, and I look forward to us taking forward further measures so that we can end the feudal system of leasehold once and for all.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I have mentioned before that Liberals have been campaigning to end leasehold since the days of Lloyd George, so I am pleased to see this piece of legislation finally being debated in the dying days of this Parliament. I hope that there is the time left to pass it and see meaningful change for the many leaseholders—leaseholds comprise 20% of the housing stock in England—who are boxed in by exorbitant management charges and uncapped ground rents.
The content of the Bill is welcome, and the Liberal Democrats will not oppose it on Second Reading, but, like other Members, we have significant concerns about the omissions from it. First, the Bill does not actually ban leasehold. Perhaps more importantly, it does not ban the creation of new leasehold flats. I do not grasp the logic of arguing that leasehold is outdated and unsuitable for the modern housing market, while allowing 70%—the vast majority—of leasehold arrangements to go ahead.
The Liberal Democrats support the comments made recently in The Guardian by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), that
“commonhold should be the new default tenure”
for all flats, and that it should be easier for leaseholders to collectively purchase their freehold should they wish. I also agree with several other Members that giving leaseholders first refusal when the freehold is sold is a good idea. It seems to me that without those more radical measures, the Bill is less leasehold reform and more leasehold tinkering.
I think that we all agree with the Secretary of State that this is a feudal system that needs radical overhaul, and I am not sure why the Bill does not go further to achieve that. I have been lobbied, and I have some sympathy for the argument that there is a need to ensure that there is a clear line of responsibility, and indeed liability, for building maintenance and safety in large blocks of flats, but most other countries—in fact, all countries other than Australia—have managed to achieve that without reliance on the leasehold model. Indeed, our recent experience regarding the safety of large blocks of flats, with the cladding scandal, suggests that in many instances the leasehold model has demonstrably failed to provide it. We probably all agree on that point.
I am also confused about why the Bill omits to introduce professionalisation in the management of leasehold buildings. The British Property Federation has said that
“the lack of any provision to introduce competency standards or regulation to our sector is a missed opportunity.”
Given the experience of many leaseholders over the cladding scandal, and the welcome professionalisation of the social housing sector, I hope that the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that management is professionalised and will seek to introduce such measures in Committee. I wonder whether the Minister would commit to that in his closing remarks.
In my North Shropshire constituency we do not have a large number of flats, but we have been plagued to some extent by new housing developments in which the housing is freehold but shared areas, services and essential infrastructure are managed by the original developer. As we all know, those are referred to as fleeceholds, and since being elected I have told a number of horror stories regarding such arrangements, both in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall. The provisions in the Bill that allow the right to challenge charges, provide for greater transparency of information, and relate to the quality of work and an associated system of civil penalties, are a welcome step in the right direction, but I wonder whether I could push the Government to go further in that area.
The tenants of such developments pay both their council tax and an estate management charge, yet they often receive a far worse service than those who live in adopted developments and are subject only to council tax. The hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) laid out some of the issues in his excellent speech, so I will not go into too much detail, but I urge the Minister to consider ending the practice of shared ownership of public spaces for the vast majority of new developments. They have the commercial substance of a leasehold, and I would like to see a presumption that the shared areas around new developments are almost always adopted by the local authority where the development is standard in nature. Where there is no good reason for that not to happen, homeowners on those developments should have their rights clearly set out so that the matter can be settled quickly in court.
I ask the Minister to consider further the specific circumstances where assets such as sewage pumping equipment or a ground source heat pump are shared by everyone on the estate. I am grateful to him for listening to my concerns prior to the debate. Freeholders using such equipment are dependent on its being installed and maintained to a high standard, but the experience of my constituents is that conveyancing solicitors do not alert buyers to the risks involved in this type of structure, and that the ownership structure can be opaque and almost impossible to challenge. I have one development in which the developer retained the ground source heat pump to be used by the rest of the houses in a separate company. He charges the full cost of running that pump to the residents but keeps the renewable heat incentive payments to himself, making a huge profit in the process. The freeholders’ only route of redress is through the courts. Because of the opaque management structure, it is not clear that they will win, and they do not really have the resources to commit to those legal proceedings.
It is not uncommon in rural places such as North Shropshire for a new development to use a shared septic tank rather than be connected to the mains sewer. If the tank has been installed to a poor standard, the costs of rectification are charged to the freeholders once they move in. Those are costs that they would not have anticipated when they bought the property. I would welcome greater clarity over who is responsible for ensuring that such shared assets are fit for purpose before the freehold houses are sold for habitation. Currently, such assets and services are outside the building control regime. That means that if someone gets a completion certificate on their house, which might have been properly constructed, but their sewage system is not fit for purpose, they will still have a valid building control certificate, and will be none the wiser when they buy the property.
I ask the Minister to consider whether further protections can be put in place, such as ensuring that inspections of those assets are included as part of the building control sign-off, ensuring that reserve funds are being collected and appropriately ringfenced through reasonable service charges throughout the life of such assets, and allowing freeholders to take joint ownership of the assets for a nominal fee if they wish to do so. A right to manage would be so welcome for residents trapped in such situations.
Will the Minister also expand on the issue of enforcement? The additional rights afforded to leaseholders and those paying estate management charges will be effective only if there is an affordable way for leaseholders and fleeceholders to ensure that they can be enforced. We all have experience of freeholders simply failing to respond to correspondence, or requiring their tenants to take them to court in a highly unaffordable process, often charging the costs of that court process to leaseholders. Enforcement is therefore not really achievable at the moment, but it is so important to ensure that those revenue streams are effectively squeezed for freeholders.
The Bill is a small step in the right direction, but so much more could be done to end this outdated form of tenure. It was 1909 when Lloyd George described leasehold as “not business, but blackmail”. It is high time that we grasped the nettle and ended it.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
There is much to welcome in the Bill. It is all too easy to believe that leasehold affects only London and the larger cities across the country, but that is not so. In the past 30 to 40 years in particular, many more properties have been built on a leasehold basis. Many leaseholders are now facing the dilemma of whether to extend. It is estimated that there are 4.98 million leasehold properties, equating to 20% of the housing stock. That includes properties in my constituency, and I have raised the matter in the House previously. I also have a personal interest as a leaseholder. Many years before coming to this place, I had the unpleasant experience of extending our own lease. The Government made good progress with the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022, which limited ground rents to a peppercorn on all new leases. The Bill that we are considering today does not include the same limitation to protect existing leaseholders from onerous and potentially very expensive ground rents. Without that, up to 4.98 million homeowners will be left saddled with unfair ground rents.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, said that
“liberating leaseholders forms a vital part of the government’s long-term plan for housing.”
We cannot have a situation in which we are liberating future leaseholders while leaving existing homeowners trapped. This is an urgent problem. The Government’s own consultation in 2017 identified it as a trend leaving leaseholders facing significant and unsustainable increases in ground rents, which often affects the saleability of their homes, so I hope it will be addressed.
On new leasehold houses, I welcome the Government’s commitment to ending the creation of new leasehold houses. It is time we moved on from what other hon. Members have also described as an archaic system that holds homeowners back. However, I was concerned that measures to do that have not appeared in the Bill as drafted. My understanding is that the Government intend to bring forward amendments for that purpose, but I would also like an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister at the Dispatch Box that that will be the case.
I am also concerned that new leasehold houses may still be permitted under exceptional circumstances. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to tell me exactly what those circumstances cover, and to assure me that safeguards will also be put in place. We need to ensure that that exception is used sparingly, if at all, and does not become a loophole for developers who simply wish to push more leaseholds in through the back door.
Turning to the extension of existing leases or the acquisition of freeholds, an important and necessary part of the proposed changes will be the extension of the lease, with a new standard 990-year lease with zero ground rent. The removal of the marriage value from the premium calculation is also welcome and much needed, and potentially represents a fair and equitable change for leaseholders. As you may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I raised my concerns in the debate on the King’s Speech that those reforms are long overdue. I am disappointed that they have come forward so late in this Parliament, especially when we promised reform as far back as February 2017.
I for one would not want to see current leaseholders, who have no choice but to renegotiate their current leases now, unfairly left out in the cold by our legislating so late in this Parliament. I therefore ask the Minister to consider a sunset clause in the Bill, to allow anyone who has had to negotiate since the start of the current Parliament to be afforded a right of passage under the reforms to extend their lease to the new standard.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who is no longer in her place, I would welcome the introduction of an online calculator for calculating the cost of an extension. I believe that would make the process simpler and more streamlined for those who are seeking to extend their lease or acquire the freehold. However, it must also be quick and inexpensive for leaseholders to calculate and find out the cost of an extension, because currently that is not the case. Put simply, the current system of using archaic graphs is another way to set the system against the leaseholder—and, sadly, too much of the current system is weighted in favour of the freeholder. That is why this legislation is so badly needed.
The change to ensure that legal costs be shared, as opposed to the current system whereby the leaseholder bears all the costs, is also welcome. We also need to end the weighting of independent arbitration through the Tribunals Service in favour of the freeholder. In considering this Bill, we have the opportunity to shape legislation and create a level playing field for both parties.
On commonhold we also need to do more. Reform would give the leaseholders of flats the right to acquire and manage the common parts of the building. That is potentially a welcome change, provided that protections against the abuse of service charges are in place. However, when it comes to disputes, there is a clear need to revamp the tribunal system. It does not fulfil what it was set out to achieve. The tribunal system was created to strengthen the rights of long leaseholders, and to provide a cheaper and quicker way to resolve disputes, yet in reality it is the antithesis of that.
Leaseholders often avoid the tribunal system altogether, due to fear of becoming liable for the freeholder’s tribunal costs, and regrettably there are many cases where freeholder landlords recruit high-powered barristers and simply pass their fees on to the leaseholders, regardless of whether they win or lose. It is also fair to say that that leads to leaseholders worrying that they will be unable adequately to defend their position on, for example, raising a dispute over unreasonable administration charges. That needs to change. We need a renewed and refreshed tribunal system that empowers and protects leaseholders.
There are additional things that we can also do to see improvements now for those with leaseholds. The right to manage is an important part of our toolkit, and I welcome measures in the Bill to improve that process. The current claims process is complex, and leaseholders can find their attempts frustrated by rogue freeholders who block them from exercising their rights. I would like to see more of the Law Commission’s recommendations implemented, particularly where we can make the process cheaper and less complicated to implement. Let us be bold and include more measures to help our homeowners to take back control.
There is also a strong need for a new regulatory model for managing agents. Under the current system, anyone can become a managing agent, regardless of experience. Unfortunately, many leaseholders report countless problems with their agent, from high service charges to lack of transparency or exclusion from decision making. Of course, there are some managing agents who perform well and choose to sign up to standards of practice, but there are many who do not. This, for me, is a clear case of a moral hazard. It must be addressed, and we have the opportunity to do so through this Bill.
I am pleased that the Government have committed to regulating managing agents through a single, mandatory and legally enforceable code of practice. Managing agents will be required to have a nationally recognised qualification to practice, which will be overseen by an independent regulator. By requiring them to adhere to minimum standards through a professional body, we can expect to see higher levels of professional conduct among all managing agents.
Finally, I want to mention housing associations. I would hope to see under this new legislation a requirement for greater transparency on service charges and the replacement of building insurance commissions for managing agents or landlords, with transparent administration fees, to benefit leaseholders who have exercised their right to buy within the social housing sector and those within the leasehold retirement bracket. Recently, I have come across numerous examples in my own constituency where leaseholders in those sectors have been left with unexplainable and unjustifiable bills—something that this legislation must stamp out.
To conclude, we have an opportunity with this Bill to get rid of archaic processes and systems, to renew and refresh the legislation on leasehold and to create a level playing field. There is much to welcome, but I still believe there is more that we can do through this legislation.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak on the Second Reading of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill and to follow so many excellent contributions from Members across the House. They have all provided examples, most of which I have experienced in my eight and a half years in this place.
For years and years, leaseholders, campaigners and groups such as the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership have been warning the Government about the huge harm being done by our outdated, feudal and antique leasehold system. Many of us have raised it in this House. Problems with leaseholds is one of the biggest issues brought to me by constituents, and I am sure if the Minister joined me in meeting residents of just one or two blocks in my constituency, whether it was Great West Quarter in Brentford, Grove House in Isleworth or Wheatstone House in Chiswick, he would see the wide array of problems caused by the leasehold system.
We have had nearly four years of promises from successive Conservative Housing Ministers and Secretaries of State to commit definitely to leasehold reform. The Government have talked a good game but failed to deliver the big comprehensive package of reforms needed. This piece of legislation is yet another example of that failure.
This was supposed to be the grand reforming Bill from the grand reforming Secretary of State, who is not currently in his place. He has become the Conservatives’ Mr Fix-It. He was sent in to fix the justice system and then the Cabinet Office, and even to deliver the parting blow to the former Prime Minister. When he was presented with the leasehold system, there was a glimmer of hope that the Government would slay the vested interests and finally fix this antique system—but no, the right hon. Member has flinched. He has failed, because before us today we see a timid and narrow Bill that does not go anywhere near far enough to fix the problems faced by leaseholders.
Most new homes in my constituency are flats, not houses, so although ending the sale of leasehold houses is welcome overall, it will not help my constituents and the millions across the country who are still living in, or face the prospect of living in, leasehold flats. If the House will indulge me, I will give a typical example of why the leasehold system is outdated and just what the legislation should be addressing.
Imagine someone in their early 30s on the career ladder in a reasonably well-paid job. They have saved up for years, often while stuck in private rentals. They finally have enough for a mortgage, and they can just about afford the monthly repayment rates. They look across west London and cannot afford to buy a house, but they then see a glossy advert for a flat. At first glance, it looks perfect. They have worked out that they can get a mortgage and use their deposit to get a foot on the ladder. It looks as if their salary can pay the mortgage and the service charge, so they buy and assume that they have a stake in the home that they now own.
Too often, they are kept in the dark by solicitors who are often recommended by developers. They move in and the problems start. They notice a few problems: the promised concierge might not be there; the gym on the brochure never opens; rubbish is left in the hallways; the car park barrier and the door from the car park into the flats are often broken, creating a security hazard; and heating and hot water stop working for weeks on end. They report those issues, but nothing happens. Then, they get their service charge bill in the post: it has increased to more than £7,000 a year, over 50% more than what they were told they would be spending.
One constituent has seen a trebling of their service charge since they bought their flat in 2017, but while the service charge goes up, the services get worse. Leaseholders feel that they are treated like cash cows. Then they are hit with an increase in their building insurance: what was £200 a year is now £400, £500 or more. They ask why those costs have gone up, but they do not receive a specific or clear answer. Many are faced with having to sell, sometimes at a loss.
If they were lured into shared ownership, managed by housing associations, they face additional problems. The part-buy/part-rent set-up is supposed to be targeted at keyworkers in the public sector, many of whom are on fixed pay. On top of the mortgage and service charges, those so-called owners—they are not really owners, are they?—find out that their rent is going up. In many cases, my constituents in shared ownership have seen rent increases of 6%, 7% or 8%. They only own 20% or 25%, and if they need to sell, they have to sell through their housing association, unless they are in the fortunate position of being able to step up and own the lease outright. A report that I read said that many housing associations drag their feet on resales as there is not much money to make from them. They focus their energy on getting the new blocks sold.
I have heard from many constituents who are shared owners. They wait months and months to sell, and have to pay for costly valuations, while they are trapped in limbo trying to get on with their lives. Many of my constituents who are leaseholders are also unable to sell because they are waiting for remediation work to begin on blocks deemed to be unsafe. Much of that emerged following the tragedy at Grenfell. Banks will still not approve mortgages for those blocks until the work is carried out, which means that, again, those leaseholders are trapped in limbo.
In one case in my constituency, Galliard Homes has delayed and delayed taking any action, despite promises that it would start months ago. Leaseholders in blocks below 12 metres are still responsible for funding building safety fixes. They were carved out and left to deal with the crisis themselves. For one of my constituents, that means a £20,000 bill hanging over their head. The building safety crisis is a wider symptom of the building culture that the leasehold system encouraged; a system in which a small number of people and companies are able to make huge profits, with absolutely zero oversight of the build quality.
Let me move on to repairs. The residents of Wheatstone House in Chiswick, which is managed by L&Q, face an example of poor repairs services. Leaseholders and tenants in that block have known their hot water and heating not to work for days on end. That started last winter and is back again this winter. Each time, residents get a lacklustre and slow response from L&Q. We saw a repeat of such poor service when Peabody-Catalyst dragged its feet for months in fixing the lift at Aplin Way in Isleworth, trapping some residents upstairs. The developer then tried to leave leaseholders with a huge bill. Others have district heating systems that run at 35% efficiency but cost a lot of money. What does the legislation do to address those issues?
On service charges, management companies have their cake and eat it. The hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who is no longer in his place, mentioned the excess charges, increases well above inflation, deteriorating service and opaque bills. Management companies are often too closely aligned by ownership with the freeholders. The same names keep coming up: Rendall & Rittner and FirstPort appear to be hoovering up the management contracts for a range of blocks, including housing association, shared ownership and resident management companies, all the while providing an appalling service to the leaseholders.
On declining value and the need to extend leases, constituents have told me about how they worry about their future if they have less than 80 years left on their lease. I do not think that the Bill does enough to address that challenge.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) has said that a Labour Government would go further and ensure that everyone who wanted to move from leasehold to commonhold would be able to do so. A Labour Government will make commonhold the default tenure for all new properties, and will carry out the Law Commission’s recommendations—I welcome that. Labour will also address the omission on deferment rates. We will do what the Conservatives have failed to do.
I have touched on only some of the many and varied issues that my leaseholder constituents have faced. The legislation does not go far enough for them and will not fix the problems that they face. It will not help those who are stuck in limbo and unable to sell, it will not help those who were tricked into shared ownership with false promises, and it will not prevent yet more leaseholders from having their lives turned upside down. When someone is handed their first set of keys, it should be a day of dreams, but for so many of my constituents and millions of people across the country, that dream has turned into a nightmare. The Government had a chance to end that nightmare through this piece of legislation, but they have failed to do so.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Leaseholders at 8 Artillery Row pay on average £2,000 in service charges each month. The managing agent, Avon Ground Rents Ltd, refuses to disclose what is included in those charges and to provide invoices. One of the charges was £30,000 for legal and professional fees, requested without explanation or detail, even though leaseholders asked—reasonably—for information for over two years.
Leaseholders in Neville House in Westminster are living in a cladding nightmare. Although Westminster City Council issued a hazard awareness notice on the building, no remedial works have been undertaken because the managing agent, Estates & Management Ltd, has failed to agree with the developers, Berkeley Homes, on the terms of a survey licence. As a result, the homes are unsellable.
The leaseholders of Blake Tower on the Barbican estate are living in a building with ongoing fire safety issues. The developer, Redrow, committed to dealing with those issues but has yet to undertake the necessary inspections. The tower also has building defects so serious that they have resulted in several flats being unliveable. The local authority, the City of London Corporation, shares my concerns and those of my constituents, and I understand that it is about to take action.
Those are just a few examples of the appalling behaviour of freeholders in my constituency. I have been contacted by countless leaseholders who routinely report appalling practices related to service charges, the cost of major works and the extortionate charges they face when renewing their leases. When they request information or explanation, they often face a wall of silence from freeholders and their agents. “Extortionate” is probably the correct word, as what some freeholders and their accomplices—including managing agents, lawyers and accountants—are involved in is often little better than extortion. Those freeholders should instead be described as freeloaders.
The Bill responds to the concerns raised by so many of my constituents. For example, clause 27 aims to make service charges more transparent, ending the practice of demanding unexplained service charges that too many freeholders engage in, often just to profit off leaseholders. The introduction of a standardised form for freeholders requesting service charges from their leaseholders is certainly welcome, but I would like more detail about what information will need to be disclosed and how much warning freeholders will have to give leaseholders regarding costs.
Too many of my leaseholder constituents have told me that they choose not to take their landlords to tribunal, as they could be liable for their huge legal fees even if they win. I therefore welcome clause 34, which responds to that concern by ensuring that leaseholders will no longer be liable for those costs. I also welcome the fact that the Bill overhauls previous legislation by increasing the standard lease extension term for houses and flats to 990 years, as well as reducing ground rent to a peppercorn upon payment of a premium. That will ensure that leaseholders can enjoy secure, ground-rent-free ownership of their own property without the hassle and expense of repeated lease extensions.
Another game changer in the Bill is the commitment to removing marriage value. For far too long, when leaseholders want to extend their leases, they have been at the mercy of their freeholder and that freeholder’s agents, and have faced some questionable practices. The Bill makes it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to extend their lease or buy their freehold. It removes the requirement to pay marriage value, capping the treatment of ground rents at 0.1% of the freehold value in the calculation and prescribing rates for that calculation.
Clause 22 will increase the non-residential limit of a block from 25% to 50% when it comes to securing the right to manage and enfranchisement, meaning that more blocks that are a mix of residential and commercial property will have the right to manage and buy their freehold. However, that still requires 50% of the leaseholders in a block to agree to go ahead with the right to manage, which could prove near impossible for many of my constituents, due to the unique nature of the Cities of London and Westminster. Over 1,300 properties in the City of London, and a staggering 12,100 in Westminster, have owners who live abroad or are owned by companies using central London’s golden postcodes as a place to park their cash. As such, while my constituents and I warmly welcome the Government’s intention to support leaseholders who want to manage their blocks, it will prove difficult in my constituency to achieve the 50% of signatories required.
If the proposed legislation is to achieve what the Government hope for constituencies such as mine, I ask them to consider making the thresholds more flexible—perhaps by stating that 50% of signatories should be leaseholders of apartments that are their main home, rather than an investment, or reducing the threshold for the right to manage to 35% of leaseholders. I would welcome further discussions with the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), on that point. I thank him for meeting me and my leasehold reform working group, made up of constituents who are dealing with some of the most egregious freeholders in my constituency. The 50% threshold was discussed in some detail with the Minister at that meeting.
Another area of huge concern for leaseholders is the cost of major works and estate management charges. I have lost count of the number of constituents who have contacted me for help regarding those issues: for example, leaseholders living on the Golden Lane estate in the City are being asked to pay tens of thousands of pounds extra because the freeholder, the City of London Corporation, is 20 years behind schedule. In Russell House and Churchill Gardens, which are both in Pimlico, residents are failing to secure details on timings and costs from Westminster City Council.
Time and again, I receive complaints from constituents living in private and social blocks that, while they appreciate that they have to pay for major works and repairs, they want the freeholder—whether it is a private company or a local authority—to be open and transparent about costs. I therefore welcome clause 40 of the Bill, which will provide more transparency about major work costs. Similar to service charge expenses, landlords will have to fill out a standardised form to demonstrate exactly how the leaseholders’ money will be spent and ensure that the works are carried out to a certain standard.
I take this opportunity to thank Harry Scoffin, the founder of Free Leaseholders, for his incredible work. His support and technical knowledge has been invaluable to me and my constituents when considering the Bill. I welcome the Bill, and look forward to working with the Minister and my constituents to ensure that we end the many questionable practices of some freeholders and ensure that the leasehold and freehold system in this country is open, transparent and fair.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate—it has been fascinating to hear from Members from around the Chamber. I pay tribute to the dedicated campaigners, including the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the National Leasehold Campaign, for their hard work up to this point. They have campaigned tirelessly for justice in the broken leasehold system, and for the Government to live up to their own manifesto promise and bring this Bill before the House. I am sure they will continue to campaign.
It is estimated that there are 4.86 million leasehold homes in England. That is 4.86 million households stuck in a system that denies people power, control or even a say over the security, safety and future of their own home. As we have seen, this is a cross-party issue: Members from across the House have been expressing the concerns of their constituents for many years, long before I arrived in this place a year ago. This Bill is an opportunity to rebalance the scales in favour of leaseholders, but the question remains: will it actually do so? Unfortunately, I and many others feel disappointed by the limited state of the Bill before us.
It is often said that an empty vessel makes the loudest noise. We have heard a lot of noise, which may reveal the reality that this Bill is somewhat hollow. Not only does it not ensure that new flats will be sold as freehold, contrary to what Ministers have claimed; it does not even do what it says on the tin and ban the sale of new leasehold houses, as the Government originally promised, because it contains no provisions to end leaseholds on newly built houses in England and Wales. I understand that that ban is going to be brought in in Committee, but it was first promised in December 2017 by the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid). Originally, the Government claimed to have run out of time to put it into the Bill, but they have been planning it for six years. They repeatedly comment on how complicated leasehold law is, yet they cannot include that one simple provision in the Bill. In reality, it is leaseholders who are exasperated.
Indeed, it appears that the Government have dropped quite a lot of the Law Commission’s recommendations. They claim that the Bill will make it easier, cheaper and quicker to buy the freehold or extend the lease on a property, but how do we know that without knowing what the prescribed rates will be? Thousands of leaseholders have been waiting for this Bill to arrive, and in the meantime they remain in a state of leasehold limbo, trapped by this iniquitous system. Many are unable to sell and move on with their lives. They are being forced into a game of poker in which the stakes could not be higher. Do leaseholders stick, and wait to buy their freehold or extend their lease—in itself, an appreciating asset—in the hope that Government promises to make it cheaper actually materialise, or do they twist, and pay these faceless offshore investment companies thousands of pounds? I do not know the answer, and I am not too sure the Government do either. Professional valuers and leasehold solicitors are struggling to advise their clients, too. Without knowing what the prescribed rates are going to be when calculating these figures, the claim that this legislation will make it cheaper to buy is unsubstantiated.
Also missing from the Bill is the regulation of property agents. The single biggest rip-off in the leasehold system is service charges, and without robust regulation of this, it will continue and leaseholders will remain at the mercy of bad managing agents. On the Opposition Benches, we are committed to implementing the recommendations of Lord Best’s working group, which were published by the Government four long years ago and on which they have sat. The Government have yet another consultation, which leaseholders are busy completing as we speak, on reducing current ground rents for existing leaseholders. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has pointed out, it is not quite clear what the relationship is between this Bill and that consultation, but perhaps the Minister will expand on that.
After so many years of unfulfilled promises, the Government appear to have yet again failed to deliver for our constituents. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has said, a Labour Government will make commonhold the default tenure for all new properties, as part of our commitment to reform the leasehold system fundamentally and comprehensively, by enacting in full the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, commonhold and the right to manage. I am glad to see this Bill in front of us, but from listening to this debate, it is still clear that there remains a great deal of work ahead before these fine ambitions become a reality. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that we need a Labour Government to truly deliver for the so many people stuck in this feudal system.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, which sees long-term changes to improve home ownership for leaseholders and freeholders alike. As many people have said, the Bill is much needed, and I am glad it is finally here. It is also a pleasure to be speaking on behalf of a constituent of mine, who does not wish to be named, but who, through the numerous conversations I have had with her over the years, has enlightened me about the significant difficulties and obstacles that many leaseholders face.
These difficulties include, but are not limited to, high service and administration fees, disproportionate costs when wanting to extend leases, managing agents displaying poor practice and, in particular, imbalances in the dispute mechanism. Most of these my constituent has had to deal with personally, and they have impacted on her in numerous ways and led to a long, hard battle that she is still fighting. I can only imagine the stress and concerns that this brings to many families, and many of these points have been raised already this evening. It is through these conversations that I know how many leaseholders feel insecure and uneasy about owning a home with the sector as it currently stands. Leaseholders are a residential sector that makes up 20%—almost 5 million properties—of the housing stock in England. As such, it is important that we strike a balance between the rights of the tenants and those of the landlords, while ensuring that there are more powers and protections for those owning a home.
The Government have committed to not only increasing housing supply, but ensuring that more people feel protected and secure when looking to rent or own their own home. That is a problem I do not need to mention in this House yet again, given the pressures of living in an idyllic coastal area such as North Norfolk, which has some of the highest numbers of second homes and holiday accommodation in the UK. I similarly welcomed the Renters (Reform) Bill for tenants and landlords, and it is encouraging to see that extended to leasehold and freehold as well.
However, as others in the Chamber have said, the Bill does not go far enough in the eyes of many. It can be incredibly tiring, financially taxing and stressful for leaseholders, especially when trying to extend their lease or challenge poor practice. The Bill is trying to make it cheaper and easier for leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease and buy the freehold, improve transparency and rebalance the legal costs regime, as well as removing barriers for leaseholders to challenge their landlords’ unreasonable charges at a tribunal.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he is saying. I know the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is for England and Wales, but it seems that there are many good things in it that, even if the Bill does not go far enough, are to be welcomed. May I, through the hon. Gentleman, ask the Minister, on the finalisation of the Bill, to share information about it with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Department for Communities in particular, to ensure that we can take advantage of the good things in the Bill back home?
Duncan Baker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I think he is right. There are many good things in the Bill, but it does need to go further. I will come on to some of the issues in a moment, but the particular items on which we need to go further are those raised directly by my constituent, who has written to me about this for the last couple of years. It is welcome that the Bill is here, but I already understand that it will be amended, which will be important as it goes forward.
As I have said, I am aware that the Government are planning amendments to take the Bill further. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we should give ample time to consult on those amendments, particularly—for me and my constituent—those in respect of the first-tier tribunal system to ensure that all barriers are removed for leaseholders challenging their landlords. We also need to take time to discuss the benefits of bolstering commonholds to ensure that leaseholders who own flats have the same protections and freedoms as those who live in houses. There needs to be better regulation of managing agents—that has been mentioned already—and, as a basic requirement, the first-tier tribunal system needs the jurisdiction to enforce its own orders. Without strengthening the Bill on that in particular, there will not be a significant impact on my constituent.
We have said all along that the Bill has cross-party support, which is really positive in this place. As I have said before, it is positive to see the Government are taking a leading step to help ensure that leaseholders are better protected. It is opening up further opportunities for people to own their own homes, but I hope it does go further so that I can support my constituent and we can really deliver the radical changes we need.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
May I begin by echoing the comments of those on both Front Benches in supporting all those who, for many years, have been working on leasehold reform? As we have seen from this debate, this cuts across the Benches, because it is a classic example of the reality that we see in our constituency surgeries day in and day out. I also pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform for all the work it has done. I know that I have benefited from reading much of its material while trying—often in vain, frankly—to help constituents with freehold manager companies.
As we head into the festive period, I know that this would be the best possible Christmas present we could give to so many people who are struggling with the impact of what I call “leasemin”—the day-to-day admin or work they have to do to manage the fact that they have a leasehold property. In my constituency, like that of so many other hon. Members, thousands of people are in that position. It is not just about the costs of renewing a lease; it is the day-to-day problems that come from being in a leasehold block.
Given that it is the festive period and we all want to give people good news at this time of the year, I have to tell the Minister that it does feel a bit as though my constituents have seen Santa’s sleigh flying past with all the lovely presents, but all they are getting is a lump of coal because so many of them are in flats that will not be affected by this legislation. May I urge him to think about what more we could do to protect those people in flats, because there has been an explosion of this, particularly in cities and in areas such as mine?
Sadly, I am told this evening that Condé Nast has described part of my constituency as one of the new hot places. I always dread it when I see that because it means a lot more building, a lot more pressure on house prices and very little support for my local residents. So many of the people who move into those properties will be moving into leasehold properties and face these problems; they will face that basic nightmare of thinking they own their home when they really do not. It is theirs but only under certain conditions; it is not their castle to do what they want with. Those conditions can be about whether they can have pets or a loft extension. During the pandemic, many residents could not access the energy-saving proposals because that had to be done at leaseholder level and their leasehold managers were not doing anything about it.
There have been good freehold companies as well as bad ones; there is variation. But the fundamental challenge at the heart of this legislation, and why I asked the Secretary of State about it earlier, is that commonhold is the only way we can genuinely give voice to people. It is a voice that deals with the “leasemin” problem—much more so than having the most efficient freehold management companies possible. So I want to stress to the Minister that there is still time to put commonhold as the default tenure into this legislation, and give people the Christmas present they really deserve—the most proper protection against being exploited that we could offer.
Let me give the Minister some context for why I feel so strongly about this. The number of flats in my community has risen 13% in the last eight years while the numbers of other types of properties have remained broadly static. Frankly, every time Kirstie and Phil turn up in Walthamstow, we see another tower block go up, and those tower blocks are leasehold; more than half the property transactions last year were for leasehold properties.
This is a massive issue now for most local residents, fundamentally changing the nature of my community both in terms of the people who can afford to live in those properties and the impact this is having on the cost of living. It is no surprise to me that I have the ninth highest level of child poverty when I look at people who have bought what they think are great starter homes but then find themselves saddled with charges and costs that they cannot afford in order to try to stay in the area. The question for me is whether this legislation will address the challenges that they are facing, and I do not see that happening, However, I do want to acknowledge there are many things in the legislation that we all welcome, such as the shift to peppercorn rents and ending escalating ground rents, which for some of my constituents has been a massive challenge, and the idea of longer default leases.
Many people in my constituency are part of a group of leaseholders because they live in properties that were built en masse. That is not a recent phenomenon. Indeed, I want to talk about the Warner estate in Walthamstow. They are beautiful properties, and I declare that I used to live in one myself. They were built from the 1930s to house the workers for our local industrial estates in the Lea valley. They were purpose-built flats built in two-storey terraced rows with a double front door and a split back garden. On a practical basis, that means that both residents in the properties have to want to buy the freehold, which creates a barrier for people and a challenge for so many of my constituents.
More fundamentally, the frustration I see is that, although thousands of residents live in these properties, every single one of them has a different interaction with the freehold manager. That is partly because in 2002 a situation happened which this legislation would not deal with. The Warner estate was sold and split up between Circle 33, Final Brief and various other commercial freeholders. The Minister might say that the residents would have had the right of first refusal, but because the leasehold companies were sold within parent companies and child companies of each other, residents did not get a look in. Therefore, local residents who organised themselves into Warner estate residents groups have had to deal with different companies even though they live side-by-side, complicating their ability to exercise what few rights they have under existing legislation. That means that there are different prices for renewal of the same length of leases, and different prices for quotes for having an extension and the paperwork needed for that. The most egregious difference is in the insurance they were all charged. In fact, many years ago they were asked to take on terrorism insurance for living in these properties. When I queried that with the freehold company, I was sent back the details of somebody who had been accused of terrorism and lived in Walthamstow; therefore, those who wanted to continue to live in the Warner properties as leaseholders needed to pay that additional premium. That is all perfectly legal and at the moment in this legislation there is no way to challenge that when a freeholder “takes the mickey”—I was trying to find a polite parliamentary term.
I guess my leaseholders on the Warner estate are at least grateful that they do not have a lease for Bridge Court, which is under—I am sure the Minister will know the name of this management company— Y&Y Management.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
indicated assent.
Stella Creasy
As the Minister is nodding, he will know the amount of casework that small set of properties, only 24 flats, has generated for me over the years. To give some examples of the charges residents have faced, one was given an extra £1,500 bill and another was due to be evicted for being spuriously charged £5,000 by that company. It is not legally possible for those residents to withhold those payments and not lose their properties, so they had to try to find the money to pay, even though it was patently obvious that that egregious company was levying the charges as punishment for their having dared to exercise their rights. The only option open to them was to go to court.
Again, this legislation offers nothing to help support people in such a situation. It offers nothing to help support people when their freehold manager shifts the leasehold around to avoid them having the right to manage or even the right to buy their own freehold out. This company decided the private communal gardens could be turned into a public car park, opening up the entire estate and letting in huge problems with antisocial behaviour, all because it thought it could make a fast buck in the London area with a car park.
Y&Y then transferred the ownership of the building to Triplerose, a management company owned by Israel Moskovitz, who is part of Y&Y Management. Just the other week a resident came to me to point out that they had an onerous ground rent clause, which means that their ground rent has to be reviewed every five years against the retail price rate. That was not in the original lease but was added in. The owners of that property tried to sell the flat, and they asked whether they could vary that condition, because it was stopping them being able to sell it. Triplerose responded, demanding an immediate non-refundable payment to provide a quote—just a quote—for what it would cost to vary that condition. It then came back with a quote of £700 for an admin fee, £1,400 for legal fees and £8,000 for the premium.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I have some casework that sounds similar to that which the hon. Lady is describing. It is at Pebble Beach in Seaton. A constituent wrote to say that she wanted to change the name on the deeds and introduce her partner’s name, and FirstPort wanted to charge her £540 just to get its approval. Does the hon. Lady agree that some of the leasehold companies we are talking about are charging Fortnum & Mason prices for services we might associate with Trotters Independent Traders?
Stella Creasy
I think even Del Boy had limits compared with some of the people we are talking about.
The Minister would probably say that in those circumstances the changes being made to ground rent should resolve the situation, and he would be right, but my broader point is that those residents have no redress. At the moment, the Bill does not come with forms of redress, and without redress it does not matter what rights people have because they cannot action them.
Those residents actually did go to a first-tier tribunal. They clubbed together, took on the risk and won—and understandably so, because if someone turns the private gardens into a car park, allowing people into the block, that does rather undermine the concept of service charges. They have been waiting three years for the compensation they are entitled to as a result of that ruling. Again, nothing in the Bill would change that. But that they went to a tribunal with a company with such a track record for doing these things over and over again, and that it meant nothing for future legislation and had no preventive effect, is perhaps the biggest and most important message Ministers should take from this debate. The fact that people cannot set precedent by winning a leasehold tribunal means that residents who live in blocks that are very similar go through the same fights again and again, and the same companies know they can get away with it again and again.
In any other legal situation there would be court precedent and opportunities for redress for our constituents. Surely, one of the things that we can do through the Bill is to change that and learn from other courts, because that “leasemin” is so time-consuming and stressful to so many of these people, and that is why they end up at our doorstep. Nobody wants to take on the risk of legal action if they can avoid it, especially if they have no guarantee that, even though the situation is patently unfair and somebody else has won a very similar case, that will make a difference.
We see it every single day. We see the people with repairs. I think of Hainault Court in my constituency, which has a freeholder of various names, including Freshwater, Highdorn and Daejan—it uses different ones all the time—where residents have spent hours of their lives trying to get the basic repairs that they pay their service charge for. They were charged £10,000 to replace a collapsed boundary wall. They got their own estimates, and it should have cost only £2,000 or £3,000. In a community where everybody is short of cash at the end of the month and every single penny counts, knowing that they have no alternative is a very poor place to be.
I wish I could say that situation is just in the private sector, but my own council was taken to court successfully by leaseholders over the charges being proposed for repairs and renovations in some of our local estates. Again, I hope that the Minister thinks about the right to manage, which is difficult to do in a block with a mix of social housing and leasehold property. In London, there are an awful lot of those properties, thanks to right to buy.
I also think of those people stuck with nothing to put any impetus on their property managers to do the right thing, even though they recognise that they need to do the right thing. I think of Hoffmans Road in my constituency, which is in that patch that Condé Nast is telling everybody to visit right now. The residents have no security on their building, because the doors do not work. The property company, Fexco, tells me that it is a problem for the developer, Taylor Wimpey. Taylor Wimpey, however, thinks it is for the property manager to use the money from the service charge to fix it. Nothing in this legislation will give those residents—my constituents—the ability to just get it sorted in the way that commonhold would.
We all have hundreds of examples. One thing that I have learned in this place over 13 years is that when we get these precious opportunities—when there is cross-party agreement that reform needs to happen—we should aim for the big reform, because we might not get the opportunity ever again. Nobody in this Chamber can defend freehold. Nobody can defend leasehold. We can all see the value in having a system that allows our constituents to have a direct voice. Goodness knows, I am sure for many of us it would cut the amount of casework we have, if nothing else. It would be a lot clearer what redress our residents have, before they have to go to court in the first place.
If we cannot have courts making precedent-setting rulings, can we at least look at how we can give our residents a stronger voice? For so many of them, it is the difference between a life well lived and a life lived in stress, wishing that they had never even bought the thing that they dreamed of, fought for and saved for longest of all. I had a cladding developer that said that it had put itself out of business so that it did not have to do the cladding; it was too small to be liable for it. Those residents are still waiting for redress.
All those issues tell us that this is not about a big-P political issue; it is about the day-to-day practical implementation. If we get this legislation right, we can solve so many headaches for so many people. I hope the Minister will not be Scrooge. I hope he will not be the Grinch. I hope he will think about what he can do for all those people sitting in those flats tonight, looking at the lump of coal that this legislation represents for them. Will he extend the Christmas cheer not just to those who might have been threatened by leasehold for houses, but to all those in leasehold flats right now? I know it would give everybody a very good 2024 if he did.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It has been a privilege to sit here for five hours and listen to all the passionate contributions from all parts of the House, with a pretty unanimous view. First, I thank Cath Williams, Katie Kendrick and Barry Kushner for their help in my constituency with the many leaseholder issues that I have had. For millions of people, the housing sector is broken. Everywhere within it we see a huge imbalance of power, and that has had a devastating impact on the health and wellbeing of thousands of my constituents in Liverpool, West Derby, and so many people across the country, as we have heard today. That injustice is encapsulated by the frankly medieval ownership framework, which creates a clear imbalance of power between leaseholder and freeholder. The scandal of leasehold must be brought to an end for the millions who have bought their home but do not feel like they own it.
While I welcome the promise of some of the reforms in this long-overdue Bill, many of which came from the Select Committee on which I serve, I am extremely disappointed that it does not directly tackle ground rents. I suspect that the Government know exactly what existing leaseholders urgently require from them on ground rents, so I am dismayed that rather than addressing that matter directly, they have decided to consult on it. The vested interests have definitely won again.
Practically every constituent I have heard from on this matter—and there have been many—tells me that they want ground rents abolished so that they can be guaranteed secure, ground rent-free ownership of their property for years to come, without the stress and expense of repeated lease extensions. I note that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) agrees. He spoke eloquently about it today, and he said last week that ground rents on leasehold properties needed to be
“peppercorn or zero, it’s as simple as that.”
My constituents also want to see a Bill that contains all the Law Commission’s proposals, rather than the watered-down version before us today. I am glad that our Front Bench team confirmed that that is what we will do if we get into government.
I am also dismayed that the Government have not gone so far as to abolish new leaseholds on flats. That is a huge mistake. Can the Minister give a reason why flats, which make up 70% of leasehold properties, will continue to be sold as leasehold, when he was elected on a specific manifesto promise to end that practice? The Government had the opportunity in this Bill to put a stop to what the Secretary of State himself recently called the outdated “feudal system” of leasehold. Instead, they appear content for new flats to continue to be bought and sold as leasehold. That is incredibly disappointing for so many people across the country.
If Ministers are serious about doing away with leasehold, they need to ban leasehold on all new flats, as well as new houses. Let us be clear: the only argument for retaining leasehold on flats is to allow management agencies and freeholders to continue to exploit leaseholders for the purpose of profit over principle, with the status quo prevailing. That has not been the mood music from those on the Government Front Bench, but talk is cheap in this place, as I have found out.
Until leasehold is banned, homeowners will continue to be held hostage in their own homes. Given the current economic situation, the delays and lack of clarity on a timetable for overdue reform are increasingly frustrating for my constituents. It is unacceptable that they continue to be subjected to extortionate, unjustified charges and escalating ground rents. What is more, I am convinced that the leasehold system is not only unfair, but a genuine health and safety risk, as has been outlined today, when we consider the continued delays to the vital fire safety recommendations made by the inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire.
The National Leasehold Campaign has welcomed this long-overdue legislation, but considers several key items to be missing from the Bill, and I completely agree. Those measures include, but are not limited to: prescribed capitalisation and deferment rates for valuers to value lease extensions or freehold purchases; abolishing forfeiture, which is used against leaseholders and serves as a massive windfall for freeholders; an online calculator for lease extension and freehold purchase; steps to progress the adoption of commonhold; the regulation of managing agents, as we have heard about today; and making it easier for leaseholders to have the right to manage.
If the Government are truly serious about ending the nightmare for leaseholders, they need to urgently revisit this legislation. I suggest that they meet the National Leasehold Campaign and the Law Commission to ensure that the key recommendations by both bodies are included in the Bill as it moves forward.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I start by declaring an interest: my wife is the joint chief executive of the Law Commission, whose work I intend to cite in my remarks.
It is a pleasure to close this Second Reading debate for the Opposition, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in it. I echo what so many others have said and add my own tribute to all the individuals and organisations who have campaigned for so long for reform in this area.
As a number of contributors to the debate have pointed out, we have waited a long time for this Bill. It was just under six years ago that the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), announced that the Government intended to introduce a series of measures to end unfair and abusive practices within the leasehold system, including—I quote here from a Government press release in December 2017—
“legislating to prevent the sale of new build leasehold houses”.
That 2017 announcement was developed three years later, during the tenure of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) as Secretary of State. In a written ministerial statement dated 11 January 2021, he announced
“seminal two-part legislation to implement leasehold and commonhold reforms in this Parliament”.
The first part of that two-part legislative agenda duly followed, in the form of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022. Although we—and in particular the shadow Minister for homelessness and building safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury)—pressed Ministers to use that Act to implement further reform, we nonetheless supported the Government in passing it. In the 17 months since the Act came into force, successive Ministers have made all manner of extravagant promises about what the second part of the “seminal two-part legislation” would entail. Indeed, the current Secretary of State, in an interview with The Sunday Times in January this year, even went so far as to declare, without qualification, that he intended to abolish the leasehold system in its entirety.
Leaseholders across the country, whose daily lives are often made miserable by the unjust and discriminatory practices that our archaic leasehold system facilitates, took Tory Ministers at their word. They expected the second part of the promised two-part legislative agenda to live up to the weighty promises made by the Government. They have been badly let down. Having waited so long and had their expectations raised so high, they are understandably disappointed at the limited Bill that we are considering today. And it is a limited Bill, and no amount of bravado from the Secretary of State can alter that fact. They are also perplexed, as we are, that legislation that the Government claimed would end leaseholds on newly built houses in England and Wales does not actually contain any provision to end such leaseholds.
When the Minister responds to the debate, he will no doubt attempt to brush that criticism aside, as he did in oral questions last week, on the grounds that it is entirely normal for key provisions of a Bill to be added in Committee. Sadly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) mentioned in opening the debate, it is common practice for this Government, and this Secretary of State in particular, to significantly expand the size and scope of Bills by incorporating swathes of Government amendments in Committee and on Report in a way that limits the ability of hon. Members to ensure that full scrutiny takes place. However, the Minister is fooling no one in attempting to suggest that the omission from the legislation of key provisions was always the Government’s intent.
I remind the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) did, that the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove committed the Government to legislating to prevent the sale of new build leasehold houses nearly six years ago. The Government have no excuse whatsoever for failing to include in the Bill the provisions necessary to enact that commitment in order for the House to consider them properly today. That they failed to do so no doubt owes more to hurried drafting, and to the wrangling between the Department and No. 10 that has taken place over recent months in respect of this Bill, than to any considered design. However, for all the confusion that surrounded it, the legislation before us has answered one important question: how ambitious do the Government wish to be when it comes to leasehold reform? Because this unambitious piece of legislation makes it clear that proponents of caution and restraint have won out over those who want to lay claim to a legacy of bold reform in this area.
That criticism cannot simply be brushed aside as carping on the part of the Opposition. The Government’s poverty of ambition has real implications for leaseholders being routinely gouged by freeholders under the present system. Take flats, which are the overwhelming majority of new leasehold properties being created and the source of most of the leasehold-related complaints that I receive from constituents. The Government’s stated solution for them, as made clear by Baroness Penn in the other place just last week, is reinvigorating commonhold, yet the Minister of State made it clear on Monday that the Government do not intend to incorporate into this Bill any provisions whatsoever relating to commonhold, despite the clear commitment they made in 2021. Instead, it remains part of their “long-term approach”. In other words, the Government’s offer to swathes of leaseholders across the country is jam tomorrow.
The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), known affectionately as No. 15 on these Benches, gave the game away. She said that all the work has already been done on commonhold, so it is not a matter of complexity; it is a political choice on the Government’s part not to introduce commonhold provisions in this legislation. What is so galling about the position that Ministers have adopted is that there is clearly widespread support across the House for the more ambitious leasehold reform that could have been incorporated into the Bill, and this debate has demonstrated it. However, in the dying days of this Government, we are where we are.
While we deeply regret the Bill’s lack of ambition, we have no intention of voting against Second Reading this evening. We support the intent of the provisions in the legislation before us and the principle of the Bill as a whole. The measures it contains will give homeowners in England and Wales some greater rights, powers and protections over their homes. That is not to say that we do not have concerns about the efficacy of some of them; we do, and we will seek to strengthen the Bill in a number of ways in Committee. For example, we believe that clauses 12 and 13, which are intended to protect leaseholders from covering the legal and valuation costs associated with lease extensions, require tightening if we are to prevent, in practice, freeholders recovering litigation and non-litigation costs. To take another example, we believe that clause 23, which seeks to replace the existing costs regime for right to manage claims, is flawed and needs overhauling if it is to protect, in practice, RTM companies from cost claims by landlords.
We also believe that this limited Bill can be improved in ways that will give future leaseholders more control over their future. For example, we think there is an iron-strong case for adding to the Bill provisions that would abolish forfeiture for leases entirely and replace it with a more equitable means for freeholders to recover costs in a dispute that does not involve a windfall. I was pleased by the signal that the Secretary of State gave on that front in opening the debate. To take another example, we think there is merit in adding to the Bill provisions that would ensure that leases on new flats include a requirement to establish and operate a residents’ management company responsible for all service charge matters and associated works, with each leaseholder given a share.
We will seek to convince the Government of the merits of those and other measures when we go into Committee in the new year, and we will engage constructively with the Government if they decide to introduce other bold measures into the Bill at that stage—for example, if Ministers are minded to implement the Law Commission’s proposals on the right to manage, covering both flats and houses.
However, we recognise that there is only so much that we can do with the legislation before us. Given the paucity of the Bill’s ambition and the fact that it does not contain so many of the commitments that successive Secretaries of State have made, not least in relation to the promised widespread introduction of the commonhold tenure, it is clear that it will now fall to a Labour Government to fundamentally and comprehensively reform the leasehold system, including the reinvigoration of commonhold to such an extent that it will become the default and ultimately render leasehold obsolete.
We are pleased that the Bill will progress today. It will provide some limited relief to leaseholders. We will seek to improve it with a view to extracting from the Government any extra measures that further empower leaseholders and disturb the historical iniquity on which the present system rests. Leaseholders across the country who remain at the mercy of arcane and discriminatory practices, to their detriment and to the benefit of freeholders, rightly expect nothing less. But leaseholders across the country expected so much more from the Government. We are clear that, in due course, Labour will have to finish the job and enact all the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold in full. We are determined to do so.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to wind up the debate after so many useful, thoughtful and detailed contributions. In that spirit, I want to spend a little time going through some of those details. Before doing so, I wish to thank, as so many others have, all the campaigners and all those who have spent so much time working in this area for so many years.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), the hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), and all those who intervened for the helpful comments they provided.
I welcome the general and broad support for the actions that are being taken in the Bill. I also welcome the consensus in the House on the need for reform, which I know, as was highlighted several times, has been some time coming. I hope right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that this is a complicated and intricate area, which is observable not least from the many examples given in the debate. We now have in front of us a good proposition for making progress.
Our focus in the Bill is on being able to make practical progress—to make the Bill as practically useful as it can be—and then to have the greatest impact that it can have. Some, including hon. Members tonight, have said that it does not go far enough; others have said that we should return to first principles and seek to build the whole system again. I am sure that those hon. Members will make their case in Committee if they are part of it, and on Report and in subsequent stages. The Government seek to have a proposition on which can be built; one that is practical, achievable and makes a difference. The art of politics is about being able to make progress, and we think that the Bill will make a significant difference to people’s lives.
Let me turn to some comments made in the debate. I pay tribute to the long-standing work of the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West. He raised a number of points, which we will go through in more detail in Committee, but I want to highlight his point on building safety with regard to sub-11 metre properties. A number of Members made similar comments. We have a process in place, so if colleagues have concerns about fire remediation issues in sub-11 metre properties, they should ensure that they get the appropriate fire assessments needed in all buildings. If substantial works are needed to those properties, they can be raised with the Department, which has committed at this Dispatch Box and has executed commitments to look into those issues in more detail.
I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee, chaired by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. I particularly enjoy our interactions on this issue because it gives me, like him, the opportunity repeatedly to say as a constituency MP how outraged I am about Coppen Estates’s consistent failure to respond. That is a hallmark of a small cohort of actors in this area, which consistently and flagrantly ignore reality and their ability to make a difference to our residents’ lives. Coppen Estates is a good example of such actors, but there are many others.
Mr Betts
I thank the Minister for responding to that point. Will he look at strengthening the Bill to stop companies like Coppen Estates avoiding the legislation? Strengthening the legislation is fine, and so is changing the way that enfranchisement fees are calculated so that people get a better deal, but in the end, the freeholder has to respond, which Coppen Estates refuses to do. My constituents in the Flockton estate in Sheffield have tried and failed for years to get a response. How will the legislation be strengthened to ensure that such companies respond?
Lee Rowley
I am very happy to look at specific issues in Committee. As the Secretary of State highlighted in his opening speech, if there are areas where we can improve the Bill, we will be happy to do so. I cannot make promises, but we are happy to look at them. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Sheffield, my constituents in Dronfield and constituents all across the country have similar issues to those with Coppen Estates, so I hope we will be able to make progress.
The hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Battersea and others rightly talked about leaseholders not knowing what they are paying for. A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of taking part in a two-hour discussion with one of the better estate managers about an issue in my constituency in Hunloke Grove. They were willing to go into detail, talk about the issues, work through and be transparent on their fees in a way that so many other managing agents are not. The importance of that came home to me in that discussion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch should rightly take all the credit for where we are today. I am surfing on all her work over many months to get the Bill ready. She deserves a huge amount of credit for that. She was an exceptional Housing Minister and has made some extremely constructive comments today, which we will look at along with the similar comments from my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk. I can confirm that our intention is that there will be sufficient time to be clear on ground rents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch rightly said, it is so important that we secure a property-owning democracy for the next generation.
I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham for making a series of important points, which I am happy to look at. The Government are happy to see whether they are possible. He made a specific point about asbestos, which we will take away and review with the detail it deserves. I look forward to the visit to Barrier Point, which I wanted to make following his correspondence. It is important that, on building safety, we look at not just the overall macro picture but individual circumstances, to see whether we can learn anything.
I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me this opportunity to make the point about insurance from the Dispatch Box. I am as keen as him to see progress on insurance. I have met representatives of the insurance sector on a very regular basis in the year that I have been in post. I hope that they will hold to their intentions. They have told us that they will launch the scheme, and we are keen to see it. The Secretary of State’s further meeting this week will, I hope, enable progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford made extremely important points on estate management. He has continually articulated the challenges on a regular basis, and has been a champion on this matter. He rightly speaks of the outrages he has seen in his constituency. It is important that we respond to that as best we can.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for highlighting a number of the important changes that are coming. He is right that our objective is to squeeze out the bad practice in the sector. There are honourable people out there and there are honourable ways in which it is done, but where bad practice occurs it gives the entire sector a bad name. We will legislate and regulate to remove it in a proportionate way.
My hon. Friend also highlighted an example of a property that has not yet made progress on remediation, and similar examples were given by the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth and for Walthamstow and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. We can see significant progress. We have only recently produced a new detailed set of data covering all the funds that are open on building safety. I hope hon. Members will see the progress that has been made, but we recognise that there is more to do. The hon. Member for Walthamstow is absolutely right that there are a number of names that pop up repeatedly—for example Y&Y Management and E&M. There are many others and they should be on notice that they need to change their practices, because they are not acceptable.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister touched on building safety. In the briefing notes on the Bill that accompanied the King’s Speech, under the heading “Improving leaseholders’ consumer rights”, reference was made to:
“Building on the legislation brought forward by the Building Safety Act 2022”.
Is it the Government’s intention to incorporate building safety measures in the Bill?
Lee Rowley
We are looking at what may be possible. We recognise that, while the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has brought forward a very solid prospectus, tweaks can always be made. We see real momentum in this area. I know that that is not good enough for buildings that have not yet had their remediation or for leaseholders who are hugely frustrated by the inability or unwillingness of freeholders to make progress, but we have made significant changes and steps forward in the last year or so, and we are committed to doing more in the coming months.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire for meeting me earlier to talk about specific points about assets. We will look at those points and come back to her.
I can confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that we intend to tackle ground rents. I am grateful to her for highlighting exceptions in leasehold houses. We intend that to be a very narrow element. She sought an example. One example I can give is that of National Trust land where freeholds cannot be sold and a small number of leasehold homes may therefore be required.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby talked about his disappointment with, I believe, the consultation on ground rents. We must consult on that because we must ensure that we are listening and that we take a decision based on the broad range of evidence in front of us, to ensure that it is legally sound when the decision is made. He encourages me to speak to the Law Commission. I can tell him that I have spoken to the Law Commission probably more regularly than any other external organisation outside the Department in the past three or four weeks.
The hon. Members for Walthamstow, for Battersea and for Brentford and Isleworth are seeking to push a narrative—if I may say that very gently to them, with the best of intentions—that this is not a significant intervention with regard to flats. I gently encourage them to continue to engage with the Bill. They will see long and cheap extensions, easier enfranchisement, service charge transparency, easier redress, lease extensions, standard forms, annual reports and many, many other significant measures that will have salience for those living in flats.
Before I conclude, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for his constructive comments. I look forward to meeting him in Committee to talk about them more. While I may disappoint the right hon. Member for East Ham, I would like to turn to some of the comments made from the Opposition Front Bench.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), despite acknowledging that the Government have brought forward important legislation, despite confirming that Labour would not be opposing it and despite advancing the most enthusiastic compliment I have ever heard her give a Conservative—that the Secretary of State has reached the lofty heights of being a “functional cog”; heavy praise indeed!—showed that, as ever, she deals in rhetoric rather than reality, and in politics rather than policy. She called the Bill “empty”. This is a Bill with 65 clauses, eight schedules and 133 pages, and there are 67 pages of explanatory notes. Given its comprehensive reform of enfranchisement and extensions, its comprehensive reform of redress, and its comprehensive reform of service charges, estate management and valuation, that is a funny definition of “empty”.
Bob Blackman
I asked the Minister to answer this question in summing up the debate. Will he undertake to include the outcome of the consultations that are currently taking place, particularly that on ground rents, in the amendments that the Government table in Committee?
Lee Rowley
That is our intention, yes.
We have had a good debate today, which I hope—indeed, I know—will start the passage of this important Bill into law and lead to a better system for everyone in the long term. This is an outcome that is fundamentally Conservative because, fundamentally, the Bill is about empowering people, about levelling the playing field where it has been distorted, about reining in those who are trying to rent-seek for no purpose at the expense of those who just want to get on with living their lives, and about giving people the security of home ownership—proper home ownership, for the long term—so that they can build their lives and build their futures. I hope that all Members will join the Government in supporting the Bill tonight, and I look forward to further constructive conversations during its future stages.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Leasehold and Freehold 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 Thursday 1 February 2024.
(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.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.
Leasehold and Freehold 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 Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.
Leasehold and Freehold 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 Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees under or by virtue of the Act.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
We now come to the motions for appointments to Select Committees. Unless there are any challenges—and I have been notified of none—I propose, with the leave of the House, to take them all together.
Ordered,
Business and Trade
That Bim Afolami be discharged from the Business and Trade Committee and Julie Marson be added.
Defence
That Jesse Norman be added to the Defence Committee.
Energy Security and Net Zero
That Mark Jenkinson be discharged from the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee and Derek Thomas be added.
Foreign Affairs
That Saqib Bhatti be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Ranil Jayawardena be added.
Holocaust Memorial Bill (Select Committee)
That Sir Mike Penning be discharged from the Holocaust Memorial Bill (Select Committee) and John Stevenson be added.
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
That Paul Holmes be discharged from the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and Tom Hunt be added.
Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy
That Tom Tugendhat be discharged from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and Sarah Atherton be added.
Procedure
That Aaron Bell be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Nickie Aiken be added.
Public Accounts
That Ashley Dalton, Jill Mortimer and Nick Smith be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Paula Barker, Sarah Owen and Jeremy Quin be added.
Science, Innovation and Technology
That Aaron Bell be discharged from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and Dr James Davies be added.
Treasury
That Sir James Duddridge and Dame Andrea Leadsom be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Dr Thérèse Coffey and Stephen Hammond be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Dover Fastrack
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I rise to present a petition submitted by my constituents in Dover and Deal who are concerned by the Dover Fastrack proposals. The petition has attracted about 700 signatures, led by those of Father Leo Illah and parishioners from St Paul’s Roman Catholic Church in Maison Dieu Road, and is also supported by the diocesan bishop, the Right Reverend Paul Hendricks.
This is a poorly considered proposal that will add to traffic congestion, disadvantage older and disabled people, damage local businesses and shops in the town of Dover, and harm access to the church, including access for weddings and funerals and access to the world-renowned Pilgrims Way. The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore…urge the Government to call on Dover District Council and Kent County Council to re-think the planned Pencester Road Fastrack Proposals.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Dover and Deal,
Declares that the proposals to route Dover Fastrack along Pencester Road and Maison Dieu Road in Dover will pose a significant risk to pedestrian safety, increase traffic congestion and jeopardise the invaluable cultural and heritage contributions of St. Paul’s Catholic Church to the area of Dover.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons urge the Government to call on Dover District Council and Kent County Council to re-think the planned Pencester Road Fastrack Proposals.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002887]
Housing Availability: Ilfracombe
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I am very proud to be Ilfracombe’s MP. It is a tight-knit resilient community of 12,000, and so remote that it has to be self-sufficient. It is 12 miles from Barnstaple, the major town in northern Devon, and almost 60 miles from Devon’s county town, the city of Exeter. At the start of the pandemic, it made national news by being the first community to fully develop a delivery and support network across the town, and the community continues to look after its own and all those who visit.
Ilfracombe is both rural and coastal, with a stunning harbour, a hardy fishing fleet and its own lifeboat station reflecting the treacherous coastline and rugged cliffs. It is one of those seaside towns that were popular with the Victorians but then got cut off with the closure of the train line in the ’70s. It has suffered from under-investment ever since. Tourism remains the No. 1 industry of the town. This creates its own challenges, with many small businesses choosing not to register for VAT and closing at the £85,000 threshold, leaving swathes of employees in seasonal work and on out-of-season benefits.
However, Ilfracombe is not a low-wage economy; it is a low-skill economy. Some 20% of over-16s have no qualifications at all, often leading big employers in the town to recruit internationally and break down jobs into those that match the skills. We see far too many of our bright youngsters head off to university, never to return. The south-west suffers from a youth exodus, with the highest number of 16 to 24-year-olds and the highest number of students leaving of any region. That has implications for those left behind.
School attainment gaps in the south-west between poorer pupils and the rest are the largest of all English regions at the end of both primary and secondary school, and that is not to mention the recruitment, retention and training challenges that exist for isolated and remote schools and the lower levels of school funding and teacher pay. Ilfracombe has the second biggest catchment of any secondary school in the country, with absenteeism running at 10%, which is a similar number to the percentage of people in Ilfracombe who have never worked and will never work at all.
Deprivation runs deep in Ilfracombe. As foreign holidays became the norm, old hotels became homes in multiple occupation. Ilfracombe even featured in the ’80s comedy show “Bread” as somewhere to move to, and some of those old hotels became care settings for those with addictions and no housing elsewhere in the country to be moved to. We have wards in Ilfracombe where over a quarter of the population are registered disabled under the terms of the Equality Act 2010. The town is still littered with derelict buildings and has 20 large buildings unoccupied. They are falling down and intermittently one is burnt to the ground. Surely there must be more that can be done to tackle these derelict buildings and bring them back into use.
Ilfracombe has the lowest healthy life expectancy of any rural town in the country, and a life expectancy over a decade below that of the healthiest towns in Devon. There are not big queues for healthcare in Ilfracombe. People often do not even present, despite lifestyle choices contributing to poor health. There is an acceptance that things are good enough, but they are not. I have attended more meetings on the issues of deprivation and health inequalities in Ilfracombe than I care to list. People care deeply about the issues in the town but solutions are hard to come by, which is why I have come to the Chamber to ask the Minister and his Department to help.
We were elected on a manifesto of levelling up, and on any metric whatsoever Ilfracombe clearly needs to be levelled up, yet the resources to tackle the root cause of the problem are not forthcoming. Having seen endless pieces of analysis, I know that the primary issue is shockingly poor housing. Some 37% of the population in Ilfracombe rent, and given that we have no university students, that is staggeringly high. Post pandemic, house prices have jumped by 53%, which is one of the highest rates in the country. That is understandable, as it is a beautiful place to live, but suffice it to say that wages have not increased by the same levels. We have lost almost two thirds of long-term rentals, mostly to short-term holiday lets, and far too many of the remaining rental properties are substandard. The council is apparently powerless to intervene unless there is something like a fire, and the pictures that I have circulated to the Department of the conditions that families are living in are unacceptable.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward; I spoke to her beforehand and I understand the issues clearly. She has outlined the issues of tourism, fishing and youth unemployment in north Devon, and now the issue of housing. As a representative of the small harbour village of Portavogie in my constituency of Strangford, I fully understand the pressure of finding affordable housing in these little communities. Does she not agree that social housing in rural communities must be a priority to enable people to remain with the family support that they have and the friendships they have made over the years?
Selaine Saxby
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will talk about affordable housing and, as he represents a coastal constituency, I am sure he will recognise what I am about to say.
Storms batter the North Devon coastline at this time of year, and old hotels shabbily converted into flats, some with no insulation, are taking the elements week after week and should be condemned, but the last thing we need is even more derelict buildings that no one will do anything with.
Because Ilfracombe is only a small part of North Devon, the metrics used to determine where the first round of levelling-up funding was spent meant that we were in the lowest category, and our tiny district council did not have lots of potential bids ready to go for Ilfracombe. A strong bid was submitted, although it was ultimately unsuccessful, but we all knew it was not going to level up Ilfracombe; it was just to secure some funding.
At the time, a senior council officer raised the issue of housing and what was really needed, but the levelling-up funds were all about transport and tourism, not housing. I am grateful to the new chief executive of Devon County Council who, arriving this spring from the remote and rural highlands, saw the deprivation in my constituency, and she was in my office weeks after her appointment to ask what was going on with Ilfracombe. Since her arrival and renewed focus, more councillors and council officers than ever before have headed north of Tiverton and made it up to Ilfracombe to see the problem. I am the only MP on the Devon Housing Commission, which has also visited.
It is hard to reconcile the fact that we are not worthy of levelling up, when we have 50 families looking at their second Christmas in a holiday park because there is not a single home available for them in northern Devon. Indeed, not a single affordable home has been built in Ilfracombe since 2006. The first are now under construction but, as another district council leader said during the presentation of these facts to the Devon Housing Commission, “Is this not a dereliction of duty?” Indeed it is.
Although our tiny district council knows that there is a problem, it does not have the resource to deliver a solution. At the end of the pandemic, my county council told me that my constituency was home to five of the 10 most deprived wards in all of Devon. My question was, “What are you going to do?” It is only with the new chief executive’s arrival that a proposal has been forthcoming. Six costed proposals, with different elements to tackle housing and skills, are with the Department.
I am grateful to the previous Levelling-up Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), for visiting Ilfracombe and meeting the council, and I am grateful for the engagement of the current Levelling-up Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young). I very much hope that the promised meeting will deliver a plan as, quite simply, North Devon and Ilfracombe do not have the resource to resolve the housing situation on their own.
My frustration at the multiple tiers of local government, which have resulted in so much talking and so little delivery, is great. We simply have to tackle some of the housing issues in the town before we can tackle the others. I am delighted that a family hub for the town will be forthcoming. On average, because Devon County Council covers a huge area, many things in Devon look fine, or at least not bad, which hides pockets of deep deprivation in places like Ilfracombe, and we have missed out on far too many schemes and pots of money because the average looks fine but does not take into account the variance across the county.
Will the new devolution deal deliver anything to Ilfracombe? Unfortunately, time and again, we see money going to urban centres and not reaching smaller communities that are equally in need. Liberal Democrat-run North Devon District Council is apparently able to deliver only one project at a time. I had the pleasure of spending Friday morning with the council leader, who explained why the bus station in Barnstaple could not be upgraded because the council is too busy with the future high street project to tackle a second issue. I have confidence in the council officers, if not the political leadership, to understand what needs to be done, but there is a resourcing issue of both people and finance.
If we need to attract external funding to tackle some of these housing challenges, we do not have the experience of managing such projects well. We desperately need responsible social landlords to take on some of the properties in Ilfracombe, bring them up to standard and maintain them. Again, when will there be progress on the registration scheme for short-term rentals? Will the Minister ask the Treasury to level up the tax inequalities between long-term and short-term rentals to attract long-term landlords back to the market? All that happens at present is that we seem to get more retirement properties, second homes and properties being snapped up as holiday lets. As of yesterday, there were 19 rental properties in Ilfracombe being advertised on Rightmove and 803 on Airbnb.
The Minister has told me that there is not a fund that my council’s bid can be accepted into at this time, but given that deep dives have been done into other seaside locations that replicate Ilfracombe’s position, just on a far bigger scale, is there really no opportunity to look hard at these small coastal communities and the challenges they face? My father was head of a large coastal comprehensive in the middle of a council estate back in the 1980s, and the issues he faced there were identical to the ones I faced in North Devon when I retrained to teach, just ahead of my election to this place. We have to tackle social mobility and educational outcomes, but when people cannot afford to stay in their community because of a lack of affordable housing, and businesses have no incentive to grow because of the VAT tax threshold, it is hard to drive aspiration as a concept. The frustration that the Government are spending money overseas to house people who come to our shores illegally when we cannot house our own is immense. All I ask is that some resource is given to tackle what are shocking statistics at any level and leave Ilfracombe as the third most deprived rural town anywhere in the country. We know from so many pieces of research the stats on coastal communities, and we must seek to level up some of these smaller communities that are not big enough to stand out in national statistics.
Levelling up was supposed to reach into all communities, not just big towns and cities. I am very proud of the Ilfracombe community. It is has fantastic church and community leaders who work tirelessly to try to tackle the issues the town faces and look after their population. However, given the long-term, intergenerational nature of the issues, and the level of investment needed, we do need some help. Now that we have a plan to tackle issues, we are a step further forward than we were when I first raised the issues of Ilfracombe in this place. I see no point in trying to make political points out of this; for almost 20 years, nothing has been done, by councils of all different colours, to tackle the problem. The Government have highlighted the need to level up, and I very much want the next generation to be able to afford to stay and work in the high-tech green industries that we hope will be coming ashore along our coast. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to provide some hope that we may at last be able to tackle some of the root causes of the deprivation Ilfracombe suffers and, in particular, tackle its housing supply.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for the opportunity to debate these important issues, as it is vital that Members have the opportunity to discuss them. Making sure that there are viable, aspirant and successful towns all across the country is a hugely important part of our job, one that motivated me to come to this place on behalf of North East Derbyshire. I know that it clearly motivates my hon. Friend to do the same for North Devon. Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities officials were pleased to hold a recent roundtable in Ilfracombe, which she mentioned. Officials and agencies had a productive discussion about some of the opportunities and challenges that she has rightly highlighted, and some of the points about support. I also recognise her for the important work that she does with the Devon Housing Commission, on which, as she said, she serves, and I am looking forward to seeing the results of that work. I want to spend 30 seconds just championing her in general, as she is one of the most diligent Members of this House. She is so utterly engaged in the issues that are important to her constituents and it is so important that that is the case. I know that North Devon residents will be very grateful for all the work she does.
Obviously, housing is vital for the Government’s long-term plan for economic recovery. In July, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) set out a long-term plan for housing, to usher in a new era of regeneration and housing delivery all across England. We are talking not only about more houses, but houses in the right place that are absolutely seeking to service and support local demand.
We are on track to achieve our manifesto commitment to deliver more than 1 million homes over the course of this Parliament. Since April 2010, more than 2 million homes have been delivered, and four of the highest annual periods for housing supply in the past 30 years have come in the past half decade or so. It is absolutely vital that we build more houses, but we need to build them in the right place and in a way that responds to local demand, as my hon. Friend has said. We will continue to work with Homes England. I have already met my hon. Friend a number of times to discuss the matter, but my offer to work in partnership with her remains, so we can see what we can do for North Devon in the long term, as well as constituencies around the country.
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of aspiration, which we know can be a challenge in some of our smaller towns. We must ensure that we are not just giving people things, as important as they are—a lot of the discussion about levelling up has been about things. We need to give them the tools to go and change their lives for the better. If we can inculcate aspiration into our kids as they go through school and into our communities as people build their lives and businesses, and if we can ensure aspiration is at the core of everything we do, that is a fundamentally Conservative prospectus upon which to make our communities even stronger. It is also the most successful way to make our communities stronger in the long term.
The new funding announced in the autumn statement through the levelling-up partnerships, the further investment zones, the new investment opportunity fund and other funding for transformative projects across the country will make a real difference in areas where funding has been agreed and where it will come in the months ahead. Ilfracombe has benefited from Government funding to support increased housing and infrastructure, including the brownfield land release fund, which will provide 15 self-build and custom-build properties in Bicclescombe, Devon. In addition, £6.5 million from the housing infrastructure fund has been made available for the Ilfracombe southern extension. However, I take my hon. Friend’s point that much more needs to be done and I am happy to work with her on that.
We remain committed to creating a housing system that works, including increasing first-time buyers in every single region across the country. We are operating a range of schemes, including first homes, shared ownership and mortgage guarantee schemes, all of which aim to increase the supply of low-deposit mortgages and the availability of new housing, and to stimulate economic growth.
We know that first-time buyers can often struggle to afford to buy a home in the areas where they live and work. I have spoken to my hon. Friend previously about those challenges in North Devon. Key workers can find themselves unable to live in the communities they serve, as my hon. Friend highlighted. Initiatives such as the first homes scheme, while not perfect, allow local exemptions to be set under key worker criteria. I hope that communities up and down the land that are facing those challenges are able to use those schemes, but we recognise that there is always a longer conversation to have on that issue.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the basic point of fairness. This week, we will be talking about a number of other issues in this place; tomorrow, we will be talking about those who come to our shores illegally. She is right to highlight the views of her constituents that there has to be basic fairness with people coming to this country, so that we can make the case that the work we do on levelling up works for the long term. I hope we can make progress on that specific and broader point tomorrow.
My hon. Friend and I also spoke recently about community land trusts as a way to support housing supply that meets the needs of the local community. The community-led approach to house building involves community-based groups taking responsibility for driving forward local house building schemes. That support, and the close involvement of local communities, enables the securing of planning permission and the delivery of housing on sites. I hope that that is a possibility in North Devon in the future.
We have already spoken several times since I was appointed as Housing Minister a few weeks ago about the importance of getting clarity for my hon. Friend and other colleagues in Devon, Cornwall and elsewhere regarding short-term lets. In a debate in Westminster Hall a number of weeks ago, we talked about the importance of tourism for areas such as North Devon, and the importance of clarity about what is happening with regard to short-term lets. While I am still unable to give a specific timetable, my hon. Friend and her colleagues in the south-west have impressed upon us all in Government the urgency of providing clarity about both the register and what we intend to do with the planning use class. We will try to move forward on that as quickly as we can, and give clarity to communities such as North Devon as soon as possible.
I thank my hon. Friend for prompting this important debate and giving us the opportunity, even in a small way, to discuss Ilfracombe—both the opportunities and the challenges—and to recognise that there is much more conversation to be had outside this Chamber with regard to its future. Places such as Ilfracombe, just like places such as North East Derbyshire, which I have the privilege to represent, have hugely bright futures if we can give communities the tools to get on and make those communities as aspirational as they can be. We need to ensure that Government support works for the long term, and continue the very good conversations that my hon. Friend has started and on which she is at the forefront, to ensure that she is championing places such as North Devon for the long term.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I apologise that this is a somewhat dry and technical subject, but I hope Members will bear with me. The regulations amend the Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) Regulations 2023, referred to as the 2023 regulations, which were made in July this year, and the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015, referred to as JPR 2015.
The regulations before us are particularly technical. The 2023 regulations were intended to ensure that all judges received a full remedy in relation to the McCloud age discrimination litigation, including in relation to certain payments that they had purported to make to the 2015 judicial pension scheme while they were treated as a member of that scheme. However, the 2023 regulations proceeded on the basis that judges eligible for a remedy in relation to McCloud were at some point in the 2015 judicial pension scheme and could have made certain payments to that scheme, and that they would, as a result of their remedy, be moved to their previous, legacy schemes. The 2023 regulations also made amendments to JPR 2015, which proceeded on the same basis.
However, the McCloud remedy operates differently for different groups of judges, and there are some groups whose remedy operates in such a way that they are now considered never to have been in the 2015 scheme. That applies to immediate-detriment judges, including litigants, and gap judges; I will explain those specific groups of judges shortly. As a result, those judges could not have made payments to the 2015 scheme, so the 2023 regulations and the amended JPR 2015 did not work to fully effect their remedy. There is no change to the policy intent of the 2023 regulations.
The regulations before us amend the 2023 regulations and JPR 2015 to ensure that we are able fully to deliver the remedy for all affected judges. I will go into a few of the specifics of those amendments, but let me first outline the background to the McCloud remedy itself. Prior to the 2015 pension reforms, salaried judges were eligible for pensions under the Judicial Pensions Act 1981, known as JPA 1981, or the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, known as JUPRA. Fee-paid judges secured equivalent pensions through other litigation and became eligible for the fee-paid judicial pension scheme, known as the FPJPS. Collectively, those are called the legacy pension schemes and they were all tax-unregistered final salary schemes.
In 2015, the Government introduced extensive reforms to public service pension schemes, as well as new pension schemes from 1 April 2015, based on recommendations in the Public Service Pensions Commission’s final report. JPR 2015 created the reformed pension scheme for the judiciary—the judicial pension scheme 2015, also known as JPS 2015—which is a tax-registered career-average pension scheme. For those aged between 51.5 and 55 on 31 March 2012, tapered protection was available, and those judges were given the choice to join the 2015 scheme on 1 April 2015 or to taper across on a later date determined by their date of birth. Other judges—those aged under 51.5 on 31 March 2012—received no protection and were treated as members of JPS 2015 on 1 April 2015, unless they opted out of pension scheme membership altogether.
The transitional provisions were challenged by younger judges in the employment tribunal case of McCloud against Ministry of Justice in 2016. In 2018, the Court of Appeal held that the 2015 reforms were unlawfully discriminatory on the ground of age. On 15 July 2019, the Government issued a written ministerial statement accepting the Court of Appeal judgment, and confirmed that we would take steps to address the difference in treatment across all public sector pension schemes and for all affected members, regardless of whether they had brought a claim. This, as hon. Members will know, is called the McCloud remedy.
Since then, the Government have taken steps to resolve the discrimination for affected members. In July 2020, the Ministry of Justice consulted on proposals to remedy the discrimination for judicial pension members. It confirmed in February 2021 which members this would apply to, and confirmed that the remedy would consist of all non-claimant members participating in a formal options exercise in which they would be offered a retrospective choice of pension scheme membership. Hon. Members will note that Members of Parliament are currently going through a similar process.
The options exercise is provided for in chapter 2 of part 1 of the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022. It offers eligible judicial pension members a retrospective choice between membership of the legacy pension scheme and of the 2015 pension scheme for their period of service during the remedy period from 1 April 2015, when the discrimination began, until 31 March 2022, at which point all members were moved to the 2022 judicial pension scheme.
There are also provisions to enable the Ministry of Justice to provide an earlier remedy for those who are at immediate detriment, and a remedy for gap judges. Immediate-detriment judges include litigant judges who have received a remedy in the employment tribunal, to the extent that a remedy has not already been delivered to that group, and non-litigant judicial members who have separately agreed a remedy with the scheme manager. Gap judges are different from those in the options exercise, in that they were older than 55 on 1 April 2012. Given other litigation since 2015, they are now recognised as never having been eligible to join the 2015 scheme; they are therefore now being recognised as legacy scheme members and are treated as never having been in the 2015 scheme.
The draft regulations are intended to deliver the original policy intent of the 2023 regulations. They make amendments to the wording of the 2023 regulations to ensure that the specific groups of judges I have outlined are recognised as never having had membership of the 2015 scheme.
In addition to providing a primary remedy for immediate detriment judges and gap judges, the 2023 regulations made provision intended to ensure that all judicial members who are in scope of the McCloud remedy, whether they are in the options exercise or are immediate detriment or gap judges, could receive more technical elements of the remedy relating to matters such as transfers in, added pension payments and effective pension age payments. Such payments were purported to have been made to judges through the 2015 scheme. The Ministry of Justice has laid this statutory instrument to address concerns that the 2023 regulations did not fully achieve their policy intention to resolve the issue with these payments, and to put beyond doubt the Ministry of Justice’s ability to deliver the full remedy to these individuals.
I assure the Committee that the draft regulations are necessary to ensure that all affected members of the judiciary will receive a pension remedy that is complete and equitable. I appreciate that this is a rather dry and technical issue, but it is an important one. I hope that we have the support of the Committee.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Edward. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
I thank the Minister for his explanation of these very complex yet wholly necessary regulations. I think his ministerial counterpart in the other place, Lord Bellamy, said it best when he labelled them
“44 pages of the densest technical complexity one could imagine.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2023; Vol. 830, c. GC375.]
These measures seek to provide a remedy in response to the McCloud judgment in 2018. In that ruling, the Court of Appeal found that the Government’s 2015 reforms to judicial pensions constituted unlawful direct age discrimination and indirect race and sex discrimination. Although it is worrying that the 2015 reforms overlooked those issues, I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the ruling.
The Opposition will not oppose the draft regulations, as we need this remedy to be put in place as quickly as possible, but I hope the Minister will address a couple of points. First, I note that when the regulations were debated in the other place back in June, the Minister in the Lords was unable to conclusively answer if they were the final regulations needed to implement the McCloud remedy. Six months on, can the Minister provide that clarification? Can he also shed light on the proposed timetable for implementing the remedy? Many judges and their families will eagerly await the chance to make their decision on it, so it is important that the scheme is launched without any further delay.
Finally, while judges are perhaps better placed than most to understand their choices under the options exercise, will extra independent advice be needed? As the Government stated previously, this is a rather unique situation, and it is important that each person affected makes the right choice for them and their family. Is the Minister confident that existing advice services such as the Money and Pensions Service will be able to offer the necessary guidance? Will the Government make any further efforts to ensure that informed decisions are made?
As I said, we welcome the regulations and their intended aim of providing a remedy for those who have faced discrimination. We want the situation to be resolved in a fair way as soon as possible, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the points we have raised.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
You will be pleased to know that I have only a couple of quick points to make, Sir Edward. Obviously, this goes back to the McCloud judgment, as the Minister said. I am curious, because as is referred to in the explanatory notes—I am sure that the Minister referred to this—other public sector employees are involved. Can he say a bit more about what the cross-departmental approach is? Can he also confirm an assessment has been made under the Equality Act 2010? Will he ensure that there is an equality impact assessment of the regulations?
Mike Freer
I never say never, but I am sure that these are the final regulations. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford will know, these are technical matters, but as far as we can see, we have now identified any wrinkles, so I hope that these are the final regulations brought forward.
Regarding the timetable, the options exercise is already being undertaken, so the work has already started. Regarding independent advice, I cannot say this with my hand on my heart, but I am pretty sure that everybody gets a personalised statement—as Members of Parliament do—and will access things such as webinars and teach-ins. As in my days in financial services, people are always advised to take independent advice, but I will double check that we recommend that people take independent advice. I can confirm that those affected will get personalised statements and access to things such as webinars to give them as much information as possible.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West asked about the impact across each part of the public sector. In the same way that each Government Department will have to look at its own exposure, each element of the public sector will have to look at its own pension scheme, because they are not homogeneous, to ensure that it implements the McCloud judgment as it applies to its schemes. I am pretty sure that everyone is doing it, but I cannot confirm if it is a consistent approach. The last question was about the equality impact. That has been taken, and I am sure that we are compliant.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (World Athletics Indoor Championships Glasgow 24) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (World Athletics Indoor Championships Glasgow 24) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It will surprise nobody in the room to learn that I am particularly enthusiastic about this evening’s debate on the regulations, given that I was a sports Minister. These draft regulations are of great interest to many sports fans, because they provide an income tax exemption for overseas individuals approved by World Athletics who will participate in some way in the World Athletics indoor championships in Glasgow next spring.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
The instrument refers to “accredited persons” and “relevant activity”. Are “relevant activities” all on-the-pitch activities, or could, for example, a caterer coming from overseas to provide ethnic food be an accredited person carrying out a relevant activity?
Nigel Huddleston
The category is not broad, and specifications will be made by World Athletics. The exemption will apply to specified individuals only. I will provide my right hon. Friend with more information about that later, but there are restrictions on who is in the tax exemption category; as he will of course understand, the exemption needs to be narrow.
The exemption will apply to any UK income that an accredited individual receives for participating in the event, or for duties and services performed in connection with the championships. The Government recognise the great benefits and rewards that sport brings to this country. International championships and meets inspire the next generation of athletes, bring together people and communities, and provide a boost—often a significant one—to the economy. These benefits being evident, and with support from every corner of the House, World Athletics in October 2021 awarded Glasgow the right to host the championships. This is a first for Glasgow, and it is the third occasion on which the UK has been given this prestigious event.
The Government are committed to making the UK an attractive location for hosting world-class sporting events, and successive Governments have provided income tax exemptions for those hosting them. Indeed, granting a tax exemption was a mandatory requirement of the UK hosting this prestigious event. One of the most obvious benefits of the exemption is that it encourages and incentivises participation from foreign athletes in major sporting events.
The UK has a long track record of showcasing its ability to host major events. Statutory tax exemptions have been provided for other world-class events, including the UEFA men’s and women’s football championships in 2021 and 2022, the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, and the 2023 women’s Finalissima football match, to name but a few. I am confident that hon. Members will agree that it is in keeping with the Government’s policy for us to provide a similar exemption for this exceptional event.
The draft regulations use powers in the Finance Act 2014 that allow a tax exemption to be provided for through secondary legislation. A tax exemption is reserved for only the most exceptional events, and I am positive that the Committee will agree that the World Athletics indoor championships Glasgow 24 meet that standard. The exemption from UK income tax will apply to non-resident participants, officials and individuals designated by World Athletics for income earned in connection with the championships. The exemption will run from 23 February to 4 March 2024; it applies for a short period before the event commences, to cover any duties performed in connection with the championships.
The exemption will reduce extra demands on designated individuals. Being exposed to taxes in two countries is administratively difficult to deal with, and would also mean consideration having to be given to issues such as withholding taxes, completing self-assessment tax returns, and double taxation treaties. The income tax exemption for the World Athletics indoor championships Glasgow 24 supports the Government’s ongoing commitment to making the UK a global leader in hosting world-class major sporting events. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mr Dowd.
As we have heard from the Minister, the regulations provide individuals with an exemption from income tax on income resulting from their involvement in the 19th World Athletics indoor championships, which are to be held in Glasgow. There have been similar regulations for other world-class sporting events, and the Opposition have supported the Government’s efforts to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place. I put on record the Opposition’s continued support for Britain’s hosting world-class sporting events. The UK continues to play host to the very best of global sport. Having been the only girl on the all-boys football team throughout school, it was a particular pleasure for me to see that the 2028 European football championships were recently awarded to all four of our nations, alongside the Republic of Ireland.
In 2024, it will be fantastic to see the great city of Glasgow, which I was in last week, host the world indoor championships, and there will inevitably be a clamour to attend. So many people across the UK, particularly young people, will be inspired by the sporting ability of competitors in Glasgow from our country and beyond, so what is the Minister doing to ensure that everyone who lives in Glasgow gets a fair opportunity to purchase tickets, and is not left out of a great sporting event taking place in their town?
The Opposition will not oppose the statutory instrument, and I am sure that the Minister will join me in wishing the very best of luck to the British athletes selected for next year’s world indoor championships.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I should not worry, Mr Dowd: I will not detain the Committee too long. Glasgow, as we know, is the UK’s premier destination for events, cultural or sporting, and a sporting event is why we are here. I would say that, as the Scottish National party sports spokesperson, but there is also the fact that my constituency now has over 10,000 voters in Glasgow. Who can forget the 2014 Commonwealth games—the best Commonwealth games ever? Members are free to disagree, but those games were significantly better than any events held in Edinburgh. Whether the Commonwealth games will come back to Scotland is up for debate, given the problems that those games are having. Just recently, Scotland hosted the first combined cycling world championships, which went fantastically well, and which I saw at first hand.
I very much look forward to another succesful sporting event being held in Glasgow. I assure the Minister that I will not divide the Committee on the regulations.
Nigel Huddleston
I am relieved to hear that. I thank hon. Members for their brief but supportive contributions. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn raised a really important point about tickets. When we host major sporting events, it is important that they be as inclusive as possible. Ticketing is primarily the responsibility of the organisers. The event is sold out, but more tickets are likely to become available. I am sure that organisers have heard her comments, and her wish for the distribution of tickets to be as inclusive as possible is perfectly valid.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North also raised important points. This is an amazing opportunity for Glasgow, his constituents and others to celebrate a major sporting events, plus of course we should never underestimate the really important economic contribution of such events; we saw the contribution made by the Commonwealth games last year.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire asked who would be included in the measures. They are expected to impact about 1,100 non-UK residents. That includes the sportspeople competing, but also some officials and other designated individuals. The governing body appoints people to the list.
The smooth delivery of the World Athletics indoor championship Glasgow 24 will further support the development of, and participation in, athletics at home and abroad. It is a world-class event, showcasing some of the best athletes in the world. It will provide entertainment and top-level athletics to fans in Glasgow. Hosting the event will support and strengthen the UK’s sport and leisure industry by enhancing this country’s global reputation as a host of international sporting events. For those reasons, I commend this legislation to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
Cabinet Office
(1 year ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
What steps are the Government taking to reduce the number of civil servants in order to achieve value for money for the taxpayer?
John Glen
I am looking carefully at where we are with the plans for this year—obviously, there is a half-way point in that cycle—and at what policies we can put in place. At the beginning of October, the Chancellor announced a freeze on recruitment.
[Official Report, 23 November 2023, Vol. 741, c. 450.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton).
The correct response should have been:
Prime Minister
(1 year ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I refer to my previous answer about the considerable support we are providing to families across the United Kingdom with their energy bills. The hon. Lady mentions Scottish businesses, and it would be good if the Scottish National party realised that it should support the 200,000 people employed in Scotland’s North sea oil and gas industry.
[Official Report, 22 November 2023, Vol. 741, c. 319.]
Letter of correction from the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak):
An error has been identified in my answer to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) in Prime Minister’s questions. The correct answer should have been:
The Prime Minister
I refer to my previous answer about the considerable support we are providing to families across the United Kingdom with their energy bills. The hon. Lady mentions Scottish businesses, and it would be good if the Scottish National party realised that it should support the 200,000 people employed in the UK’s North sea oil and gas industry.
NICE Enhertu cancer treatment
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
Israel and Palestine
(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
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 648225, 648383 and 648292 relating to Israel and Palestine.
It is a great accomplishment to reach the threshold of over 100,000 signatures for a petition to be considered for debate. I wish to congratulate the petitioners—Husnain Iqbal, Shihab Osmani and Ibnan Ali—who are in the Public Gallery, for starting the petitions that we are debating. From my meetings with the petitioners, I am aware that this is the first time that they have used our e-petition system. I hope that they will see that their engagement with Parliament has led to today’s debate and that they are pleased with the discussion.
Since the sickening Hamas terror attack on 7 October, we have all been gripped by the unfolding tragedy: the grief of those who have lost family members who were among the more than 1,200 killed in the terrorist attack, and the civilians, many of whom are children, who have been displaced, injured and killed in Gaza. The humanitarian crisis deepens—an estimated 17,700 people have lost their lives in Gaza, according to the Gaza Health Ministry—and so this debate is timely and important. We will consider how the UK should respond immediately to the humanitarian need and how it should begin to look to building a sustainable peace.
Before I was elected to this House, I had the privilege of visiting Israel and the occupied west bank. Although I did not visit Gaza, I was able to visit Jerusalem. I was inspired by the Palestinian and Israeli citizens I met, who are dedicated to working to build peace. Just as those inspiring individuals worked and continue to work for peace, during this debate, a Parliamentarians for Peace candlelit vigil will be held just outside this place, in New Palace Yard. That event will aim to promote peace and a recognition of our common humanity, as well as marking international Human Rights Day—that was yesterday, 10 December—and the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights being adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. I know that many colleagues wanted to take part in this debate and in the Parliamentarians for Peace vigil. Indeed, with the devastating loss of life in the middle east, Ukraine and other wars across the world, we must use our positions as elected representatives of the people to strengthen calls for peace.
This debate must begin by roundly condemning the brutal Hamas terrorist attack. We hold the family and friends of the more than 1,200 who have been killed, and the estimated 138 who remain hostages, in our thoughts and prayers. We also remember all those who have lost loved ones in the conflict and stand with all those who feel threatened and unsafe in the UK, because of the rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia resulting from events in the middle east. The petitioners have asked me to remind the House that, when we approach this conflict, we must absolutely condemn the terror attack, but must also remember that the history of the conflict did not begin on 7 October. That means that the UK has a particular role to play, given its historic part in the Balfour declaration.
The debate today concerns three petitions. The first calls for the UK to remain neutral in the Israel-Palestine conflict and withdraw support for Israel. The second urges the Israeli Government to allow fuel, electricity and food into Gaza. The third calls on the Government to seek a ceasefire and an end to Israeli occupation in the west bank and Gaza strip.
I turn to the position of the Government and other petitioners. Although the petitions each call for different actions, they share a call for the protection of lives, British humanitarian support and the upholding of international law. In the wake of the terrorist attack and Israel’s military response, the Government have defended Israel’s right to self-defence in line with international law, have provided aid to Israel and significantly increased aid to Palestine, have reiterated a commitment to a two-state solution, and—in the strongest words—condemned the west bank settlements.
I want to see a lasting peace in Israel and in Palestine. The first step to building peace is the laying down of weapons. That is why I voted for a ceasefire, out of concern for the dire humanitarian situation for the people of Palestine, particularly the vulnerable, who are caught up in the crossfire of this conflict.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making such a powerful speech. Was she as disappointed as I was on Friday when the United Nations Security Council failed to support a ceasefire, in particular as the result of the UK abstaining on that matter and not providing the support that was needed for that resolution?
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I appreciate the hon. Member giving way. She talked about her support for a ceasefire. Does she recognise, as I do, that the temporary truce that we have recently seen in Gaza led to about 80 hostages being released, to an end to the bombings, and to hundreds, if not thousands, of lives being saved? We gave peace a chance. Does she agree that the best way to secure a lasting peace settlement and an end to innocent lives being lost in both Gaza and Israel is the push for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza?
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I share the feelings that he has just expressed. In fact, he pre-empts the contribution that I was about to make, which is that the temporary ceasefire last week was a brief respite for the 1.8 million people displaced in Gaza, and therefore it was that opportunity for aid provision to come in and for the release of hostages. However, unless there is a permanent ceasefire, we will never find a permanent peace.
There is no doubt that it was incredibly moving to see the videos of families being reunited, and it is impossible to imagine the fear and the worry of the families of those who remain hostages. However, as Israel continues to seek to destroy the terrorists Hamas, the fear and threat of injury and death continue. The temporary ceasefire was merely a brief respite and as the conflict continues, the needs of the displaced and injured people in Gaza are increasing. We need to address that through aid and through diplomacy.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
On that point about moving past the temporary truce, we are now 10 days on from that and it occurs to me—I wonder whether my hon. Friend concurs—that there is no clear strategy from Government as to how we, as the UK, can help to prevent the suffering of innocent Palestinian civilians and end the violence we are all witnessing. To that end, does she share my hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, he will set out exactly what the Government are doing with international partners now to break what seems to have become a diplomatic stalemate following the truce, and bring about the permanent ceasefire that is surely the only way to bring this devastating situation to an end?
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. As I said before, this is quite a long debate, but that being said we have a lot of people here. Can we keep interventions brief? Thank you.
Cat Smith
Thank you, Sir Mark, and I hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) does, that the Minister can respond with more details of the commitments the Government are planning to make in order to work with the international community to bring about that lasting peace.
I say that because we must look to the future and any solution to this conflict must be a solution that respects the human rights of both Israelis and Palestinians, and establishes a statehood solution that includes ending the intolerable settlements in the west bank.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
To go back to the question of neutrality, there may have been a position some years ago whereby the United Kingdom Government could have said that they were taking a neutral and balanced position on the conflict in the middle east, but is it not the case that the result of last Friday’s vote at the United Nations now puts the United Kingdom as an outlier in world opinion—alone, with the United States of America—in not calling for a ceasefire? Does that not demonstrate the need for this petition to be recognised and for the United Kingdom to return to a position of neutrality rather than support for the war?
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I add my congratulations to the petitioners. Yesterday marked the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is unthinkable that the world can commemorate that significant day while denying Palestinian human rights? We are seeing thousands of civilians—men, women, children; doctors, journalists, poets—all being murdered by Israeli forces for no crime other than being Palestinian. Humanity cannot be applied selectively.
Cat Smith
My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights, which was born out of a tragedy that was almost unspeakable in its scale. That is something that is probably at the forefront of all our minds, and certainly should be in this debate.
I take heed of your warning, Sir Mark, about many colleagues wanting to speak and will draw my remarks to a close so that we can hear from as many colleagues as possible, and as fully as possible, during this debate. As parliamentarians, we can never return the lives of those who have been lost, but we must use our positions as elected representatives to help to prevent further loss of life, by calling for peace and working to provide vital humanitarian aid. I look forward to hearing the contributions from colleagues today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they should bob—as many of you are doing now.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. May I say “Chag Hanukkah sameach” to you, as Jews celebrate Hanukkah at this time? But we are celebrating Hanukkah, which is of course the Festival of Lights, at a very dark time for Jews not only in this country but around the world. It would be remiss of me not to mention the protest that took place at the weekend, which again involved—from a minority, admittedly—gratuitous signs of antisemitism, which led to the Holocaust Educational Trust chief executive, Karen Pollock, again saying that the centre of London had become a no-go zone for Jewish people. No part of this country, of our democracy, should ever be a no-go zone for any community.
I think, as I look around in this debate on the three petitions, that I am the only person here who has visited the site of the pogroms that took place on—[Interruption.] Perhaps some others have been since. I will give way to the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) if he wishes to intervene.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend in this instance. Just to correct the record, I was at a kibbutz, Kfar Aza, in February, seeing how tranquil and peaceful it was despite the proximity to Gaza, so I have seen that, and I am going out next month as well.
Andrew Percy
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I meant since the events of 7 October. I am not sure whether anybody else has had the opportunity to spend time in the communities that were attacked in the most horrific way on 7 October and to spend time with the survivors and with the families of the hostages from those communities, so I will avail the House of my experience there this afternoon.
Let me come to the three petitions. Of course, in relation to the second petition, we all want to see humanitarian aid being facilitated and delivered into Gaza, so I have no issue with that petition—absolutely not. We all wish to see that. It would be helpful, of course, if Hamas did not steal a lot of the aid and misdirect it towards their terror network, but of course every effort should be put into that aid. However, in terms of the third petition, calling for a ceasefire, I find it incredible that we have people arguing that a ceasefire is achievable with Hamas, who, since 7 October, have made it absolutely clear that it is their intention to commit such atrocities again and again. There can be no ceasefire with Hamas—none whatever. Their intention, in their own charter, is to seek the annihilation of not just every Jew in Israel but every Jew on this planet. Let us not pretend for a moment that there is any credible option of a ceasefire with Hamas. That is a position, I am pleased to say, that both the Opposition Front Bench and my own Government’s Front Bench support.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps he can explain to us what his long-term objective is. Will the citizens of Gaza be bombed indefinitely until Hamas surrender?
Andrew Percy
The question that the hon. Member should be asking is, what is the long-term strategy of the—
Andrew Percy
The hon. Member has had his intervention. He does not get to shout from a sedentary position again; he gets to listen to the response. That is the polite way in which debates operate in this House.
It is a very clear position that Hamas must be degraded to such a point that they can have no further involvement in the governance of the Gaza strip. That is the position of this Government; it is the position of Governments across Europe; it is the position of the United States Government and of many others around the world.
When I visited Israel less than a month after the attacks took place, I went to the place where bodies were being identified. I saw those bodies, and I saw those body parts that were still awaiting identification. It was one of the most shocking and horrendous things that I have ever seen or have ever smelled.
I also visited Kibbutz Kfar Aza, which is a kibbutz that was founded by peaceniks—it was actually founded by Egyptian Jews. It is a community that was led by Ofir Libstein, who was a man known for his desire for peace and was in the process of trying to seek a joint-employment zone with Gaza so that Jews from Israel could work alongside Gazans. He was picked out specifically by Hamas and shot on his front doorstep. The scene in that kibbutz was just utterly horrendous.
Andrew Percy
No, I will not give way at the moment. It was like something I have never seen and will never forget. We heard about and saw the most horrific destruction carried out by those terrorists. Women had their breasts sliced off. There were children who had their limbs sliced off in front of their parents. There were people butchered in the most horrific ways. Sir Mark, you can still see that destruction in that kibbutz, as you can in the kibbutzim across southern Israel, and you can still smell it. Such was the butchery and the savagery that the smell of the rotting blood and flesh is still there several weeks on. So I am not neutral when it comes to this conflict—not one bit.
As if the destruction in the kibbutzim were not bad enough, we, of course, had the appalling gender-based violence that was committed by Hamas terrorists on that day. Let us just consider some of that, particularly for young women who were attending the Nova music festival—a festival, ironically, for peace, of course. Some of the witness testimonies from there are truly shocking. I will read some of them for you, Sir Mark. “They had caught a young woman near a car and she was—”
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. There are many hon. Members wishing to speak, so I will introduce a time limit of five minutes.
Andrew Percy
After I have spoken, presumably. I think I am the only Back Bencher speaking on the Government side, Sir Mark, so most of this debate will be dominated by the Opposition parties.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
There was another of your colleagues here who intervened but has now left. Having said that, you are partly correct.
Andrew Percy
Thank you, Sir Mark. I thank you for your protection. People may not want to hear it, but it is important that these things are put on record, so that, when we are asked to take a neutral position on this, people know exactly what evil was wrought across Israel on 7 October and since—and that the people who did that intend to do it again.
I will start those quotes again:
“They had caught a young woman near a car and she was fighting back, not allowing them to strip her…They threw her to the ground and one of the terrorists took a shovel and beheaded her and her head rolled along the ground. I see that head”
to this day.
“They sliced her breast and threw it on the street.”
“He penetrated her, and shot her in the head before he finished.”
“I saw this beautiful woman with the face of an angel and eight or ten of the fighters beating and raping her. She was screaming, ‘Stop it...I’m going to die anyway’. When they finished they were laughing and the last one shot her in the head.”
When there is such butchery and such horrors have been wrought on innocent people, I am certainly not going to take a neutral position.
The humanitarian pause was mentioned. Of course we all want humanitarian pauses, because we want all the hostages to be released. I think that we can all agree on that. It is important to record that those hostages were taken against their will from their homes; some of them are as young as 10 months old. We still do not know what has happened to the Bibas family, for example, and their cute 10-month-old, ginger-haired baby; we do not know whether he is alive or dead. Those who have come out so far have recounted examples of sexual violence. Eitan Yahalomi, who is 12 years old, was forced at gunpoint to watch the beheadings and the murder of people from his own community, and 77-year-old Margalit Mozes was denied access to medication while in the terror tunnels. They were denied any access to independent treatment, and children were marked by having their skin burned. That is what happened. That is what we are dealing with in this conflict.
We all want to see peace across the middle east. I want to see a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. I am proud to serve as patron of a charity that brings children from Gaza into Israel to receive life-saving treatment. We are all appalled by what we have seen and want an end to the violence, but I will not pretend for a moment to support the petitions or to take an independent, neutral position on the matter. I want Israel to succeed. I want Israel to succeed in defeating Hamas, because defeating Hamas is in the best interests of everybody in the region, not least the Palestinians living in Gaza, who themselves have suffered the most appalling abuse under that leadership.
It is great that people have engaged in the civic process of signing petitions, but there can be no ceasefire with Hamas, who have made it clear that they are not willing participants in that regard, and I will not pretend in any way, shape or form to urge the Government to support one. I hope the Minister will continue his strong support for Israel’s right to self-defence, for increased aid to the Palestinian people living in Gaza, and for efforts at a humanitarian pause, which we all wish to see, but Hamas must be defeated.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
There are lots of speakers, so I will introduce a five-minute limit. I know that the previous speaker spoke for longer than that, but, as he said, he is one of only a couple of speakers on the Government Benches, apart from the Minister, so I have tried to be fair. I call Alison Thewliss.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Gosh, thank you very much, Sir Mark—it is much earlier than I was expecting to be called. I am glad to be here representing many of my constituents, over 2,600 of whom have written to me—more than on any other issue—to raise their concerns about the ongoing conflict in Gaza. They also signed the petitions in their hundreds, because they are deeply concerned by the ongoing conflict. There have been many demonstrations in my constituency to call for peace, for a two-state solution, and for the UK to take its role and responsibility seriously. As many of the people who have written to me have said, we can express our horror at Hamas’s atrocities on 7 October and the ongoing plight of the hostages, and we can also express our horror at the situation the Palestinians are facing now: dead and dying under the rubble, and dying for lack of food and water.
ActionAid has been in touch with me to express its concerns about the disproportionate impact on women—yes, the gender-based violence that was experienced at the hands of Hamas in their attack in Israel, but also the ongoing situation in Gaza, where women are disproportionately impacted by the violence. Rather movingly, Riham Jafari, the advocacy and communication co-ordinator at ActionAid, said:
“What use is a four-hour pause each day to hand communities bread in the morning before they are bombed in the afternoon? What use is a brief cessation in hostilities when hospital wards lie in ruins and when roads used to deliver medical supplies and food are destroyed? With over half of Gaza’s hospitals closing due to fuel shortages or constant bombardment, there will soon be nowhere to deliver medical supplies to at all. Without fuel in any aid packages, a humanitarian pause does nothing to repair Gaza’s destroyed health system or allow families to cook themselves a meal or power water to their homes to shower. While a humanitarian pause might offer a brief respite for a few days, it is nowhere near enough time to repair the damage to Gazan communities and their homes and lives.”
I could not agree more with that statement.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I associate myself with everything the hon. Lady has said so far. Is the problem with a pause not that pause means play, and play is not acceptable? That there are hospitals that are no longer functioning is the reason why I have lost a family member in this war. They were not bombarded; they needed a hospital and they could not get to it. They are still in Gaza City, and even if more aid were to be allowed through Rafah, it would not get to Gaza City. Is the issue here that, while we all condemn Hamas and we all want Hamas gone—frankly, if Hamas went it would be good for the region, not just for the Palestinians —what is happening to all these citizens of Palestine who have nothing to do with Hamas is only fuelling more insurgency, not less?
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I point to the situation of Dima, a student at Glasgow University who worked for the World Health Organisation. Her life, her child’s life, and her family were lost to bombardment. She had done nothing wrong. She was doing her very best to support people, as are many medical professionals in Gaza, who are trying their very best to make sure that people are looked after in these most desperate of circumstances.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
There are 350,000 people in Gaza suffering from infections. There are 46,000 who are injured and cannot be treated. Procedures are being carried out without anaesthetic. Gaza’s health system has been reduced to just a third of its pre-conflict capacity. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that there is an urgent need for an immediate and permanent ceasefire?
Alison Thewliss
I would agree. The difficulty is that there is no end to this conflict in sight. We cannot see what the terms for ending this conflict will be as things stand, but we do know that all conflicts eventually end. They end with a ceasefire; they end with a piece of paper signed; they end with agreements being reached. The UK Government’s role in this is to seek to reach those agreements, not to seek to stand in the way of them.
I would also like to mention the 52,000 pregnant women in Gaza right now. Some 5,500 babies have been born in the past month—183 every single day. Those babies are being born in the most traumatic of circumstances. Giving birth can be traumatic enough at the best of times, let alone without hospitals, medical care or even anaesthesia. Women are having caesareans without painkillers, while awake, and under bombardment. That is no way to bring babies into this world. Other women who have had to flee their homes are in camps lacking sanitary provision, privacy and dignity. When will they see an end to this conflict? When will they be able to see hope for their babies and their families?
I very much support the aims of the petitions here today. I look forward to hearing other people’s contributions to this debate. My Glasgow constituents are very clear that there needs to be a ceasefire now.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Like everyone who has watched the footage and read the accounts of the Hamas atrocities on 7 October, and anyone who has followed the utter devastation and mass killing happening in Gaza and the growing violence in the west bank, my overwhelming response is, “How do we stop this?” That is why I urge the Government and the Labour Front Bench to support an immediate bilateral ceasefire.
The UK’s fence-sitting at the UN last week was unforgiveable both morally and politically, as anyone who heard Tom Fletcher, a former ambassador to Lebanon and advisor to Gordon Brown, explain on the radio this morning will know. He recalled that back in 2009, at the height of Operation Cast Lead, the UK took a principled stance in support of ending the killing of civilians and backed UN resolution 1860, which was critical of Israel. In doing so, it shifted the position of the US, which ended up abstaining on that vote instead of opposing it. Bold, creative diplomacy by the UK made a significant difference to the outcome in the UN and, critically, there was a ceasefire a week later. A similar kind of diplomacy is sadly lacking now, and we desperately need it.
Of course, the scale of the deaths and the horror is vastly different now, but the fundamentals of then and now are the same: the lives of civilians in both Israel and Gaza must be protected. This is what these petitions are about: making the suffering stop for the families in Israel who are desperate for their loved ones taken hostage by Hamas to be unconditionally released and safely reunited with them; making sure the perpetrators of the horrific rapes and sexual violence committed on 7 October are brought to justice; stopping one of the worst humanitarian crises in my lifetime—half of the people in Gaza are starving, and starvation is being used as a weapon of war; making the military assault on Gaza stop, and saving the lives of so many children; and stopping not just these immediate crises, but the decades of oppression and dispossession of and discrimination against the Palestinian people by the Israeli authorities, which are an unavoidable part of the context of this war.
A lot has already been said about how to bring this conflict to a close. Decades of expert diplomacy has failed thus far to resolve this seemingly intractable conflict. In the past 15 years alone, there have been five wars, each of which has consigned the people of Gaza to ever-deteriorating and unimaginably impoverished living conditions. None of these wars has stopped the rockets being fired at Israel, or made anyone feel safer. That is because there is no military solution to this conflict, only a political one.
Yet it has served the international community—the UK included—preoccupied elsewhere, to settle for a strategy of uneasy containment in which violence flares up from time to time and just enough supplies and aid are allowed into Gaza to appease Israel’s critical friends and prolong the status quo. However, since October 7, something seismic has shifted. It is now inconceivable that the world could continue to ignore the importance of ensuring that every single Israeli and Palestinian can live safely, securely and with dignity within their own borders or a shared border, if that is what they choose.
We have touched on the issue of speaking with terrorists. Talking to Hamas has already helped to bring some Israeli hostages home to their families. Those lines of communication must be kept open, along with every back and front channel accessible via the other players in the region. Clearly, the US has the greatest influence over Israel, but the UK can play a critical role too. Its links with Qatar and Egypt, for example, should be used to pull every lever possible in support of a consensus on Israel’s right to exist—a fundamental building block of peace.
Chatham House reported that the US and UK position on not talking to terrorists arose almost by accident in 1973, in response to hostage taking by a Palestinian militant organisation. Those hostages were killed. It takes courage to start a dialogue, especially when we have no real idea whether there is even a shared goal, let alone how to reach that outcome, but from Northern Ireland and Colombia to Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon and Syria, talking has secured positive outcomes for individual cases and more broadly. No dialogue means the death of peace, and at this time we absolutely have to keep the prospect of peace alive.
The eyes of the world may well be on this narrow strip of land right now, but they have been largely absent as Gazans have been forced to live in an open prison, systematically stripped of their dignity and freedom by both the Israeli authorities and Hamas. As Israel has endured the existential threat to its existence that Hamas represents, and as land is grabbed and settler violence erupts in the west bank—an area that now could well see the strengthening of extremists including Hamas—we must not turn our gaze away again. The path to peace feels even more difficult following 7 October. It is more difficult, but more urgent, too. It starts with a bilateral ceasefire now.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
It is 20 years since shock and awe were unleashed on Iraq. Millions died, and we live with the consequences today in terrorism and a refugee crisis. It was a war perpetrated on lies and deceit, and it is why we must have openness and transparency in the conflict in Gaza today.
The events of 7 October have to be condemned. What Hamas did was shocking and unacceptable, and every country has a right to defend itself, but the response from Israel has been disproportionate. It now constitutes a war crime, and it has to stop. It is for those reasons that we have to support a ceasefire, not a humanitarian pause.
Those of us of the Christian faith will be celebrating the birth of a child in a manger in but a matter of weeks, yet children in the sanctuary of a hospital in Gaza cannot be kept alive because we cannot provide them with the care and welfare that should be theirs as a matter of right. That is something that should fundamentally shame our world, not just our Government.
A humanitarian pause is entirely inadequate. This is not a replication of the play “Oh! What a Lovely War”, in which soldiers stop for a Christmas truce and play football before it all starts again. This is the perpetration of a war on civilians. Let us remember that we are talking about 2 million people in a very small area of this world—an urban, compact area. They were told to flee from the north by the Israel Defence Forces. They have fled south and the bombing has followed them. They are dying there as they died in the north, so the idea that we can simply have a humanitarian pause is inadequate.
We have to welcome the pause that took place and appreciate that it did progress matters and see hostages returned, as should rightly be the case, but we have to call for and demand a ceasefire. We all know that Israel is sustained by the United States. If it were not for the United States, Israel would be unable to maintain its warfare. We must ensure that we deliver a ceasefire.
The UN Security Council’s position was not shameful. It supported a ceasefire, but the United States vetoed it and a supine UK simply abstained and did not have the courage to go with the rest of the world. As with Iraq, the rest of the world is looking at the western world and seeing nothing but hypocrisy. We rightly speak out about the wrongs e happening in Ukraine, yet we are far too silent about what has happened elsewhere in the world to people of different faiths or a different colour. The failure of the UK to support a ceasefire at the United Nations Security Council was unacceptable and the actions of the United States were simply reprehensible.
Israel is continuing to wage war against civilians. They might say that they are targeting Hamas, but it is clear that—
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Given the death and destruction in Gaza, we must look into the issue of arms sales to Israel. The UK’s export control joint unit is clear that licences will not be granted if
“there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate internal repression”
or
“a serious violation of international humanitarian law”.
Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must re-examine all licences to ensure that we do not inadvertently end up facilitating a violation of international and humanitarian law?
Kenny MacAskill
Absolutely. The arms trade is reprehensible. We should cease that not just because of what is happening in Gaza and Israel, but because of what is being perpetrated in Yemen while we continue to arm the Saudis. We have to address not simply the arms sales but the assistance that we might be giving deliberately or accidentally.
RAF Akrotiri is being used by the US military. What are the US military flying into Israel from RAF Akrotiri? Why are we not being told what the Americans are taking from a Royal Air Force base in Cyprus into Israel? Is it machinery? Weapons? Military personnel? We have a right to be told. Why have 500 additional UK military personnel gone to Cyprus, where we already have several thousand troops? Why are they required there? What is their role? What is the nature of the military personnel? Are they special forces? Things are taking place and we are not getting clarity from the UK Government.
Just as we had a cop-out at the United Nations Security Council, we are not getting clarity from the Government as to our role. What are we doing to facilitate the United States and the armaments that they provide to Israel? What are we doing about the actions that are being perpetrated by the Israelis? We should be speaking out. It is clear that what is being perpetrated by Israel is first of all to flatten the north of Gaza into smithereens so that life cannot return. People will not be able to go back and live there. The Israelis have destroyed the infrastructure and now they are perpetrating it on the south of Gaza, again destroying the infrastructure and making Gaza unliveable. The requirement will then be for people to flee—no doubt the US will try to get Egypt to take them in as refugees. The outcome of that will be that the Nakba all those generations ago will be replicated in Gaza. If we do not take action and speak out we will be as guilty now as we were then.
We have to stop supporting the Americans, we have to stop supporting the Israelis, we have to demand a ceasefire, and we have to make sure we are not complicit in any way. That means having the courage of our convictions and supporting a ceasefire at the United Nations, where the UK has a position as a regular member. We also have to ensure we do not facilitate any other shameful action, whether that is by allowing the Americans to do it, or directly through munitions that are created here in the United Kingdom.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. Following the contribution of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) is a task in itself.
Last week, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary regarding the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The temporary truce was a welcome development allowing for the release of hostages and access into Gaza for some humanitarian aid, but as soon as the temporary truce ended on 1 December, the fighting resumed. Hundreds of Palestinians were killed when the Israeli military resumed their indiscriminate bombing campaign against Gaza. This resulted in the death toll rising to well over 17,000 people, with the largest group being children. The scale of death and destruction cannot be overstated. The ongoing violence against the Palestinian people simply cannot be justified and constitutes clear collective punishment.
What the short-lived truce demonstrates above all is that temporary pauses in conflict are simply inadequate and will not result in de-escalation. The preferred approach to the conflict on the part of the UK Government is therefore no longer tenable. It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the atrocious crimes being committed against Palestinians, and it is evident that only a long-lasting ceasefire will prevent further loss of life and allow space for peace talks to emerge.
Afzal Khan
Yesterday marked the 75th anniversary of the UN’s universal declaration of human rights. Today, the UN confirmed that half of Gaza—more than a million people—are starving: 90% do not have access to food on a daily basis. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot commemorate Human Rights Day without calling out the barbarism of the Israeli army and the unimaginable human rights abuses against Palestinians?
Tahir Ali
My hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point. The international convention on genocide has also just marked its 75th anniversary. The UK Government simply cannot continue to ignore the evidence of war crimes being committed by Israel in its campaign against the Palestinians. There is an unstated objective of a single-state solution. That is why I think the UK does not recognise Palestine as a state: because it supports the unstated objective of Israel to have a one-state solution. A one-state solution should not be the objective. If there is going to be a two-state solution, where Palestine lives in peace alongside the Israeli state, now is the time for the UK Government to recognise Palestine as a state.
Why did the UK Government abstain when 13 of the 15 members of the Security Council voted for a ceasefire? One member can veto 13. The UN Secretary-General invoked article 99, which has not been invoked since 1989, with the sponsorship of nearly 100 countries, but one country can then defy it by railroading a veto. That goes to show that the United Nations is nothing but a toothless tiger that is now being used against the Palestinian people.
Nor can this Government continue to ignore the monumental displacement of people in Gaza, the largest since 1984. What is occurring looks increasingly like ethnic cleansing, and we must not be complicit in that. I therefore take this opportunity once again to urge the UK Government to use their international standing to push for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and the resumption of peace talks as a matter of urgency.
It is not enough simply to recognise the clear injustices being perpetrated in the context of this conflict alone. The Palestinian people have been subject to oppression, exploitation, theft and violence for decades. Their land has been illegally seized by the settler groups. They have been evicted from their rightful homes in East Jerusalem, and they have lived under constant blockade and occupation. Day by day, the Israeli Government strive to make a two-state solution less and less tenable. It is now obvious that the current Israeli Government have no interest in a lasting, just and equitable two-state solution. The UK must rise above that and recognise Palestine as a separate state.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech. Does he agree that, while the absolute priority for all of us must be to bring an end to the violence from all parties in the middle east and to stop the intolerable death toll in Gaza as quickly as possible, the conflict can only ever be truly resolved when there is a concerted effort by the international community? Ministers must therefore explain why, for over 10 years, this Government have been content to stand on the sidelines rather than pursuing a meaningful political strategy in conjunction with our international allies.
Tahir Ali
My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. On 6 December, we saw 13 UN member states voting on one side, with one abstention and one veto, which means that the voice of the vast majority does not count. Hundreds and thousands of my constituents write to me every day urging this Government to take a stand, with over 7,000 signatories to the three petitions and over 10,000 emails received by my office on this subject—not only on this conflict, but on historical abuses suffered by Palestinian people.
It is not enough for the Government to say that they are in favour of peace, when they do nothing to bring it about. This Government still refuse to recognise the state of Palestine and continue to ignore the breaches of international law committed by Israel in its war against Gaza. My constituents in Birmingham, Hall Green will not settle for simply working to end this conflict. They also demand, and rightly so, that Israel be held accountable for its action, both current and historic, against Palestinian people.
I have referred to the United Nations as a toothless tiger. How many United Nations resolutions has Israel broken? My understanding is that there are over 30 resolutions to which it has not adhered. That is why I urge the Government not only to work towards a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, but to support efforts to investigate the conduct of this war and to determine the extent of the war crimes being committed. Based on such an investigation, the Government must be prepared to take robust action and hold those responsible for such crimes to account, including through the imposition of practical sanctions and other diplomatic measures.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak, Sir Mark. From the outset, I am aware that this is a very sensitive issue and that we are talking of the loss of life, which is awful. At the beginning, I have to make a declaration so that it is very clear where I stand: I am a friend of Israel, and I have been all my life. I was a member of the Friends of Israel when I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont, and I am a friend of Israel speaking in Westminster Hall today. I recognise that many people around me may have a different opinion. I respect their point of view; I hope that Members will also respect my point of view when I put it over.
We are talking about the lives of women and children, and the loss not simply of their daily life but of their home and even their education. This affects communities on both sides of Israel’s border. Communities on the border of Israel have been displaced and homes have been destroyed, as well as in Gaza. This premise must underline everything that is said today: war is terrible, and the end of war is what any right-thinking person is hoping for. For those who are in a position to do so, it is what they are working for, I believe.
I am certain that, regardless of the result of this debate, Hamas terrorists—that is what they are—will continue this attack. Rockets will continue to fly from Hamas positions towards Israel’s positions—not military positions, but civilian positions; the murder of civilians is their intention—and the Israelis will continue their counter-attack and opposition. Over the past days, the war against Hamas has continued to focus on southern areas of the Gaza strip, and the Israel Defence Forces have sadly confirmed the deaths of a further seven Israeli soldiers since last Monday, who were defending and protecting their people.
The horror of Hamas and of their intention on 7 October has been outlined by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who spoke very graphically of it. I am aware of some of the videos. I have to say honestly that I could not watch them, because they were so horrible: the beheading of men, the rape of women, the murders of children. They are depraved people who carry that out. Hamas terrorists must be destroyed. They must be dismantled. They must find themselves in a position where they can no longer have any influence whatever in the middle east. That is exactly what I believe.
The bombs continue to rain down on Israel. Indeed, the IDF confirmed that an Israeli civilian had been killed by missile fire from Hezbollah.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jim Shannon
No, we are on a very strict time limit of five minutes. Everybody has to get in, and there are many other speakers.
The Israeli civilian had been killed by missile fire from Hezbollah in northern Israel, prompting Israeli responses against terror targets in southern Lebanon. This is an important consideration in this debate: the fact is that there are still numerous and sustained rockets being fired at Israel daily. In the time in which this debate has taken place, there have been more attacks on Israeli civilian places as well. People talk about the Iron Dome, but it must be remembered that it is not a power-up in a computer game—it is more than that. When the launcher is called into action, it saves lives, and that is very important.
The Iron Dome air defence system intercepts at least nine in every 10 munitions fired into Israel by Hamas terrorists. That means that rockets do land and do cause damage; again, we must recognise that. Israel has 11 Iron Dome batteries, and with the threat of a war breaking out on the northern border with Hezbollah, the US has reportedly pledged two more. I would very much like to see that happen. US help for Israel can and will make a difference, and it will save lives.
Brigadier General Doron Gavish, a former commander of Israel’s aerial defence force who worked on the Iron Dome when it became fully operational in 2011, has said:
“Unfortunately, Hamas is not shooting for the military installations, it’s directing all its rockets towards the cities and civilians. It is a system that is really designed to save people.”
As we sit in this warm building today, comfortable as we are, calling for a ceasefire, we must be certain about calling for the right thing. We must be helping to put in place sustainable solutions—long-term solutions. I believe in a two-state solution. I believe that when the war is over and Hamas are destroyed and dismantled, we can then have a peace that can last. Long-term solutions will allow hospitals and schools to be built in Gaza and people to return home to Israel and to health and safety. That is what this House should be calling for, should work for and should wave our unified flag for.
While Israel is suffering attacks, and while it continues to root out terrorists who are aiming at civilians in Israel, there are steps to be taken. Am I calling for a ceasefire? Yes, I am calling for a bilateral ceasefire. For those who do not understand that, it is very simple. Once Hamas are destroyed, they can no longer have an attitude towards Israel that means the destruction, annihilation and murder of all Israelis. That is what I am looking for, but under circumstances, when it comes to a ceasefire, that do not see more terrorism and a worse position in 10 days’ time yet again.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is so difficult to get information in and out of Gaza. One of the only reasons that we know what is happening on the ground is the heroic work of journalists and photographers who are documenting the catastrophe.
I do not have words to describe what we have seen. It sickens me to my core. We saw children in Gaza hold a press conference, begging the world to save them, and I thought it could not get worse. But then we saw white phosphorus dropping from the sky, and we thought it could not get worse. Then we saw doctors say that hospital grounds felt like a warzone, and we thought it could not get worse. Then we saw premature babies lying to die in incubators with no energy, and we thought it could not get worse.
Then we saw a pregnant mother burned and dead, while doctors cut the baby out to try to save at least one life, and we thought it could not get any worse. Then we saw a little boy crying hysterically, “How can we stay here? This is not a life!”, after his nephew was severely injured while playing football, and we thought it could not get worse. Then we saw a little girl scream, “Oh, dad, don’t leave us!”, after her dad was killed by an airstrike and we thought it could not get worse. Then we saw children write their names on their body parts, so that if they were killed they could be identified, and we thought it could not get worse.
Then we saw a bereaved mother call out the names of her children—Baraa, Moataz, Taysir, Aya—who were killed and still under the rubble, and we thought it could not get worse. Then we saw whole bloodlines wiped out, and we thought it could not get worse. Then we saw a 37-day-old baby pulled out of the rubble, thankfully alive, and we thought it could not get worse. Then we saw a newlywed bride crying while holding the shoes of her dead husband, who she had been married to for only six months, and we thought it could not get worse.
Then we saw injured Palestinians from northern Gaza travelling to the south on foot, as there were no ambulances available, and we thought it could not get worse. Then we saw a mother crying and saying, “It took me 580 injections to have him,” while holding her dead baby, and we thought it could not get worse. Then we saw a mother bid farewell to her dead son by saying, “Please forgive me, dear son.” So I ask: how much worse does it have to get? What is the number of innocent Palestinians who need to die in order for there to be calls for a ceasefire?
Palestinian journalists such as Motaz Azaiza risk their life in order to document the atrocities on the ground. We have witnessed the deadliest month on record for journalists, with 63 dead so far. Their posts are not simply Instagram reels to watch and forget about; this is information that must be gathered and used to form cases at the International Criminal Court, to hold those responsible accountable.
There must be accountability from both sides for the horrors that we have witnessed. The taking of innocent hostages by Hamas was atrocious, as too is the collective punishment of the people of Gaza by Israel, along with the continued escalation of violence in the occupied west bank. I have previously called for an independent investigation by the ICC into war crimes committed during this conflict. The UK Government must support an ICC investigation to ensure that those who have breached international law face justice.
Ms Qaisar
I will make progress.
People across all four nations, including my Airdrie and Shotts constituents, demand through marches, petitions and emails that the UK Government back a ceasefire. We must end the suffering, we must stop this humanitarian tragedy, and we must have a permanent ceasefire.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
My constituency has the highest number of signatories to two of the petitions being debated today, and the third highest number to the other. This came as no surprise to me, because I have been inundated: the situation in Gaza has been the topic of the greatest number of representations that I have ever received.
Having grown up in the area, the anti-war and anti-imperialist values that are held very strongly in east London shaped me as a person long before I was elected to this House. I share the absolute horror at the disregard for Palestinian life that has been displayed across the political establishment. It is estimated that the Gaza death toll has increased by 40% since before the temporary humanitarian truce. The staggering level of civilian deaths that are happening as we speak is horrifying. The human rights abuses are horrendous.
Time and time again, my constituents ask me: how is this being allowed to happen? What is it about Palestinian people that means that, for this Government and the political establishment, there appears to be no limit to what can be done to them, no limit to how many can die and no care as to their rights? Why is it that when Palestinian children die in unprecedented numbers, there is so little outrage? Why is it that when Palestinian women are killed, it is barely even acknowledged? Why is it that Palestinians and those showing solidarity are told they cannot even express pain at their suffering? Why is it that the Palestinian flag seems to be the only national flag in the world that people are told is unacceptable?
It is also important to recognise that, following the 7 October attacks, there has been a stark increase in attacks on Muslims, including attacks and hostility against individuals and mosques, with children being targeted at school, death threats being issued and physical attacks. Just last week, more than 700 people were evacuated from the East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre and three nearby schools, following a bomb threat, amid a rise in Islamophobia across the UK. I am seeking action from this Government to ensure that the East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre and other places get the security that they desperately need. Islamophobic hate crimes do not only affect the victim; they have a ripple effect through communities as they reinforce established patterns of bias, prejudice and discrimination.
It is particularly poignant that yesterday marked the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. The preamble to the declaration states that
“recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Honouring that means calling an immediate, permanent ceasefire; it means that the slaughter and degradation in Gaza must end, the ongoing oppression and dispossession of Palestinian people must end, the illegal settlement programme must end, the forced evictions must end and the illegal occupation of Palestine must end. And, yes, there must be immediate recognition of the state of Palestine.
However, with the latest veto, we instead see the US Government enabling immense civilian suffering, a staggering death toll and an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. The UK Government’s refusal to support a ceasefire will be paid for with death, destruction and the suffering of innocent individuals. Despite the horror we are bearing witness to, human rights and international law must not be allowed to be abandoned. More and more people all over the world are speaking out to protect humanity from further destruction.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
As of today, it is estimated that 17,000 have been killed in Gaza—around 7,000 of the dead are children, and 63 journalists have been killed. Israel has a right to defend itself; the attack on innocent Israeli civilians was wicked beyond description. But surely we can agree that what we have been witnessing long ago tipped from justifiable self-defence into brutal attack.
Most of the world watches, horrified by the continuing heavy, deadly, inhumane bombardment of a tiny patch of land, the Gaza strip, and of the terrified and traumatised people living there—dying there. Israel tells them to flee, but to flee where? Where do people flee if every border is closed? When they do try to flee, they are bombed. International law says that care must be taken to safeguard civilians. What care is Israel taking? It has bombed schools, hospitals and homes. A university was flattened. Collective punishment is another war crime.
These war crimes are committed not by a monstrous terrorist group such as Hamas, but by a country that we laud as the only democracy in the region. Most Palestinians and Mediterranean people had no time for the zealotry of Hamas, but who will the orphaned children of Gaza turn to when they crawl out of the rubble? Bitterness and hatred have been planted deep in the souls of innocents. They will remember these weeks for the rest of their lives.
What of the UK? Surely we have a special responsibility, as the former occupying power. Our abstention on the UN ceasefire resolution on Friday shamed us. Labour’s abstention on the ceasefire motion in this Parliament shamed its party leadership. Many honourable MPs stood up against the intense pressure they had to endure from their party Whips, but what is Labour doing abstaining on an issue such as this? At what point will the Labour leadership realise how desperately out of step it is with public opinion and decency?
Only four Back-Bench Tories have thought the most crucial—
John Nicolson
I beg your pardon—I am not wearing my glasses. I will do that again for the edit. How can so few Conservatives turn up to a debate such as this? It really is dreadful. How can Tory and Labour Front Benchers watch and stay silent? How can the Labour leader, watching this carnage and cruelty, say the Israeli Government are within their rights to withhold water from children—yet another crime? The Labour leadership’s volte-face, when it comes, will be excruciating to watch.
UK neutrality, food to the starving, water, electricity for the hospitals, a halt to the bombardment and death; that is all that our constituents want us to argue for and vote in favour of—basic humanity. Otherwise, where does it all end? I suspect that, far from being weakened, extremist groups will be strengthened, which would be the worst possible outcome.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said that the bombardment must continue indefinitely, until Hamas surrender. Hamas are not going to surrender. Why should innocent Palestinians trapped in Gaza pay the price, with this wicked organisation, Hamas, raining terror down upon them? Why should ordinary people pay the price?
This conflict cannot be won by military means. If we study the history, we must surely know that. Only a ceasefire and negotiations can stop this carnage, so I call on colleagues on both sides of the House to raise their voices for peace and an immediate ceasefire.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I thank the petitioners for bringing the debate here today. I want to start by condemning the atrocities that took place on 7 October and by calling for the immediate release of the hostages. However, since the atrocities on 7 October, the world has watched as massacres, bombardments, starvation and communal punishment continue to be levelled against innocent Palestinian civilians. Homes, schools and hospitals have turned into rubble. The collective punishment of the Palestinian people is a crime against humanity and in violation of international humanitarian law. Israel’s refusal to allow water, fuel, electricity, food and medical supplies to reach people under unprecedented assault is unjustifiable.
Save the Children has said that if the children in Gaza
“are not killed by the bombardments, they will be killed by hunger. If they are not killed by hunger, they will be killed by disease.”
One Palestinian dies every five minutes, but that could have been averted if the US and the UK had voted in favour of the Security Council resolution for a ceasefire. That would have ended the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians and the mass displacement of Gazans towards the south of the strip, which is threatening to push them into the Sinai, in the biggest land grab and ethnic cleansing since the original Nakba in 1948.
A child who is 16 years old in Gaza today will have known five successive bombing campaigns and spent their entire life under blockade. The sheer level of trauma, pain and grief that they have already experienced is almost unspeakable. All of us who bear witness to these crimes have a duty to speak up, and those of us with the privilege of power have a duty to do everything humanly possible to end them.
This weekend, traumatising images that emerged from Jabalia refugee camp were widely reported. Palestinian men were stripped naked, bound and blindfolded by Israeli forces, invoking images from some of the darkest passages of our history. The International Federation of Journalists, working closely with the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate, has verified that at least 70 journalists have been killed in the violence, with many others missing and feared dead. It has said that journalists are dying at four times the rate of the general population. These journalists are all that stands between the truth and a total media blackout in Gaza; they should never be a target, yet the numbers reveal a very concerning picture.
I echo the calls from the National Union of Journalists to pay tribute to the bravery of journalists in Gaza and to their commitment to their work. Without them, we would not be able to hold the Israeli Government to account for the horrors unfolding in Gaza.
Time and again, we have heard from Ministers that they are, in no uncertain terms, pushing Israel to take precautions, to act within the confines of international humanitarian law and to show restraint and care for civilian infrastructure and life. However, on his media round this morning, the Defence Secretary failed to condemn the detention of Palestinian children in military prisons.
Kim Johnson
No, I am sorry. I am going to make some progress.
We know that that will not happen without meaningful international action to ensure that Israel cannot continue to act with impunity. The UN Secretary-General has invoked article 99 of the founding UN charter, formally warning the Security Council of the global threat from the attack on Gaza. A ceasefire is the bare minimum we must demand, yet our Government have failed in their humanity. How many more innocent Palestinians have to die before the leadership of this country takes action?
To conclude, our Government urgently need to move towards a permanent ceasefire. We must also go further and take bold steps to end the cycle of violence, including the indiscriminate killings of Palestinians in the west bank by right-wing extremist settlers. The ICC must investigate potential war crimes by all parties and bring to justice those who are found guilty. History will not judge kindly those who looked away. We must do everything in our power to bring these atrocities to an urgent end with a permanent ceasefire.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I unreservedly condemn the crimes of Hamas and particularly the crimes of rape and sexual violence against women. Hamas are terrorists backed by Iran, and we all know how they treat women. However,
“The laws of war must guide Israel’s response”
to Hamas’s atrocities. Those are not my words, but those of a group of eminent Jewish lawyers in a letter to the Financial Times back in October. That group included the former President of the UK Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, and Philippe Sands KC, one of the world’s foremost experts on international law. Their measured and scholarly letter is particularly impactful, because they write as Jews with family and friends directly affected by the terrible crimes perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October.
Three important points were made in that letter. First, the crimes of Hamas are crimes against humanity. The barbarity inflicted by them and the taking of hostages are war crimes. Secondly, under international law Israel has the right to respond and to defend itself and its citizens. But thirdly and very importantly, that response must be in accordance with international law and particularly the laws of war. The letter says:
“These laws apply irrespective of the level of outrageous conduct of an enemy and no exceptions to those rules can be derived from the level of suffering caused by Hamas’s actions.”
The importance of the international community acting to make sure the laws of war are obeyed, and of our collective moral and legal responsibility to avoid another genocide, have been at the forefront of my mind since I visited Srebrenica earlier this year. The message of Srebrenica is that never again must the world stand aside while innocent civilians are tortured, raped and murdered and that never again must the world stand aside while populations are deported or forcibly transferred or have imposed on them deliberately conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part. I believe that we are pretty close to that, if not beyond it, in Gaza.
The lessons of Srebrenica demand a humanitarian response to the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians. We must resist the idea that collective punishment should be visited on the Palestinian people for the crimes of Hamas, whether that collective punishment consists of seemingly indiscriminate bombing, the restriction of water, food, fuel and electricity to Gaza, or the order to Palestinians to evacuate. As the occupying power, Israel has a clear obligation under international law to ensure that the basic needs of Gaza’s civilian population are met. Clearly, it is not doing that. As others have argued, given our history in the region and the Balfour declaration, the United Kingdom cannot stand aside. It shames us that we have stood aside so far, particularly at the United Nations.
Over 1,000 of my constituents have signed the petitions before us. In my nearly nine years as a Member of Parliament, I have never received more emails on any topic than I have on this one, and the vast majority call for a ceasefire in Gaza. My constituents want the UK Government to take swift, urgent action to establish a permanent ceasefire and to press Israel to lift its total closure of Gaza, reopen its crossings and allow the safe, unimpeded movement of aid—that includes fuel, food and medical supplies—and of aid workers, medical personnel and sick and wounded people.
My constituents want the British Government to oppose any action to coerce or forcibly transfer the population out of Gaza. They also want them to demand that Israel ensures the protection of Palestinian civilians, wherever they are, and guarantees that displaced people will be able to return and rebuild their homes.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I associate myself with the hon. and learned Lady’s earlier comments about Hamas. Does she agree that the UK Government should look at a process whereby we can get Palestinians over to the UK, as we did with the Ukraine scheme? They can return to their homes once it is safe to do so.
Joanna Cherry
I very much do. I raised the issue with the Minister in the main Chamber last week in relation to the elderly mother, pregnant sister and small baby of a constituent. It is incumbent on the British Government to look seriously at humanitarian visas, particularly given our links with the region and how many of us have constituents with family there. These people will not want to come here permanently, and they will want to go back to their homeland, so the Government need not worry about the long-term net migration figures. As a humanitarian country, we should surely be looking at humanitarian visas.
The point of my speech—I say this because I am a lawyer and this matters very much to me—is that Britain has an obligation under international law to prevent war crimes and to prevent another genocide from happening, but it is not fulfilling that obligation. I know that the Government never reveal their legal advice, but I want to hear from the Minister whether they are alert to their international legal obligations, and to what extent they are taking those on board. In fairness to him, he responded very generously to my question about this issue in the main Chamber last week. I want to hear that he and other Foreign Office Ministers will pressure the Home Office—and goodness me, does it not need to be pressured to do anything humanitarian?—to grant humanitarian visas to Palestinians who want to come to the United Kingdom for temporary respite before they go back to their homes.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. We are debating important petitions regarding Israel and Palestine, which rightly call for the enormous suffering to end. In addition to the thousands of Luton South signatures that were added to the petitions, I have received thousands of emails from constituents who are deeply concerned about the ongoing situation in Gaza and the west bank and horrified by what they see every day on their TVs and phone screens.
I share my constituents’ concerns. We are watching the destruction of Palestinian lives in Gaza and the west bank, as well as Israeli lives on and since 7 October. Luton is a hyper-diverse town, but it wants peace across the middle east. In remembering our common humanity, I join calls for an immediate, permanent ceasefire on all sides. In this, I echo statements by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, respected organisations such as the International Rescue Committee, Save the Children and Islamic Relief, and a range of faith leaders.
I welcomed the temporary ceasefire announced in November alongside the release of hostages. However, there remains a desperate need for a permanent ceasefire, a significant increase in humanitarian and medical aid, the return of hostages, and a renewed political effort on all sides to come to an enduring resolution for peace. We must be unequivocal: civilians must be protected and not displaced; humanitarian aid, medical supplies and fuel must be allowed into Gaza; and hostages must be released. I have made it clear in this House and in correspondence to the Prime Minister and to the Foreign Secretary and his predecessor that the UK has a duty to ensure that international law and the human rights of the Palestinian people are upheld.
Yet this Conservative Government are failing. The UK should be leading the international community in bringing about peace. Labour has been clear that Israel must not besiege or blockade Gaza. Schools, hospitals and other civilian infrastructure must be protected at all costs. The ongoing bombing of Gaza has so far killed over 17,000 Palestinians, and 40% of them are reported to be children. Constituents who have written to me have said that more than half of all homes have been destroyed and that only 14 hospitals out of 36 are even partially functional. Now, 1.8 million people are displaced—that is 80% of the population—and there are reports that half the population are starving.
The international community can and must secure a lasting ceasefire to make political progress to end the conflict. That means creating an Israel secure from Hamas, and ensuring that Palestinians can see a path to statehood and the reconstruction and renewal of Gaza, and I press the Minister to set out the Government’s plan to make that a reality.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I rise to represent the thousands of constituents who have written to me and signed petitions. The reality is that Gaza is now a graveyard for tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children; a continuing nightmare without food, water, power or medicine for those left alive; and an ongoing Nakba for the 2 million displaced.
In the last few days, the EU’s head of foreign policy has labelled the bombing campaign as
“one of the most intense in history”,
while the UN’s humanitarian affairs chief has described the situation as “apocalyptic”. Such is the magnitude of the war crimes committed and the scale of indiscriminate bombing and violations of international law in their lethality that in the time during which this debate takes place, a further nine women and 12 children will have been killed. Let this House reflect for a moment on that.
Of those who survive, many will remain trapped in the rubble of homes, schools, hospitals, refugee camps, mosques and churches. Of those who receive medical attention, all will face surgery without anaesthetic or pain relief. With hygiene, sanitation and healthcare facilities left destroyed, normally preventable diseases are now ripping through the population. Palestinians are not even afforded dignity in death, with their bodies decomposing under rubble, mauled by stray dogs and eaten by worms. This is the reality of the humanitarian nightmare that Palestinians are facing each and every day. Yet despite the death, destruction and human misery in Gaza caused by the Israeli military’s bombs and bullets, when the UN Security Council voted just days ago on a ceasefire resolution that would have brought an end to this bloodshed, the UK sat on its hands and did nothing.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is the case that 1,400 of my Leeds East constituents have signed these petitions, so people out there do care. When my hon. Friend reflects on the UK Government’s shameful abstention at the United Nations Security Council in the vote on a call for a ceasefire, does he agree with me that it is about time that the UK Government joined the overwhelming majority of the international community—including France, Spain and Portugal, among other European nations—and backed the call for a ceasefire to save lives, end the suffering, release all hostages and make a better future?
Imran Hussain
Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I was saying, the ceasefire resolution was an opportunity to bring the bloodshed to an end, but the UK chose to sit on its hands and do nothing—that was a choice that the UK made as a Government. Instead of taking the lead, the UK abstained, and instead of working on the lasting, peaceful resolution that we need to see, the UK confirmed, by making that choice, that it was content with a bloody status quo in which civilians are slaughtered in their thousands. Although that may be the view of the UK Government, let me make it absolutely clear—I think I speak for many hon. Members in this House—it is not the view of our constituents and it is not the view of the majority of the country. It leaves yet another moral stain on our Government and makes it clear that our foreign policy is set not by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Office but by the United States. All this Government have had to do, when ordered to jump by the US, is ask how high.
Imran Hussain
I will not. Time does not permit it.
The UK’s failure to back the ceasefire resolution, and the ability of the United States to overrule 13 votes in favour of it, without a single other state against, frankly brings into question the legitimacy and viability of an international system that is so clearly broken. Indeed, when the UN Secretary-General is pleading for action and every UN agency is begging for a ceasefire to protect civilians, we have to ask ourselves this: what, exactly, is the point of the United Nations, when it can so easily be overruled and ignored? The situation is appalling and shameful and makes a mockery of any claim to support an international rules-based order with the UN at its core. Seventy-five years ago, we made a commitment to uphold human rights and international law for all people. It is time that our Government stopped only supporting the UN when it suits them and started supporting its efforts to protect civilians wherever in the word—not just in Gaza but in the west bank, and not just in Palestine but in Burma, Kashmir, Yemen, China and countless other regions across the globe.
Time permitting, I will take this opportunity again, on behalf of myself, the thousands of my constituents and the millions of people around this country who want to see an end to this bloodshed, to implore the Minister to listen to the calls of the public petitions, to other hon. Members, to the UN agencies and humanitarian organisations and to those in Gaza who are desperately calling out for help, and back the calls for a lasting ceasefire to end this bloodshed now.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
During the business statement last Thursday, I asked the Leader of the House whether we could have a full day’s debate on the Israel-Gaza war. I do not know whether the Minister has had a communication—I know that the Leader of the House is assiduous about such things—but perhaps he will be able to tell us, when responding, whether that will be granted early in the new year. It is frankly very surprising that we have not had one. I am sure that, if the Government will not grant it, the Backbench Business Committee may do so. I thank the petitioners not only for the 600,000 signatures on the three petitions but for achieving what the Government have not achieved, which is to allow us to have a substantive debate on this subject for the first time. If my maths is right, 2,773 of those signatures come from my constituents: that is substantially less than the number of emails that I have received from constituents on this matter—by a hundred to one, literally—calling for a ceasefire.
[Steve McCabe in the Chair]
The first petition reminds us that breaches of international law are nothing new in the Israel-Gaza dispute. Seventy-five years ago, the Nakba saw the displacement of 750,000 Palestinians. That is a crime in international law. Fifty-five years ago, settlement building began, and it continues apace; indeed, it has accelerated.
The second petition deals with the issue of blockade. Again, blockade is nothing new: Gaza has been blockaded for 16 years and, for that reason, it is still regarded in international law as occupied. Clearly, what is happening now—almost totally to shut off aid, or to have very inadequate amounts of it entering Gaza—is a form of collective punishment and, again, a breach of international law. We have displacement of almost the entire 2 million population of Gaza, and we have bombing on an indiscriminate scale—carpet bombing—that is destroying not only lives but much of the civilian infrastructure. That is why I believe that the third petition is right to call for a ceasefire.
Earlier in the main Chamber, I asked the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), why Britain had abstained in the vote on the United Nations Security Council resolution. As I understand it, he said that there was a lack of condemnation of Hamas and that the Government are against a ceasefire per se. I think we would all join him in wishing that the UN would speak loudly, as all parties in this country have, in condemning the atrocities of Hamas, including the hostage-taking and the massacre on 7 October, which are, again, crimes against humanity. However, that does not invalidate the UN Security Council resolution, and my response to the reasons given for opposing a ceasefire—namely, that it will not be observed by either party—is that there are precedents for ceasefires happening. The pause that we had recently was a type of ceasefire, which was observed by both sides. Frankly, I do not see anything wrong with calling for a ceasefire. I think that the more voices that are added to those calls, the better, and the UK’s voice would be a powerful one.
Why cannot we call for a ceasefire when it appears that breaches of international law are happening? Certainly, prima facie that is the case. I hope that this country, as an upholder of international law, would do that. The fact that we are approaching 20,000 deaths, most of them deaths of civilians, and the fact that half of the housing in Gaza has been destroyed show that these are, at best, negligent actions by the Israelis, that they are indiscriminate and that the results are atrocious.
I visited Gaza just after Operation Cast Lead; I have seen what an Israeli ground invasion means. I saw white phosphorus on the ground, I saw hospitals that had been shelled and I saw families who had lost multiple members through bombing. And I also saw the destruction of civilian infrastructure. Therefore, I say to the Minister that when he responds to the debate, he needs to deal with these issues, including the need for a ceasefire, and he must come up with a more credible response on behalf of the UK Government, because at the moment all we are seeing is multiple deaths of civilians happening on a daily basis.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Blackburn is in the top 10 for the number of signatories to two of the three petitions that we are debating this afternoon. In the short time available to me, I will speak to the core concern of the three petitions.
First, on the question of the UK’s neutrality, international law states that nations have the right to self-defence, but it also dictates that this right must be exercised proportionately. I am sure that future investigations will determine whether that is what is happening in Gaza today.
On 7 October, it was a dark day and I absolutely condemn the horrific terror attack carried out by Hamas. It left 1,200 Israeli people dead, and they were killed in such an horrendous manner, as has been described by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who is no longer in his place. However, please remember that Hamas are not the Palestinian people; Hamas are not the innocent women and children who are suffering today.
Kate Hollern
I will make a bit of progress first.
The terrible crime does not justify the collective punishment of millions. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, around 18,000 Palestinians have now been killed. It is estimated that about 70% of them are women and children. While such deaths are occurring on a daily basis, the UK Government abstained in the votes on last week’s United Nations resolutions, which called for a ceasefire. They claim it will not happen: “Why call for it? It won’t happen.” Doing difficult things is what this Government should do. They say that it is too difficult to do things; they are taking the easy option. But we cannot stand by and watch the horrors we are witnessing every day.
Thousands of people have been left without sufficient food and water, and hospitals are on the verge of total shutdown as fuel runs out. Patients are undergoing surgery with no pain relief. Aid agencies continue to warn that the humanitarian disaster in Gaza is worsening by the minute. Some 2.3 million people are homeless and trapped in a tiny, embattled enclave with little food, water or medical attention.
Finally, on the ceasefire, I believe that the only way forward is an immediate ceasefire that is binding on all sides. It is for that reason that I voted for amendment (h) to the King’s Speech: I could not, in good conscience, have done anything else.
Margaret Greenwood
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I associate myself with her remarks calling for an immediate ceasefire—that is absolutely essential. Does she agree with Amnesty International, which is urging the UK Government to call on Israel to end its 16-year long illegal blockade of Gaza, starting by immediately suspending its recent increased restrictions on food, fuel, electricity and water, which is collective punishment amounting to a war crime?
Kate Hollern
I agree entirely. We must remember that this situation did not start on 7 October.
International calls for a ceasefire are numerous; they are coming from all over the world, apart from the US and the UK, and they will continue to grow. Yesterday, the World Health Organisation executive board adopted a resolution aimed at addressing the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza and again called for a ceasefire. Some 76% of the UK public support a ceasefire. Why are this Government not listening?
We have now had some humanitarian pauses, which were welcome, but a brief respite and the release of more than 100 hostages and 240 Palestinians in detention are insufficient. It is regrettable that world leaders failed to use the time to broker a permanent ceasefire. The only solution is a diplomatically negotiated one: a two-state solution that comprises a secure Israel and a sovereign Palestine is the only way to secure lasting peace.
Richard Foord
I echo the hon. Member’s calls for a two-state solution. Does she agree that it is outrageous for a senior Israeli official to reckon that one third of those killed so far in the war were combatants, because by deduction that would mean that two thirds of those killed—more than 10,000 people—must be civilians, and that we cannot dismiss those civilian deaths as mere collateral damage?
Kate Hollern
Absolutely. As I said earlier, I am quite sure that a future investigation will expose some of the information being released.
I appreciate that a negotiated ceasefire that is binding on all sides—that is the important part—will be difficult and a huge diplomatic task, but sitting on our hands will not achieve anything. The situation is growing worse by the day, and as the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) said earlier, we have a breeding ground for the future of Hamas unless we do something. We start by talking, we start by listening, and we start by putting pressure on people to stop bombing innocent women and children.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I rise to speak on the petitions before us today in no particular order, but I do not think that anyone inside or outside this Chamber would disagree with e-petition 648383, which calls on the Government to urge the Israeli Government to allow fuel, electricity and food into Gaza. The fact that aid has started is welcome, but it is nowhere near enough; we all appreciate that fact. However, I do not rise in support of e-petition 648292, which calls on the Government to seek a ceasefire. I find myself in a very unusual position, in that I will quote someone who I never thought I would quote, and that is Bernie Sanders. Over the weekend, he said:
“In terms of a permanent ceasefire, I don’t know how you can have a permanent ceasefire with Hamas, who has said before October 7 and after October 7 that they want to destroy Israel. They want a permanent war. I don’t know how you have a permanent ceasefire with an attitude like that…I think Israel has the right to defend itself”
if it goes after Hamas, but not after the Palestinian people. Those are very powerful words, with which, again, I think everyone would agree.
We have had a ceasefire previously. In fact, we had a humanitarian pause just recently, which ended on 1 December. That broke down because Hamas broke the terms of that truce. They started trying to dictate which hostages would be released, and then they began again to fire rockets indiscriminately towards residential areas of Israel—itself a war crime. If a temporary truce cannot hold, what chance is there of a permanent ceasefire?
We have an important duty in this place. I have a lot of sympathy with those calling for a ceasefire—who could see bodies being dragged out of rubble and not want that to stop? Everyone with any shred of dignity would want that. However, is that realistic? I do not think so. The pogrom of 7 October—I call it a pogrom because that is what it was—and the sheer scale of the attack that day shook the world. It shook my constituents, who have family members and friends who were not only taken hostage but killed that day—family members such as Vivian Silver, whose cousins I sat and spoke to when I was in shul at the Shrubberies, and again in Whitefield. Her cousins thought she had been taken hostage. The attack was so brutal that her body was not identified until 14 November, more than a month and a half after she was murdered. It took that long to be able to identify her remains and show she had been murdered by Hamas.
I stand with my constituents in saying that calling for a ceasefire is not the right call to make. I have gone to many shuls, spoken at many vigils and spoken to many of my constituents, and they agree. Like you, Mr McCabe, I was at Kibbutz Kfar Aza earlier this year; the tranquillity of that location is now permanently broken. As you will know, our tour guide lost pretty much her entire family that day. Her parents were murdered, and her little brother survived only by hiding under the dead bodies of his parents for seven hours. That is the barbarity—the animal nature—that we are facing.
Hamas do not care about peace. As has been said already, they say in their charter they want to wipe Jewish people off the face of the earth. But it is not just Hamas; Hezbollah in the north and Iran in the middle east are destabilising the entire region. We need to speak more about what we are doing with Iran. I make a plea again to the Minister: as has been said throughout this year and beforehand, now is the time to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety, because it is Iran that is getting these weapons to Hamas in Gaza.
There are many questions as to what is going on in Gaza. There is a terror tunnel network—that cannot be denied. We have seen the footage; we have seen the blast doors; we have seen the fire holes. It is not set up for normal transport around Gaza, but to support terror activities. That is why Israel has the right to defend itself by going after Hamas: to make sure no attacks like that can take place ever again. On 1 November, Ghazi Hamad, a senior member of Hamas, told Lebanese television that Hamas would repeat the attacks of 7 October
“a second time and a third time”,
and keep on repeating those attacks until there is no Israel. That is why I cannot support a ceasefire.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on so eloquently introducing this debate, and I, too, congratulate the petitioners on organising a petition with so much support across the country, including across my constituency. Thousands of my constituents have signed these petitions, and thousands more have written to me to express their feelings about the appalling violence they see unfolding in Gaza.
In almost every one of the getting on for 6,000 emails I have received, there has been unequivocal condemnation of the violence, attacks and brutality perpetrated by the terrorists of Hamas on 7 October: the indiscriminate slaughter of 1,200 people in Israel—it was indeed a pogrom—the rockets indiscriminately fired by Hamas; the indiscriminate hostage taking. My constituents, like the constituents of so many hon. Members here today, have watched in horror at the destruction that has now cost the lives of 18,000 people in Gaza, that has now injured 50,000 people in Gaza and that has now rendered Gaza the most dangerous place on earth to be a civilian. Some 2.2 million people are now in desperate need of food assistance.
UNRWA—the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which we helped to create all those years ago to bring respite to the people of Gaza and the west bank—now calls Gaza “hell on earth”. The World Food Programme is now very clear:
“With just a fraction of the needed food supplies coming in, a fatal absence of fuel, interruptions to communications systems and no security for our staff…we cannot do our job.”
The World Food Programme—a food programme created by the world to feed those in need—is now saying clearly to us that it can no longer do its job.
Oxfam is also now clear that the safe zones are, in its words,
“a mirage: unprotected, not agreed…beyond Gaza itself”.
It fears that people will be forced out of Gaza for the last time, and that the aid agencies will be forced into the devil’s own choice of providing aid while collaborating with that evacuation of people from Gaza.
When we have violence that extreme, surely what we should be doing across this House is arguing for a binding-on-all-sides ceasefire, arguing for peace, and arguing for negotiations. Instead, our Government went to the United Nations, days before we celebrated the anniversary of the UN declaration of human rights, and abstained on a question of moral force and justice. That motion itself was triggered by the United Nations Secretary-General—not a nobody—using emergency provisions, because he warned that the humanitarian aid system was at “risk of collapse”. That is how bad it had become.
In a situation like that, it was the wrong call to abstain on that UN Security Council vote. We should have voted for a ceasefire. We should have voted with almost every other member of the Security Council and sent a message of peace, of negotiations and of a binding-on-all-sides ceasefire, not least because such a vote would not have been without precedent.
I was a member of the Cabinet in 2009 when we voted for Security Council resolution 1860. Despite United States opposition, that called for a ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Hamas. We must be honest; it was not immediately successful, but it changed the terms of the debate on the ground. It laid the groundwork for the peace that eventually came. That is what it means to use our weight in the international institutions of which the UK is a member to make the case for peace—to make the case for a permanent ceasefire.
I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to explain, when he rises to his feet: if not now, then when? How many more people will die before the United Kingdom does the right thing and votes for peace, votes for negotiations and, yes, votes for a ceasefire?
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr McCabe. The petitions that we are debating today reflect the deep anguish that so many people are experiencing as we see the images from the horrific conflict in the middle east on our phones and TV screens. The attack by Hamas on 7 October was an utterly horrific outrage, the biggest terror attack since 9/11 and the largest killing of Jewish people since the holocaust. We stand with Israeli citizens in their pain and trauma, in condemnation of Hamas, in the call for all hostages to be released, and in the desire never again to experience such horror.
But since 7 October we have seen an unprecedented killing of civilians in Gaza. More Palestinians have been killed in the past two months than in the previous 75 years of the existence of the state of Israel. More civilians have been killed in this conflict than have been killed by Russia during the war in Ukraine.
All conflicts are constrained by international law, which requires proportionality and the protection of civilians. International law also confers strict obligations on Israel as an occupying power. It is clear from many testimonies coming out of Gaza that Israel’s response to the horror of 7 October has not been proportionate, and that civilians have not been protected. In addition to the thousands of Palestinian civilians who have been killed in the violence, a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding in Gaza due to the destruction of critical infrastructure and the lack of access to deliver aid at scale. Civilians are dying due to a lack of medicine, food and water, and there is an imminent risk of deadly disease.
The UK Government say, repeatedly and correctly, that the Israeli Government must act within international law. In the face of the unfolding and unremitting horror in Gaza, the killing of civilians, the displacement of a majority of the population, and the humanitarian catastrophe, my first question is: what action will the UK Government take when the Israeli Government are so plainly not acting within international law? It appears that the UK Government’s approach has been to avoid criticism of Israel in public and to seek to exert pressure in private. But that is clearly not yielding results.
The track record of the Israeli Government in previous conflicts in Gaza is clear: they will stop the violence when the international pressure gets too much. When the Israeli Government will not respond to private pressure, the time has come to say publicly what so many people can see in front of their eyes: the conflict in Gaza must stop, because the killing of so many innocent civilians is unacceptable, and illegal in international law. We must call for a ceasefire, because the current situation simply cannot continue, and we must work to ensure that the next ceasefire becomes permanent.
However, we must also turn our attention to the question of how peace can be established in this region. Just as it is clear that the human cost of the current Israeli military strategy is unacceptable, it is also clear that this strategy cannot and will not succeed in creating a context for peace. Support for the Israeli people’s desire to live in peace and security requires the Israeli Government to be challenged on their current military strategy, which is of such unrelenting ferocity that it can only fuel more hatred. The violence must stop, and the ground must be laid for a political strategy for the defeat of Hamas—a political process for the realisation of a two-state solution, where a safe and secure Israel lives alongside a sovereign Palestine. Hamas will not be defeated militarily unless there is a credible plan to win peace.
The Israeli Government’s current actions in Gaza are creating a traumatised generation of Gazans and teaching them that there is no peaceful co-existence with Israel. It is also important that the Israeli Government are challenged on the inflammatory and unacceptable rhetoric of some of their Ministers, who have referred to Gazans as animals and called for population transfers—ethnic cleansing by another name. The cause of peace cannot be advanced while such statements go unchallenged. Can the Minister say why the UK Government have not contradicted those statements or sanctioned those responsible?
The Palestinian people need to understand that there is a broad coalition of countries and leaders that support them in their desire for peace and self-determination and that are willing to challenge the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza and the west bank, including illegal settlements and settler violence, which are designed to undermine the two-state solution. Why have the UK Government not followed the US in taking visa action against the leaders of illegal settlements and participants in settler violence? What are the UK Government doing to assess the legality of IDF action in Gaza? What is being said to the Israeli Government about the conditionality of future arms exports? What are the UK Government doing to build a consensus that describes a concrete alternative with other key countries, including France, Germany, the Gulf states and Egypt, and how many of those countries has the Prime Minister spoken to since the war restarted?
Palestinians and Israelis need to see that the two-state solution is more than simply words: it is a reality that can be achieved, because there is a genuine commitment to work for it across the international community. They need a ceasefire now.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. All nations have the right to self-defence, but it is vital that they do so in accordance with their responsibilities under international law. It is incumbent on all countries to ensure that wherever conflict is taking place, international human rights law is upheld. In the week of the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the universal declaration of human rights, those obligations are of particular resonance.
The civilian population of Gaza, about half of whom are under the age of 18, bears no responsibility for the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October—for neither the 1,200 Israelis who were murdered nor the approximately 240 kidnapped. These are appalling war crimes that were perpetrated by Hamas, and yet it is Palestinian civilians—most of all the young, the ill and the elderly—who are being forced to pay the price, as a result of the unrelenting bombardment and siege of Gaza.
According to the United Nations, more than 17,000 people have been killed since 7 October and approximately 1.9 million people in Gaza—about 85% of the population —have been displaced and made homeless. The scale of this humanitarian crisis has been described by the chief of Oxfam GB as the worst that he has ever witnessed. The spectre of death, disease and hunger loom.
At a time when it is needed most desperately, even the right to healthcare is under attack, as the UN special rapporteur on the right to health has warned, with at least 364 attacks on healthcare facilities having been recorded by 7 December, resulting in at least 553 deaths. Communicable diseases, including respiratory illnesses and diarrhoea, are spreading fast, in a grave situation that will only grow worse as the winter progresses.
Confronted by a humanitarian catastrophe on that scale, the United Kingdom has a moral obligation to demonstrate political leadership and press for an immediate ceasefire and for the beginning of a political process aimed at securing a lasting and equitable peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Only an enduring ceasefire—not a humanitarian pause, and not the unilateral designation of patches of land without adequate infrastructure, food, water, healthcare or hygiene as “safe zones”—can ensure that aid workers can access those in need and allow humanitarian assistance to be delivered at the pace and scale that is so desperately needed. The polite appeals that we have heard from the Government that civilian casualties be minimised are simply not enough. What we need to see now from the Government is the clear and unequivocal message that the human suffering that we are witnessing in Gaza cannot and must not continue.
I regret that that a family emergency precluded me from being in Parliament to vote for the SNP’s amendment to the motion on the King’s Speech advocating for a ceasefire. I am concerned that the British Government continue to fail to lend their voice to the growing chorus across the international community calling for a ceasefire now. The decision not to join our ally France in voting for the motion calling for a ceasefire, which was recently brought before the UN Security Council, was a profound diplomatic and moral failing and a betrayal of our responsibilities towards the people of Gaza.
Such responsibilities extend also to considering what role the UK might play in supplying the Israeli Defence Forces during the current conflict. This is not a moral obligation, but a legal one, as Lord Cameron recognised in 2014 when, as Prime Minister, his Government undertook a review of licensed exports to Israel and warned that, should significant hostilities in Gaza recommence, they would suspend existing licences for components that could be used by the Israeli Defence Forces. Now, as then, the Government should suspend all existing licences to Israel while they assess whether their exports to Israel are compliant with their obligations under the arms trade treaty and whether there is a clear risk of UK arms licensed to Israel being used in contravention of the strategic export licensing criteria.
We stand at a critical juncture for the future of millions of Palestinians and Israelis, as well as for the wider region. Now more than ever, the UK must recognise its moral duty towards those who are trapped amid the devastation being visited on Gaza and do everything within its power to secure an end to the violence.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr McCabe. I thank the thousands of petitioners who have called for this debate.
The latest estimates say that Israel’s bombardment of Gaza has destroyed or severely damaged 60% to 70% of buildings and homes in northern Gaza, and now many more in southern Gaza. The terrifying toll of innocent deaths continues to rise, with at least 10,000 children killed, according to Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. Many thousands more have been injured, maimed or forced to undergo operations without anaesthetic. I am comforting too many constituents in Leicester East who have lost family members and loved ones under the rubble. I have received over 6,400 items of correspondence from constituents calling for a ceasefire.
The toll from bombs and missiles is appalling, but the desperate crisis of starvation and disease is set to be even worse. Yet today the Israeli Government have blamed the United Nations for not doing enough to deliver aid to the people of Gaza, claiming with unabashed arrogance that
“the aid is there, and the people need it.”
The UN has pointed out in response that aid at the border is held up by Israeli checks and that UN staff are unable to get aid to the people or even to get to the Rafah crossing, because of the intensity of hostilities. The UN has already lost more than 150 of its people to Israeli bombs and shells, and it is short of trucks to carry supplies because so many trucks have been destroyed. It has added that even if aid could travel freely, Israel’s Government are only allowing in about a fifth per day of what Gaza needs, intensifying the suffering and starvation and the diseases that result.
Last week, we saw the Israeli Government planting Israel’s flags in the middle of flattened residential districts, suggesting that their aims in Gaza go further than simply destroying Hamas. We are hearing Israeli Government Ministers mockingly calling this horror “Nakba 2023”, and even suggesting dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza, while Israeli Government Departments are discussing plans to push Gazans into a tent city in the Egyptian desert in Sinai, and yet our Government continue to describe this unrestrained assault and siege as
“Israel’s…right to defend itself”,
even in their response to the petitions we are discussing today.
Last week, we saw the shameful spectacle of the UK being the only member of the UN Security Council to abstain on the motion for a ceasefire in Gaza. The scale of the bombardment of Gaza and the loss of civilian life require immediate action. I will not be an accomplice. Collective punishment is a war crime. Forcible transfer is a war crime. Denying food, water and electricity is a war crime. The bombing of refugee camps, schools and hospitals is a war crime. Consequently, along with other parliamentarians worldwide and members of civil society, I have signed a petition asking the International Criminal Court to investigate and prosecute war crimes by Israel. The international initiative Justice for Gaza calls on the International Criminal Court to investigate and prosecute the Israeli Government for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The question is why the UK Government are not even participating in the collective call for evidence that was issued by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. If it wishes to count itself as a civilised nation, the UK can no longer sit on its hands while Gaza is starved, massacred and bombed. The atrocities that happened in Israel on 7 October and Israel’s trauma cannot be a free pass to indiscriminately kill and bomb innocent civilians in Gaza.
How many more must die? I am asking the Government to advise in detail what concrete steps they are taking to bring about an urgent end to hostilities. What do they know about Israel’s ultimate goals in Gaza? In particular, what steps are they taking to pressure the Israeli Government to stop bombing civilians and destroying vital infrastructure? What are they doing to call for a permanent, lasting ceasefire? Just saying that the Government are calling on Israel to minimise casualties simply will not wash, when it is clear to all that there is no restraint and that many thousands more will die if things continue as they are.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate, Mr McCabe. I congratulate those who put forward the petitions that enabled it.
Let me start by stating, as all of us in this Chamber have done, that I absolutely abhor the violence of 7 October, which was perpetrated on unarmed civilians in the various kibbutzim and at the music festival. It was shocking; 1,200 people were killed and 200 hostages were taken. It was not just the killing that was so disgusting, but the maiming and mutilation of women, children and men. But in meeting violence with violence, the response from Israel and the IDF has, I think, been utterly disproportionate and remains, for sure, a concern worldwide.
We have seen the various motions put forward by the United Nations Security Council and the Secretary-General recognising that this is intolerable and that we need to bring the sides together and strive for peace, because what we are witnessing is not a conflict where the asymmetry of the conflict is so considerable. We were promised a conflict of precision and intelligence in routing out Hamas, but what we are actually seeing is the indiscriminate loss of civilian lives: women, children and men. As so many colleagues have described, the scenes are so horrifying. It is very difficult for many of us worldwide to watch these scenes on our TVs, listen on the radio and see on social media the scale of the devastation and the loss of life.
I really had believed, and I do wish to believe, that Israel wishes to secure the three Hamas leaders, but the way it is going about it seems to be utterly inappropriate. The only way in which this will be brought to a resolution is through political negotiation and through targeted military action, but the fact that this is now spreading into more activity in the west bank, with even greater numbers of illegal settlements, must concern all of us, not just in the region but around the world.
I do live in some hope. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) recalled resolution 1860 (2009)—how it was brought about, how the UK was able to act, the leadership it showed and the influence it was able to have on our long-term ally the US, which abstained in that particular vote but brought about the necessary ceasefire a week later. We need to see peace in the region and a stable, secure Israel, but the only way we are ever going to achieve that is with a stable, secure Palestine as well. For too long, nations and politicians in this place have ignored the plight of that region. We have to bring focus urgently to that part of the world to bring about a permanent peace, a permanent secure, stable Palestine and a secure Israel.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
We seem to have come to the end of our supply of speakers a little earlier than anticipated, so I will now call the Front Benchers.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is good to see you in your place, Mr McCabe. It is a privilege to sum up for the SNP in this debate. I pay tribute to some really excellent contributions from colleagues across the House, but I have to say that I do so with a sense of deep sadness. All of us feel this personally. We are all of us connected to this patch of land. Israel and Palestine combined are smaller than the Strathclyde Regional Council area was, and yet the geopolitical implications and the links that the area has to communities worldwide and across all our islands are significant.
I feel it personally, too. I grew up in Saudi Arabia and, with my family, spent much of the ’80s in Riyadh. My folks have just retired, back from Kuwait. In the European Parliament, I was a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and served in the middle east working group. I have been back and forth to the region—Gaza, the west bank and Israel—many times, and I count myself a friend of all innocents. I count myself a friend of Israel and Palestine. I have never seen it as bad as I see it now; I have never felt more bleak and frankly more fearful for the future, not just in the region but in our communities, given the connections that we have to it.
The SNP’s position, on this as on all matters, is that international law has to be applied in all cases and in all circumstances. Our position is principled neutrality. We believe in a two-state solution, much as that is an increasingly forlorn hope, especially right now. We support all innocents. We condemn all violence. Having been back and forth to the region many times, I am well aware that each society is complex and each society is complicated, and I want to see the innocent protected in all societies.
We share the pain of everyone, but what we have seen too much of over the past few months is people minimising others’ pain and legitimising ongoing violence on the basis of pain inculcated into their own communities over many decades. We heard powerful testimony about how dreadful the 7 October attacks were. Of course they were—they absolutely were—but history did not start on 7 October, and to minimise anyone’s pain is not to help a just solution.
Some facts, because it is worth agreeing on some facts: Israel has a right to exist; it has a right to exist within its borders; it has a right to defend itself, proportionately; Hamas are a terrible organisation, a terrorist organisation; the 7 October attacks were barbarism that we unreservedly condemn. But the response to those attacks is redrawing the map of the middle east before our very eyes, and yet again the Palestinian people have been comprehensively let down by the international community.
I fear that what is happening now is going to fuel extremism. It is going to fuel antisemitism and Islamophobia —it is possible to be equally concerned about the rise of both, in all our communities. I fear that the events in the middle east right now could create real problems within our own societies, across the whole of Europe and indeed the world.
In our Committees, we have seen a huge interest from the public, as seen by the response to the petitions: “Remain neutral in Israel-Palestine conflict and withdraw support for Israel”, “Seek a ceasefire and to end Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip” and “Urge the Israel Government to allow fuel, electricity and food into Gaza”. The SNP supports all those petitions. We believe that they would go towards a just peace.
We are very proud of the role that we played in the King’s Speech debate in forcing the House to a vote on an amendment on the need for a ceasefire, because we believe we need a ceasefire. I appreciate that others disagree, but surely peace has to be built on a cessation of hostilities. I take all the points about Hamas. I am a gay man; Hamas throw people like me off high buildings. I carry no torch for anyone within this conflict, but surely peace has to be based on a ceasefire and a dialogue.
We lost that vote on the King’s Speech, which I regret—I pay tribute to all colleagues who supported it—but we will not give up. We have heard a number of references to the 2009 precedent that in supporting UN Security Council resolution 1860 on ending Operation Cast Lead, the UK was influential, with the European Union, in changing the US position. It was influential on changing the reality on the ground. It was influential in creating peace.
We need that again. We need it again because the Israeli Government are going in entirely the wrong direction. The Israeli Government are acting with what seems to be impunity. They are funnelling cash into new settlements right now. We see that happening, and I fear that the long-term consequences will be utterly unsustainable and will undermine any possibility of a just peace.
Andrew Percy
The hon. Gentleman is making a relatively even-handed speech and I would not quite say that I disagree, but as he knows, the consequence of previous ceasefires was the continued building up of the terror network in Gaza and the continued aiming of thousands of rockets, each one of them aimed at civilians. The consequence was the much greater murder of innocents that we saw on 7 October. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is genuine in his desire for a ceasefire, but what is his policy for how we rid Hamas—who we all hate equally, I hope—from the governance of the Gaza strip?
Alyn Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes an important intervention. I agree that we need to rid the region of Hamas for the benefit of the Palestinians in Gaza as well as the wider region, but I do not see that there is a military answer to that, and I do not see the military campaign as being that successful in its eradication, frankly. What we are seeing is disproportionate attacks on civilians. Particularly in northern Gaza but increasingly in the south, we are seeing any prospect of a viable two-state solution or a viable community for people to go back to being ruined. That is targeting, perhaps indirectly, the civilians in the region. That fuels the conditions in which Hamas prosper and makes it easier for Hamas to continue. So we disagree on that: I think a ceasefire has to happen in order to allow talks—however difficult, however painful—to progress, because Hamas are not going away.
We need to go further than a ceasefire. I will make a couple of points to the Minister, who knows I have much respect for him. We need, surely, to focus more on accountability in the long term. We are seeing individuals—non-state actors or otherwise—acting with what seems to be a lack of accountability. We surely need to support the International Criminal Court’s investigation and its call for evidence. The UK is in a position to be particularly influential within that. We are seeing war crimes, and war crimes need to be properly investigated by proper authorities. I do not think that politicians ourselves should shoot from the hip on such matters, but we need a proper investigation by the proper authorities, and that needs to be supported by the UK, surely.
We need to see a greater focus on the proxy violence by settlers in the west bank and Jerusalem, because we are seeing the map of the middle east being redrawn before our eyes. The prospect of a two-state solution is being utterly undermined by the policies of the Israeli Government right now, today. That has to stop, and there must be accountability for it. The map is being redrawn, and that surely has to result in consequences in law. We also—this is another point for the Minister—need to stop aiding Israel in its military action, because to my mind there is sufficient and genuine concern about matériel supplied being misused against civilians, however indirectly or accidentally. Surely there is sufficient concern that in order to help a peace, the UK should stop supplying logistical and surveillance support to the state of Israel and its actions, because they are disproportionate.
I do believe that a just peace is possible. I do believe that the eastern Mediterranean could be paradise, but it has been blighted by the legacy of empire and blighted by corruption, religious politics, political religion and all sorts of other issues. What we are seeing right now is going to have great consequence for our communities into the future, and for the region. We should support peace. We should support a ceasefire. If the Minister is looking to work on that, I will back him all the way.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr McCabe.
No one can doubt the gravity of the situation in Gaza. Despite what we see on our television screens night after night, we cannot begin to understand the horror for the people of Gaza, who live through this terror day in, day out. It is particularly moving and distressing to see so many children who have lost their lives and are being injured in such a terrible way.
Equally, no one can doubt the sincerity of the people of this country who share our emotions and who decided to sign the petitions in such great numbers—many thousands of people. I have also been extremely moved by the contributions that we have heard from Members today. We have heard a number of genuine and heartfelt contributions; if there is a commonality between them, it is that our shared view is that the killing and horror must stop as quickly as humanly possible. The question is: what would our intervention be most effective in doing, and what form should that intervention take?
A number of people have said that we should be arguing for a ceasefire from both parties as quickly as possible. I can understand the sentiment behind that, because we all want to stop the killing, but it is important to bear in mind that if we are to have a genuine ceasefire, it needs both warring parties to agree to that. Unfortunately, there is little indication that that would be the case.
That is why, personally, I believe very strongly that we must argue for a meaningful cessation of violence. It has happened on one occasion; sadly, it did not continue, but I still think it is worth making the case for that, because that will save lives and will hopefully move us towards a situation in which we could have a genuine, long-lasting peace. It is also important to recognise that that momentary pause saw the release of a number of a hostages. That is something that we must never forget. It was extremely important for those families who were concerned about those hostages, who were being held in the most appalling conditions and were being treated badly, it seems. That must be foremost in our minds as well.
A further meaningful cessation of violence would allow the real relief that is desperately needed to come into Gaza in a meaningful way. We had some short respite, but that is obviously nowhere near enough. We must place the emphasis on what is desperately needed by so many people there: more food, more water, more medicines and, critically, more fuel.
It is so important that we do not lock ourselves into seemingly esoteric discussions about what words or phrases we use. We must do everything we humanly can to make life easier for the people of Gaza. In a very practical sense, there is also a need for our Government and all Governments to argue for more relief routes into Gaza. I strongly urge the Government to make forceful representations, if they are not currently making them already, for the Kerem Shalom crossing to be opened by the Israeli Government as quickly as possible.
I want to make a few broader points as well. Inevitably, and quite rightly perhaps, our focus is on the situation in Gaza. Let us not forget what is happening in the west bank as well. Since 7 October, we have seen an increase in settler violence, we have seen some 300 attacks by illegal settlers, and we have seen 250 Palestinian people killed, as well as four Israelis. It is extremely important to recognise in this situation that those settlements—which have taken place, are currently expanding, and it seems being given more funds by the Israeli Government—should not be there. They are illegal settlements.
Today, at least, we should be saying that there should be no increase in those settlements. Hopefully, we can move to a situation where there are no such settlements in a future Palestinian state. It is also important that we note what the United States of America has being saying and doing, and I take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said regarding action on visas. I think it is very important that the United Kingdom does exactly the same as the United States.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. On the point on the illegal settlements, does he share a concern that this current conflict is potentially being exploited by certain factions within the coalition Government to pursue a particular ideology, and to actually accelerate that programme of illegal settlement in the pursuit of the eradication of Palestine as once imagined?
Wayne David
My hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed. It is very important that if we are going to move towards a two-state solution—I will say a little bit more about that in the future—it is necessary for us to recognise that political change and moderation is needed on both sides. We cannot have a situation where Hamas are seen to be the dominant Palestinian voice—they are not, incidentally, but many people believe that to be the case—when they want the destruction of the state of Israel.
We have to make sure we have strong connections with, and give support to, more reasonable Palestinian people who want to have a compromise with Israel and a two-state solution; but that applies equally to Israel as well. Unfortunately, Netanyahu is on record as being against a two-state solution, and there are elements in his war cabinet who want to see the encroachment of Israeli settlers into much of the west bank—some people have even suggested into Gaza as well.
It is extremely important that the international community begins to think about those issues, and begins to work towards a consensus on what needs to be achieved in the future. That is very important for ensuring we have a longer-term perspective, even in these dark days of conflict.
Andrew Percy
I am the only Conservative Member on this side of the Chamber, so hopefully I can be indulged a little. I hope the hon. Gentleman was not trying to draw any equivalence between democratically elected politicians in Israel—whether we agree with them or not—and desire for political change involving Hamas. On that point, would he share my concern that while we all want to see increased co-operation, Palestinian pollsters the Arab World for Research and Development—that is based in Ramallah, and I have met with its staff—show that, I think, 83% of Palestinians across the west bank currently reject co-existence with Israel, and 75% of them support the attacks of 7 October. How are we going to affect that political change when the views on the other side seem so intransigent on the issue?
Wayne David
First, I do recognise that Israel is a democratic state, but at the same time I recognise that a minority of politicians—albeit duly elected—do not articulate what is the view of most Israeli people; that is why it is important for us to stress moderation. I am someone who has been to both the west bank and Israel, and I strongly believe that the vast majority of everyone I met wants peace, and to live together in peaceful co-existence. It is our duty to work towards that, and to make sure they have the context in which they can work out that long-term peaceful settlement.
I want to say something about looking to the future. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) made a very good point when she stressed the importance of international humanitarian law—it is absolutely essential. We cannot be in a situation where we pick and choose which international laws we like; they must apply to everyone in all situations. It is incumbent on us as an international community, and as a country that upholds international law, to make sure that the International Criminal Court is able to look into the conduct of this conflict by all sides and come to some very firm conclusions that must influence our politics in the future.
It is also important that the Government play a very proactive role in the future of the middle east. I might be wrong, but I get the impression that over the last few years our Government have tended to downgrade the importance of their engagement with the middle east—that needs to change. There needs to be far greater emphasis, consistency and real commitment from the Government, and I hope we will see that in the future. It is important we see that in the near future, because once this conflict is over what we cannot see is another Nakba occurring. We cannot see the population of Gaza being forced into Egypt: that is totally unacceptable. That is why I want a meaningful cessation of hostilities, so that we can begin to talk materially about these issues. I want to see Gaza being rebuilt, which will require greater investment by the international community. It will mean Britain and others working with the Arab states to make sure that there is sufficient investment and security, both for Palestinians and for Israelis, as soon as the conflict is over.
My final point is that it is very important that in this difficult situation we hold out a clear vision for the future, and it is also very important that that future must rest on a two-state solution. To achieve that, we need to have hope; we need to have hope that it is better for people to live together than to engage in perpetual conflict. The choice for the international community is very clear. One possibility is pretending that, once the conflict is over, “There you are, we can pack our bags, forget about it and go on to the next conflict.” We cannot do that. We must learn the lesson of history, which is that if the international community, working with everybody in the region, does not do its level best to make sure that there is a two-state solution, this terrible conflict will be replicated in 20 years’ time, another 20 years after that and so on.
We have to make sure that the issue is addressed in a systematic and coherent way. I very much hope that the Government share that perspective and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for allowing this important debate and to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who has led it. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), is engaged elsewhere in his parliamentary duties, so I am delighted to be able to respond to the debate today. I am also grateful to Members for their powerful and sincere contributions to the debate from across the Chamber this afternoon.
Of course we are all very clear, as has been described at length and in moving detail this afternoon, that a profound tragedy is unfolding in the middle east. Israel has suffered the worst terror attack in its history and in Gaza, too many civilians are dying in this major humanitarian crisis. This afternoon, we have heard moving testimony about some of the tragedies on all sides.
The hostage release deal, which began in late November, offered a desperately needed moment of hope and respite, and we will continue to press at the UN and directly with Israel for unhindered humanitarian access and further substantive and repeated humanitarian pauses.
The brutal attack on 7 October included the murder of more than 1,200 people and the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza has reported that more than 18,000 civilians are dead in Gaza. Fifteen British nationals have lost their lives and a small number of other British nationals have been taken hostage. More than 100 hostages continue to be held in Gaza, where three quarters of the population have been displaced.
Of course the UK Government have made it clear that Israel has the right to defend itself, to free the hostages and to ensure that such an attack can never happen again. At the same time, Israel must comply with international humanitarian law and take every possible precaution to minimise harm to civilians.
On Hamas, we have made our position plain. Hamas can have no future in Gaza after their appalling terrorist attacks. They pose a fundamental challenge to the very idea of an Israeli state. So, Hamas must release all hostages, stop endangering the lives of Palestinians and lay down their arms.
Let me turn now to the three petitions that we are debating today. First, on the call for neutrality, we support Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself and to take action against terrorism. Hamas terrorists have brutally murdered, raped, kidnapped and maimed ordinary civilians in Israel, and callously put civilians in Gaza at risk.
The Hamas campaign has not stopped since 7 October. Hamas have fired hundreds of rockets and publicly repeated their desire to destroy the Israeli state. Hamas does not speak or act in the interests of the Palestinian people.
As the Prime Minister has said, we stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people. We continue to urge Israel to ensure that its campaign targets Hamas fighters and military objectives. It is vital that all parties ensure that their actions comply with international humanitarian law and that they take every possible step to minimise harm to civilians.
Helen Hayes
The Minister says that the UK Government urge the Israeli Government to undertake targeted strikes and protect civilians. What will the UK Government do next when it is plain for all to see that civilians in Gaza are not being protected and the strikes are not as targeted as they should be?
Leo Docherty
As I have already stated and will state again, it is vital that all sides comply with international humanitarian law. Israel must take every possible step to minimise harm, and it is subject to international law like everyone else. It must also do more to stop settler violence and hold those responsible to account; we raised that directly with the Israeli Government. Indeed, UK Ministers, including the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, have pressed those points in all engagements with their Israeli counterparts very recently. We want to see a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.
I turn to the petition on aid for Gaza. We continue to urge the Israeli Government to allow the immediate, unimpeded and safe access of lifesaving fuel, electricity and food. Palestinian civilians should not suffer the consequences of Hamas’s brutality. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, the agreement on 22 November to pause hostilities was a crucial step toward addressing the humanitarian emergency in Gaza. The pause provided an important opportunity for food, fuel and other lifesaving equipment to enter Gaza, including from the UK, via Egypt. The UK has provided 74 tonnes of aid to Gaza, including blankets, sleeping mats and medical provisions, which are being distributed by the United Nations. I should add that the Foreign Secretary announced an additional £30 million of humanitarian assistance on 24 November, which triples our existing aid budget for the Occupied Palestinian Territories in this financial year. Of course, that will not be enough to meet the immediate needs of the population. We have pressed Israel to open other land border crossings, such as Kerem Shalom, and we hope that that will open very soon.
We continue to work with the United Nations, the Palestine Red Crescent Society and the International Committee of the Red Cross to improve the humanitarian situation. We take seriously Israel’s concerns about the stockpiling of aid by Hamas terrorists, but that does not negate the need for such aid to reach those who need it inside Gaza. We are working with the UN to ensure that safeguards and robust processes are in place to ensure that aid is used only for humanitarian and civilian purposes.
I turn to ceasefires. As the Prime Minister has said, there is no scenario in which Hamas can be allowed to control Gaza again. That is why we are not calling for a general ceasefire, which would allow Hamas to regroup and entrench their position. I am pleased to say that the Government’s position is shared by the Opposition Front Bench. Instead, we are focused on urging respect for international law, alleviating human suffering and, hugely importantly, conflict resolution.
We remain committed to a two-state solution. Both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to live in peace and security. We agree with the United States that Gaza should ultimately be under Palestinian control, with the Palestinian Authority having a long-term role. The Prime Minister has discussed that on several occasions with President Abbas. The Foreign Secretary also discussed how to support the Palestinian Authority, including through training and capacity building, during his regional visit in November. We do not believe that the long-term presence of Israeli security forces in Gaza would be of benefit to Israelis or Palestinians. In the short term, the Government welcome November’s hostage and prisoner releases and the pause in fighting, which allowed for the increased flow of fuel and aid, as I have said. We are pressing for further pauses on humanitarian grounds to get more aid in and hostages out.
I conclude by thanking the public and my fellow parliamentarians for an impassioned and sincere debate this afternoon and for their continued engagement on these critical issues.
Andy Slaughter
I will keep the Minister a little longer if he has the time. Notwithstanding that, I asked him a question: is his Department likely to sponsor a full-day debate in the main Chamber? Clearly, there is an important issue to be debated about the way Israel is conducting the war and how we achieve peace, but with the degree of settler and IDF violence in the west bank, with the settlement expansion that is going on and with UK components in arms supplies, there are also many other issues around the Israel-Gaza war that need to be debated, so will the Minister give that undertaking?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman asks a valid question. I cannot give that assurance, because of course it is a question for the Leader of the House, but we note that question and I am sure we will relay the request to the Leader of the House and she will give it due consideration. This afternoon demonstrates that there is, understandably, a tremendous level of interest from colleagues, reflective of the profound level of interest shown by the general public.
Mick Whitley
Will the Minister tell us what discussions the Government have had over the last 13 years about a two-state solution, and when was the last time they met to discuss that matter? I ask because I do not think anyone knows, by any means, that that has taken place.
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question, and I am pleased to confirm that the Foreign Secretary discussed that issue in the region just last month with his interlocutors.
We are seeing, across the world and in our own communities, how polarising and emotive this issue is. The Government are clear on our priorities: supporting Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas; ensuring that Israel protects civilians in Gaza and complies with international humanitarian law; standing with the civilian population of Gaza; pressing, both at the UN and directly with Israel, for unhindered humanitarian access and further humanitarian pauses; securing the release of UK hostages; and restarting the peace process towards a two-state solution that delivers lasting peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians.
Leo Docherty
I will be delighted to give way if the hon. Lady will be very brief.
Claudia Webbe
I thank the Minister for giving way. I just want to ask whether the Government will be giving evidence in relation to the call by the International Criminal Court prosecutor—in terms of prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Leo Docherty
The conduct of the ICC is of course a matter for the ICC, but I can reassure colleagues that the UK of course will continue to work with our partners to ensure that the vision of a peaceful middle east eventually can, one day, become a reality.
Cat Smith
It is a bold thing for any citizen to do to start an e-petition on the Government’s website, and I thank our petitioners for sitting through our debate today. I do not know whether they appreciated the Minister’s response or perhaps have further questions for him—it is difficult to read the body language in this Chamber—but what is clear and has come across from all colleagues is that all our inboxes have been full on this issue, and it is very clear that the petitions surpassed the 100,000 mark very quickly. With 600,000 people signing the three petitions, we secured time to debate the issue in the House. That is something that was achieved by citizens in this country. Something that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) has been attempting to secure through business questions was achieved by citizens, and that is testament to the e-petitions procedure. I would encourage anyone watching to fully engage in that process.
There are plenty of things that we can disagree on in this Chamber and in this debate, but there are some things that we can agree on. The pain, the death and the suffering on both sides is something that has touched all our hearts, and the unimaginable acts of terror that have been experienced by citizens, both Israeli and Palestinian, have definitely affected all of us. I do not believe that a military solution will ever be successful; I believe that peace is only ever won when weapons are laid down.
It is always a bit dangerous in this House to go off script a little bit, and I had not planned to say this, but something that struck me in this debate was that it is very challenging to raise a child with dual heritage. My son tonight will be lighting Hanukkah candles with his father back in Lancaster. He understands that he has a Jewish identity, and that his mother has a Christian identity. A few weeks ago, we were at a peace vigil in Lancaster with a friend of ours who is a Muslim. The three of us were holding hands, mainly because he is a five-year-old boy and has a tendency to run away, and he looked up and said, “Mummy, you are a Christian, I’m Jewish”—sometimes he says he is Christian, but I suppose that is the challenge of having dual heritage—“and”, looking at our friend, Fabina, “you are a Muslim. Isn’t it nice that we all love each other?”
I am really saddened by what happened next. We had to leave the peace vigil because some people started chanting things that were antisemitic. It is important in this debate that we remember that regardless of our religious heritage or cultural identity, we are all citizens on this planet and we need to come together to find peace. It will be challenging and painful, and things will be said that hurt every one of us, but I hope that the three hours we have spent in Westminster Hall today might be the start of something in this House through which we can understand the complexities of these different identities and the challenges that we will have to find peace. I hope we find that peace, Mr McCabe.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 648225, 648383 and 648292 relating to Israel and Palestine.
Written Statements
Trade Sanctions Implementation Update
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Government are announcing today that they will create a new unit—the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation—within the Department for Business and Trade to improve the implementation and enforcement of trade sanctions.
Over the last year, the Government have implemented sanctions against Russia unprecedented in scale and scope. In total, the UK has sanctioned over £20 billion-worth of its 2021 trade in goods with Russia. We have also banned the provision of a range of professional and business services that are crucial to Russia’s economy, including accounting and audit, advertising and public relations, architectural services, engineering services, management and IT consulting, and legal advisory services. The UK is a world leader in services trade, and Russia has high levels of dependence on skills and expertise from G7 countries. Our services sanctions will degrade Russia’s ability to maintain, upgrade and modernise its economy over the medium term, thereby reducing the revenue available to finance its war machine.
The new Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation will play a pivotal role in ensuring that these sanctions, but also those across 23 other UK sanctions regimes such as Afghanistan, Belarus, North Korea, Iran, Lebanon and Syria, are effectively implemented and enforced.
The new unit will support businesses to comply with UK trade sanctions as well as investigate potential breaches. The Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation will have a range of civil enforcement tools, including the ability to levy monetary penalties. The Government will make regulations to provide the framework for these monetary penalties. Where the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation investigates and potentially finds more serious breaches, it will refer these to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or other agencies for criminal enforcement.
The Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation will be an important addition to the Government’s sanctions enforcement capability. It will work closely with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which will continue to enforce trade sanctions where goods—and ancillary services—cross the border in line with its role as the UK’s customs authority; with the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in His Majesty’s Treasury, which is responsible for financial sanctions as well as the oil price cap; with the Department for Transport, which leads on transport sanctions, and with the Home Office, which is responsible for immigration sanctions and for modern slavery.
The creation of the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation is a key part of how Government are delivering the economic deterrence initiative announced as part of the refresh of the Government’s integrated review, published in March this year. This funding is from the conflict, stability and security fund, and administered by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which is responsible for overall foreign policy on the use of sanctions. It will strengthen our tools to respond to and deter hostile acts by current and future aggressors, including by building expertise across Government to design, implement and enforce sanctions for maximum impact.
Further detail on when the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation will be operational will be shared with Parliament at a later date.
[HCWS110]
Maritime Capability Coalition Launch
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
I am pleased to inform the House of the UK’s launch of the maritime capability coalition (MCC), alongside Norway, which represents a step change in the UK’s support for Ukraine in both defending against Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion and in developing Ukraine’s maritime capabilities for the future.
The MCC will focus on the task of developing a Ukrainian maritime force capable of defending Ukraine’s maritime flank and deterring Russia. This will require our collective effort and resource, including through the provision of training, doctrine, information, infrastructure or the procurement of equipment and ammunition. The future security and prosperity of Ukraine depend upon it.
The MCC initiative reinforces our collective long-term commitment to Ukraine and provides a permanent mechanism through which we can support the development of Ukraine’s maritime capability, ensuring coherence, unity of effort, prioritisation of resource and synchronisation of activity.
The UK and our allies have been clear we will not stand by as the Kremlin persists in its disregard for the sovereignty of Ukraine and international law. This includes the recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty over its territorial waters which is established in accordance with international maritime law.
The MCC will be UK-led, alongside Norway, but will be international in nature with other nations contributing to the programme.
[HCWS112]
Response to the Independent Review of UK Government Welfare Services for Veterans
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I am making this joint statement my behalf and on behalf of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
We are pleased to announce the completion and publication of the Government response to the independent review of UK Government welfare services for veterans.
We informed the House on 2 March that we had commissioned a review into the role, scope and breadth of UK Government welfare provision for veterans, including by the Ministry of Defence under the Veterans UK banner. This is the first time these have been considered in the round since the launch of the strategy for our veterans and corresponding veterans strategy action plan, and the creation of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. On 17 July, we announced in a written statement to the House that this review had been published.
The review made 35 strategic and operational recommendations. The most significant of these include redefining the scope, time and eligibility limitations of Government services so that they are no longer available to all veterans in perpetuity; amending ministerial titles to better distinguish the roles of the MOD and OVA in veterans support; retiring the MOD’s “Veterans UK” branding; exploring greater commissioning of services within and out of Government; and moving the Northern Ireland Veterans’ Support Office into the OVA. These recommendations are supported by a series of proposals concerning improved and co-ordinated communications, and enhanced data collection and sharing.
There are several recommendations in the review that we can confirm we are actively taking forward, including the retirement of the “Veterans UK” branding name in 2024, and the transformation of how we deliver the welfare services that fall under that umbrella. This will enable a more consistent level of service to those accessing support. “Veterans” will be removed from the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families title, to avoid confusion as to who holds primacy for co-ordinating veterans’ policy across Government. MOD will continue administering service pensions and compensation, transition support and welfare support for those with service-related issues.
OVA is working to consider the options for improving Veterans’ Gateway content and the referral journey, exploring how a renewed Veterans’ Gateway can direct users to the information and support they need. In addition, MOD and OVA will continue to work together to assess opportunities for data sharing more widely across Government and other organisations across the sector. Tied into this work, MOD will examine the proposal for a new welfare case management system with the aim to create a holistic view of a welfare case and be able to share this more easily, where appropriate, with other service providers so that a veteran could be referred more effectively to relevant support across the sector.
The Government recognise the views expressed in the review on the knowledge and trust held by the Northern Ireland Veterans’ Support Office. OVA will fund the NIVSO for financial year 2024-25 from its budget, while evaluating its impact to determine future funding and governance arrangements.
We know that veterans and supporting organisations want to see real change taken to enhance and rationalise welfare services for our armed forces community, and that is what we intend to do in response to this review. The response sets out several of our commitments and high-level plans to take forward the intention of the recommendations, and further detail will be made available as we make progress in due course.
We are placing a copy of this review response in the Library of the House.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-12-11/HCWS108/.
[HCWS108]
Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates: Regulation
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
Today I am pleased to announce that we published the response to the Government’s consultation on the legislation that will empower the General Medical Council to regulate anaesthesia associate and physician associate roles.
This is an important step towards UK-wide statutory regulation of anaesthesia associates and physician associates under the GMC. The Government intend to lay the necessary legislation in both Houses. The legislation will also be laid before the Scottish Parliament.
Physician associates work under the supervision of doctors, taking medical histories, carrying out physical examinations, performing some medical procedures and analysing test results. Anaesthesia associates review patients before surgery, initiate and manage medications, administer fluids and blood therapy during surgery, and ensure that there is a plan for patients following their operation. Both roles can work autonomously, but always under the supervision of a fully trained and experienced doctor.
Earlier this year NHS England published its long-term workforce plan—the first of its kind in the history of the NHS—which included the ambition to grow medical associate roles as part of multidisciplinary teams. The plan commits to increasing the physician associate workforce to 10,000 by 2036-37 and the anaesthesia associate workforce to 2,000 over the same period.
Regulation will provide a standardised framework of governance and assurance for clinical practice and professional conduct in order to enable these roles to make a greater contribution to patient care. The GMC will have responsibility for and oversight of both doctors and these medical associate roles, allowing it to take a holistic approach to education, training and standards.
These two medical associate roles will be the first to be regulated under a reformed legislative framework. We will subsequently be using this framework to modernise all healthcare professional regulators’ governing legislation, following the Law Commission’s report, “Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals”.
Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, this legislation will instruct the GMC to commence regulation in 12 months, requiring it to consult on its own rules, policies and guidance needed to begin regulation of these associate roles.
The response to the consultation has been published on www.gov.uk and I have deposited a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS113]
Safe Access Zones: Commencement
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
People in this country have a wide range of views on abortion. All viewpoints are legal to hold, and it is important that, as a nation, we are tolerant and respectful of others’ viewpoints. Indeed, it is a cornerstone of our democracy that people are free to gather and express their views, however uncomfortable they may be to others.
The Government have always been clear that rights to protest do not extend to the intimidation or harassment of others. Where protests do amount to that, we expect the police and local authorities to use their powers to deal with such cases.
The debates during the passage of the Public Order Act 2023 showed that many people have firmly held—but opposing—views about the merits of limiting the right to protest in order to enable women to freely access abortion services. There were concerns that the right to protest, freedom of expression and religious belief were being unjustifiably constrained. Meanwhile, others argued with equal passion that women accessing abortion services deserved greater protection from harassing or intimidatory protest.
After considering the debates, the Houses of Parliament voted to introduce legislation to prohibit certain activities within 150 metres of an abortion clinic or a hospital that provides abortion services—“safe access zones”.
The Government respect the will of Parliament, and we anticipate commencing section 9 of the Public Order Act 2023 no later than spring 2024.[1]
We have considered what needs to be done to ensure that safe access zones can be implemented as effectively as possible, with law enforcement agencies having a clear and consistent understanding around enforcement, and abortion service providers and protestors being clear as to what is expected under the new law.
We believe the best way to do this would be through publishing non-statutory guidance prior to the commencement of section 9.
I recognise that this is new legislation, on an emotive topic, with strong views on all sides of the debate and that determining the appropriate balance between competing interests will not always be straightforward. The Government have therefore decided to launch a public consultation on the non-statutory guidance for safe access zones and welcome responses from all interested parties. Running a public consultation will help ensure that we produce guidance that reflects the policy intention of Parliament and provides a workable enforcement policy.
The public consultation will run for six weeks until 22 January 2024. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.
As Home Secretary, I am committed to ensuring that women in England and Wales feel safe and protected while exercising their legal right to access abortion services and I am optimistic that this Government will facilitate the effective introduction of safe access zones.
I thank Members across the House for their engagement on this issue.
[1] “Abortion Clinics: Safe Access Zones”, Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2023, Vol. 834, c. 599-603: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2023-11-20/debates/60888608-B1EC-40F7-8CEC-3C77479493D7/AbortionClinicsSafeAccessZones
[HCWS111]
Scottish Gender Recognition Legislation Section 35 Order: Judicial Review Outcome
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I welcome the Court’s judgment, which upholds my decision to prevent the Scottish Government’s gender recognition legislation from becoming law. The Outer House of the Court of Session issued its judgment on the Scottish Government’s petition for judicial review on the section 35 Order made with respect to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill on 8 December. The Bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament in December 2022, and in January 2023 I made an Order, under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, which prevented the Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent. In April 2023 the Scottish Ministers lodged a petition for judicial review challenging this Order.
The UK Government’s position in the judicial review was set out in our answers to the Scottish Government’s petition and in a note of argument, both of which have been published and I will place them in the Libraries of both Houses. The hearing took place on 19 and 20 September, in the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
I was clear that this legislation would have had adverse effects on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters, including on important Great Britain-wide equality protections. My decision was about the legislation’s consequences for the operation of GB-wide equalities protections and other reserved matters. As I set out when I made the section 35 Order, transgender people deserve our respect, support and understanding.
The section 35 power was included in the Scotland Act 1998, which established the Scottish Parliament. The power in section 35 of the Scotland Act is not new—it has existed as long as devolution itself. As Lady Haldane noted: “far from being an impermissible intrusion upon the constitutional settlement, section 35 is an intrinsic part of it.”
The section 35 power provides a sensible measure which can be used to ensure that devolved legislation does not have adverse impacts on reserved matters, including on equalities legislation such as the Equality Act 2010.
The power can only be exercised on specific grounds—and the fact that this is the first time it has been necessary to exercise the power in almost 25 years of devolution emphasises that it is not a power to be used lightly.
In the instance of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, I concluded that the Bill would have serious, adverse effects on the operation of the Equality Act 2010 and other reserved matters. It is for the Scottish Government to consider the next steps for the Bill with the Scottish Parliament.
I will place a copy of the judgment in the Libraries of both Houses, and the full text of the judgment can be found here: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session.
[HCWS109]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I am obliged to advise the Grand Committee—although I think it is singularly unlikely that we will have a Division—that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
Member’s explanatory statement
This and related amendments in the name of Lord Berkeley empower the Secretary of State (rather than Transport for London) to make pedicabs regulations.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
This is a long group of amendments but, in my case, they all say the same thing, which is probably just as well. I wish to speak to Amendments 1, 6, 10, 13, 27, 29, 30, 37 and 41. These are all to do with the regulatory framework for pedicabs and what I would call a national one.
At Second Reading in your Lordships’ House, a lot of colleagues talked about the difference between the rules governing pedicabs in London and those in the rest of the country. There was general agreement that the London situation needs changing but that it must not be changed to the extent that it prevents legal pedicabs from operating in a safe and sustainable way. We have to learn from the experience of some other cities, such as Oxford, Salisbury and York, where the pedicabs have effectively been put out of business by the taxi crowd. I am sure the Minister would agree that the purpose of all these things is to make the operations of pedicabs as close as possible to the way that taxis operate around the country, bearing in mind that pedicabs are smaller and lighter than taxis, as well as being safer, I think. However, they all need to live together.
My purpose in tabling what is effectively one amendment is that it would be better if the Secretary of State were responsible for all the secondary legislation. While I have great faith in what Transport for London is trying to do, things can change. We may find in a few years’ time that even those of us who love pedicabs will be badly affected if a different council in London decides to make life so difficult for pedicabs that there would be none left. That would be an equal shame.
I know that the Minister has a couple of amendments down on the same thing and I look forward to debating those. The key for me is that the Secretary of State should take ultimate responsibility for the regulations under the Bill, just to make sure that those regulations are fit for purpose and have a common fairness in how they deal with pedicabs and taxis across the whole of England. The Bill applies only to London, as we have been told many times, but if it then became a model for change in other cities later, if the local authorities wanted it, that would be good too. That is my reason for suggesting that it would be good if the Secretary of State were the person by whom the regulations were applied, so that he or she were in charge. I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, my name is attached to two amendments in this group. Amendment 2 is a probing amendment to simply ask my noble friend the Minister why the draftsman uses “may” in some instances and not “must”. I would have thought that these are “musts” that we want to see. In his Amendment 44 in this group, my noble friend has helpfully chosen a “must”, but that is the other way round, requiring that TfL
“must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State”.
He will see why I want it in the direction that I have requested.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, my contribution to this group of amendments is in having given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill. In doing so, I take a contrary view to that of all the amendments about how this issue should be dealt with. All the amendments have a centralising thrust, whereas my thrust is for decentralisation. In one aspect, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that these regulations need to be used to improve the services provided by pedicabs and not to kill them off entirely. We need to use this opportunity to turn the negative into a positive so that they enhance rather than damage the tourism offer in London.
I tabled my notice of intention to oppose Clause 6 standing part of the Bill to probe why the scrutiny of regulations made by Transport for London is to be undertaken by Parliament and not the London Assembly. The legal situation in England is that, outside London, pedicabs can be licensed as taxis. Taxi and PHV licensing is undertaken across England by 262 lower-tier and unitary authorities of a vast range of sizes. The taxi legislation therefore gives licensing authorities significant discretion in vehicle requirements. A taxi driver must be deemed fit and proper to hold a licence, must have held a car driving licence for the last 12 months and must not be disqualified on immigration grounds, which is covered by the right-to-work check.
Some authorities, such as Herefordshire, York and South Lakeland, have policies that detail specific requirements for pedicabs, whereas other authorities state in their licensing policies that they do not license pedicabs. There have been complaints since 2006 about pedicabs in London, but all that time other local authorities have had the powers to deal with this and design and implement their own regulations. That is a satisfactory approach. As I said, there have been complaints over 20 years, but successive Governments have not considered this issue important enough to deal with or they have not had time in the parliamentary timetable to do so.
Now we have this Bill, which has broad support but is, in parliamentary terms, a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. From the point of view of residents in London who complain long and hard about the noise, nuisance and danger of the current situation, regulation and control of pedicabs cannot come into force quickly enough. A single day of delay will annoy them. Why are the Government so intent on delaying things even more by ensuring that Parliament must approve Transport for London regulations?
Across the UK, local authorities consider issues of detail where local knowledge is essential. I would argue that Parliament is definitely not the place to decide the adequacy of regulations that might, for example, stipulate the location of cab ranks. We should not be sitting here saying that a cab rank should not be on this street corner but on another one. That is not the level of detail we should be going into. That sort of thing requires local knowledge and should be scrutinised by the GLA.
It is also essential that we do not clutter our timetable—the Government are always saying they do not have parliamentary time, particularly in relation to transport—with things that can be done better at a different level of government. I argue that Clause 6 should not be part of the Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in this exciting ideological divide I find myself, curiously, much on the same side as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, rather than the side of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, or even the Government.
We have been here before. In 1514, we enacted a Bill to regulate the fares charged by water taxis on the Thames and it ran into exactly the same problem that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will run into, which was that there was nobody to enforce it. Who in the Department for Transport will turn up and enforce the regulations made by the DfT if TfL, which has an enforcement department, is cut out of it?
The Act of 1514 became, in effect, a nullity. Undeterred, Parliament returned to the subject in 1555 to have another go and this time more sensibly. We delegated the power of setting these fares and enforcing them, as far as river-borne traffic was concerned, to what were known as the rulers of what became the Company of Watermen and Lightermen. The regulation of horse-drawn traffic in London, including things like cabs and taxi meters, has—as far as I am aware, and until the creation of Transport for London under the GLA Act of 1999—always been the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police. Again, that is a local body and one well acquainted with enforcement.
Now, for the first time in at least half a millennium of legislation, we appear to have the notion from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that all regulation should be set by the Government and from the Government the not terribly dissimilar notion, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that while Transport for London should be allowed to draft, in effect, the statutory instruments and must submit them immediately—“immediately” is the word used—to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State, with no time limit, requirement or obligation on him or her, then has to approve, amend, change or reject them. Why? What is the advantage to the Government or to the travelling passenger of doing this? Why are the Government not under the same obligation to act immediately, or at least within set time limits, in dealing with the SIs sent to them by Transport for London?
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I declared my interests in full at Second Reading. I declare them again, only as they are in the register.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. This seems a strange way of regulating the pedicab industry. I am not sure why my noble friend is regulating in this complex way. As I understand it, Transport for London will form the regulations, then the Secretary of State will turn them into statutory instruments. They will enter a new queue here to be given the time to be dealt with.
I have had problems in the past with statutory instruments from the Department for Transport. The Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023 were debated in the Moses Room on 16 May this year. It took five years from consultation before they were promulgated here. I am not sure what was achieved in those five years, because the regulations were not changed. The only thing that happened was delay.
I think we all agree that the Bill is urgent, important and should be done immediately. As my noble friend Lord Moylan mentioned, it is good news that the Government, in their Amendment 46, use the word “immediately”:
“Transport for London must, immediately after making pedicab regulations, send the statutory instrument containing them to the Secretary of State”.
Should we not volunteer to propose the regulations as statutory instruments immediately? I understand that, even then, there would be a queue, but the word “immediately” does not seem to have produced the urgency that is truly required.
This is a very good Bill. I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who said that the taxes are regulated by the Secretary of State. I think he will find that they used to be, a long time ago in the old and hallowed days when they were regulated through the police force—and very much better they were, too—but, in recent years, they have been regulated by Transport for London. It can change things and get new regulations through much faster than would be implied by this structure. So, not only are they closer, as my noble friend Lord Moylan mentioned; they are also altogether faster than the system, which is inevitable with a big department.
I thank noble Lords. I hope that the Bill gets through as soon as possible because these vehicles are a small but dreadful scourge on the streets of London.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I find myself, in my position speaking for the Opposition, in favour of devolution on this issue. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said; I do not know why she thought that I would disagree but I agree totally with what she said.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I did not—at least, I did not intend to imply that.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
In that case, I apologise, but I agree completely with what the noble Baroness said. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley and agree with the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Borwick, on this issue. It is the responsibility of Parliament to set the framework to empower Transport for London to make these regulations, but their detail should be a matter for it and it should be given the power to do this. One of the amendments I have tabled suggests that we push ahead quickly with this and that TfL should be given the power to get on with it as quickly as possible. I suspect that the real argument one ought to have concerns whether this is a Westminster borough issue or a London-wide one, but it makes the most sense for TfL to have the legal responsibility. I am sure that the borough of Westminster will be consulted by it on this matter very thoroughly.
This is certainly an important principle. If we want speedy action in this area, it should be supported across the Committee. With great respect to civil servants in the Department for Transport, it is also ridiculous that they should spend their time monitoring these, which are, frankly, of minor significance in the overall scope of their responsibilities. I therefore urge the Government to think again on this matter, otherwise, we might have a bit of an argument on Report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ consideration of the Bill and very much welcome the scrutiny of those here today as it continues its parliamentary passage.
This first group of amendments covers the process for secondary legislation made under the Bill. Before moving on to the amendments tabled by noble Lords, I will explain the purpose of the two government amendments that have been tabled. Amendments 44 and 46 are intended to provide clarity on the parliamentary procedure for the secondary legislation that will come forward to regulate London’s pedicabs. Let me take them in turn. Amendment 44 makes it explicit that Transport for London would have to obtain approval from the Secretary of State to make a pedicab order; this should assure the Committee that there will need to be consensus between the Government and Transport for London.
On Amendment 46, convention dictates that only Ministers may lay orders in Parliament, and Transport for London would therefore be unable to do this. Again, this amendment is intended to be explicit on this point, making it clear that Ministers would be responsible for laying a pedicab order. This is the right approach. The Bill will require that pedicab regulations be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the negative resolution procedure. This strikes an appropriate balance between conferring a discretion on Transport for London to consult and design pedicab regulations, and a scrutiny role for Parliament in their approval. The opposing amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seem to suggest that the Bill’s drafting and procedure is in the right place. As I set out, it will be subject to the negative procedure. The point raised my noble friends Lord Borwick and Lord Moylan on the immediate response by the Secretary of State has been taken on board, and we will go back and look at it.
Some noble Lords challenge this notion, pointing to Transport for London’s experience regulating London’s taxis and private hire vehicles, and the fact that London cab orders are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. However, the taxi industry is well established and the Bill marks the first legislation specifically targeted at the pedicab industry. It is right that there is a role for Parliament. Although the Government understand that Transport for London has no intention to ban pedicabs outright and is primarily committed to making the industry safer, these amendments should provide noble Lords with assurance that Transport for London will not be able to unilaterally prohibit pedicabs from operating.
That leads me to Amendments 1, 6, 10, 13, 27, 29, 30, 37 and 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. They seek to replace Transport for London with the Secretary of State, meaning that the Secretary of State would consult on and design pedicab regulations, as well as holding responsibility for matters such as setting licence fees and imposing civil penalties. I have already set out the rationale for Parliament having a role in pedicab regulations. These amendments would represent a fundamental shift in the Bill’s approach. Transport for London is best placed to consult on and design pedicab regulations that meet its needs. In recognition of what will become a newly regulated industry, the Bill provides a clear role for Parliament.
The Clause 6 stand-part notice addresses the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who has indicated an intention to probe why Parliament has a role in scrutinising pedicab regulations made by Transport for London, instead of the London Assembly. So too does Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I hope my comments have provided clarity on this matter.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
The only real justification the Minister offered for Parliament retaining this degree of control is the possibility that the Greater London Authority and TfL might want to ban pedicabs altogether. What is his evidence that there is even the slightest possibility of this on the horizon? The present mayor has no intention of doing that—he wants them properly regulated—so is the Minister saying that the Conservative candidate for the mayoral election next year will come out for banning pedicabs altogether? What is the justification for retaining this power? Remember: all this stuff about Parliament retaining the power is nonsense. We know that we have very little control over what happens and over the content of statutory instruments, although we debate them. The power rests with the Minister and the department. Why on earth should the overworked Department for Transport want to spend its time messing around with the detail of whether pedicabs have mirrors and what the level of fines on them should be?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it might be helpful if I briefly ask my noble friend a question. As I understand it, statutory instruments fall within the Government’s code on consultation, so it would be normal for them to consult on a draft statutory instrument before it is laid. Does my noble friend believe that these statutory instruments will fall under that code of consultation, and that consultation by the Government will be required? How does he envisage that meshing with the public consultation that will have been carried out by Transport for London in preparing the draft statutory instruments?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
In the interests of efficiency, before the Minister replies, I will get in a third intervention because it is along the same lines. He said that this could be done by Parliament rather than the London Assembly because this was the first time that regulations had been produced for pedicabs, but that is not in practice the case. Local authorities across England outside London have—maybe not after long debate in the House, but certainly in practice—been given the power to regulate pedicabs. As I said, they have done so in a number of cases. I have made inquiries. The Department for Transport does not keep records of how many local authorities have these regulations in place, but it is aware of a number of places that do. They exist; they have had time to be trialled.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I can only repeat that convention dictates that only Ministers can lay orders in Parliament. Therefore, Transport for London would be unable to do so. The amendment is intended to be explicit on that point, making it clear that Ministers would be responsible for laying a pedicab order.
We do not consider that the Government would have to consult. Transport for London would have to consult prior to bringing pedicab regulations forward.
Amendments 2 and 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley seek to impose a statutory requirement on Transport for London to make pedicab regulations, and would require pedicab regulations to make provisions under the matters covered by Clause 2(6). It is right that the Bill provides Transport for London with a discretion to determine how pedicab regulations are designed. Clause 2(6) provides that flexibility, and Transport for London has indicated that it will introduce regulations covering matters under that subsection. In any case, those regulations will need to be consulted on and, as I have set out, a consensus will be needed between the Government and Transport for London.
Transport for London is supportive of the Bill and the need to regulate London’s pedicabs. As such, the Government expect Transport for London to commence work to bring forward pedicab regulations following the Bill’s passage. I emphasise that Transport for London has been asking for the Bill, so we expect it to be industrious in the forming of the legislation.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken to this group of amendments. There is a big variety of opinions, from “The Department for Transport should do everything”, to “Transport for London should do everything”—I am sure that we will come to that later.
I would like the Minister to reflect on the equivalent structure that the Government might propose if and when we ever get some legislation on electric scooters, which we have all been asking for but are not allowed to talk about on this Bill, because electric scooters are used more widely than in London. However, they are a new form of transport, authorised in certain towns and cities by the Department for Transport with the local authorities’ blessing. When it comes to producing legislation on electric scooters, which anyone can buy, own and use, how does the Minister propose that it is done? Would it be by each local authority, the Department for Transport or a combination of both? What would be the quickest way to get it to work? I leave the Minister with my comments and views on that, on which I am sure he will come back at some stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe whether Clause 1 omits cargo bikes adapted for passenger use from the scope of the Bill.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 3, I shall also speak to Amendment 4 in my name. The objective of both is to highlight the importance of having a clear definition of pedicabs and their use, so that the Bill can deliver its objectives effectively and fairly.
At Second Reading, I made it clear that I support the Bill but was concerned that the current drafting means that it could unintentionally exclude from its remit activity that really is a business and yet, at the same time, trap activity that clearly is not a business. I tabled Amendments 3 and 4 to give the Government the opportunity to take action to remedy what appear to be defects in the Bill.
Amendment 3 probes whether the definition of “pedicab” fails to cover cargo bikes adapted for passenger use. At Second Reading, I asked the Minister, at col. 778 of Hansard, whether the Government intended to include in the definition of “trailer” a bike that has a cargo box attached at the front which has been adapted for passenger use, since the existing drafting appeared to fail to do so. That would give an open sesame to those in the business of driving or operating pedicabs, which have trailers, suddenly to switch to using seating for passengers attached to the front of the bike to circumvent the legislation. At that stage, my noble friend was not able to give an assurance on this matter.
I was therefore pleased last week to receive the letter sent by the Minister to all who had spoken at Second Reading and to see that the Government had tabled Amendments 43 and 50, which deal with the issue I raised. The government amendments appear to resolve the problem I identified, because they ensure that the meaning of “trailer” now includes a sidecar or seating for passengers attached to the front of the vehicle.
I look forward to hearing later from the Minister his explanation for tabling Amendments 43 and 50 and his response to Amendment 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, because that also supports the position I took at Second Reading. However, I anticipate giving my full support to the Minister’s amendments.
I tabled Amendment 4 to seek clarification about the implications of the word “reward” in Clause 1(2). I was concerned that it could unintentionally bring within the remit of the Bill activity that cannot be considered a business. The example I gave at Second Reading is the transport of a child or baby to school, nursery or perhaps to a doctor’s appointment, when somebody doing that transporting is not the parent. I am not talking about a parent doing it, but cases where the parent cannot—they could be at work—and a neighbour, friend or relative does it in their place. As we reach Christmas, there may be times when one gives a present—a small gift, perhaps a box of chocolates—to the person who has been helping out. My concern is that the lack of definition of “reward” in the context of the Bill makes it possible that the act of a good Samaritan could be brought within its remit.
In his response at Second Reading, my noble friend said:
“As I understand it, the Bill is intended to cover pedicabs plying for hire”.—[Official Report, 22/11/23; col. 790.]
However, Clause 1(2) does not refer to plying for hire. That phrase appears in the Bill only in Clause 2 and does not address the problem I have raised, because subsection (7)(a) refers to a power to impose regulations that may
“prohibit drivers from using pedicabs for standing or plying for hire”
in certain circumstances.
I was going round in circles mentally at this stage, so I decided that the only thing to do was table Amendment 4 to seek further reassurance from my noble friend the Minister. In his letter of 6 December, he stated that a scenario
“where an individual receives a gift as a thank you, is unlikely to be captured under this Bill’s provisions”.
However, that leaves open the fact that it might be captured by the Bill’s provisions. He went on to say that,
“where a formal arrangement is in place for an individual to transport other people’s children on a daily or regular basis in return for a pre-agreed payment, this might be caught by the Bill’s provisions”.
I absolutely see the logic in that because, as a business, it should be within the remit of this Bill. He went on to say that
“it will be for TfL to take a view on such matters in designing the regulations”
and that
“TfL could choose to exercise their regulatory powers in a manner that takes certain types of pedicab usage outside the scope of the regulations”.
This means that the good Samaritan is left in limbo, not knowing whether they are likely to be covered by the Bill in future. We have just had a discussion about who will have the final authority. I can operate only on the basis that the Bill will go forward unchanged because, as we know, amendments can be made here only with the agreement of all Members; if there is a vote, it cuts the Grand Committee dead. I must work on the basis that the Government’s position at the moment will continue until Report, at the very least.
My questions concern how people will know what is going on. Will the Government ensure that regulations impacting those who are not operating a business and who receive small gifts only occasionally will not be imposed? As the Bill stands, the Government could decline to make TfL’s brought-forward regulations. Might the Government then say no to TfL? After all, their Amendment 44 gives them the power to refuse TfL’s regulations. If my noble friend cannot give me the assurance I seek today, can he say how, in these circumstances, the Government and/or TfL will make the public in London aware of what really happens if a good Samaritan decides that it is not worth a candle for them to carry on in case they get caught by regulations and have to go through all the processes—good processes—to check that they are a fit and proper person to carry a friend’s child in their trailer, whether it be a front, side or back trailer? I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly support these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who cannot be here today.
In moving her amendment, the noble Baroness gave some good examples of the concern that this Bill may get the wrong people as well as the right ones, if I can put it that way. I have an example: a relation of mine, who is in his 20s, works for a firm that delivers baby food around London on the back of a trailer. I do not know whether it is electric or pedal-driven—that does not really matter—but it is a trailer. On some occasions, he might want to take a passenger with him. His business is doing quite well—it is a business—but he does not really want to get caught up in all the TfL regulations concerning what we normally call pedicabs.
We have to somehow improve the definition. The noble Baroness has made a good start on this; we should have another chat about it, I hope with the Minister, and see what exactly we are trying to stop. Removing the words “or reward” is certainly a good start, but it does not go far enough.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this is a changing scenario. As the vehicles change slightly in how they are powered and so on, people dream up new and useful purposes for them. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in their amendments, because it is essential that the Government are entirely clear. This is an opportunity for them to put this on the record—which, of course, has legal implications in itself.
The Government need to be entirely clear about the purpose of the Bill. If there is uncertainty, it will serve to undermine efforts to encourage active travel. For example, parents across London are often seen with their children in trailers at the back of their bikes. It is important that that kind of healthy, active travel is encouraged, not discouraged.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is our earnest hope that the Government listen carefully to the common sense of the points made on these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, spoke with typical common sense. The Government need to take account of what she said and bring forward amendments to reflect her concerns. I also agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley said on that subject.
With our amendments in this group, we are trying to make sure that there is a flexible mechanism in the Bill so that the definition of a pedicab can be changed in the light of experience. That is sensible so that it can be done quickly to counter any attempts that people may make to escape the Bill’s provisions or get round them in some way. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to that concern in his reply.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this second group of amendments focuses on the definition of a pedicab. I will open my remarks by addressing the Government’s amendments first.
The Government listened carefully to the points raised at Second Reading and have tabled Amendment 50 with the purpose of expanding the definition of “trailer”, for the purposes of the Bill, to include sidecars or vehicles pushed by a pedal cycle. This will ensure that pedicab drivers and operators cannot circumvent the intent of the Bill and future regulations by transporting passengers in a separate vehicle to the side or front of a pedicab. The other government amendment in this group, Amendment 43, is consequential to this change.
These government amendments address Amendments 3 and 42, tabled by my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. The amendment tabled by my noble friend seeks to expand the definition of “pedicab” to include
“a cargo box with seating attached to the front of the pedal cycle”.
Similarly, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord seeks to add “affixed carriage” to the definition so that the Bill captures scenarios where passengers are carried to the side or in front of the driver. As I mentioned, the government amendments have, hopefully, addressed any potential loophole here.
On the amendment tabled by my noble friend, the Government completely agree that passengers sitting in a cargo box should be subject to regulation. Under the current text of the Bill, this would be the case. This is because nothing in legislation defines a cargo box or cargo bike. A cargo box fixed to a bike with seating would form part of “a pedicab”. This is not a separate wheeled vehicle like a trailer; it is a pedal cycle adapted for the carrying of passengers, as per the definition in Clause 1(2). The Government hope their amendments have effectively addressed the issues raised by both noble Lords and satisfied my noble friend that those not in business will not be affected.
I will address Amendments 4 and 5—tabled by my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lord Blencathra—together, as they relate to linked issues. My noble friend Lady Anelay’s amendment seeks to probe whether “reward” captures minor gifts and to clarify the Bill’s intention towards those carrying passengers but not operating a business. My noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment seeks to exclude trailers designed for the carrying of babies and small children from the Bill’s scope. The Government understand that these amendments seek to achieve similar goals. To be clear, the Bill defines pedicabs in terms of being
“made available with a driver for hire or reward”.
This excludes from the scope of pedicab regulations the possibility of, for example, parents transporting their children using a pedal cycle.
The Government reflected on my noble friend Lady Anelay’s comments at Second Reading and are content that “reward”, as referenced in Clause 1(2), is unlikely to capture the giving of minor gifts. Instead, the Bill’s intent is instances where the reward is agreed in advance of a service being provided. However, the Bill’s provisions might feasibly capture instances where there is a formal agreement for an individual to transport other people’s children on a daily or regular basis in return for a pre-agreed payment. Such an individual would be providing a service, and it is not clear that this would be sufficiently different to the type of services the Bill intends to regulate to warrant exclusion from it. Ultimately, it will be for Transport for London to take a view on such matters in designing the regulations. It may choose to take certain types of pedicab usage outside of the regulations’ scope.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I am rather thrown by what the Minister said at the end of his remarks, which implied that he thought the transport of children to school would be counted as a pedicab and therefore subject to this regulation. Please can he clarify this?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
For clarification, the Bill’s provision might feasibly capture instances where there is a formal agreement for an individual to transport other people’s children on a daily or regular basis in return for a pre-agreed payment. I can only repeat what I said: it is not clear that this would be sufficiently different to the type of services the Bill intends to regulate to warrant exclusion from it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
What is wrong with the amendment suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to remove the word “reward”? If a pedicab is for hire then it is for hire; that is quite clear, but “reward” is not. Someone might pay their au pair a reward to take their kids to school in the back of such a vehicle, or they might be paid by someone else to take their kids. The thought of these wonderful parents in west London who are trying to be green and trying to work out whether they are obeying the law or have to apply to TfL for a licence is a bit worrying.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
“Hire or reward” is a recognised legal term in taxi and private hire vehicle regulations. The Bill intends the plain meaning of the word “reward”. A scenario where an individual receives a gift as a thank you is unlikely to be captured under the Bill’s provisions. The reference to a pedal cycle or power-assisted pedal cycle being made available with a driver for “hire or reward” is focused on instances where the reward has been agreed prior to the service being delivered.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported my attempt to clarify matters. Having spoken to Amendment 4 and heard colleagues speak, I think I have encouraged the Minister to be less clear rather than more—although I appreciate that he is doing his best to clarify the position on what “reward” means. The base of this is that it can mean different things in different circumstances, and we need to focus on what it means within the circumstance of the Bill.
A moment ago, my noble friend the Minister repeated his point about the activity of someone who has not made a prior agreement for payment to carry someone. For example, my neighbour might agree to carry my grandchild, if I had one, without us making a prior agreement that there will be payment or reward for it—I might be sick and just ask them to do it for me. That, to me, is an instance that should not be caught by any regulation. I know that my noble friend the Minister is doing his best to explain why it should not come within the range of the Bill, but what he has to say in order to give leeway is that it is unlikely to be captured by the provisions of the Bill.
I appreciate that drafting legislation must be a nightmare. Having seen a raft of Bills over the years from three Governments—the coalition and Conservative Governments—and having been Chief Whip for seven years, I appreciate that it is a heck of a job. Often, legislation cannot clearly prescribe rules for every instance. I am really asking my noble friend the Minister: if we end up somewhere where we cannot be clear that a good Samaritan will not be clobbered by these regulations, can we at least make it clear to them that they might be clobbered and that they need to take that into consideration? I would be grateful if the Minister might consider that between now and Report. I am not expecting that to be in the form of an amendment, but it would be helpful if we had further explanation about the relationship there will be between the Government and TfL in terms of how and when regulations are brought forward and what kind of process goes on within the Department for Transport when it considers whether to say yea or nay to those regulations. Clearly, as the Minister said, this is new territory—I know the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, does not agree with that and says there is existing territory around the country to provide for this—but we want to be sure that those who are doing a kindness to others do not find themselves having to go through Criminal Records Bureau checks. That is the old term of course; there is different terminology for those now.
In the meantime, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for trying to tease this out. It would be helpful to know from him a little more, in future, about how the Department for Transport will handle what will, to start off with, be quite a difficult interface between TfL and the department: both will want to get this right, but they may have a different definition of what “right” means. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.
Lord Berkeley
(a) representatives of organisations whose interests Transport for London believes may be affected by the regulations;(b) other persons who Transport for London considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that, before making pedicab regulations, Transport for London must consult with representatives of organisations whose interests may, in Transport for London’s opinion, be affected by the regulations.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, we are on to the third group and I will speak to Amendments 7 and 9 in my name. To some extent, Amendment 7 follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who is not in his place, said about consultation. It is important that we have confidence that TfL will consult whomever it considers appropriate when drawing up the pedicab regulations. I am particularly interested in people who cycle or walk and, maybe in the future, go on scooters. Amendment 7 suggests that TfL should consult the representatives of those whose interests it believes may “be affected” by the regulations, as well as anyone else—it is quite simple. I hope the Minister will be able to say that it would do that anyway and that he would like it to, or something like that.
I have reflected a lot with people on Amendment 9 and on what the point is of putting in objectives for these regulations. There was some interesting wording in a briefing on the King’s Speech a few weeks ago, which said that the regulations will
“pave the way for a sustainable pedicab industry that is safer for passengers, pedestrians, and other road users in London … making it fairer for passengers and taxpayers by enabling Transport for London … to introduce fare controls”.
I note that it mentions fare controls, not the level of fares. To some extent, the Minister responded, saying that the Government agree with all this.
However, I suggest to the Minister that the list in Amendment 9 is a useful summary of the balance that needs to be addressed between the different people who like, hate or do not very much mind pedicabs. It proposes looking at the environment, the safety of drivers and passengers, danger and disruption to the public, and the level of fares, which will affect how many people hire them. We heard some pretty horrific stories at Second Reading about high fares being charged, to foreign tourists in particular. The list also includes licensing, which, again, needs to be proportionate. I will ask the Minister about one thing I have not put in this amendment: is there any geographical limit to where these TfL-licensed pedicabs may go? Presumably, there is some limit around London, but it would be good to know exactly what it is and what might happen to riders who go outside it.
Can the Minister confirm that the objective of all this legislation is not to discourage people from using pedicabs, or to put them out of business, but to make them into a safe and balanced alternative to other means of transport, enjoyed by Londoners and visitors alike? I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have tabled a stand part notice in this group. First, I will support my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I particularly welcome his Amendment 9, which sets a sensible context in which TfL can take forward its work in pedicab regulation. In Amendment 7, he could have listed the organisations but chose to take a light touch, simply requiring that TfL looks carefully at the organisations that it consults and making sure that it covers the interests that he suggested. That seems eminently sensible and I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
I have tabled my stand part notice for a reason that follows on from something that my noble friend said in his winding-up speech on the first group. I am still puzzled about why the legislation is so narrowly limited to pedicabs and not to e-bikes or e-scooters. I am also puzzled about why there are two transport Bills going through at the same time, and why we could not have had a rather more comprehensive Bill in which we could have been allowed wider input. Perhaps that is why we have two limited Bills—to prevent us having such input. It seems an extraordinarily bureaucratic way to deal with two very limited pieces of legislation.
Dockless e-bikes have had huge growth, unique to London. They are an unregulated market and pose significant traffic and pavement obstruction issues, with some health and safety concerns. There are similar issues with e-scooters. We now have an estimated 28,000 dockless e-bikes in London—up 180% from 2021. It is likely to increase still further in the next few years, which raises a number of issues. First, on-street parking of dockless e-bikes is unregulated, so they can be left anywhere. We have all seen the results of that, strewn around the streets: often, they have either fallen over or someone has thrown them over. They look unkempt and are accessibility and traffic obstruction issues. I understand that dockless e-bike operators are not subject to any procurement rules, so they do not have to adhere to minimum operational standards. I acknowledge that some bike operators have entered memoranda of understanding with specific boroughs, but they are not enforceable and can vary, so there can be inconsistency in crossing from one London borough to another.
Campaigners on disability issues have highlighted and alerted me to the challenges that an increase in e-scooter use may pose for pedestrians with disabilities. I think we have all experienced that. I refer the Committee to a paper published by Policy Exchange’s liveable London and crime and justice units, which has revealed a significant increase in the usage of public hire e-bikes and e-scooters, particularly around Westminster, making pavements impassable as a result of their regularly being abandoned by users at the end of their journey. Again, I think that many noble Lords will have experienced that.
E-scooters fall within the legal definition of a motor vehicle. That means that it is normally illegal to use them on public roads unless they comply with the legal requirements to do so, or are rented as part of an official trial. Concerns have also been raised that the batteries in e-scooters have been linked to fires. In 2021, London Fire Brigade was called to 130 fires related to lithium batteries, 28 of which have been directly linked to e-scooters.
The Government published an evaluation of the scooter trials in December 2022. According to the Library’s briefing, this was followed up in May 2023 with a question from the House of Commons Transport Committee, which was answered by Jesse Norman from the Minister’s department. He said that the Government were
“considering the fact that, since they were initially introduced, trials had shown that e-scooters primarily displaced active travel rather than travel in private vehicles”.
He also acknowledged the safety concerns around their use and
“said that the government planned to lay regulations … under existing rules rather than pass primary legislation. He said the government would also consider legislation on ‘light electric vehicles’. In July 2023 the government said it intended to introduce legislation on micromobility vehicles, which would encompass e-scooters, ‘when parliamentary time allows’”.
Well, we have all used that phrase before. I gently suggest to the Minister that, if his department has the energy to take two Bills through at the same time, parliamentary time would definitely have allowed it to bring provisions in relation to e-scooters and dockless e-bikes.
Getting some regulation here has huge support from the boroughs, TfL and the GLA. Indeed, one of the providers of dockless e-bikes in London, Dott, is also calling for regulation for dockless bikes. The case is overwhelming. I hope that the Minister might be a bit sympathetic and at least give us some indication of when the Government will bring this to fruition.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, first, I apologise for not being present at Second Reading.
I have added my name to Amendment 16, which is about safeguarding. It follows what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said at the beginning about how we want to encourage people to use pedicabs but also to ensure that they are safe. We must be aware that many vulnerable people, such as young children or young women, use pedicabs. This amendment says that the operator should have an enclosed Disclosure and Barring Service certification, formerly known as a CRB. There are three types of DBSs: basic, standard and enhanced. This amendment suggests enhanced. It is not expensive—it costs £20 and the renewal cost is £4—but it shows quite clearly to anybody who is an operator of these vehicles that the person who is driving or cycling one of them has no criminal convictions for rape, murder, sexual assault, cruelty to persons aged under 16, sexual intercourse with somebody aged under 16 or the possession or distribution of inappropriate images of children. If we want to ensure that pedicabs are safe, this requirement should happen.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 12, which seeks to give TfL some help and guidance. In my opinion, it does not contradict Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley; in fact, it complements it. In any event, that amendment suggests that “regard” should be had to his suggestions, whereas mine would require the reference to the Licensing Act to be incorporated into deliberations.
I have had to table the amendment because the licensing authority, TfL, is not covered by the Licensing Act, which is of course mainly to do with food and drink. For the benefit of those of your Lordships who do not recall them instantly, let me outline the licensing objectives in the Licensing Act 2003. They are very simple; there are just four of them: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. I can see no reason why one would not want to include them in this Bill to give TfL guidance on what we want it to do.
I declare an interest in the stand part notice proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am regular user of dockless e-bikes. I used one this morning, and they have definitely changed their modus operandi. One cannot leave a bike anywhere on the street; in most, not all, of Westminster, they have to be in designated areas. That seems a sensible move. I cannot quite see how we can get e-scooters and e-bikes into this Bill, but I suspect that this might just be a probing debate.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I speak only to pick up the point that my noble friend Lord Leigh made a moment ago on electric-powered or electric-assisted pedicabs. In his round-robin letter to those who spoke at Second Reading, the Minister was kind enough to refer to the concern that I raised then that, in essence, an e-bike type of power system within one of these vehicles has the potential to move it at a greater speed than if powered purely by foot.
I am concerned that the definition of “pedal cycle” in the Bill includes a “power-assisted pedal cycle”. We are all with the parliamentary draftsmen as far as that goes, but what about if the vehicle is not powered by pedals? What if they are disconnected? We see many electric bicycles—a well-known delivery company seems to specialise in them—powering around London at relatively high speed, which do not use the pedals all the time. There are ways to circumvent them, so that these vehicles can be operated purely by a throttle-type control to become, in essence, electric-powered vehicles and not pedal cycles.
My question to the Minister, therefore, is: do we need some more specific wording, because the Bill refers only to pedal cycles? What if there are no pedals? I think we all share the same consideration: there could well be a blurring between pedal cycles and electric-powered vehicles. When does a pedicab stop being a pedicab? That is my question.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I back up the call from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to try to persuade the Government to find a way to include e-bikes and e-scooters in the Bill. Like many of the pedicabs that we are dealing with, e-scooters and e-bikes are powered by lithium ion batteries which, incorrectly used, can cause huge damage. In fact, the number of fires that have taken place in London from lithium ion batteries powering light forms of mobility has been growing dramatically and, since 2020, has cost millions of pounds-worth of property damage, and caused many injuries and, tragically, the loss of 13 lives.
Incorrectly used, a lithium ion battery can develop a fire of over 600 degrees that is almost impossible to put out using any of the current known technology. We also know that it sends out huge amounts of really toxic gasses. So we need regulation around the lithium ion batteries that are used in all forms of light powered mobility, including pedicabs. I prepared a Private Member’s Bill that covered these issues, although it sadly did not come up in the ballot; I had enormous support on this issue from Electrical Safety First, which has worked on this for many years.
It is interesting to note that the London Fire Brigade said that it had had more fires up to the beginning of September than in the whole of the previous year—the number of fires is growing. Even more recently, on 11 September, a London coroner took the unusual step of calling for tougher legislation on e-bike batteries after the death of a father of two. We need action and this Bill provides an opportunity to do something about it.
I have raised these issues on a number of occasions. Several months ago, in June, I asked a Question in your Lordships’ House on the Government’s action. The noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, who responded on that occasion, told me that his officials were
“proactively seeking the input and expertise of stakeholders”.—[Official Report, 27/6/23; col. 569.]
He also talked about work that was “under way”. However, much more recently, at the end of last month, I took part in a debate on light powered vehicles. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, responded to my points, particularly in the letter that he subsequently wrote to those who participated in the debate. In it, he drew our attention to annexe IV of EU Regulation 3/2014; incidentally, that was not at all helpful because it talks mainly about avoiding electric shocks from big electric cars—but never mind. The Minister went on to say:
“Fire prevention, fire detection and fire fighting in connection with electric vehicles is a developing area and the government reviews its guidance and regulations in step with the development of best practice”.
We seem to be going backwards: in June, I was told that work was under way but we are now told that guidance may come out in due course.
I hope that the Minister will take note of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and recognise that he will not get new legislation in, but there is some here and he could use it as a vehicle for addressing these particular issues. I hope he does.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, as the Committee knows, I am supportive of this Bill because it brings in provision for the regulation of pedicabs. I will leave it to my noble friend the Minister to respond on why it is not possible to include e-scooters and e-bikes; I guess that it is probably because the Bill is called the Pedicabs (London) Bill and the Government would not be able to cover them in it. However, I share a lot of the concerns raised about e-scooters and e-bikes. Although I did not say anything in support of those who made these points at Second Reading, that was probably because this issue started getting raised after I spoke. I am pleased that we have pedicabs legislation, which has always been my focus.
I want to raise e-scooters with my noble friend. Because there has been no legislation, as has been pointed out, I am really alarmed that the Government are extending their trial of rental e-scooters for a further two years, to May 2026. What really concerns me about this—I have raised it on several occasions in different contexts and debates—is that, at the moment, it is illegal for private e-scooters to be on our roads outside those rental schemes. The longer this trial goes on, the more the take-up increases. I do not think I have ever seen anyone tackled. As I have said before in this Room, I have even witnessed somebody come on to the Parliamentary Estate on an e-scooter, past the policemen on the gate, and not be challenged at all. When I asked a police officer on the gate, “Why haven’t you stopped that person riding a vehicle that’s not permitted on the road?”, they shrugged their shoulders at me.
If this is to continue, something has to be done about enforcement around these vehicles. They cause so much distress to people, as has been described, and are dangerous because of the batteries used. It is not good enough for a lack of parliamentary time to be raised as an excuse when the use of them, in a legal fashion, is growing all the time.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, by keeping on extending the trials, the Government are in effect implicitly making e-scooters legal because it will be impossible for them at some point to say, “We’re going to stop the trials. This is now an illegal activity”. In essence, it is a nod and a wink to say that it is okay to run them. They have done the evaluation so why do they need more trials? It is difficult to see how this is going to come to a satisfactory ending.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I agree. Their legal use is being made possible by stealth, basically. That is why people continue to use them with impunity. They know—or, presumably, they assume—that nobody will bother to challenge them in the first place.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support this little debate that we are having, in particular the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, about the fire risk. I, too, have been studying this. It seems that not only are we accepting that e-scooters and some e-bikes are in effect legal because nobody is stopping them, as noble Lords have said; there are still no manufacturing standards to give one any confidence. If these bikes or scooters—or even cars—are not manufactured properly, they could set themselves on fire. That is where we are starting from.
It seems extraordinary that we have got this far. We are not allowed to bring the batteries into some places but, much more seriously, we have seen three big fires this year. There was a report in the press this week about several cars catching fire. Luton Airport car park had a fire; I am told that the fire brigade is absolutely certain that it was not caused by lithium ion but it has not produced any evidence to support that. Looking at the way the fire transmits itself from one car to the next—the worst gases and fire go downwards rather than upwards and then along, obviously, because they hit the deck—I will be very suspicious until I see some independent resource and authority which says that these things are 100% safe. I may have mentioned before that a ship sank off the coast of the Netherlands in the summer with several hundred new lithium ion battery cars in it. One of them apparently set itself on fire, which happens occasionally. Luckily, nobody was hurt, but the ship sank eventually because there is no way of putting out the fire, as other noble Lords have said.
Whether it is a scooter, bike, car or something else, is it not about time that we had a manufacturing standard before these things are allowed to be imported at all? In the meantime, perhaps the Minister and his colleagues could give us some advice as to how not to set ourselves on fire.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very significant debate. My contribution to this group is Amendment 48, which I will come to in a moment.
I point out that this is a rapidly evolving scenario. When complaints were first made about pedicabs in London, just after the turn of the century, there were no e-bikes. It is therefore a huge mistake for the Government to have limited the scope of this legislation, which is written so tightly that it cannot be expanded to take in new technology. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the missed opportunity of having two random transport Bills and a lack of joined-up thinking on these issues.
At Second Reading, we had an impassioned debate, led in part by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who is not here today, about the urgent need to deal with the much more widespread problems of e-scooters and e-bikes that noble Lords have talked about—their danger both to users, who are mostly young, especially with e-scooters, and to pedestrians. I commend to the Minister the report on this issue of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. I declare an interest as an officer of that group.
The rising death and injury toll has been mentioned by others. There is a prevalence of head injuries because of the centre of gravity of e-scooters, which is different from that of ordinary push bikes. There is a complete inconsistency and lack of joined-up thinking in the Minister and his Government’s thinking on this, given the existence of electric pedicabs.
The noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Hunt, and I all tried, without success, to expand the scope of this Bill. Amendment 48 is my pale imitation of other bolder attempts to do this that were rejected. The reference in my amendment to the need for a review in 12 months is my effort to ask the Government to bring this back in 12 months’ time and expand it, in the interests of a broader outlook.
Many noble Lords across the House raised issues around safety, which the Government have said is at the heart of the case for the Bill. As my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Foster referred to, it is about the safety both of those operating the pedicabs and of the batteries. Also mentioned this afternoon was the safety of e-bikes in terms of their stopping distance—they are often modified to be able to go faster than they were originally designed to do. We must bear in mind that, if you add the extra weight of passengers and a cab at the back, their stopping distance is often very poor. They are therefore dangerous.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, rightly and justifiably drew attention to the dangers and risks associated with yet another extension to the so-called trials on e-bikes. This Christmas, thousands more e-scooters and e-bikes will be bought. Unsafe practices are becoming so entrenched: riding without helmets, for example, and there are many other issues. These unsafe practices will be impossible to reverse suddenly through regulation in a couple of years’ time, so I support all noble Lords who have spoken on this group of amendments.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, before I get on to the points in this group on e-scooters and e-bikes, including the clause standing part, I will deal briefly with the others. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on Amendments 7 and 9 seem sensible. I can think of no reason why something on those lines could not be incorporated in further government amendments. On Amendment 16, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and my noble friend here spoke on the need for the strict regulation of people who are licensed. Again, we strongly support that.
The main question that people have raised is about e-powered pedicabs, e-scooters and e-bikes. On this side of the Committee, we were hoping that the Government were going to live up to their promise to produce a comprehensive transport Bill, which would have covered rail and bus licensing, and all these other issues. They have completely failed to do that and decided just to go for two relatively minor issues: pedicabs and autonomous vehicles. These have merits in themselves, of course, but it is disappointing that the Government have not given us the opportunity for a comprehensive look at transport regulation.
I hope the Minister will listen to the strength of feeling that has been expressed in this Committee about the Government’s failure to come up with a credible policy on e-scooters and e-bikes. I think he must realise that this is not a party question; it is a question of public safety on which people are looking for action. Maybe this Bill has been drawn up such that it cannot offer that action but, on Report, the House is entitled to expect a full statement from the Government on their intentions to regulate in this area. I ask the Minister quite bluntly: is it his intention that he will come forward with that statement before we come to Report?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this third group of amendments has covered a range of policy matters. I will again endeavour to address the issues raised in turn, but I point out at the outset that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the intentions of the Government to restrict. It is really not the intention of the Government to restrict the use of these pedicabs. We understand that they are enjoyed by visitors; the intention is solely to ensure that they are safe and properly licensed.
Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to place requirements on who Transport for London must consult before making pedicab regulations. The Government understand the intention behind this amendment, but it is not immediately clear that this would have a practical impact. Transport for London is fully supportive of this Bill and has a clear interest in its provisions being applied correctly through regulations. It consults frequently on a wide range of issues and is well versed in conducting public consultations of this nature. In fact, it has already indicated that a pedicab consultation would be extensively publicised and promoted to the pedicab industry, members of the public and stakeholders, including the police, London boroughs and resident and business groups. I hope this provides the noble Lord with some reassurance.
The noble Lord asked about where they can operate. It is clear that regulations may be made for the purpose of regulating pedicabs in London. Practically, pedicabs operate in Westminster and central London hotspots, and Clause 2(1) will also allow Transport for London to place conditions on their licences.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
The Minister said that they operate in London—what is the definition of London? I met some people today who were talking about pedicabs in Paris. Apparently, there is a big problem with them around Charles de Gaulle Airport. I do not know whether that is within the definition of Paris. These people may suddenly decide to sort things out at Heathrow or Gatwick, so is there a geographical limit to which these regulations will apply?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that this is a matter for Transport for London when it forms the regulations. It is not for me to suggest, but it might decide that they will apply within the London boroughs.
Amendment 9, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to define objectives to which Transport for London must have regard in making pedicab regulations. Transport for London has confirmed that, in establishing a licensing regime for pedicabs, public safety will be its primary concern. Beyond this, it has stated that it recognises the need for regulations to tackle issues such as noise nuisance, street and pavement congestion and excessive charging. This should offer comfort to the noble Lord about Transport for London’s intentions. These matters are likely to form part of the public consultation and continue to inform Transport for London’s thinking as regulations are developed. Furthermore, issues raised by this amendment such as safety, fare control and licensing are covered by provisions contained in the Bill. Therefore, at this stage, it is not appropriate to constrain or pre-empt the consultation or pedicab regulations by being overly prescriptive in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is seeking to probe why e-scooters and e-bikes are not covered in Clause 1, as mentioned by other noble Lords. The Bill is limited in scope and focused on addressing the legal anomaly relating to London’s pedicabs. As such, practically, it extends to Greater London only and its focus is pedal cycles used for transporting passengers for hire or reward. The inclusion of e-scooters and e-bikes would appear at odds with this scope. E-scooters and e-bikes are generally used by individuals to undertake personal travel. They are not used to transport passengers for hire or reward. Consequently, the issues that this Bill seeks to address do not appear to apply to e-scooters or e-bikes.
There is also national legislation, not limited just to Greater London as this Bill is, that applies to e-scooters and e-bikes. E-bikes are already regulated by the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983, while e-scooters are considered motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act 1988. As such, e-scooters are illegal to use anywhere other than on private land or as part of government trials unless they meet the requirements of motor vehicles in terms of technical requirements, insurance, registration and so on.
The Government recognise that there are issues with e-scooters that we need to address, but this Bill is not the appropriate place to do so. As has been mentioned, we recently extended the e-scooter trials until 31 May 2026 to continue to gather evidence on how best to legislate for micromobility, including e-scooters, in future. Given the pressure on legislative time, that legislation will not come forward in this Session, unfortunately. Ahead of that, the Government intend to consult on the detailed approach for regulating e-scooters; I believe that that consultation and the future legislation will be the appropriate place for noble Lords’ points to be addressed.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
That being the case, is there any instruction, guidance or request that the Government can make of the police in the intervening period to enforce the law around the private use of e-scooters on public roads?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
It is a matter for the police to administer in terms of any offences that may be caused, but I take my noble friend’s point. I will take her point back to the department.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
The Minister mentioned a forthcoming consultation on e-scooters. I realise that this is a difficult issue for him, by the way; I am not trying to be difficult. Can he give us any indication of when it might take place and whether a consultation paper on this subject will be produced in the next month or two? If he cannot do so this afternoon, will he come back to us quickly on the Government’s plans for this consultation? He must recognise that there is tremendous strength of feeling on this issue and that the Government will have to do something to assuage the strong feelings in this House.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I understand the strength of feeling. I will certainly ensure that we write with any information regarding a forthcoming consultation.
I turn to Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seeks to require Transport for London to carry out its pedicab licensing functions with a view to promoting the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. Although the Government agree that these are important aims, the Licensing Act 2003 focuses on the licensing of the sale of alcohol and tobacco, as well as the provision of entertainment. Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing is not included in the scope of the 2003 Act. This means that these objectives do not apply to pedicabs outside London, where they are regulated as taxis. In fact, the taxi and private hire vehicle legislation that applies in England, as well as what applies in London specifically, does not explicitly state the objective of licensing as it was introduced for the protection of the public through regulation. Therefore, the approach proposed by my noble friend does not seem appropriate in this case. I instead point to the relevant statutory duties and requirements placed on Transport for London as a public body overseeing services to the public.
I turn to Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It seeks to expand Clause 2(4) so that pedicab licensing fees could be set at a level that enables investment in wider transport infrastructure in Greater London. The Government feel that this amendment would impose an unfair burden on pedicab drivers and operators—one that goes beyond the established principles on how licensing fees are set by local authorities. It would result in a different approach to pedicab licensing compared to taxis, which pedicabs are licensed as outside of London, and private hire vehicles. The Government’s intention in enabling Transport for London to regulate pedicabs is to help the emergence of a sustainable and well-regulated sector. This amendment may discourage reputable pedicab drivers and operators from continuing to ply their trade.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I apologise for forgetting to mention that amendment in my speech. What made us put it forward is the fact that there are a lot of problems with pedicab parking. They may require adjustments to roads and pavements, which can be quite expensive for local authorities; I know that as a former member of one. It seems only reasonable to us that such costs should be recoverable.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I understand where the noble Lord is coming from but I am afraid that it does not alter my response to his submission.
I move next to Amendment 16 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Storey, which I will address alongside Amendment 31, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. These amendments relate to enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks for pedicab drivers and operators. Amendment 16 would make these checks compulsory and Amendment 31 would require the Government to bring forward the necessary regulations within 90 days of this Bill receiving Royal Assent.
Amendment 16 would bring parity for London’s pedicab drivers with taxi and private hire vehicle drivers—including pedicab drivers outside London, where pedicabs are regulated as taxis. Transport for London has been clear that an effective licensing regime must be underpinned by enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks, and has raised the associated risks of bringing forward regulations without this requirement in place. This is a matter that the Government are actively looking into. We have requested that Transport for London submit evidence clearly making the case for these checks; this will be assessed in due course.
However, making pedicab drivers in London subject to enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks will, following the passage of this Bill, require changes to the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002, as amended, and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. There is no guarantee that this can be done in parallel with the Bill.
Amendments 47 and 48 have been tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. They seek to add a statutory requirement for there to be consultation or a review period for pedicab regulations.
Amendment 47 proposes to add a further consultation requirement six months after the Bill comes into force. Its purpose is to assess whether pedicabs should be prohibited in London or have conditions placed on their operations based on safety concerns.
Amendment 48 proposes that a 12-month review of pedicab regulations becomes a statutory requirement, its purpose being to assess the necessity of further regulations. The Government understand that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is potentially to broaden the scope of the Bill so that e-scooters and e-bikes fall within it. As I have set out, the Government are continuing to gather evidence to support further policy development in this area, which noble Lords have already discussed. The Bill’s scope is narrow and focused on addressing the legal anomaly relating to pedicabs in London.
As regards a review, the Government agree that, as this legislation paves the way for the first regulatory regime designed specifically for pedicabs, the impact of regulations will need to be reviewed. The timescales proposed by these amendments would not allow sufficient time to assess the impact of regulation adequately, as there will no doubt be a need for regulations to bed in and sufficient time will be needed to gather evidence. However, the Government are committed to undertaking a voluntary review of the policy five years post implementation and would work with Transport for London to conduct this assessment.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Amendment 47 has nothing to do with e-bikes or e-scooters; it is about power-assisted pedicabs. It suggests that TfL must consult
“persons as they consider to have an interest … on whether to prohibit … the use of power-assisted pedicabs in Greater London on grounds of safety”.
Many noble Lords have spoken about the safety risks, including me. This is purely about power-assisted pedicabs and whether there should be a review of the safety of the power bit—obviously—of pedicabs. It is nothing to do with e-scooters or e-bikes. I would be grateful if the Minister could either respond to it now or write to me about the grounds of safety of power-assisted pedicabs in the review.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point; I will have to come back to him in writing on that.
I turn to Amendment 52, the final amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It seeks to bring forward the commencement of this Bill to immediately after it receives Royal Assent. The two-month period is a standard convention for government Bills. A benefit of this approach is that it provides sufficient time for the pedicab industry, in particular reputable operators, to prepare for the introduction of licensing and a regulated industry. In this case, there appears to be no practical advantage to the Bill coming into force immediately. During the two-month period between Royal Assent and the Bill’s provisions coming into force, Transport for London will be able to undertake preparatory work such as developing its consultation.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Foster, on batteries, which we will cover a little later on in consideration of this Bill.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, when the Minister comes to address Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—he said he would write to him about that—would he mind also addressing the point about pedicabs that are no longer powered by pedal? By what regulations are they then caught? We are seeing bicycles surreptitiously masquerading as bicycles when they are in fact motor vehicles. If he could address that point, that would be very helpful, but he does not need to do so now.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I apologise for not addressing that but I will ensure that it is addressed in letter form.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments. I am sure that we all have a lot to think about. On some things, I hope that the Minister will come back to us with some answers; for others, we will probably have to wait for another Bill—under another Government, even. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.
Baroness Randerson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe why existing legislation is not sufficient to cover immigration status and right to work checks.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 11 is in my name. I want to preface my remarks by making it absolutely clear that I am in no way arguing that people who are not legal immigrants should be able to ply this trade. I am simply surprised to see this statement in the legislation, because it is unusual to have something saying that nobody who has not been legally accepted as an immigrant can do this work. This is the type of statement where, when it is put forward in an amendment by the Opposition, the Government reject that provision because they say that it is already adequately stated in other legislation, therefore there is no need to say it again. Their argument goes along these lines: if we included a statement such as this, it would bring forward questions about other conditions that need to be included, and which we all take for granted in relation to a particular occupation, as well as similar issues that are not being restated in the legislation. However, all legislation takes into account previous legislation and what exists as conditions stated in that legislation.
Let us look at the Government’s reasoning in this. They appear to say that there is a prevalence of illegal immigrants involved in this occupation. I fear that that is simply a result of the fact that it has gone unregulated for more than two decades; as a result, it has been a free-for-all. When it comes under much-needed and long-overdue regulation, it will be treated in the same way as we treat taxi drivers: they have to be a fit and proper person; they have to be legally allowed to work; they must have no criminal convictions of a designated type; and they must have a driving licence. I do not understand why we cannot just take that approach here.
If the Minister thinks that it is necessary to have this subsection, as I am sure he will say, can he tell us whether it will become a standard provision in all legislation that involves people’s professions and occupations? Whatever we look at—whether it is teaching or medicine, for example—will we start off by saying, “No one who isn’t a legal immigrant can do this job”? Otherwise, I do not understand why we are saying it here.
The other amendments in my name in this group include Amendment 17, which has cross-party support—I am very grateful for that—and stresses the importance of regulations on noise; Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is similar. The evidence is that complaints about noise from pedicabs have become increasingly frequent since the pandemic. Basically, what has happened is this: during the pandemic, in this industry—as in so many—there was a crisis and there is increasing competition between pedicab operators. The way they draw attention to and advertise themselves is noise. In fact, noise is the No. 1 complaint of local residents, as opposed to that of the people who take pedicabs. They appear to be immune to it; otherwise, they would not choose the one making it, I suppose. This issue desperately needs some attention. Can the Minister assure us that the regulations will cover noise?
My Amendment 23 relates to the need for a cap on the numbers of pedicabs—I know that local residents think that this is also a good idea. As competition has got fiercer, the numbers of pedicabs operating from inappropriate positions have become an increasing problem. Throughout the UK, it is common for there to be a regulation on the numbers of taxis given permission to operate; the same approach would seem sensible for pedicabs.
Finally, Amendment 26 suggests that the regulations must also cover the issue of cab ranks. Once again, the theme here is the convenience of local residents and their peace and quiet. Because there is noise and so on, the ranks are very intrusive. We have cab ranks for taxis, so there should also be appropriately designated places for pedicabs.
I will make a special plea. The problems associated with the closure of Hammersmith Bridge, which have gone on for years, are very serious for local residents. Let us turn a negative into a positive: pedicabs offer an opportunity for local residents to hire one to cross the bridge, which would be really useful. The local MP, Sarah Olney, has been running a campaign to encourage the Department for Transport to consider this and to designate cab ranks on either side of the bridge to enable that to happen. My simple request is for the Minister to agree to meet me and the local MP to discuss this issue and its appropriateness. I would be grateful for his consideration of that.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 17 and 18, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra, both of which relate to noise. I add that I am sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 26 and the points she raised about cab ranks—I do not mean those to do with Hammersmith Bridge specifically. She makes an interesting argument about the provision for ranks for pedicabs.
As I said on the other group, I am grateful to my noble friend for his letter to all Peers. In Transport for London’s note, which was attached to his letter, it was encouraging to see that it proposes to introduce regulations that will cover, as part of the conduct of drivers, the playing of loud music and causing a disturbance. As I said at Second Reading, the loud music played and amplified by pedicabs is the greatest concern that gets raised by business owners and residents—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is right about that.
I was a little concerned that, in the note TfL prepared, it suggests that some noise offences are already covered by existing legislation. When I read this, I thought that, in that case, either the existing laws are inadequate, or—to return to enforcement—the enforcement of them is not good enough. I acknowledge that, in his letter, my noble friend pointed out that Westminster City Council and the Metropolitan Police have issued penalty notices that have raised around £30,000 in fines over the last two years.
However, I am concerned that the focus on noise will be about night-time noise. It is not only at night that pedicabs and the playing of loud, amplified noise is a problem; it is a serious problem during the day as well. In my noble friend’s opening speech at Second Reading, he referred to the problem of
“blasting loud music at all hours of the night”.—[Official Report, 22/11/23; col. 768.]
In his closing remarks, he referred to the fines issued by the Metropolitan Police or Westminster City Council, saying specifically that these were for the playing of music “after 9 pm”.
One of the reasons I am keen to see noise added to the relevant clause in the Bill is that noise and the playing and loud amplification of music is the most significant concern that people have about pedicabs, as I said at Second Reading. I am also concerned to ensure that TfL will take an approach that ensures that the loud amplification of music will not be allowed at all hours, not just after 9 pm. I would be grateful for my noble friend’s response to that.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I will pursue some of the issues I raised in the debate on a previous group of amendments about the safety of the lithium ion batteries that power many pedicabs, including those that have loudspeakers to provide the noise we have just heard about.
Many noble Lords may not be aware that a fully charged lithium ion battery contains as much energy and potential energy as the equivalent of six hand grenades. If something goes wrong, it can lead to a thermal runaway, which can lead to temperatures reaching over 600 degrees centigrade, as I mentioned earlier. It can release toxic gases that can seriously damage a human’s lungs. The fires are very difficult to put out because they create their own oxygen, which means that special techniques have to be used.
Having said all that, a properly designed and constructed lithium ion battery is inherently pretty safe, unless people do stupid things with it, such as charging it with the wrong charging system, banging it and not being concerned about any damage that they might see, and so on. That is the problem. I do not want to say that lithium ion batteries are bad because, frankly, we desperately need them for many of the developments in transportation and other areas. It is therefore vital that we think about regulations for how we use them, to avoid those problems occurring. Although it is not covered in these amendments, I also hope consideration is given to how we dispose of them when they are no longer in use.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I lend my support to Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and Amendment 18 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra.
I spoke about this at Second Reading, when I was very clear that it is one of the most important issues. It is probably the reason we are considering the Bill and why it was brought forward. The operation of pedicabs undoubtedly causes a very substantial noise nuisance. If those who operate them had a self-denying ordinance and turned the music down, we probably would not be sitting here today—but the fact is that they do not.
I regularly walk in the evening from your Lordships’ House to where I stay in central London, and one sees and hears these vehicles causing a great disturbance. One is very sympathetic to those who, for example, operate businesses—a restaurant, gallery or any other business premises—in central London near where the pedicabs congregate. The sound of a collection of them competing with each other for custom with very loud, amplified music that can come from a boom box that costs £200, or something of that nature, is significant.
We have heard arguments that some of this is caught by existing regulations, and that extremely modest amounts of fines have been raised, but that has clearly not been effective, which is why we are debating the Bill today. I strongly believe that there ought to be a specific instruction in the Bill—or, at the very least, a facilitation—that allows specific regulations to be brought on the broadcasting of amplified noise in the context of these vehicles.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 17 and 18 about noise, but I do not think that there is anything useful for me to add about them.
I have also added my name to Amendment 24 about pedicabs using cycle lanes. I am a frequent and enthusiastic renter of e-scooters and find that they are the most wonderful way of travelling around London. However, there is a contradiction between the TfL policy about cycle lanes and pedicabs and the policy note we all got. The TfL website definitely says that only bicycles of any kind and e-scooters “can use cycle lanes”; but the policy note, under “cycle lanes”, says that pedicabs are allowed to use them.
There are three routes that I most commonly use when I rent e-scooters. The first is west to east across Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park. A pedicab on those cycle lanes would need at least one wheel in the park and not on the cycle lane, so would completely obstruct any bicycles or e-scooters coming the other way. Secondly, from Waterloo to either the Red Lion or the College Green so-called parking area, it would simply be too narrow for pedicabs. Anyone who has tried to bicycle over any of the bridges will know that the cycle lanes are not very wide, so pedicabs simply would not fit. Thirdly, from here to Soho, e-scooters or bicycles can go—as can pedicabs—the whole way on bus lanes. To solve the contradiction, I hope that we can come down on the side of the TfL website, which says that no pedicabs are allowed in cycle lanes, rather than the policy briefing we all had, which says that they could.
I will say a few words about e-scooters, e-bikes and power-assisted pedicabs, because e-scooters have got a rather bad write-up around here. However, if any noble Lords would like to meet me at either College Green or the Red Lion one sunny day, we could go on a very enjoyable scoot around one of the royal gardens; I am sure that they would be convinced that it is a wonderfully safe and slow way to get around. The term “e-bikes” covers a very broad range of vehicles. For example, the Brompton e-bike of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my VanMoof e-bike do not work until you start pedalling. But we have all seen, especially for delivery vehicles, bicycles now with token pedals which are entirely electrically operated. When we talk about e-bikes, we need to bear that in mind.
I have never driven a pedicab, unlike an e-bike or e-scooter, but I imagine that, when fully loaded with up to three passengers, moving off from a red light without power assistance would be dangerous, because it would be so slow. Some kind of electrical assistance is therefore needed. It is important that we stipulate that it is electrical assistance like that of the Brompton of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, or of my VanMoof; in other words, one has to shove on the pedal for it to kick in, rather than just press a button.
Incidentally, that is easy to override with an app. It is supposed to be limited to 25 kilometres or 15.5 miles an hour, but anyone can buy an app, say you are living in Canada or something, and the whole thing is bypassed. I appreciate that this is a separate subject, but I would like some clarification about cycle lanes, because it could be easily solved.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 18, which I am speaking to in the absence of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I agree with all the amendments that seek to amend Clause 2(6). I remind your Lordships, and particularly the Minister, that this subsection includes the word “may”. Unless my amendment returns on Report with the word “must” in it, it will not have any bite. As much as I welcome all these amendments going through, they must go through with mine.
My noble friend Lord Strathcarron did not mention his excellent Amendment 19, requesting
“a prominently displayed registration plate with a distinct number”.
Unless we have that, the authorities really will be toothless, because how can someone report a pedicab that has breached the rules without some sort of identification of it? There is no point telling the police, “It’s the one with the blue lights and the red lights”, because that does not limit the field. I hope my noble friend does not mind me speaking to his amendment.
I have reservations about e-scooters. I admire my noble friend enormously for being brave enough to take one. I run regularly on much the same routes—20 miles a week, since you ask—and e-scooters are a menace for runners, frankly, particularly because they do not obey the rules of the Royal Parks.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, a great diversity of points has been raised on this group of amendments, most of which strike us as sensible. It is therefore up to the Government to see whether they could strengthen the references in the Bill to the issues on which TfL should consider regulating. The consensus that there should be a specific reference to noise is very strong, as this is a major cause of nuisance.
I fully support the reference to the need for pedicab ranks and stands, but it goes back to Amendment 14 in my name, from the previous group, which talks of charging for the costs of putting these things in place. They will require some changes in infrastructure that will cost money, which the local authority and TfL will be reluctant to spend.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Before my noble friend leaves that point, can I ask him whether he would like to see the same rule applied to taxis? Should the taxi community have to pay for its ranks?
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Frankly, I have no idea what our policy is on this subject, but I am personally in favour of charges being related to costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, made some valid points about cycle lanes. You clearly cannot have one rule in place for the whole cycle lane network; you would need some restrictions.
On the more controversial points raised, I am very sympathetic to the need to ensure that batteries are of the necessary technical standard. If there are to be battery-powered pedicabs, they would have to meet the best standards.
The only point of disagreement is on the checks on immigration status, criminal records and all that. There has been a sufficient number of cases of abuse in the pedicabs sector, to my mind, to justify the ability to check these things more thoroughly than in other areas.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this fourth group covers operational matters. I will now address each amendment in the group.
Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, seeks to probe why existing legislation is not sufficient to cover immigration status and right-to-work checks. The Government’s expectation is that, as in the taxi and private hire vehicle industries, the majority of pedicab drivers will be self-employed. Self-employed individuals are not subject to right-to-work checks undertaken by employers under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. The Immigration Act 2016 made immigration checks mandatory and embedded safeguards into existing licensing regimes across the UK. In London, this was achieved through amendments to the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 and the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. Clause 2(2) intends to ensure parity between a pedicab licensing regime in London and taxis and private hire vehicles. Its exclusion would create a gap, leading to the sector potentially being exploited by those who intend to work illegally.
Pedicab ranks, which were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will be a matter for Transport for London to identify and establish. With regards to the Hammersmith Bridge issue that she mentioned, I am happy to meet but I suspect that, again, Transport for London will have to decide on that.
Amendments 17 and 18 have been tabled in the names of a number of noble Lords and relate to noise nuisance caused by pedicabs. I will therefore respond to them together, if I may. The Government are very aware of the concerns held by noble Lords and share them. The Government assure the Committee that they are taking this issue seriously and have sought assurance from Transport for London over its policy intentions. Transport for London has confirmed that pedicab regulations would cover the conduct of drivers, including playing loud music and causing disturbances.
Given Transport for London’s clear intention and the scope of Clause 2(6), which confers broad powers on to Transport for London, this would seem sufficient to address noble Lords’ concerns. However, the Government welcome the views shared in the Committee, and noble Lords will be pleased to hear that the question of whether this matter requires specific provision in the Bill remains open.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am hugely grateful to my noble friend for what he just said and welcome it very much. In considering whether this should be added to the Bill would he share with us whether, given my concern that noise is not only out of bounds after certain times but an issue 24 hours a day, that is something the Government can also take account of?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My noble friend raises a very valid point and something that we will take into account.
Amendment 19, in the names of my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Strathcarron, Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and Amendment 21, in the names of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Foster of Bath, all relate to Clause 2(6) of the Bill, so I will address them together.
The matters listed under Clause 2(6) are intended to provide a discretion for Transport for London to determine what is most appropriate in bringing forward pedicab regulations following a consultation. This is not an exhaustive list; it rather provides flexibility for Transport for London. However, the Bill is clear that pedicab regulations could cover matters such as the quality and roadworthiness of pedicabs; safety and insurance requirements; the equipment that must be carried on pedicabs; their appearance or markings; and testing requirements. The Government consider that this gives Transport for London sufficient scope to address issues, such as those covered by these amendments in pedicab regulations.
Amendment 22, in the names of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Foster of Bath, seeks to require the batteries in power-assisted pedicabs bear the marking UK conformity assessed or the European equivalent—CE or conformité Européenne. These markings denote conformity with statutory requirements. I note that the requirement for power-assisted pedicabs to meet suitable product regulation is covered by existing law and therefore this amendment is not necessary; I will explain why this is the case.
As is the case with all e-cycles and e-scooters, power-assisted pedicabs need to comply with several product safety regulations. These include the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008. These regulations set out essential health and safety requirements for how the product must be designed and constructed.
Power-assisted pedicabs, as a whole product, are regulated under these regulations. These require manufacturers to ensure that pedicabs meet essential health and safety requirements and that the relevant conformity assessment procedure is undertaken. The manufacturer would then affix the UKCA or the CE marking before the product could be sold in the UK. To be sold lawfully on the UK market, power-assisted pedicabs must already have this marking. If they do not, they are in breach of the regulations.
Noble Lords may point to examples of pedicab drivers or operators adapting their power-assisted pedicabs after they have been purchased. Product regulations would not be relevant here; however, I again point to Clause 2(6) of the Bill, which provides scope for TfL to set out the expected standards for pedicabs through the regulations.
Pedicab batteries are not subject to a regime that requires the UKCA marking to be affixed to them, but the Office for Product Safety and Standards is in the process of reviewing the position with regard to these batteries. Once that review has taken place, my friend the Minister in the other place, Minister Hollinrake, will assess what appropriate and targeted action should be taken.
While pedicab batteries are not subject to an independent regime that requires the UKCA marking to be affixed to them, they must comply with the Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008. This restricts the substances used in batteries and accumulators and sets out requirements for their environmentally friendly end of life.
Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, seeks to allow Transport for London to place a cap on the total number of pedicabs operating in London. As the Committee is aware, the Bill will regulate the industry for the first time. The introduction of licensing is likely to see a short-term reduction in the number of pedicabs, as drivers exit the industry rather than apply for a licence. Over time, it is likely the industry will find a natural level in response to passenger demand.
The Government’s intention is to support the emergence of a safer, fairer and sustainable pedicab industry. This amendment could undermine the role of competition in that process. Competition benefits consumers by incentivising operators to give value for money to innovate and improve service standards. The existing powers in the Bill, which enable Transport for London to place limitations on pedicab operations under Clause 2(7)—including restricting the number of pedicabs operating in specified places or at specified times—are therefore considered sufficient to manage London’s pedicabs.
Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, seeks to prohibit pedicabs being driven in cycle lanes. As I have set out, Transport for London will be able to place limitations on where and when pedicabs can operate, under Clause 2(7) of the Bill. Transport for London has indicated that it will consider prohibiting pedicabs operating on major roads and tunnels, as it does already for cycles, in the interests of public safety. This will be an aspect of Transport for London’s consultation, prior to making pedicab regulations.
Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, proposes to empower the relevant traffic authorities—in this case, Transport for London and London boroughs—to designate pedicab ranks. Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, similarly relates to pedicab ranks, specifically seeking to make provision for Transport for London to designate them.
Transport for London has confirmed that it will give proper consideration to the question of dedicated road space for pedicabs, taking into account the needs of pedicab drivers, passengers and other road users. This approach draws on Transport for London’s significant experience in this area through managing taxi ranks. As I mentioned, proposals brought forward by Transport for London will be subject to a consultation and will likely require collaboration across relevant parties, including London boroughs and industry groups. Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is consequential to Amendment 25.
Excessive fares can spoil a visitor’s trip to London, leaving a sour taste and affecting London’s reputation as a global hub for tourism. That is why Clause 2(5) of the Bill has been included. It confers powers on Transport for London to determine what fares pedicabs charge, and when and how passengers are informed of fares. Transport for London has been clear that it sees pedicab regulations as a chance to address disproportionate fares, as well as other negative impacts associated with pedicabs.
Regarding fines, Clause 3 sets out the suite of enforcement tools available to Transport for London in bringing forward pedicab regulations. These have been drafted to provide flexibility in the design of an effective regulatory regime. There is also the ultimate sanction, under Clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill, of revoking a licence for rogue pedicab operators or drivers. The Government consider the scope of these enforcement powers sufficient to tackle excessive fare charging.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for his detailed response. We have had plenty of detail, which we can think about between now and Report.
I want briefly to pick out a couple of points that have been made. I re-emphasise the salutary point made by my noble friend Lord Foster about comparing the level of regulation on fireworks with the treatment of lithium batteries. It is part of a pattern that we see in so many fields: you get a build-up of public concern and statistics of incidents that lead to legislation, and the social change to go along with it. I hope that the Minister will take that message back to his colleagues.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, raised an important and complex issue around cycle lanes. It emphasises why these decisions need to be made at a local level where people understand exactly the issues, such as where one cycle lane is ridiculous and another is perfectly acceptable.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his comments, which underline the way in which this sector has been neglected over decades.
It comes to my mind that there is, of course, the London Pedicab Operators Association. Has the Minister met it and taken any of its views into account? If he has not, it is referred to in briefings that we have been given as Members of this House; the fact that it exists and that it represents the sector suggests that there is real hope that regulation will improve things and could do so more rapidly than we might think.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Berkeley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the intended meaning and impact of subsection 2(10).
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be brief. Amendment 28 in my name is a probing amendment because I do not understand something. Clause 2(10) says:
“Pedicab regulations may … confer a discretion on Transport for London”
and
“confer power on Transport for London to authorise others to carry out functions under the regulations on their behalf”.
One could be very suspicious about that, or it may just be something that allows TfL to subcontract things. However, I would be pleased if the Minister could explain which it is because “discretion” can cover a wide variety of things.
I will speak briefly to Amendments 38 and 39 in my name, which are to do with consistency between the powers to immobilise and seize pedicabs and those available for motor vehicles. Clause 3(6) allows for pedicab regulations to authorise the
“immobilisation, seizure, retention and disposal of pedicabs that contravene, or are used in contravention of, the regulations”.
Of course, I do not object to any of that, but I hope that it will be taken by the Government and TfL as the sanctions being available only in serious cases. In theory, a pedicab could potentially be confiscated for minor offences, including those that might be committed unwittingly—you can see TfL doing that to a taxi driver who has contravened the regulations unwittingly. I hope the Minister will give me some comfort on that.
I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this is the first chance I have had to speak in this debate as I was involved in other business in another part of the House. I am delighted to be here at all since I was meant to travel yesterday; I think I must have reached a record in that three trains I was booked on were cancelled. I am just delighted to be here to discuss pedicabs—if I had taken a pedicab from the north of England, it might have been quicker to get here, but then I would not have been insured.
I welcome this Bill but, as the debates on earlier groups of amendments have shown, it does not go far enough in its current form. I will speak to Amendments 32, 35 and 36 in my name. I believe that these amendments are necessary because, on a reading of the Bill—in particular Clause 3(2)(a)—the penalties are simply not strong enough to reflect the gravity of a casualty that could occur through the use of a pedicab.
I may be raising points made earlier; I apologise that I could not be here for debates on earlier groups. When I did arrive, I listened very carefully to my noble friend, whom I congratulate on his new position, which is a very welcome role for him. He stated that existing legislation applies to e-scooters. I put it to him that the existing legislation is not being applied to e-scooters, e-bikes and regular bikes. I pray in aid the tragic case of Kim Briggs, the wife of Matt Briggs, who was simply crossing the road when an illegal bike with no brakes fitted at all knocked her down and killed her. At the moment, there are insufficient penalties. The offender was successfully prosecuted for her death, which was a direct result of the injuries that she sustained, but he could not be put away for anything other than the current minuscule offences in the Road Traffic Act.
Avid readers of the Order Paper will have noted that in the last three parliamentary Sessions I have tried to bring forward a Private Member’s Bill to plug that gap. The closest I came, sadly, was in the year when we were dealing with so many regulations relating to Covid that, as noble Lords will recall, no Private Members’ Bills were covered at all. Is my noble friend really satisfied that the existing regulations that apply to e-scooters, e-bikes and bikes are being applied? Why is it that on a daily basis in London, which is the remit of this Bill, and other parts of the country, people are being knocked down, sustaining serious injuries and in some cases being killed on pavements—which is strictly illegal for e-bikes, e-scooters and regular bikes?
The regulations are not being respected. If we stick with these pitiful, woeful enforcement measures in Clause 2, can my noble friend tell the Committee—I pay tribute to his years of service in the police force—who will monitor this? Will TfL have agents on the street to ensure that, for pedicabs, which are covered by this Bill, the measures that will be covered by these woeful, small penalties will be enforced? Who will it be? If it is not TfL—I hazard a guess that it will not be; it will be the British Transport Police or the Met Police—and they will not apply the regulations that already apply to e-bikes, e-scooters and regular bikes, who on earth imagines that they will apply them to pedicabs? Who is telling them to do this? I know this was mentioned earlier and I regret that I was not here to participate in that debate, but why are the Government not taking charge for this Bill, as I understand they did for other aspects of road traffic Acts in the past?
Clearly, the regulations that currently apply to e-bikes, e-scooters and bikes are not working. My noble friend said that there was no legislative time to bring in the next raft of regulations that will apply to them. Here we have it; we have a Bill before us today that is going through the House very quickly, with one day in Committee. Why, pray God, can we not attach it to this Bill, to prevent any further accidents and casualties on our pavements and other parts of the road?
My noble friend pointed out that you have to be licensed and insured to drive an e-scooter on private land, as is currently the case. I understand the level of casualties to be high—unfortunately I was not organised enough to bring the reply from my noble friend Lord Sharpe in this regard—but the Government do not keep the figures, so we simply do not know how many fines or penalties have been issued for that category.
I welcome the fact that pedicabs will be licensed; that will make a big difference. Can my noble friend tell me what the case is for Deliveroo drivers? They seem to be the bane of my life in London, particularly those who drive regular scooters for months, if not years, with L-plates on. Is there not a category of time beyond which you have to pass a test? Who is monitoring whether they are not actually learner drivers but simply have no intention of passing a test? Who is checking whether they are legally able to work here and to drive said scooters? Has anybody asked whether they have even read the Highway Code and are they tested on it?
With those few remarks, I praise the Government for bringing forward the Bill, but I hope that my amendments show what is required to make sure the Road Traffic Act brings in these changes, which I tried but failed to do through my Private Member’s Bill. I hope my noble friend will look kindly on those suggestions.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, clearly the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill and the consequent regulations, however they are drafted by TfL, will be critical. My noble friend has made some pertinent points about the current enforcement of other forms of bicycles, e-bikes, scooters and so forth. My question to him is: what message can he send and what confidence can he give the Committee that the enforcement of whatever regulations eventually emerge will be taken seriously?
I quite agree with my noble friend that there seems to have been an abandonment, certainly in central London, of enforcement for contraventions of the Highway Code and traffic regulations by bicycles, e-scooters and the like. I guarantee that, if I were to walk to central London from your Lordships’ House, I would see vehicles without lights cycling the wrong way up streets. In fact, this morning as I was walking here, a delivery rider parked their e-scooter on the pavement of Jermyn Street at 90 degrees to the direction of flow of pedestrians, locked it like that and went in to deliver their goods.
That is wide of what we are talking about on the Bill today, but there is no point making regulations if they are not going to be enforced. Any law that is not enforced brings the Government, governance and law into disrepute. Perhaps my noble friend can say a word or two about how he sees this likely to be enforced in practice and say something a bit more broadly about the enforcement of motoring other than by camera, which is the default setting. We have seen the withdrawal of the police from enforcing what they may see as trivial road traffic regulations in central London in favour of things that are easier to do, such as putting up cameras, yellow box junctions, generating fines and so forth.
I appreciate that this might go slightly wide of the question under specific consideration today, but the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and his amendments on enforcement raised very important considerations on the seizure of these vehicles. Nobody will take a blind bit of notice unless enforcement is taken seriously.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I will follow up on the points about enforcement and penalties. I hear very much what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said. My remarks will focus on something specific to pedicabs and their regulation: the level of fines that could be imposed on them. My Amendments 33 and 34 are relevant to this.
It seems that there is well-attested abuse, by a minority of pedicab drivers, of vulnerable customers, who are overcharged—vast amounts of money in some cases. Yet, as I understand it—I stand to be corrected if this is not the case—the maximum fine is at level 4, which is £2,500, rather than £5,000. I put it to the Government that unscrupulous people will regard a fine of £2,500 as a business expense, thinking they can pay the fine and continue to behave as badly as they do. Therefore, I believe there should be provision for a higher level of fines to deal with unscrupulous pedicab drivers.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we come to the final group of amendments, focusing on enforcement. Amendment 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to probe the intention and meaning of Clause 2(10). The Bill intends to give Transport for London a level of flexibility in designing pedicab regulations that are workable and meet its needs. This will be central to shaping a robust and effective regime. In achieving this aim, Transport for London has been clear that, as with taxi and private hire vehicle enforcement, it must be able to authorise others to carry out functions under the regulations on its behalf, such as enforcement activities. Clause 2(10) provides for this.
Amendments 32, 35 and 36, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, seek to add to the Bill provision covering death or serious injury caused by the careless, inconsiderate or dangerous use of pedicabs, with accompanying penalties. Of course, any death on our roads is a tragedy. Although we have some of the safest roads in the world, the Government are committed to making our roads even safer. The Government agree that dangerous cycling puts lives at risk. This is why there are already strict laws in place for cyclists, and the police have the power to prosecute if they are broken. They include laws to prosecute cyclists who cause bodily harm under Section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which carries a maximum punishment of two years’ imprisonment. They also include cycling offences under the Road Traffic Act 1991 for careless cycling, with a maximum fine of £1,000, and dangerous cycling, with a maximum fine of £2,500. Furthermore, I am sure my noble friend will welcome the Department for Transport’s response to the consultation on death or serious injury by dangerous cycling, which will be published in due course.
However, we do not consider these amendments necessary. Pedicabs will be treated in the same way as pedal cycles, and their drivers will be treated as cyclists for the purpose of dangerous cycling offences. The exception would be if a pedicab is deemed a motor vehicle, in which case it would be subject to motoring offences.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about enforcement; the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, touched on this as well. Transport for London will have its own enforcement officers who work together with the police on this. I hear what the noble Viscount had to say about enforcement—or perhaps a lack of it. It is an operational matter for police and what he said is disappointing, but I certainly hear it loud and clear. As I said, it is for the police to respond to.
On the question that my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised, the figures, fines and penalties are an issue that lie with the Home Office. As for the Deliveroo L plate drivers and whether they are legally here, again, that is a policing matter. I am not too sure whether they can remain with L plates forever; we will have to write back to her on that. Certainly, that is a point well made.
Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, seeks to increase the level of fines for offences committed under pedicab regulations from level 4 to level 5. This would mean that there would be no upper limit to the fines issued. The enforcement tools in the Bill are comprehensive, providing Transport for London with the scope to design an enforcement regime that can effectively target the rogue operators which have profited from a lack of regulation for too long. Clause 3(2), which this amendment seeks to change, is part of a suite of tools in the Bill.
Pedicab regulations will be able create offences providing for the giving of fixed-penalty notices or the imposition of penalties. These powers are supplemented by the ability to seize, immobilise, retain and dispose of pedicabs. There is also the ultimate sanction of stopping a pedicab driver or operator conducting business by revoking their license under Clause 2(1)(b). The Government expect Transport for London to take a view on how best to regulate the industry, subject to engagement with stakeholders and a public consultation. As the Committee is aware, pedicab regulations will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State. This should provide assurance to any noble Lords concerned by the scope of these powers.
Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to provide parity with civil enforcement powers applicable to contraventions committed by drivers and riders of motor vehicles. The power to impose civil penalties through pedicab regulations is explicitly tied to offences under Clause 3(1). These are not motoring offences; they relate to the provision of false or misleading information in connection with licences and the failure to comply with requirements, prohibitions and restrictions imposed by pedicab regulations. We therefore consider this amendment unnecessary.
I will address Amendments 39 and 49 together, which have again been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. These seek to place limitations on the immobilisation and seizure of pedicabs by making equivalent provisions to those relating to motor vehicles under Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002. This would amend Clause 3(6), which is intended to provide Transport for London with flexibility in designing pedicab regulations. The ability to immobilise, seize, retain and dispose of pedicabs that are illegal, or used illegally, and to target rogue operators will help establish a more sustainable and reputable pedicab industry in London. Limiting Transport for London’s powers in the manner proposed in this amendment could potentially remove the possibility of pedicabs that are not roadworthy, unsafe or are being used consistently in contravention of the regulations, being removed from London’s streets. However, the powers under Clause 3(6), are subject to safeguards in the Bill.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I hear what the Minister says about the impounding of pedicabs and things like that. It may be quite necessary and justified. Are there similar powers available now in respect of TfL and taxis? It should be proportionate, should it not?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I hear what the noble Lord says, but I am not sure that it should be proportionate. If he is concerned about the powers, I was going on to say that the powers under Clause 3(6) are subject to safeguards in the Bill. They are achieved by Clause 4(3), which provides a right to request that a decision to immobilise, seize, retain, and dispose of a pedicab is reconsidered and a right to appeal the decision at a magistrates’ court. I also note that the Bill paves the way for a separate pedicab licensing regime. The intention of this amendment to make equivalent provision to powers to immobilise and seize vehicles under another regime is therefore not likely to be the most appropriate course of action.
Amendment 49 is consequential to Amendment 39, and I have addressed that in my remarks.
I will now move to Amendment 40, the final amendment of this group and the last one that I will address in Committee. It is in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and seeks to expand the list of bodies that could exercise powers contained under Clause 3(6). As I have set out, this subsection contains an important power in the suite of enforcement tools that will be available through pedicab regulations. Transport for London has been clear that it will work with the Metropolitan Police and London boroughs to conduct enforcement. Powers contained in the Bill already allow Transport for London to confer functions on to other authorities, as it deems necessary, to support an effective enforcement regime.
That draws my remarks to a close. I thank noble Lords for taking the time to discuss the Bill today. The diligence that the Committee has shown has allowed for a thorough examination of the Bill and its purpose. I am grateful for this and look forward to continuing to discuss the Bill with noble Lords during its parliamentary passage.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I thank him for his comprehensive response, which we can examine at our leisure. The one part of it that I find unsatisfactory is the point about fines. I must say to him that, unless the Government move on this issue, we will raise this matter on Report.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I understand the noble Lord’s concern. It is something that we will discuss back in the department, but whether it will change is another matter.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this fifth group of amendments. We have had some very useful discussions and I shall read Hansard with great interest tomorrow. We will see whether we come back on this on Report or have some further meetings. I am sure that the Minister will be open to meetings—he has already said he would be. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to clause 7.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
We come to Amendment 44.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
At page 143, paragraph 8.111 of the Companion says:
“The proceedings and forms of words for amendments and clauses in Grand Committee are identical to those in a Committee of the whole House save that no votes may take place. Normally only one bill per day may be considered in Grand Committee. Amendments, which may be tabled and spoken to by any member, are published and circulated as for Committee of the whole House”.
Paragraph 8.112 says:
“As divisions are not permitted in Grand Committee, decisions to alter the bill may only be made by unanimity. Thus when the Question is put, a single voice against an amendment causes the amendment to be negatived”.
I am that single voice.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
Can we adjourn the Committee for a moment, please?
Lord Davies of Gower
““trailer” , in relation to a pedal cycle, includes a sidecar or a vehicle pushed by a pedal cycle.”Member's explanatory statement
“Pedicab” is defined by clause 1 to mean a pedal cycle, or a pedal cycle in combination with a trailer, that is constructed or adapted for carrying one or more passengers etc. This amendment provides that “trailer” includes sidecars or vehicles pushed by pedal cycles.
House of Lords
Hydrogen Heating
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the finding of the National Infrastructure Commission that there is no public policy case for hydrogen heating, set out in the Second National Infrastructure Assessment published in October.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, heat pumps and heat networks will be the primary means of decarbonising heat for the foreseeable future, and will play an important role in all 2050 scenarios. Of course, we welcome the NIC’s input, are carefully considering the analysis and will respond to the report in due course.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. My first question is about the residents of Redcar. Their council leader has written to the Secretary of State to say that they do not want a hydrogen heating trial. Am I correct in saying that they will be allowed to follow the residents of Whitby and veto the proposal? After all, the Minister himself has said as much from the Dispatch Box. Secondly, what assessment have the Government made of recent scientific developments that show that hydrogen leaked into the atmosphere has an indirect global warming impact around 12 times greater than that of carbon dioxide?
Lord Callanan (Con)
With respect to the noble Baroness’s first question, I think she needs to read the letter from the leader of Redcar Council more carefully. I do not think it supports the analysis she gave. Nevertheless, I have said on numerous occasions that no hydrogen village trial will take place without strong support from local residents. On the noble Baroness’s second question, yes, hydrogen does have a high global warming potential, which illustrates the importance of not allowing it to leak at all.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is the National Infrastructure Commission’s report really welcome? What it says in that report is that hydrogen molecules are just too difficult for 23 million domestic supplies at home. It wants to dig up or close down entirely the existing retail gas distribution system as well, because it thinks it does not fit in with our global aims—and it is absolutely right. And it wants to turn us into an all-electric economy. But have we got the slightest clue where all this extra electricity will come from, how it will be transmitted and delivered, and how that can be done at reasonable cost to the consumer? Until we have a clearer view on those things, it is very hard to just say that we welcome the NIC report.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Well, I did not say that we necessarily welcomed the NIC’s report; I said that we were studying it, and of course it will provide a useful backdrop to and illustration of the decisions that we will make. To go back to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, we will announce a decision on the trial in Redcar very shortly. I think the noble Lord makes a good point; where does all the extra electricity come from? Of course, there is detailed scenario mapping done on that; we have very exciting and ambitious plans for lots more offshore wind, lots of solar development and lots of nuclear development—so there will be ample supplies of electricity available.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it is pointless improving heating systems if many houses are badly insulated? What will the Government do to step up the programme to make sure that people can live in decent homes?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that energy efficiency and insulation are extremely important. That is why we are spending £6.5 billion over this Parliament on insulation, energy efficiency and clean heat measures; but, of course, there is always a lot more to do and we will have more to say on that shortly.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is it not extraordinary that Germany appears to have decided that all its heating for domestic should be in a hydrogen/gas mix, and there are apparently at least four or five other European countries far ahead of us? How is it that the national infrastructure plan can ignore the work that appears to be being done on hydrogen on the ground in this country, with factories being built at the moment for the use of transport and all the extensive work being carried out in trials?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not think my noble friend is correct about attitudes in Germany. The latest information I have is that 10 homes in Germany—no more than that—are subject to the trial. The issue of blending hydrogen into the gas network is of course a separate issue, and that too is something on which we will have more to say shortly.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Is the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, not completely right in one respect: that there is confusion about the transition—how it will be funded, how it will come about, how North Sea oil and gas will fit into that, when it will diminish, when it will completely finish being important in our energy mix? Is it not time we got below some of the very high-level aspirations of the Government and into the detail of what a transition plan will actually mean for the country?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely correct. We have set out in great detail what the transition plan looks like. As I said in my Answer, electrification—heat networks in particular—will play a very important role in the decarbonisation of heat.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, among the more controversial recommendations of the report was a very sensible recommendation to set clear resilience standards and better maintenance practices for all infrastructure sectors. As the Minister’s department considers the report, will he pay particular attention to those recommendations?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. We will of course fully consider those recommendations alongside the views on hydrogen heating.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, newspaper reports at the weekend suggested that the Government were looking for an entire town to use as a hydrogen heating pilot. Given the difficulties in Whitby and Redcar, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, which are not yet resolved but will be very soon, and recent scientific developments, which she also referred to, about indirect warming from hydrogen emissions being higher than previously thought, does the Minister think that now is the right time to be pushing ahead with this?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord will find out whether now is the right time to be pushing ahead with it when we announce the decision. He should not necessarily believe everything that he reads in the newspapers.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the Second National Infrastructure Assessment argues:
“Gas boilers, which currently heat around 88 per cent of English buildings, need to be phased out and replaced by heat pumps. Around eight million additional buildings will need to switch to low carbon heating by 2035, and all buildings by 2050”.
Can the Minister tell us how the Government plan to implement these recommendations and make carbon-neutral home heating available in time to meet our net-zero commitments?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There is a long and detailed answer to that, but there are a number of different elements to it. We will be consulting very shortly on the future homes standards, which will take advantage of new technology in terms of setting standards for all new developments. Clearly, there is a big challenge with existing, particularly residential, properties. I have said that heat pumps and heat networks will play the majority role in decarbonisation efforts. There could also be a role for renewable heating fuels, where there are some exciting developments.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, given the growing case against using hydrogen as the main source of domestic and office heating, are the Minister or Ofgem about to stop supplier companies offering so-called “hydrogen-ready” boilers to those who need a boiler replacement? Is the Minister any further ahead on the kind of technology that is going to be used for district heating schemes?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think the CMA is looking into some of the claims. Chancellor, it is a complicated area, because you can blend hydrogen into the existing gas network and that will work perfectly satisfactorily with all existing gas appliances. In that respect, all appliances are hydrogen-ready. But I am sure Ofgem will want to look at the full implications of that as well.
Lord Geddes (Con)
When my noble friend helpfully lists forms of alternative renewable energy, could he be kind enough to include tidal?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know my noble friend feels very passionately about this. As I have said, we allocated some contracts for difference in the last round for tidal. I am sure we will want to do so in the next round again, provided the bids are competitive—but it does contribute a relatively small part of our energy mix.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about hydrogen as an appropriate source of heating is that producing hydrogen in itself uses a tremendous amount of energy? It is one of the least energy-efficient ways of producing an alternative source.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is right. Of course, there are two separate issues. Hydrogen will play an important role in the transition; there are lots of industrial processes, such as heavy transportation, for which there is no realistic alternative to hydrogen, and we will be announcing the results of the first hydrogen allocation round shortly—a lot of things are happening in the near future. Hydrogen will play an important role in decarbonisation and long-term energy storage because we principally “waste”—in inverted commas—quite a lot of electricity in curtailment payments because we cannot use it. So, in terms of large-scale storage of energy, it can play an important role, as well as in industrial processes. There will be some important uses for hydrogen. There is a separate question about whether it should play an important role in home heating, about which we will decide shortly.
Banking Hubs
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many banking hubs have been established in response to bank branch closures since January 2022, and whether they are taking steps to facilitate the establishment of a national network of banking hubs.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, since January 2022, the financial services sector has opened 23 banking hubs, with another 27 hubs expected by Easter next year. Following government legislation, last week the Financial Conduct Authority published proposals for a new regulatory regime to protect access to cash. This includes proposals that seek to ensure a timely delivery of services that meet the needs of communities.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I thank the Minister for her Answer and welcome the steps being taken to safeguard free access to cash. Does the Minister agree that many people, particularly older people and those with disabilities, need access to physical banking services which go much further than access to cash? It is about having a real person to talk to. Given that banks and building societies have closed over 6,000 branches since 2015, does the Minister also agree that the rollout of banking hubs has been painfully slow, leaving many communities to become banking deserts? The current plans are totally inadequate for creating a much-needed national network of banking hubs, which some have estimated would require between 800 and 1,000 such hubs.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
There were many questions there and perhaps I will focus on the last one, which is where the FCA consultation comes to the fore. The proposals set out by the FCA are very detailed and potentially go much further than the voluntary initiatives of banking hubs that have so far been undertaken by the sector. Obviously, that consultation remains open until 8 February, and we will be looking for not only banks to respond but representatives of the vulnerable groups the noble Baroness describes, so that we can get a full view of what the proposals should be.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I commend the establishment of banking hubs across the United Kingdom as an alternative to the closure of mainstream banks. Can the Minister set out the criteria for such banking hubs being initiated? Just one has been established in Northern Ireland. Recently, the Ulster Bank decided to close a range of banks across Northern Ireland, leaving many rural areas without physical banking facilities. What are the criteria for the establishment of banking hubs, because there is a need for one in Lisnaskea, south-east Fermanagh?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I recognise what the noble Baroness is saying. The criteria currently used to assess whether a community needs a banking hub are set out in consultation with the financial services sector; that is part of the current voluntary arrangement. I point the noble Baroness to the FCA consultation, because the criteria to be set out going forward are far more detailed and focus on the needs of not only local communities but SMEs. The consultation will also look at seasonal fluctuations in the need for cash access and the ability of SMEs to get coins and notes. The FCA is going further than the current voluntary arrangements.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
As with rural bus services, the loss of banking facilities bears most heavily on the elderly. Does the Minister agree with the principle that the last facility in a community should not be lost until a hub is established?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I agree with that in principle, and that is what the FCA set out in its consultation. If the assessment is that a community needs services, it will be beholden upon the designated firms—the banks—to put an alternative service in place before the last bank is closed, or alternative services will need to be put in place within three months if the existing service had somehow disappeared many months or years beforehand and an assessment was made that the community was lacking access to cash.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Perhaps I may add to what other noble Lords said about the urgency of this. In the part of Devon where I live, it is a desert. In Fleet Street, there used to be two Barclays branches between the law courts and the Old Bailey and now—can you believe it?—there is none; and yet, another set of courts is about to be built. Can the noble Baroness inject some urgency into this?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
That is why the Government decided that it was time to legislate. We felt that the voluntary initiative was not coming along fast enough, and we legislated in the Financial Services and Markets Act in the summer. The FCA, the key independent regulator, has brought forward its consultation in short order.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, we know that banking hubs should provide the face-to-face communication which is so valuable and important for those who need extra help and support with their finances and may not be equipped with adequate financial understanding and skills. As we know, not all young people are leaving school having had an adequate financial education. Can the Minister assure us that there will be a person at each of these hubs to provide much needed and valuable face-to-face communication?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
In many circumstances banking hubs have a private room where community bankers can meet customers to discuss their financial requirements. Cash Access UK, the partnership that sets up banking hubs, publishes a list showing where community bankers are available. I should also point my noble friend to other interventions that some banks are using, such as mobile banking services, pods and pop-ups. There are a lot of ways to have face-to-face contact with consumers.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, the latest figures from the British Retail Consortium show that shopping with cash has risen for the first time in a decade, as household budgets are increasingly stretched. At the same time, almost half of bank branches have closed, while the rollout of banking hubs has been much delayed. Will the Minister agree to match the Labour Party’s commitment to work with banks and, where necessary, bring in additional powers for the FCA to guarantee face-to-face banking services, beginning by prioritising areas that currently have no high street banks?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think what the noble Lord has just set out is exactly what the Government are doing. The FCA consultation goes into an awful lot of detail on the criteria that will need to be met for banking services to continue. We accept that, while the use of cash has declined over time, it has possibly reached a plateau. But I reassure noble Lords that, for example, 97% of the urban population is within 1 mile of a free-to-use cash access point.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, surely the Minister has hit the nail on the head: the weakness of the current banking hub system is its voluntary character. That could be corrected with a relatively simple statutory instrument so that, when a local community applies to Link and is shown to meet the criteria, a banking hub is guaranteed and it does not suffer what happens today—delay or refusal by the banks.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I disagree with the noble Baroness. I would not want to put the current arrangements on a statutory footing at all, because they could be better. That is exactly what we are doing: we are looking at the existing voluntary arrangements and saying that we need a regulatory footing, not for where we are now but for where we should be in future. That is why the FCA consultation is so important. But this also builds on FCA guidance, which is already out there and which banks already follow.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is there a case for working much more closely with the Post Office, which is doing an enormous amount of work in backing up the lack of banking in certain areas? We are working with the Post Office, and its commitment to filling the gap left by banks is incredible.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. The Post Office banking framework has been in place since 2017, and we recognise the really important role post offices can play for people and for small and medium-sized enterprises. The current arrangements are in place until December 2025, when they will of course be looked at again, but we recognise that the more than 11,000 post offices offer a very helpful route to get cash and other services.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that last answer. However, in the north-east, only one banking hub has been opened this year and there is a diminishing number of post offices, so it is quite hard to see how the post office network is actually helping in the north-east.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I point the right reverend Prelate to figures released by the FCA last week. We know that geographic coverage of the cash access network remains comprehensive, despite some branch closures over a period of time. Of course, we are keeping this under review, which is why we await the response to the FCA consultation. We expect any proposals to be in place by summer next year.
Construction Sector: Cash Retentions
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Aberdare
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they are making in determining how to end the practice of cash retentions in the construction sector, and whether they plan to meet the 2025 target date for achieving zero retentions proposed by the Build UK Roadmap and endorsed by the Construction Leadership Council in 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his Question. The Government will add a requirement for reporting on retention payments to the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017. Work also continues with the Construction Leadership Council to reduce defects in construction and end the abuse of retentions. This includes supporting a pilot project with the Get It Right Initiative to reduce defects, as well as collaboration with the bodies responsible for construction contractual documentation, to discourage the withholding of retentions.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, the announcement made last month, which was mentioned by the Minister, is a small step forward but it is too little, too late, and it does not go nearly far enough to end the bane of retentions, which cause huge damage to numerous small construction firms, and indeed to the sector as a whole. What further steps are the Government considering? Let me suggest two possibilities. First, they could ensure that the undesirability of retentions is included in the Construction Playbook, which sets out key policies and guidance on how public works projects and programmes are assessed, procured and delivered, but, rather shockingly, makes no mention of retentions. Or, secondly, they could put an effective system of enforcement in place for the measures he has just described when they are eventually implemented. If the Minister does not like those two ideas, I have at least half a dozen more that I could suggest to him.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that contribution. The Government understand well that the practice of cash retention can create problems in the supply chain, due to late and non-payment. We are committed to improving payment practices, but we have to work with the construction industry in this. The prompt payment and cash flow review report was just published on 22 November, and a key measure includes extending and amending the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations, basically to increase transparency in this vital area to allow large businesses to provide data to the smaller companies to see how retention payments are working. We have to work with the construction sector in this.
The Construction Leadership Council has identified some solutions to mitigate cash retention payments. Our long-term aim is to remove the need for retentions altogether and, as I said, we are supporting the Get It Right Initiative and Cranfield University to reduce the rate of defects within the buildings commissioned across the public and private sector. The aim is to establish a quality metric as a viable alternative to the withholding of cash retentions as a form of insurance against defects. There is a lot going on. We are working with the industry and a lot of consideration has been given to this matter, but, ultimately, the construction industry itself needs to come to a consensus on how to improve this area.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has just said that the industry needs to come to a consensus. What he is asking for is the greedy lions to sit down with the defenceless lambs and decide what menu is going to be eaten. The reality is that the upper-tier contractors have not just the whip hand but the bank balance. He will know that many of them have a business model that functions only because they retain retentions to which they are not legally entitled. Will he now introduce a simple measure to put the retention money that is levied into an escrow account so that it cannot be used and cannot incentivise upper-tier contractors to use it to fund their business model?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. Indeed, this has been the practice in the building industry for 150 years; it is the standard mechanism to ensure that work is done on time and to the right standard. There is about £4 billion held in cash retentions against a total turnover in the construction industry of about £430 million, so, guess what, that works out at 1%, which is roughly the margin in construction. Various plans have been put forward: there was a plan for insurance, but that did not work because of the Carillion failure and Grenfell Tower, and there have been various plans such as a retention deposit scheme in escrow. We have consulted the building industry, and there is a level of support for banning retentions and a level of support for not changing the system. The construction industry needs to come together and work out how to do this better.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that this is not a time to assume that the status quo is good enough? The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is absolutely right: what we see is the big players squeezing the supply chain, and the result is often that the smaller players benefit not one penny and the big players do profit. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who, when I was in the hot seat, was pushing on cash retentions. We need to do something about this. It is very similar to when we rent a home: the landlord does not get his hands on the deposit; it is held, essentially, at a distance from the landlord who is renting the home. We need to change the system. Does my noble friend also agree that we need to improve the quality of construction? After all, that is something that needs to get better, and then we would not have to worry about retentions.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that contribution. The Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 require the larger UK companies to report on a half-yearly basis on payment practices, policy and performance. The onus is increasing on them around transparency. The sector welcomes increasing reporting regulations. Build UK, the leading construction trade body, has been benchmarking construction companies on their payments since 2018, and improvements have been considerable. In 2018, the average time for paying invoices was 45 days, and it is now 32 days; the figure for invoices paid within agreed terms is now 82%, versus 61%, and for invoices paid within 60 days it is now 95% versus 82%. That shows that the construction industry can work positively in this area.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, similar to cash retention, late payments are a perennial problem, especially for SMEs and microbusinesses. Over the last 10 years, the Conservative party in government has launched no fewer than seven reviews into late payments. What recommendations have come from those reviews, and what benefits have SMEs seen from those seven reviews?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. As I indicated, the direction of travel has improved considerably, with the construction sector working positively to reduce the amount of late payments. Working with the contractors’ umbrella body, Actuate UK, and the new Get it Right initiative, I think we will see some improvements. We are trying to get defects and collection and completion certificates using processes developed by the Get it Right initiative, which are going to be data-based, to try to get a metric system which is more objective and less subjective and which can measure performance and indicate at an early stage whether it has been to the right standard. That will go a long way towards allowing earlier payment on retentions.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, could not the Government introduce legislation that separates any money that is being held and pay the interest to the contractors, rather than the person who is benefiting now?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
As the noble Lord from the Cross Benches said, there are many suggestions as to how we go about doing this, and this is another one. On statutory bans on cash retentions, my department is fixated on trying to remove regulation from business, not increase it. We are looking to the industry to come forward with viable plans on how to make this work. Progress is being made and more can be done, but there is still not complete consensus on how to move this forward.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government are dragging their heels over the anti-enterprise practices of cash retentions and late payments, especially as SMEs in the construction sector are running the highest rate of insolvencies of any sector in this economy? Over the last three decades, the SME market share has dropped in new housebuilding from 40% to less than 10%, leaving the big housebuilders to increasingly dominate a sector that continually fails to meet demand. Why is there not more urgency?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. There is urgency, to the extent that we are consulting the industry, which has demonstrated that it can improve these terms. We have put the road map together and it is being worked on, but we need consensus in the industry to do that. I understand the concerns of SMEs, but transparency on data, as well as a metric system which shows more transparency and more independent KPIs on work being delivered, will go a long way, and that is what the road map envisages.
Local Enterprise Partnerships: Funding
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the ending of local enterprise partnerships’ funding and the impact on local economic development.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)
The Government are committed to empowering locally elected leaders to drive local economic development. From April 2024, government will support local and combined authorities to deliver the core functions currently delivered by LEPs; namely, the functions of strategic economic planning, business representation and ongoing delivery of specific government programmes. Revenue funding will be provided to local and combined authorities in 2024-25 to support this activity.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, Labour’s very successful regional development agencies were replaced with local enterprise partnerships in 2011. These will be abolished next year. From micro-businesses to multinationals, businesses cry out for certainty, consistency and competency, but, far from levelling up, all they get from this Government is chaos, confusion and closure. The best way to restore business confidence would be for this Government to shut up shop and call an election. Are these businesses wrong in their assessment?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Yes. I also disagree with the noble Lord’s assessment of RDAs. I would be interested to know, if they were such a successful way of delivering local growth, whether they would be re-established under future Labour plans. The Government are focused on empowering local leaders over geographies that make sense in local areas to deliver local economic growth. We are working to integrate the roles of local enterprise partnerships into local areas so that we have the best of both worlds, with local democratic accountability and strong business voices to drive economic growth.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I well understand the arguments that the Minister made regarding the shifting of LEP funding. To return to the Question, which the questioner rather strayed away from and which is whether the Government are satisfied about the impact on local economic development, is the Minister satisfied that the existing schemes, which are often successful, will not be damaged? I am thinking particularly of the very successful work done by a number of combined LEPs on digital poverty and exclusion.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that the Government are confident that, in integrating the work done by LEPs into local authority or combined authority areas, we will not lose the benefits of the great work done by LEPs since their establishment. The aim is to integrate that with local democratic accountability. It is part of our broader agenda on devolution and we will continue to see some of that great work delivered over similar areas to now.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that, since the LEPs were set up in 2011, more and more of their functions have been transferred to mayoral authorities and combined mayoral authorities, and have been included in devolution deals, many more of which are still on the way? Is that not a more democratic solution than the unelected LEPs?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. In taking this decision, we conducted an information-gathering exercise with local authorities and LEPs to understand the impact of our plans. That identified great overlap between some of the functions discharged by LEPs, local authorities and combined authorities, as well as confirming a high level of integration of LEP functions in mayoral combined authorities. That is why we are taking the direction of travel that we are. The Government’s view is that there is likely to be scope for both greater join-up and efficiencies, and clarity for the private sector, by these functions being discharged in a joined-up way, and greater local accountability.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, LEPs and RDAs had in common that, while they referred to “local” and “regional”, they were, in fact, Whitehall appointed and Whitehall controlled. If their functions are gradually transferred to mayoral authorities, that will clearly take things closer to local enterprise, but it is not necessarily a great improvement if you move from a Whitehall bureaucracy to a mayoral bureaucracy. What is being done to ensure that these functions respond actively to local enterprises and to local and regional organisations, which are membership organisations and directly represent enterprises, businesses, communities and, indeed, consumers?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have published guidance for the transfer of LEP functions to local authorities. Further guidance will be issued in January. As part of our devolution settlements in different areas, there are also clear conditions around how business engagement should take place to ensure that the voices of local businesses and their representative organisations are well heard in those areas.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, is it not unusual that within local enterprise partnerships, some of those participating were rivals with one another? Is it not best to ensure that, after all this time, we take another look at Redcliffe-Maud and have stronger bodies and authorities, with more competent clerks, to make it a really good and efficient system?
Baroness Penn (Con)
One important aspect of moving LEP functions into local authorities and mayoral combined authorities is making sure they cover appropriate economic geographies so they can deliver for those areas. In having proper democratic accountability, it will be clear to local businesses and local people who is responsible for economic development in their area.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, is it not clear that in the Teesside mayoral area, on some of the economic development programmes, we have seen less democratic accountability and less transparency about what is going on? The Government instituted a review that was supposed to report in July on this and we have heard nothing yet. We want more electoral and democratic accountability and more transparency. When is the report going to come out?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, there has been a great deal of success in devolution to Teesside and the mayoral combined authority there. The noble Baroness is right that we have instituted a report into some of the processes that have been undertaken. I do not have a date for her, but we are looking at it very carefully and we will publish the report when we are in a position to do so.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, is the issue here not just talking about structural change to functions but the power of the functions themselves? The clear issue with saying that we are going to have proper regional economic development firing on all cylinders is that, in every country, every indicator shows that fiscal devolution is required, not just the movement of existing functions. Will the Government seriously look at fiscal devolution to ensure that proper economic development can happen in all regions across the country?
Baroness Penn (Con)
That is exactly what the Government are doing; they are seeking to combine the devolution of greater power with greater funding and greater responsibility for the funding. There are the trailblazer deals that look to integrate the different streams of funding for local areas into something much closer to a single settlement. That will allow those areas to make decisions at a local level about what should happen in their area.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, surely all this bureaucracy and red tape is not the answer for some parts of our country that are in need of development. As one of those involved in the establishment of development corporations in the late 1980s, I think we should be proud of such a model. Frankly, is it not about time we allowed local businesses and local people to have a stronger say in what they want to renovate and rejuvenate zones of that kind?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, by integrating LEPs into local authorities and mayoral combined authorities, we are looking to streamline the processes by which business can engage in their local areas. As a part of our devolution deals, we are also giving combined authorities the power to set up development corporations so they can use the voice of business to drive development and economic progress in their local areas.
Arrangement of Business
(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, in the absence of my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, I am able to announce the current plan for recess dates until the start of summer 2024. Before doing so, I express my thanks, and the thanks of many on this side, for the warm expressions of good will to my noble friend, which have come from across the House; they have been much appreciated by my noble friend herself and have all been relayed on to her. I think I speak for the whole House when I say how much we look forward to seeing my noble friend in her place in the new year.
The full list of dates is available in the Royal Gallery in the usual place. There will be a slightly extended Christmas Recess, with the House still rising at the end of business on Tuesday 19 December and returning on Wednesday 10 January, rather than Monday 8 January as previously announced. We will then rise for the February Recess at the end of Wednesday 14 February, and return on Monday 19 February. This reflects the longer Christmas break. I appreciate that this is a shorter February Recess than in some recent years. However, I have committed to the usual channels that there will not be votes that week, so if noble Lords have made plans for February, I hope that they can still be accommodated.
At Easter, the plan is for the House to rise at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 27 March and return on Monday 15 April. We will then rise at the end of business on Thursday 23 May for Whitsun Recess and return on Monday 3 June. Finally, we currently expect the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Thursday 25 July. Also in the Royal Gallery, noble Lords will find the sitting Fridays up to July. There will be an additional sitting Friday in January to debate the situation in Ukraine before Private Members’ Bills start in February. As usual, these are subject to the progress of business. Any changes and further recess dates will be announced in the usual way.
Still-Birth (Definition) Bill [HL]
Aviation (Consumers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 December.
Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 October be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 December.
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Monday 11th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 View all Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (11 Dec 2023)
Lord Coaker
“(b) the extent to which information contained within the personal data has been made public as a result of steps deliberately taken by the data subject;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the definition of a low privacy bulk personal dataset is in line with the definition set out in Schedule 10 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, before I get to the specifics of my Amendment 1, I will make some general remarks. I thank the Minister and all his officials for their very helpful briefing and the collaborative way in which they have approached the Bill. As he knows, we support the Bill, but we will seek clarification and further information about a number of clauses and the details in them.
It is important for me to say that this is the Committee stage, so some significant details will be explored that will be helpful to us. Indeed, on my own part, there may be one or two misunderstandings as to the actual meaning of certain parts of the Bill. None the less, it is an important Bill and an important step forward for our country and its security; I think we all want to see it be as successful as it can be.
This group of amendments deals with bulk personal datasets. These include personal data where a large majority of people included will not necessarily be relevant to an intelligence investigation. Currently, all BPD warrants must go through a double-lock process of approval via the Secretary of State and then a judicial commissioner, and must be renewed every six months. Agency heads must also perform certain functions associated with the warrant.
As the importance of data-based intelligence grows, the Bill rightly includes several measures to make it easier and quicker to analyse various datasets. Individual BPDs considered to have a low or no expectation of privacy could be approved by intelligence agency heads if urgent or if they fall into a category approved by a judicial commissioner. For urgent cases, judicial commissioners have three days to review the warrant.
BPD warrants will need to be renewed only after 12 months, instead of six, which seems sensible. Some functions can be delegated from heads of agencies to an official while maintaining overall responsibility. The Bill also ensures that third-party BPDs—mostly commercially held data—are regulated similarly to other BPDs. The double lock of the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner would remain for all BPDs, apart from ones considered urgent by the Secretary of State. For urgent cases, a judicial commissioner would have three days to review the warrant. Again, much of that is very sensible and improves the current situation.
I tabled my amendments in the spirit of probing what the Government mean, and I will ask some questions for clarity. Amendment 1 probes why the definition of low-privacy datasets differs from existing data protection legislation. Being the sort of person I am, yesterday I read the relevant section of the Data Protection Act 2018. It differs from Clause 2, where the Minister lays out:
“Low or no reasonable expectation of privacy”
for authorisations and the various factors to be taken into account. Given that the Data Protection Act also talks about access to data, about intelligence services having to have consent and about intelligence agencies having various conditions applied to them when seeking authorisations to access data, it would be helpful to the Committee to understand which applies to the authorisations and how the various pieces of legislation interact with each other. Otherwise, we have what is included in this Bill as well as what is included in the Data Protection Act 2018. Amendment 1 seeks to understand where and how the two relate to each other, whether one supersedes the other and whether the Data Protection Act is now irrelevant to the authorisations laid out in the Bill. It would be helpful for us to understand that.
Lord Fox (LD)
I rise to speak to Amendment 2 and several others in this group in my name. This amendment probes the extent to which paragraphs (d) and (e) of proposed new Section 226A(3) depart from current privacy laws. Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, we seek clarification. Also like the noble Lord, as far as we are concerned the purpose of this Committee is to probe, get information and understand how the Government interpret some of the measures in the Bill.
Bulk personal datasets represent the largest part of the Bill, and this amendment primarily probes the differences in the definitions in the Bill and those set out in Schedule 10 to the Data Protection Act 2018. The Bill creates a new and essentially undefined category of information where there is deemed to be low or no reasonable expectation of privacy: so-called low/no datasets. This is a departure from existing privacy law, in particular data protection law. With regard to low-privacy bulk datasets, the relevant circumstance, in Schedule 10 to the DPA, is that
“information contained in the personal data has been made public as a result of steps deliberately taken by the data subject”.
This is a different standard from the expectation of privacy in the new BPD category, whereby information is considered low privacy according to
“the extent to which the data is widely known about”
and if it
“has already been used in the public domain”.
As your Lordships will observe, there is a big difference between those two definitions. For example, whereas facial images from public CCTV may be considered low-privacy BPD under the Bill, they would be considered personal data and possibly subject to sensitive processing under the DPA. As the Minister knows, this is a contentious area of law, and a real-life example is Clearview AI’s database of 30 billion facial images harvested from social media platforms for highly facial recognition searches. Some could have been classified as low privacy, as the photos have already been made public by the individuals, but the Information Commissioner’s Office found Clearview AI in breach of the DPA.
Similarly, a database of all public Facebook or other social media posts could be argued to be a low-privacy database, despite the fact that it will be a comprehensive database of billions of people’s social networks, sexual orientations, political opinions, religion, health status and so on. Under the DPA, much of this data qualifies as sensitive personal data, incurring extra protections when it comes to retention and processing, regardless of whether the information can be considered to have been made public.
The DPA would still apply to the intelligence agencies in processing—at least, that is our view, and we would like to like the Minister to comment on that—but under the Bill as drafted the contradictory standards would also apply. How do these two standards work together? I assume the department has looked at the likelihood of possible challenges to this new category of data, and indeed the likelihood of such challenges being successful, so it would be helpful if the Minister could enlighten us in that regard.
Schedule 10 to the DPA sets out circumstances in which the agencies can conduct sensitive processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs or trade union membership; data concerning health or sexual orientation; biometric or genetic data that uniquely identifies an individual; and data regarding an alleged offence by an individual. Does Schedule 10 apply in the case of data identified as “low” or “no” by the Bill?
An example highlighting the potential divergence is data that has been hacked and then leaked out. While not deliberately made public, as per the DPA requirement, it is arguably public and available in the public domain. What is the Minister’s view as to how the Bill regards that sort of data in a low/no context? To test this, the amendment seeks to strengthen the condition in proposed new Section 226A(3)(b) by aligning it with the test in the Data Protection Act for sensitive processing. Data protection law is currently constructed according to the sensitivity of information rather than the individual’s expectations of privacy concerning personal information. As we know, expectations differ greatly from reality, and from person to person. The central questions this poses are: why does the new Bill deviate from Schedule 10 to the DPA, and how will the DPA and the IP work together using the new definition of this Bill?
We are debating a small number of quite large groups today which, unfortunately, means that quite a number of my amendments appear one after another. I will speak as briefly as I can, but I am afraid there is quite a lot of detail coming up. I will speak first to Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7. Amendment 4 probes the purpose for which bulk datasets will be used by the intelligence services. Amendments 5 and 6 probe the circumstances in which an authorisation is urgent and therefore not authorised in advance by a judicial commissioner. Amendment 7 would require the person granting an authorisation in urgent cases to immediately notify the judicial commissioner that they have done so.
These amendments are similar in purpose and spirit to Amendment 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, which I have co-signed and support. The basic explanation from the Government for proposed new Part 7A has been that these datasets are needed to train tools using machine learning and that they already exist and are being used in the commercial world, but the Part 7 process makes them difficult for the intelligence services to use. If training AI tools is the stated prime mover for Part 7A, the inclusion of urgent data as one of the three types of data clearly indicates it is also needed for ongoing investigations.
In that regard, proposed new Section 226BC refers to a “relevant period” of three working days between the acquisition of the urgent data and the granting of full judicial approval, giving the relevant service three days to work with data and information that might eventually be ruled out of bounds by the judicial commissioner. All the amendments are intended to understand how Part 7A is to be used in operations, rather than tool training, and what urgent circumstances are envisioned that would negate the need for prior JC approval of an authorisation.
Amendment 4 seeks to restrict the application of Part 7A powers to training and learning functions of the intelligence services, meaning that operational purposes would be excluded. This is designed to get the Minister to explain the operational needs which define an urgent need.
Amendment 5 removes the ability of a person to grant an authorisation if there is an urgent need. Clearly, this gives the Minister a chance to justify why such data might be operationally needed. Amendment 6 provides a definition of what might be considered “urgent circumstances”. The Minister might want to contribute a different definition, but we feel the definition of “urgent” should be included in the Bill. Amendment 7 provides an additional safeguard by requiring a JC to be notified immediately where an authorisation has been granted in an urgent case. This essentially creates an opportunity to close the potential gap between when the data is deployed and when the JC rules on its admissibility—but not, of course, removing the gap entirely.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I welcomed this Bill at Second Reading, and the warmth of my welcome has not diminished. However, I am pleased to see so many amendments down to Part 1. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has said, the new rules for certain bulk personal datasets do not displace or dilute the currently applicable protections under the Data Protection Act, but they are probably the most operationally significant of the changes that we are looking at, and therefore can only benefit from careful scrutiny of the kind that noble Lords have so enthusiastically invited.
I have one general comment. Despite some of the kind words that were said about my report at Second Reading, I was not asked to design this Bill from scratch, nor to comment on anything as precise as a provisional text. Rather, my task was to assess proposals that were put forward by government and that in some cases evolved during the currency of my review. Although I did run a consultation as part of my review, its value was reduced by the rather limited amount I was able to say about the Part 1 proposals and some of the others. So although I did receive a handful of very helpful responses, there will certainly be points that did not occur to me and to which others were not able to alert me. The Bill is also, of course, in some respects more detailed than my recommendations. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the various amendments in this group.
I will say a quick word about each of the amendments in my own name; there are only two. My probing Amendment 3 I offer to the Government as a Christmas present, as I thought it might suit them. If for any reason they do not like it—and I suspect they may not—then that is up to them; we can hardly force it on them. The background is this: it seemed to me that the question of whether individuals have a low, or no, expectation of privacy might depend in part on the use to which the datasets will be put. If, for example, an agency were prepared to commit to using a dataset only for training a large language model and not for operational purposes, perhaps that might be one of the factors pointing towards a low/no classification. The agencies and the Government politely explained to me—if I paraphrase correctly—that this was not a very practical suggestion, so I did not push it further, save to mention the point in paragraph 3.51 of my report.
Sure enough, the anticipated use of a dataset is not one of the factors listed in new Section 226A(3), where the factors are set out. But turn over the page to new Section 226BA, which deals with category authorisations, and there you see in subsection (3) that a category authorisation may describe a category of BPDs by reference to—among other things—
“the use to which the data will be put”.
My question to the Minister is simply this: if the use to which a dataset will be put can be relevant to the formulation of a category of low/no datasets, then why is it not relevant to the assessment of an individual dataset as low/no or otherwise? The Minister’s answer may be that the list in new Section 226A(3) is not exhaustive and that there is no reason why intended use should not be one of the circumstances taken into account under subsection (2) when considering whether a BPD is low/no. In that case, can he explain why intended use is not mentioned in new Section 226A when it is mentioned in new Section 226BA?
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, if I suddenly fall over, it is not excitement over my amendments but that I have a brand new starboard knee, which is still slightly wobbly, so I might look a little wobbly at times.
Noble Lords will recall that the Investigatory Powers Act was introduced as a result of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament’s 2015 report, Privacy and Security, which recommended that a new Act of Parliament be created to
“clearly set out the intrusive powers available to the Agencies, the purposes for which they may use them, and the authorisation required”.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, recognised in his recent report, which he referred to, there have been a number of changes since the Act was introduced. We now face a very different threat picture from that which we did in 2016, with an increased threat from state actors such as China, Russia and Iran, and a significant rise in internet-enabled crime, including ransomware and child exploitation. The pace of technological change has been incredible. Developments in the fields of data generation, cloud services, end-to-end encryption, artificial intelligence and machine learning have all created challenges, as well as opportunities, for law enforcement and the intelligence community.
The Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member, therefore welcomes the introduction of this Bill. The ISC has considered classified evidence relating to the Bill and questioned all parts of the intelligence community and Ministers on the need for change. However, as ever, the devil is in the detail. The committee considers that there are several areas in which the Bill must be improved and, in particular, safeguards strengthened.
Parliament must ensure that the balance between privacy and security is appropriate, and that there is sufficient independent oversight of the work of the intelligence community, given the potential intrusiveness of its powers. The Bill seeks an expansion in the investigatory powers available to the intelligence services. While this expansion is warranted, any increase in investigatory powers must be accompanied by a concomitant increase in oversight. I have previously spoken about the refusal of the Government to update the remit of the ISC, or to provide the necessary resources for its functioning, such that it has
“oversight of substantively all of central Government’s intelligence and security activities to be realised now and in the future”,—[Official Report, Commons, Justice and Security Bill Committee, 31/1/13; col. 98.]
as was the commitment given by the then Security Minister in the other place during the passage of the Justice and Security Act.
The House has made known its views on this long-standing failure during debates on several recent national security Bills, including the National Security and Investment Act, the Telecommunications (Security) Act and the National Security Act. However, despite repeated attempts by this House to ensure effective oversight, this has been ignored by the Government. The Government cannot continually expand and reinforce the powers and responsibilities of national security teams across departments and not expand and reinforce parliamentary oversight of those teams as well. The committee expects the Government to take this opportunity to bolster the effective oversight they say they value. If they do not, then they should expect that Parliament will. I therefore call upon the Government once more to update the ISC’s memorandum of understanding to ensure sufficient oversight of all intelligence and security activities across government. Indeed, this was the quid pro quo that Parliament expected during the passage of the Justice and Security Act 2013, and I trust that Parliament will take the same view now.
I turn to Amendment 10, which is designed to close a gap in oversight. Proposed new Section 226DA requires that each intelligence service provide an annual report to the Secretary of State detailing the individual bulk personal datasets that they retained and examined under either a “category authorisation” or an “individual authorisation” during the period in question. My amendment would ensure that there is independent oversight of this information, rather than just political oversight. The amendment would provide that the annual report be sent also to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. IPCO has a degree of oversight included in the Bill already, since judicial commissioners approve both individual and category authorisations at the point of issue and approve the renewal of any authorisations after 12 months. This is not full oversight. Further, there is currently no democratic oversight at all of category authorisation, which is not appropriate. My amendment would ensure that IPCO and the ISC have oversight of the overall operation of this new regime.
Noble Lords will note that I have also tabled an amendment to notify IPCO of any new individual datasets that are added to category authorisations by the intelligence services. That amendment would work alongside this, and the ISC considers that the combination would provide an appropriate balance of real-time and retrospective oversight for these new powers. It is vital that the robust safeguards and oversight mechanisms so carefully considered by Parliament in respect of the original legislation are not watered down by the changes under this new Bill. Instead, they must be enhanced in line with the increasing investigatory powers. This is what the ISC seeks to achieve by the amendments I have tabled today.
Amendment 12 is consequential on the amendments that I have just talked about.
I speak now to Amendment 13. Part 7A of the Bill provides for a lighter-touch regulatory regime for the retention and examination of bulk personal datasets by the intelligence services where the subject of the data is deemed to have a low or no reasonable expectation of privacy. Approval to use such a dataset may either be sought under a category authorisation—which encompasses a number of individual datasets that have similar content or may be used for a similar purpose—or by an individual authorisation, where the authorisation covers a single dataset that does not fall neatly within a category authorisation or is subject to other complicating factors. In the case of a category authorisation, a judicial commissioner will approve the overall description of any category authorisation before it can be used. A judicial commissioner will also approve any renewal of a category authorisation after 12 months and the relevant Secretary of State will receive a retrospective annual report on the use of all category and individual authorisations.
This oversight is all retrospective. What is currently missing from the regime is any form of real-time oversight. Under the current regime, once a category authorisation has been approved, the intelligence services then have the ability to add any individual datasets to that authorisation through internal processes alone, without any political or judicial oversight. This would mean relying on the intelligence service to spot and rectify any mission creep, whereby datasets might be added to a category authorisation in a way that was not consistent with the definition of the original authorisation, which lasts up until the 12-month marker for renewals.
While we have every faith in the good intentions of the intelligence services—and I do not mean that in a joking way, because we have been amazingly impressed by them—no legislation should be dependent on the good will of its subjects to prevent misuse of the powers granted therein, particularly where those powers concern national security. The ISC therefore seeks to fill that very worrying gap.
My amendment proposes a new section in Clause 2—proposed new Section 226DAA—which would ensure that the IPCO was notified whenever a new individual bulk personal dataset was added by the agencies to an existing category authorisation. Notification would simply involve the agencies sending to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner the name and description of the specific bulk personal dataset as soon as reasonably practicable after the dataset was approved internally for retention and examination by the intelligence services.
The amendment would require not that the use of the dataset be approved by the IPCO but merely that the commissioner be notified that it had been included under the authorisation. It therefore does not create extra bureaucracy or process. Indeed, it provides for a flow of real-time information between the intelligence services and IPCO, to allow for the identification of any concerning activity or trends in advance of the 12-month renewal period. Any such activity could then be investigated by the commissioner as part of its usual inspections. The ISC believes that this amendment strikes the right balance between protecting the operational agility of the intelligence services and safeguarding personal data at any level of sensitivity.
Noble Lords have already considered my related amendment, to provide the annual report to the IPCO and the ISC, as well as to the Secretary of State. The committee believes that this combination of real-time oversight through the notification stipulated in this amendment and retrospective oversight, through the involvement of judicial and political oversight bodies, is necessary to provide Parliament and the public with the reassurance that data is being stored and examined in an appropriate manner by the intelligence services.
I repeat my entreaty to the House: the robust safeguards and oversight mechanisms so carefully considered by Parliament in respect of the original legislation must not be watered down by the changes under this new Bill; they must be enhanced in line with the increasing investigatory powers.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 3 and 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I have nothing to add to what he said in support of Amendment 15, but I shall add a word about Amendment 3, which was the subject of the Christmas present of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. It requires one to look a little more carefully at proposed new Section 226A(2), which provides as follows:
“In considering whether this section applies to a bulk personal dataset, regard must be had to all the circumstances, including in particular the factors in subsection (3)”.
What the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is seeking to offer the Minister the invitation to include is the use to which the datasets are to be put. He draws strength for that proposition from what one finds in new Section 226BA(3), in which express reference is made to the use to which the datasets will be put. It can be said in support of this proposal that it seems a little strange not to include the use to which the datasets are to be put, if they are mentioned expressly in new Section 226BA(3). I suppose that one could say that, since new Section 226A(2) is very widely phrased and includes all the circumstances, that the Christmas present of noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is already there as already there as one of the circumstances, but it is probably happier to include it expressly, just for the avoidance of doubt. It is for the avoidance of doubt that the strength can be found in the proposal that he has put forward.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Coaker and Lord West with regard to the Intelligence and Security Committee amendments. In 2005, when I became the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, nearly two decades had passed since the committee originally started life, when people did not really understand what it was all about. It had not been accepted, particularly, by agencies or by the Government, but over those 20 years, it became accepted. After I left, in 2007, even more changes to the powers and responsibilities of the committee were made, to such an extent that the ISC is now a significant and serious part of our constitutional landscape. But I fear that, over the last number of years, that has slightly declined.
I understand, for example, that the ISC has not met a Prime Minister—there have been lots of them, of course—over the last number of years, nearly a decade. Certainly, when I chaired it, we met the Prime Minister every year or so. It is an indication, I suspect, of what the Government think about it if they do not see it as so important as to meet the head of the Government now and again. I hope that is wrong, but I am sure the Minister will enlighten the House later as to what he and the Government think about the importance of the ISC. It is hugely significant; it is serious.
I shall move briefly on to the significance of the ISC with regard to the passage of the original Investigatory Powers Act, some years ago now, in 2015-16. I had the privilege of chairing the Joint Committee of both Houses on that Bill, and the ISC simultaneously was taking a huge interest in what it contained. For example, I met the then chair of the ISC, Dominic Grieve KC, and the committee itself produced a report on how it thought the original Act could be improved. I just hope that this small but important Bill—which I entirely support, by the way—mirrors what happened to the original Bill, so that the Government can indeed meet the ISC, at a ministerial level and at an official level, and have a proper dialogue as to how they see the ISC working after the Bill goes into law. I hope I can get some assurances from the Minister that that will happen.
It is an important Bill, the ISC is an important body, and they should operate together in a very special way. I wholly support the Bill, but I support the amendments from my two noble friends.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who has served with such distinction on the issues we are discussing this afternoon. I do not want to repeat what I said at Second Reading; I spoke in support of the Bill in general terms, and I remain in support of it. The only additional thing I would say is that we should not allow unnecessary amendment of the Bill to create a sort of legislative game of Dungeons and Dragons in which a bureaucratic labyrinth would be created which can be met in a much more practical way. On the whole, the Bill is pretty practical about a modern problem—a more modern problem than existed, say, 10 years ago—which has to be addressed in real time and sometimes with great urgency in that real time.
I want to say something that follows from what the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord West, said about the ISC. I hope that we can tease a little more information out of the Minister, who has been extremely helpful to all of us who are interested in the Bill. I can see, and I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us, that there might be some practical problems relating to national security in the way in which the ISC was informed about problems arising under the provisions in the Bill when it becomes an Act. It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister were to say from the Dispatch Box that the Government certainly do not exclude the involvement of the ISC in the consideration of the Bill. I should also be very grateful if he would say that the Home Secretary would regard it as a duty to inform the ISC on his personal responsibility if issues arose which ought, in the national interest, to be the subject of information to the ISC. Thus, the ISC might be able to report on these issues without too much bureaucracy being involved and any arguments about what is or is not disclosable in a wider way concerning national security.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I do not know whether I can help the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his question of urgency. One of the things that the Security Service and the other intelligence agencies do is deal with matters of life and death, of imminent terrorist threats, of states pursuing one of their dissidents. There is many an occasion when moving at vast speed outside the hours when IPCO is available is necessary and proportionate. I am out of date, so it is hard to give lots of current examples, but many a time there is an urgent need to move fast to try to save life.
On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, about the ISC—we will come on to look at these amendments in more detail—as far as my service is concerned, we did not need to get used to the ISC in that we had been demanding its creation for a number of years, with resistance from the Prime Minister of the day until it actually came into being. And when it did, we very much welcomed it.
I have hardly had more pleasure since I have been in this House than from the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on seeking to forget stuff. Like some noble Lords, I have difficulty in remembering things—I am sorry, I should speak only for myself—but if I was legislated to forget something, it is almost certain that I would be capable of remembering it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate, which have been very interesting. I thank all noble Lords for the points raised. I shall do my very best to address all of them and apologise in advance for going into significant detail. I also thank everyone in the Committee for their broad support for the Bill.
I will start with the low/no privacy factors on bulk personal datasets, which I will henceforth call BPDs, and the various amendments relating to the test set out in Clause 2, to be applied when an intelligence service is considering whether a particular dataset is one that can be retained, or retained and examined, under new Section 226A in the new Part 7A. This test requires that regard must be had to all the circumstances, and that particular regard must be had to the factors set out in new subsection (3). The list of factors is not exhaustive and other factors may be considered, where relevant.
Schedule 10 to the Data Protection Act is related to Section 86 of that Act, which is concerned with sensitive processing of personal data by the intelligence services. Schedule 10 sets out a list of conditions which must be met for such processing to be lawful for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. There is a risk that applying these words here, in a different context and for a different purpose, may be seen to create a link, albeit fallacious, between the type of datasets that will be retained and examined under new Part 7A and sensitive processing under the Data Protection Act. For that reason, their inclusion here risks doing more harm than good, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, noted.
In any case, the safeguards in new Part 7A are already sufficient to ensure due regard for privacy. Every dataset proposed to be retained, or retained and examined, must be individually authorised. In addition to the test at new Section 226A, as new Section 226B makes clear, an individual authorisation may be granted only if it is both necessary and proportionate.
The factors have been chosen because they are most relevant to the context in which the test will be applied and have been drawn from existing case law. They provide a guide to the decision-maker in reaching a conclusion as to the nature of the dataset. Furthermore, a form of prior judicial approval will apply to all authorisations so that there is independent oversight of the conclusions reached.
Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, seeks to replace factor (b) with language drawn from Schedule 10 to the Data Protection Act 2018. Factor (b) is concerned with the extent to which an individual has made public the data in the dataset, or has consented to the data being made public. The Government do not consider the amendment necessary. I am sure the noble Lord’s aim is to improve the safeguards in the Bill, and he has drawn inspiration from existing precedent to do so in an effort to bring consistency across statute. However, the amendment fails to achieve that aim, and risks creating an unclear and unnecessary link between this Bill and the Data Protection Act, which I have already explained. I will return to the Data Protection Act in due course.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, probes the inclusion of factors (d) and (e), relating to publicly available datasets that are already widely known about or are already used in the public domain—for example, in data science or academia. As I mentioned, the test in new Section 226A is one in which
“regard must be had to all the circumstances”.
The removal of factors from new subsection (3) would not, therefore, fundamentally change the test; it would mean simply that the decision-maker would not be bound to have particular regard to the absent factors. This amendment would, in fact, result in less transparency in the considerations the intelligence services apply when assessing expectation of privacy in relation to Part 7A authorisations.
The Government consider it important that particular regard is had to these factors. I know that noble Lords particularly enjoy the example of the “Titanic” manifest. It is a useful example of where such factors would be relevant, as it is a dataset that is widely known about and widely used, and contains real data about real people who would, unfortunately, no longer have an expectation of privacy. I also point to the helpful example in the independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson: the Enron corpus. This is a large dataset of emails that came into the public domain following the investigation into the collapse of the Enron Corporation. Although initially sensitive, the dataset has been available in various forms for almost 20 years and is widely used in data science. It is right that such datasets are in scope of the new regime.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked specifically about the extent to which these factors depart from existing privacy laws. The law concerning the reasonable expectation of privacy is likely to develop over time, and new Section 226A is intended to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate future changes. Rather than departing from the law, new Section 226A is intended to ensure that the intelligence services can continue to apply the law as it develops.
On Amendment 3, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for tabling this helpful probing amendment. I am afraid the Government do not think it is necessary in order to achieve what we understand the intended effect of the amendment to be. The amendment does, however, provide an opportunity to better explain the difference between what the Bill calls “individual authorisations” and “category authorisations”. An individual authorisation will authorise the retention, or retention and examination, of a dataset under the new Part 7A being inserted into the Investigatory Powers Act—which I will henceforth refer to as the IPA—by this Bill.
All datasets that are to be retained under Part 7A must have an individual authorisation. Individual authorisations are subject to prior approval by a judicial commissioner unless the dataset described falls within an existing category. A category authorisation will not authorise the retention, or retention and examination, of a dataset. Instead, it is a mechanism through which a judicial commissioner’s permission may be sought in order to depart from the normal rule on prior approval, but only in respect of datasets that meet a particular description.
Lord Fox (LD)
If the Minister and indeed the noble Baroness had listened to what I said, they would know that I do not think it is forgettable; I just wanted the Minister to confirm that point.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Thank you; point taken.
Section 226D provides a mechanism to achieve what I understand the intent of the amendment to be. It is clear that remedial action must be taken if it is discovered that Section 226A does not apply or no longer applies to part of a dataset authorised under Part 7A. Anything in the process of being done must be stopped as soon as possible, and that part of the authorisation is treated as cancelled. The effect of that part of the authorisation being treated as cancelled is that the data to which it relates must be deleted unless there is some other lawful basis for its retention. It may well be that it is appropriate for the intelligence service to continue to retain the data. That is why subsection (3), in effect, puts that part of the dataset back into the decision-making machinery in Section 220 of Part 7 of the IPA—so that such a decision can be made. We provide a fuller explanation of that in the draft code of practice for Part 7A, at paragraphs 4.26 and 5.39.
In conclusion on this amendment, if the noble Lord is suggesting that any actionable intelligence that has been identified while the agency was operating on the basis of that retention and examination being lawful under Part 7A should not be acted on, I am afraid I must playfully suggest that it is he who ought to forget his amendment.
I turn now to the various amendments on reporting on BPDs, including several that seek to amend the provisions set out in Clause 2, under Section 226DA, which require the heads of the intelligence services to provide an annual report on Part 7A to the Secretary of State. The first amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, Amendment 11, seeks to mandate that certain statistical information in a given year—specifically, the numbers of authorisations sought and granted—be provided to the relevant Secretary of State. This amendment is not necessary or appropriate. First, those Secretaries of State who are politically accountable for the intelligence services will have in place arrangements to that end and may demand of the relevant intelligence service any additional information he or she feels necessary. This may go beyond the level of detail the noble Lord has proposed be included in the annual report and may be more frequent. This is not a matter for the Bill, because the exact information the Secretary of State requires may evolve over time. Secondly, if this sort of specific reporting requirement is found to be necessary or desirable, it is more appropriate for inclusion in a code of practice, rather than being in the legislation. Indeed, the draft code of practice for Part 7A sets out some relevant details under paragraph 7.4.
I turn now to Amendments 10 and 12, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord West, and I take this opportunity to reassure him and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. On behalf of the Security Minister, we thank them for their valuable work on the ISC and for the constructive engagement with the Bill Committee to date. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord West, in his place today, and I am glad that he is on a more or less even keel.
The amendments the noble Lord has tabled would require the intelligence services to provide the same annual report that they provide to their Secretary of State, on the operation of Part 7A, to the ISC and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. I do not believe that this additional requirement would provide the enhanced oversight of the regime that the amendments purport to provide. The annual reporting requirement is a formal statutory mechanism by means of which the Secretaries of State will receive information from the intelligence services about their use of Part 7A on an annual basis. This is a mechanism intended to ensure effective political oversight by the Secretary of State.
The ISC is a committee of Parliament. Oversight by the ISC is neither of the same nature as, nor a replacement for, the oversight of the Secretary of State. The ISC, as a committee of Parliament, already has a long-standing and well-established role in the oversight of the intelligence services to which these provisions will apply, and that role will continue here.
Sending the annual report to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will not increase the level of independent oversight provided, for the following reasons. First, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will be required to keep this new regime under review, as he does with the current Part 7 regime, and he will continue to report annually on his findings. Secondly, the information these amendments seek to include in the annual report is already information that the draft code of practice will require the intelligence services to keep, as is clear from paragraphs 7.1. and 7.2. The commissioner, and anyone acting on his behalf, has access to all locations, documentation and information systems as necessary to carry out a full and thorough inspection regime. The intelligence services are legally obliged to provide all necessary assistance to the commissioner, or anyone acting on his behalf, including by providing documents and information.
The noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Murphy and Lord West, asked about the continued engagement with the ISC. On both the policy proposals informing the Bill and the Bill itself, through a combination of ministerial, operational and official engagement, we have maintained continual engagement, which includes recent sessions with the Security Minister and the agency heads. As I said earlier, we are grateful to the committee for its engagement and scrutiny of the Bill. We will continue to involve it throughout the Bill’s passage, and I am more than happy to take the noble Lords’ comments back to the Home Office and make sure they are widely understood.
Amendment 13 would see the intelligence agencies notify the Investigatory Powers Commissioner every time an individual authorisation is granted in reliance on a category authorisation. I have already set out the distinct processes for individual and category authorisations under new Part 7A. As I set out earlier, categories will be authorised only with the prior approval of a judicial commissioner. IPCO inspectors will then be able to review the individual authorisation granted in reliance on a category authorisation during their regular inspections of the intelligence services throughout that time. Category authorisations will expire at 12 months and will then need to be renewed and that decision reapproved by a judicial commissioner.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, that was an extremely helpful response from the Minister and shows the importance of tabling probing amendment sometimes: to get things read into Hansard that can be referred to.
With respect to the point around children, I would be grateful for the letter to be made available to other Members of the Committee. Again, that was a helpful point and helpful clarification, should it be needed. I also very much agree with him—to show my point about the importance of things being read into Hansard—about my Amendment 17, but it was helpful for the Minister to read into the record the definition of serious crime to be used throughout the Bill, so that there is no ambiguity with respect to that.
I totally agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said about my Amendment 1. I think the wording in the Bill is better than that contained in Schedule 10 to the Data Protection Act 2018, but I wanted that to be read into the record so that we had it there. I agree with his criticism of my Amendment 1, but the reason I tabled it was exactly to get the point that he made in criticising my amendment, which the Minister reinforced—if the noble and learned Lord understands my logic.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, with respect to Amendment 3 raise an issue. The Minister’s response to that was, “Well, it’s a non-exhaustive list so it’s not necessary, but I’m happy to talk to the noble Lord about it”. One wonders where that will get to. It will be interesting for the Committee to see the outcome of that. I thought that Amendment 3, of all the various amendments, was particularly useful and again drew out whether the factors listed in Clause 2 are the right ones, or whether they need adding to. It was important that the Minister clarified that it is not an exhaustive list.
There is one area that I think may need to be looked at further, as mentioned by my noble friends Lord Murphy and Lord West, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, if I understood his remarks properly. We need to clarify the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I note the Minister’s reassurances, but what is its role? The clear point of difference between what I would say and what my noble friends Lord Murphy and Lord West and others would say is that we are talking here about parliamentary oversight. The Government have an annual report which goes to the Secretary of State. That is political oversight of a sort but it is not parliamentary oversight. The whole point of the ISC being set up was to give parliamentary oversight to all these sorts of matters. We have a Bill before us called the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill, which deals with all sorts of issues of national security and the powers that the intelligence agencies and others should have on our behalf. It is only right and proper that the Intelligence and Security Committee should have a role that is properly defined within the legislation before us. That is one aspect that I need to reflect on and discuss with other Members of your Lordships’ House and with my noble friend Lord West, as our member of that committee.
That is the one area where, to be honest, I was not satisfied with what the Minister had to say. Notwithstanding Amendment 3, and all the other points made to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and many others, the definitions the Minister has helped clarify and the various ways he has sought to ensure that people understand the Government’s intent have been extremely helpful to the Committee. With that, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fox
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the legal basis for surveillance of the type of data described in new subsection (3A)(e).
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 20 is intended to probe the legal basis for surveillance of the type of data described in new Section 11(3A)(e). This amendment would prevent public authorities—councils, police forces, intelligence agencies, government departments including the DWP and HMRC, the Gambling Commission, the Food Standards Agency, and many more—having “lawful authority” to obtain and use communications data from a telecommunications or postal operator solely because the information is available to the public or a section of the public even if only on a commercial basis.
Communications data is defined in the IPA as data that may be used to identify, or assist in identifying, the sender, recipient, time, duration, type, method, pattern, or fact of a communication, along with the system used to make a communication, its location and the IP address or other identifier of any apparatus used. The broad list of public authorities able to obtain communications data is set out in Schedule 4 to the IPA.
Clause 11 of the Bill before us now amends the Section 11 IPA offence of unlawfully obtaining communications data from a telecommunications or postal operator. Whereas the IPA currently defines an offender as,
“A relevant person who, without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly obtains communications data from a telecommunications operator”,
this Bill would add a list of examples to the Act of what constitutes lawful authority.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I stand to address the clause stand part notice for Clause 13 and also Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26. The aim of looking at the clause relates to the communication data disclosure powers. The current IPA wisely restricted the number of public authorities that are able to compel the disclosure of communications data from telecommunications operators, given the potentially intrusive nature of this power. Consequently, authorities such as the Environment Agency or Health and Safety Executive are currently required to take further procedural steps in order to compel disclosure of communications data. They must obtain either an authorisation under the current IPA, a court order or other judicial authorisation, or regulatory powers in relation to telecommunications or postal operators, or they must obtain the communications data as secondary data as part of a valid interception or equipment interference warrant.
However, the Bill before us seeks to remove these restrictions for a wide range of public regulatory authorities and restore their ability to compel the disclosure of communications data from telecommunications operators in service of their statutory regulatory or supervisory functions. The Government’s argument for removing these restrictions is that a broader array of communications now fall into the category of communications data, and that a wider number of organisations now constitute telecommunications operators. As a result, the current restrictions prevent some regulatory authorities from acquiring the information necessary to exercise their statutory functions, in a way that was not anticipated at the time of the original legislation.
It is argued that this is particularly relevant to bodies with a recognised regulatory or supervisory function, which would collect communications data as part of their lawful functions but would be restricted under the current Act if their collection was not in service of a criminal investigation. In particular, the change is focused on improving the position of certain public authorities responsible for tax and financial regulation, whose powers were removed in 2018 as a result of the rulings of the European Court of Justice.
Clearly, such bodies must be able to perform their statutory functions effectively, but we have been told that this Bill delivers only “urgent, targeted changes needed”. That is not the case here. These sections represent a sweeping restoration of powers across a wide number of public bodies, most of which have no national security or serious crime function.
The original Act was very particular about the purposes for which communications data could be gathered under the legislation and by which bodies. It ensured that this power was tied to national security and serious crime purposes only, to avoid impinging on the right to privacy without very good reason. Clause 13 and its related schedule fly in the face of this very deliberate policy in the original Act, and overturn Parliament’s careful deliberation of the point.
Will the Minister confirm which bodies will have their powers restored under this legislation? Which of those bodies have reported a significant reduction in their ability to perform statutory functions as a result of the IPA? Have some bodies been more effective than others? Might it be possible and appropriate to significantly pare back this list of organisations?
At present, the case has not been made. We need to be satisfied that these powers are given to those bodies which cannot adequately function without them. It cannot be the case that some are simply given these powers back by default. I am prepared not to take this amendment to a vote if the Minister can assure the House the Government will bring forward their own amendment, which restores these powers in a more limited and targeted way.
The next stand part notice is consequential on that one being taken.
I move on to Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26. These seek to remove the ability of the agencies to internally authorise the use of a new broader power to obtain internet connection records for target discovery. The agencies would instead be required to seek approval from IPCO, thereby creating an element of independent judicial oversight.
As I noted previously, Clause 14 creates a new broader power for the agencies and the NCA to obtain ICRs for the purpose of target discovery. It represents a significant change from the current position, removing the current demand that the exact service used and the precise time of use be known. Instead, the agencies will be able to obtain ICRs to identify which persons or apparatus are using one or more specified internet services in a specified period—a far broader formulation.
After consideration of the relevant classified evidence, the ISC agrees with the intent. However, the newly expanded power is potentially very intrusive. It allows the agencies to obtain ICRs from a range of internet services over a potentially long period of time and could, therefore, potentially intrude on a large number of innocent people. Parliament must therefore ensure that there are appropriate safeguards in place.
The ISC acknowledges that there are safeguards in place relating to the obtaining of ICRs. However, in all cases relating to national security and economic well-being, the agencies are able to authorise use of this newly expanded power internally. They make the assessment as to whether it is necessary and whether it is proportionate. There is no independent oversight of the agencies’ assessment.
The Government may argue that the ability of the agencies to authorise use of this power internally replicates the existing provisions when authorising the obtaining of ICRs for target discovery or target development. They will also no doubt refer to how the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said in his report that “arguably” the potential intrusiveness of this newly expanded target detection power is no greater than the existing provisions for obtaining ICRs.
In the ISC’s view, the new provision—which is considerably broader than the existing target discovery power, removing the need to know the exact service used and the precise time of use—is significantly more intrusive than existing provisions. Consequently, greater oversight is required to ensure that the power is always used appropriately. This is not because we expect the agencies to act in bad faith but because independent oversight is essential, acting as a counterbalance to the intelligence community’s intrusive powers and providing vital assurance to Parliament and the public.
This amendment and the two linked Amendments 24 and 26 therefore remove the ability of the agencies to authorise use of this power internally. The agencies would instead be required to seek the approval of an independent judicial commissioner from IPCO in order to authorise the obtaining of ICRs under this new broader power.
Incorporating this independent judicial oversight would ensure that use of this power is always necessary and proportionate and strikes the right balance between security and privacy. It also aims to minimise any burden on the agencies. It does not, for example, incorporate the “double lock” mechanism, which is used for the most intrusive powers under the Investigatory Powers Act.
We recognise that the Government may wish to bring forward their own amendment to include provision for urgent cases; therefore, I do not propose to move this amendment to a vote at this stage. It should, however, indicate to the Government the ISC’s firm view that independent judicial oversight in this area is essential.
I will say a little more about Amendment 22. This amendment seeks to limit the purposes for which the new, broader target discovery power, which has been introduced under Clause 14, could be used. Clause 14 creates a new, broader power for the agencies, and the NCA, to obtain internet connection records for the purposes of target discovery. Target discovery is a great deal more intrusive than target development, potentially intruding on the privacy of a great number of innocent individuals. This is why we must tread very cautiously in this area and be quite satisfied of the need for the power, and that it is tightly drawn and properly overseen.
Currently, in order to obtain ICRs for target discovery, the agencies must unequivocally know the precise service used and the precise time of use by the unidentified individual. It is, therefore, very tightly drawn. The new target discovery power removes these requirements, allowing the agencies to obtain ICRs to identify which persons or apparatuses are using one or more specified internet services in a specified period. Noble Lords will recognise how potentially broad this is by comparison.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I will make a brief comment on two aspects of Clause 14 which have been developed today and which were considered in my report. Amendments 23 and 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would restrict the changes relating to internet connection records in Clause 14 to the intelligence services only. The noble Lord correctly noticed that, while I support the use of ICRs for the new target detection purpose in condition D1, I mentioned at paragraph 4.18 of my report that it would be
“open to Parliament to require further safeguards”
and suggested that those safeguards include
“making the extra condition available only to UKIC”—
in other words, the intelligence services—
“at least in the first instance”.
I pointed out a range of safeguards that already apply to ICRs. These are fully set out in the draft addition to section 9 of the code of practice that was helpfully provided in advance of these debates. I also pointed out, by way of mitigation to my proposal that only UKIC should have access, that
“working arrangements … could facilitate the use of UKIC powers in the service of NCA or CTP in particular”.
That is as much as I am told I can say on working arrangements, though noble Lords may be able to use their imaginations.
Clause 14, instead of going for this workaround, opted to give the NCA, though not counterterrorism policing, its own direct access to the new power. It is certainly true that the NCA has primary responsibility for many of the crimes where the new power may prove most useful—in particular, child sexual abuse, where it has strong potential. I will listen to what the Minister says about that, but I think there is no great division of opinion between us on this issue. We are really debating different mechanisms by which the NCA might get access to this material, and although it is not precisely what I suggested, I have no objection to the more direct route taken in the Bill.
I turn to Amendments 21, 24 and 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, which would introduce a requirement for requests by the intelligence services and the NCA to be independently authorised by the Office for Communications Data Authorisations. This would be an exceptional state of affairs for communications data requests by the intelligence agencies. Existing ICR requests are internally authorised and some of those, in particular under condition B and C, will be arguably, as I said in my report, as intrusive as requests under the new condition.
However, the noble Lord has emphasised the undoubted intrusiveness of the new condition and I know from my own correspondence with the ISC that, very much to its credit, it has looked at this issue in considerable detail. Furthermore, I raised the possibility of independent authorisation for such requests in my report. While I said that the full double-lock procedure would be disproportionately burdensome, independent authorisation by OCDA, which is not a possibility on which I commented expressly, sounds as though it could be a more manageable proposition. I have some sympathy with Amendments, 21, 24 and 26. They raise an important issue on any view, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about them.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the three previous speakers in the short debate on this group. There are no opposition amendments in it, so I shall set out some more general questions that arise out of the amendments spoken to.
Why have the Government brought forward the widening powers to obtain communications data when the original Bill did the opposite? Can the Government provide an exhaustive list of the bodies that will be able to use these communications data collection powers? Why are they not in the Bill or the Explanatory Notes? Giving bodies such powers during any criminal investigation appears out of step with the rest of the Bill, which covers investigatory powers for national security or serious crime reasons. Why is this power so broad as to cover any criminal investigation? Given that the double lock exists for most of the powers in the Bill, why have the Government given wide-ranging powers for intelligence authorities and the NCA to self-authorise accessing internet connection records while undertaking subject discovery work? How does this compare to the powers for conditions A, B and C, which cover access to ICRs, for more restrictive purposes? Finally, what will the role of the IPC and the ISC be in monitoring how the new powers are used?
I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said when he was commenting on the two other speakers in this short group. I, too, will listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say on this, but this is all done in the spirit of exploration, as my noble friend Lord Coaker said. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. I will first speak to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which would amend Clause 11. I want first to make it clear that Clause 11 does not enable any new activity under the Investigatory Powers Act but places into primary legislation the existing position set out at paragraph 15.11 of the Communications Data Code of Practice.
Paragraph 15.11 clearly sets out that it is not an offence to obtain communications data where it is made publicly or commercially available by the telecommunications operator or postal operator or otherwise, where that body freely consents to its disclosure. In such circumstances, the consent of the operator provides the lawful authority for the obtaining of the data on which public authorities can rely. Making this position explicit within primary legislation will provide clarity that acquiring communications data in this way will amount to lawful authority for the purposes of the offence in Section 11. As such, there will be no doubt that acquiring communications data in this way means that an offence will not be committed in such circumstances.
The purpose of new subsection (3A)(e) is not permitting so-called surveillance, as the noble Lord’s amendment asserts. Rather, it is about clarifying the basis for lawful access to material which has already been published and should not require additional authority for its disclosure by a telecommunications operator, with the consent of that operator, to a public authority. I can assure noble Lords that telecommunications and postal operators will still need to satisfy themselves that any communications data disclosure is in accordance with the Data Protection Act, and any subsequent processing by public authorities must also be compliant.
The inclusion of this paragraph in the definition of “lawful authority” in the IPA will provide reassurance to public authorities on the basis for which they have lawful authority to acquire communications data where this authority falls outside the IPA itself. Inserting a definition of lawful authority does not remove the offence of knowing or recklessly obtaining communications data without lawful authority; it is still possible to commit this offence if the disclosure by the telecommunications operator is not lawful or if the public authority knowingly or recklessly acquires the communications data without lawful authority. The inclusion of this definition of lawful authority will encourage public authorities to ensure that they have lawful authority before they acquire communications data. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to Clause 13 and the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord West, to remove this provision and the associated schedule from the Bill. The purpose of Clause 13 is to ensure that bodies with regulatory or supervisory functions are not inhibited in performing the roles expected of them by Parliament. It restores their important pre-existing statutory powers to acquire communications data in support of those functions. When the IPA was passed in 2016, it made specific provision, at Section 61(7)(f) and (j), for acquisition of communications data for the purposes of taxation and oversight of financial services, markets and financial stability.
As a result of the Tele2 and Watson judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2016, a number of changes were then made to the IPA. Crucially, not all the changes made at that time were a direct response to the judgment itself, but instead the opportunity was taken to streamline the statute book. This included the removal of the regulatory provisions contained in the IPA because, at that time, those public authorities with regulatory or supervisory functions were able to acquire the data they needed using their own information-gathering powers. At that point, much of the relevant data fell outside the definition of communications data and therefore outside the provisions of the IPA. However, as businesses increasingly move their services online, so many have become, in part at least, telecommunications operators under the definition in the IPA. Therefore, more of the data they collect, and which regulatory and supervisory bodies would have previously been able to access using their own information-gathering powers, now falls within the IPA’s definition of communications data, and regulatory and supervisory bodies are, inadvertently, unable to acquire it.
The Financial Conduct Authority, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Border Force are all examples of public authorities in Schedule 4 to the IPA and already have the power to acquire communications data using a Part 3 request. However, many of the matters that these bodies regulate or supervise fall short of serious crime, as defined in the Investigatory Powers Act at both Section 263(1) and Section 86(2A), which means that they are unable to acquire a Part 3 authorisation to get the data they need to perform the statutory functions expected of them.
The UK is not alone on this issue; European colleagues have identified similar issues for their equivalent bodies with regulatory and supervisory functions. The functions these bodies perform on behalf of the UK are simply too important to let this situation continue. They go to the heart of our safety in preventing terrorist funding, seeking to ensure financial stability, and the oversight of banking and financial markets, among other matters. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority has responsibility for supervising some 50,000 regulated firms to ensure they have systems and controls in place concerning the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. Border Force has the responsibility of quickly identifying from the huge volumes of packages crossing our borders each day, those that may contain illegal items such as drugs, firearms and other illicit goods that present a risk to the UK. It is vitally important that these bodies are not inhibited in carrying out their core functions because of the way the world has changed since 2016.
The changes to the IPA brought about by Clause 13 strike an appropriate balance between necessity and proportionality, making clear as it does that the acquisition by these regulatory bodies should only be in support of their civil functions and not used in support of criminal prosecutions. Additional safeguards are provided for within codes of practice governing how this should work in practice. To be clear, this applies to a relatively small cadre of public authorities in support of specific regulatory and supervisory functions; it is not creating a way to circumvent the safeguards of the IPA. It instead ensures that the acquisition routes and associated strong oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner are reserved for those areas where it is most essential.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been a really worthwhile part of our debate, and I thank those who have tabled amendments and the Minister for his response. I was particularly interested to hear both the substance of and response to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead. I think it best that we spend some time reviewing this in Hansard in deciding what, if anything, needs to come back. With that said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 20.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in opposing that Clause 16 stand part of the Bill, I shall also speak to the clause stand part notices on Clauses 17 and 20.
This is one part of the Bill that has attracted a huge amount of external interest and deserves some positioning to understand why external parties might be suspicious of what they see. We should recognise that one of the most important security features available to protect personal information, both on a device and in the cloud, is end-to-end encryption. That encryption technology ensures that only users, and not the companies which provide the cloud services, can access their personal data and communications. Computer scientists and cryptographers have argued for many years that there is no safe way to decrypt one person’s messages without compromising the whole system’s security infrastructure. As soon as a backdoor, as it is called, is created to scan private messages, a security vulnerability is created that can be exploited by bad actors as well as good actors. I assume that that was why the Online Safety Bill left things hanging, waiting for a technological breakthrough, though I was not party to the processes of that Bill.
I remind your Lordships that once the company has created a backdoor key for encrypted systems, even for a single user in a single case, and certainly for any mass scanning, it has created a vulnerability that can eventually be abused by bad actors as well as law enforcement. I also remind your Lordships that the Home Office already can and presumably, on occasion, does require companies to weaken their security apparatus in the interests of law enforcement and national security.
To a great extent, the proximity of this Bill to the debate in the Online Safety Bill, has not helped matters: sensitivities were raised during that debate, and this is a chance for the Minister to try to calm them. As I mentioned earlier, the impending arrival of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill is also putting people’s nerves on edge. There is a deal of management required here.
End-to-end encrypted messaging service providers were vociferous in their concerns during the passage of the Online Safety Bill, yet Section 121 of the Online Safety Act remains. However, Ministers clarified that Ofcom could only require scanning once it becomes technically feasible to do so—that is, when the technology is invented and allows scanning without violating encryption. But Ofcom retains the power to order service providers to use their “best endeavours” to develop that technology.
It is not surprising that some of those same encrypted message service providers were raising flags when it came to some of the clauses in the Bill. The IPA, as it stands, already enables the Home Office to instruct service providers to remove electronic protection for communications of interest to the police or security services by issuing them with a technical capability notice—a TCN. This effectively empowers the Home Secretary to require the removal of end-to-end encryption on those services across any number of suspects and criminal offences. Currently, for the Home Secretary to issue a TCN to a service provider under the IPA, they have to satisfy a number of considerations, which your Lordships will be pleased to hear I am not going to list. Even if the answers to all those conditions is positive and leads to a TCN, a process of checks and balances sits alongside the request, including informal and formal consultation between the Home Office and a service provider before the TCN is issued, oversight by the independent judicial commissioner assessing the request’s proportionality and, of course, recourse for the service provider to request a review of the TCN, allowing it and the Home Secretary to make representations to the judicial commissioner and the technical advisory board for assessment. Crucially, the service provider is not required to start acting on the notice until the review process is concluded.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to the five amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker. Amendments 35 and 37 would introduce a double-lock process to notices given under the notification of proposed changes to telecommunications services, bringing it in line with the procedure for the three existing types of notices that can be issued to telecommunications operators. Amendment 36 would add a further factor that the Secretary of State must consider when deciding to give a notice under this section, bringing this type of notice into line with the three existing types of notices that can be issued to telecommunications operators. Amendments 38 and 39, along with the others in my noble friend’s name, would introduce a potential double-lock process to the variation of notices given under the notification of proposed changes to telecommunications services, bringing it in line with the procedure for variation of the three existing types of notices that can be issued to telecommunications operators.
In introducing this group, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, set out very comprehensively the concerns of the various tech companies. I have read the same briefings that he has. He was right to see this as an opportunity for the Minister to address those concerns.
I have a few questions arising out of these amendments. First, why have the Government not included a double-lock structure of approval to this new type of notice, given that the three other types of notices that telecom companies can be issued have the same structure, along with many of the provisions in this Bill and the IPA? Further, why does it not have the same review structure as the other notices? What will companies be able to do to challenge this decision? New Section 258A states that companies must respond within “a reasonable time”. What would the Government consider a reasonable time to be in this regard? What assessment has been made of what other companies are doing to ensure they are aware of changes that would potentially impact national security? Finally, can the Government be more specific about the types of changes that would be considered relevant for this new notification of the proposed changes?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, once again, I thank noble Lords for their amendments and the points they have raised in this debate. I will do my very best to answer the questions that have been asked. Again, I am afraid I am going to do so in some detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has proposed removing Clause 16 from the Bill in its entirety. Clause 16 concerns the extraterritorial enforcement of retention notices. Under subsections (9) to (11) of Section 255 of the IPA, any technical capability notice—TCN—is already enforceable by civil proceedings against a person in the UK. Only TCNs that provide for interception and targeted communications data acquisition capabilities are enforceable against a person overseas. Section 95 of the IPA also provides that a data retention notice—DRN—is enforceable by civil proceedings against a person in the UK. DRNs already have extraterritorial applicability within the IPA, meaning that they can already be given to a person outside the UK. However, unlike TCNs, the current legislation does not permit the enforcement of a DRN against a person outside the UK.
Clause 16 therefore seeks to amend Sections 95 and 97 of the IPA to allow extraterritorial enforcement of DRNs to strengthen policy options and the legal levers available when addressing emerging technology, bringing them in line with TCNs. As technology advances, data is increasingly held overseas. The clause will ensure that, if required, there is a further legal lever to protect and maintain investigatory powers capabilities overseas. This will ensure that law enforcement and the intelligence agencies have access to the communications-related data that they need to tackle serious crime and protect national security. It will also ensure consistency across the regime.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for an admirably comprehensive response. That was what we were looking for—perhaps not everyone, but certainly our Front Benches. There is a lot to get our heads around, so we will take this away and look into it.
There are a number of observations I would make. First, the Minister emphasised co-operation, collaboration and discussion. Of course, the legislation does not look like that, so it would help if the Government could find some confidence-boosting measures, be they from the code or the draft annexe, or something that enables the Government to signal their continued intention to co-operate and collaborate.
The Minister talked about an interconnected data world—that is exactly the point the operators are making. Because of that interconnection, a hiatus in delivering a service in the UK could also be a hiatus in delivering that service to the rest of the world, given that everyone is using the same service. That is one of the points that was not picked up by the Minister at the time. That interconnectedness is the very issue that some operators have: if they are prevented from doing it in one place, how do they do it elsewhere?
The issue of corporate entities is interesting. What the Minister described was something I used to call “corporate veil”, and I am interested to know how robust that is in corporate law. With corporate veil, it became very difficult, even at court level in the United States, to break down the corporate entities and their interconnections. For no other reason than making an observation, I am interested to see how that works. I certainly see why the Government are putting it forward in their legislation.
There is a lot for us to digest, which we certainly will, between now and the next stage; it gives us something to get our teeth into over Christmas. That said, I beg to withdraw my proposal that Clause 16 stands part of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I am afraid that the noble Lord is not in a position to do that. This is a clause; one votes for it or against it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 41, line 14.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 41, line 4 correct an inconsistency in clause 20 by omitting references to a notice under section 258A of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 being given or revoked in relation to a description of persons.
Member's explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 41, line 2.
“(4) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows.(5) In section 65 (the Tribunal)—(a) in subsection (5)(czi)—(i) for “or 253” substitute “, 253 or 258A”;(ii) for “or technical capability” substitute “, technical capability or proposed changes to telecommunications services etc”;(b) in subsection (5)(czl)(iii), for “or 253” substitute “, 253 or 258A”;(c) in subsection (8)(bc), for “or 253” substitute “, 253 or 258A”.(6) In section 67 (exercise of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction), in subsection (7)(azc), for “or 253” substitute “, 253 or 258A”.(7) In section 68 (Tribunal procedure)—(a) in subsection (5)(b), for “or 253” substitute “, 253 or 258A”;(b) in subsection (7)(f), for “or 253” substitute “, 253 or 258A”;(c) in subsection (7)(ha), for “or 253” substitute “, 253 or 258A”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to consider complaints about notices given under new section 258A of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (proposed changes to telecommunications services etc) in the same way as it considers complaints about other notices given under Part 9 of that Act.
Cyber Democratic Influence
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Russian intelligence service effort to target Members of the Commons and this House, civil servants, journalists and NGOs is an attack not just on individuals but on British democracy, and I am sure Members across the House will join me in condemning it in the strongest possible terms. My right honourable friend David Lammy reminded the other place that next year will see elections not only in Britain but in the United States, India and the European Union, with more than 70 elections scheduled in 40 countries across the world.
Trust and confidence in our system of democracy will be undermined if we are unable to ensure it is free from such interference. Leo Doherty, the Minister, said that the Statement was made now
“to ensure that its full deterrent effect is properly timed”,
and he reminded the House that
“our duty is to remain ever vigilant”.
Can the Minister tell us how the Government are working with other countries that share our democratic values to monitor interference and co-ordinate a response to any attempts to influence our democratic processes?
In response to Labour’s call for a joint cell between the Home Office and the Foreign Office to speed up decision-making, the Minister in the other place said that he was confident that the Defending Democracy Taskforce, led by the Security Minister, represented a robust and cross-departmental response. However, he did acknowledge that on the wider picture of disinformation, we needed to
“up our game to counter disinformation, call Russia out and better resource and energise our own security posture in the cyber domain”.
The use of artificial intelligence and deepfakes to seed false narratives, spread lies and foment divisions through mainstream and social media is an increasing threat, as identified in the other place. Leo Doherty talked of
“an enhanced degree of resource, organisation and political will”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/23; cols. 491-2.]
Can the Minster give us a little more detail on how this will be done?
Parliament has been united against Putin’s imperial aggression in Ukraine. The Opposition and the Government have been as one, and unity is a source of strength and pride. In the face of these threats, this House must remain united. Let me assure the House tonight that the Labour Party will work in partnership and full co-operation with the Government and all relevant authorities to take the necessary steps to address this threat and protect the integrity of our political process from hostile interference.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I share the sentiment that we all need to work together in defending democracy. I thank the Government for the Statement, but this is not a surprise, as we have known for some years that people in Russia—in previous years in Ukraine—and Belarus have been doing their best to hack into British politics to spread disinformation and to influence what is going on. We also know about the Chinese attempts to do the same.
This is all part of the transformation of election campaigning since the digital revolution and social media have become so important. I look back to the first election in which I took part, in 1966, when achieving an article by my party leader in the News of the World was by far the most important thing I did in four weeks. We are now in an utterly different world. Perhaps I should add that this was partly because the article appeared against a half-page picture of the President of Indonesia’s fourth wife, who was extremely attractive. At least people will have read “Jo Grimond” in the headline.
I emphasise here wider issues about shared interests and how the Government and other parties should be encouraged to work together. At present, there is, if you look at all the opinion polls, a very low level of public trust in Westminster politics and the lowest level of trust in government as such. That suggests that the Government and other parties should be as transparent as possible about what is being done and as cross-party and non-partisan as possible.
I note that the Electoral Integrity Programme is part of DLUHC. That seems to me odd. It ought to be part of a stronger Electoral Commission. I regret that the Bill—now an Act—last year weakened the Electoral Commission, because this is central to our democracy. We need to have integrity which is guaranteed by a cross-party and non-party institution. Similarly, on a slightly different collection of issues, the Defending Democracy Taskforce was introduced very much as a government initiative without engaging much with the opposition parties. I suggest that, in reassuring the wider public and civil society and rebuilding the public trust which has been lost, some mechanism involving other parties and cross-party organisations with government activity in this field would be useful. It is not for the Executive to defend integrity and democracy—after all, sometimes it is the Executive who undermine democracy; it is for Parliament, the courts and other independent agencies.
I want to make a second wider point. We should not ignore attempts at foreign interference in our democratic processes by non-state actors, as well as state actors. The Minister in the other place, in replying to one of the questions, said:
“I am pleased that in our domestic legislation we have the ability to ensure that countries with malign intent do not use think-tanks or other fronts to influence domestic political discourse in a way that is contrary to the health of our democracy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/23; col. 492.]
I agree with that, and I am concerned that there are now a number of extremely well-funded, very right-wing American organisations, on the edge of being anti-democratic, which are doing their best to interfere in British politics and which are putting funds into party factions, into conferences that take place in London and into think tanks. This is non-transparent and, I suggest, ought to be included in the integrity issue of foreign money flowing into British politics.
We have all witnessed the deterioration of American political campaigning and debate in recent years. We have a shared interest in preventing the UK following down that road. That needs to be part of how we prevent that happening, with conspiracy theories creeping into this country and so on. Free and fair elections depend on free and open debate, in which respect for facts and evidence is shared on all sides—a quality that has now been almost entirely lost in American campaigning. We need to make sure it is not lost here.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the unified front we are all showing against this appalling attack, recognising that this is just part of a world of increasing insecurity and increasing threats to us.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to the need to up our game. A few years ago, we all heard about these bot farms that were targeting people in a broad and uncomplicated kind of way. What we have identified with this attack is how highly targeted it is and how it is targeted towards the very heart of our democracy—the values that we all espouse in a free and open society. It is not just parliamentarians who have been attacked; it is the whole variety of different sections of our society, which are at the heart of what makes us a free and open society. They targeted political figures, civil servants, journalists and NGOs, all with the intent to meddle in British political and democratic processes.
We need to understand that Centre 18, a unit within Russia’s FSB, has been involved in a range of cyber-espionage operations targeting the UK and that the so-called Star Blizzard, a cyber group that is almost certainly subordinate to Centre 18, is responsible for a range of malign activities targeting British parliamentarians from multiple parties. It is worth noting that that group has selectively leaked and amplified the release of sensitive information in the service of Russia’s confrontative goals, and that these cyber actors used a combination of targeting, tailoring their operations in a far more sophisticated way than is usually the case. This targeting is not limited to politicians but includes public-facing figures from all parts of society.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about how we are working with our international partners. We engage international partners on issues of mutual concern. We are grateful for the support of very many international partners that have provided information, but we obviously will not go into detail on any specific contributions or types of engagement. Noble Lords will have seen the sheer breadth and depth in unity from our like-minded partners and allies who have joined us in calling out this malicious activity. The US is a long-standing ally, as are other Five Eyes members, and we will continue to engage with it on issues of mutual concern. We are grateful for the support the US has provided and will continue to work with it and all partners which seek to protect our democracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, said that, in order to up our game, we have to make sure that we have the resources necessary for our institutions and organisations to protect us. This was a complex operation and we have been working hand in glove with our partners to identify those responsible and hold them to account. The activity announced last week is part of a broader pattern of malign cyberactivity conducted by the Russian intelligence services across the globe. The United Kingdom has been continuing to bolster its resilience since 2018 against both the Russian and wider cyber threats. We continue to invest to bolster our cyber defences in support of our national cyber strategy. His Majesty’s Government are investing £2.6 billion in cyber and legacy IT until 2024-25, including a £140 million increase in the national cybersecurity programme.
The noble Lord raised a very important point about the number of elections taking place in those 40 countries—that will be 4 billion people exercising their right to self-determination about who governs them. There is no more fundamental basis for a free society than that, and we want to assist all those countries in any way we can. The level of technical expertise in this country, and our strategy, have been widely acclaimed and have the support of all political parties in this country. We want to make sure that we are sharing that expertise with other countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned other countries, and of course we are acute to threats of this type of activity from other countries. He is right to point out how they are reaching the electorate. In elections past, it was a simple matter of the media as the most basic way in which people got information that informed their political views, but now, through social media and the malign intent of certain individuals, people can be led to a false conclusion. We want to make sure that we are transparent and open.
Elections in this country are run by local authorities, and we are doing everything we can to assist them to make sure that their defences are robust, recognising that next year there is an important election. We are supporting them. DLUHC, the department that interfaces with local government, is working with local authorities, but it is a cross-government activity.
The final point the noble Lord made was about non-state actors, and he is absolutely right. We need to have measures in place to fact-check when people are using malign and false content in order to influence people. In certain constituencies, there will be a very few people who can sway that constituency one way or another. If they are being approached in the kind of way that this kind of attack has proved, we want to make sure that we have defences that can be deployed and that we can inform people that they have been the subject of this kind of attack.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister mentioning local authorities and ensuring that they are robust in the most vulnerable period—when votes are being cast—but what discussions are being held with the political parties specifically? They hold sensitive data. If I wanted to cause major disruption on polling day, I would be worried about the security of data held by political parties. Can the Minister assure me that thought is being given to that?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness was a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee with me. She was very much part of this debate for many years and has great expertise. She is right. Political parties need to be assisted through the National Cyber Security Centre and the national cybersecurity strategy to protect their data. She is right that we have seen elections in other parts of the world—and there have been some suggestions that we had attacks closer to home—in which these kinds of data breaches have resulted in a key moment in an election being difficult to manage. We want to assist every political party. Everyone can have access to it. It is not just Members of both Houses and the staff who work in this place but the political offices and constituency operations run by political parties right across the country that need access to this to be aware, resilient and absolutely sure that their systems are properly protected. It is in all our interests to make sure that we have clean, fair, open elections and that people are protected from this kind of attack.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, the war in Ukraine has been significant for a change of approach in UK government policy with regard to intelligence. We have been proactively releasing military intelligence about what we expect Russia to do into the public domain ahead of events, and this has undoubtedly influenced what Russia then does. There are parallels to this area. It is one thing reactively trying to attribute actions to Russia after the event, but would we consider doing exactly the same when it comes to this, hopefully influencing Russia and preventing it acting in the first place?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Our response to this attack is quite clear. The Russian ambassador was called in to the Foreign Office, and we have sanctioned two individuals who worked for this organisation. The investigation is ongoing, and we will take all steps necessary to make Russia understand that it is not worth its while doing this kind of work. We know that actions of misinformation are as old as the Soviet Union, and go right back to many activities happening in the days of the old KGB. What the FSB and organisations within it are now doing is absolutely an extension of that. They are using their technology to target us in different ways.
The UK has worked with Ukraine to increase its resilience in cyberspace over several years. This has included measures to enhance its incident response, forensics and assessment processes. We are providing £6.35 million in cyber support to Ukraine as part of the UK’s Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. This includes technical assistance to the MFA to protect its websites from distributed denial-of-service attacks and provide daily cyber threat intelligence. Increasing resilience is an ongoing process, and we are committed to increasing our efforts. We cannot go into further details of the support we are providing, but we are working with all our allies to make sure that countries such as Ukraine can withstand a relentless attack, not just physical kinetic warfare but in cyberspace as well.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to promote the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, the final draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was presented to the General Assembly of the United Nations by the Haitian delegate Emile Saint-Lot, a descendant of slaves. It was a late-night session on 10 December 1948. Monsieur Saint-Lot said it was
“the greatest effort yet made by mankind to give society new legal and moral foundations”.
It was a watershed moment reflecting the determination of members of the United Nations General Assembly, first, to prevent a repetition of the horrors inflicted during World War II, when millions were massacred and deliberately worked and starved to death, the Holocaust being the most abhorrent manifestation of such dehumanisation; secondly, to affirm the inherent dignity of every individual; and, thirdly, to establish a solid foundation for peace, justice and freedom in the world.
The UDHR is founded on the principle of universality, applying to everyone everywhere. Article 1 proclaims that:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”.
The declaration set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be protected universally. It was the precursor to more than 80 human rights conventions and treaties, including the European Convention on Human Rights, which was agreed just two years later. It provided the basis for our current international human rights framework.
The 30 articles listed in the declaration became the cornerstone of international, regional and national law. For example, they encompass: the right to life, liberty and a fair trial; freedom of religion, expression, assembly and association; the right to marriage and family; the right to work, including equal pay for work; and the right to education. They also encompass the prohibition of slavery, torture, arbitrary arrest, detention and exile.
Today, UDHR rights are at the heart of the United Nations sustainable development goals, which seek to create a better world by 2030 by, inter alia, ending poverty and hunger, but one has to question whether such a declaration would be achievable today. Multilateralism is under attack from those who want to redraw the international order to their own individual advantage. Russia and China often block human rights-related motions in the United Nations. Russia seeks imperial expansion of its territory. China seeks economic domination. Both countries seem to have scant regard for human rights.
The 75th anniversary of the UDHR gives us the opportunity to consider how far the world has come, while acknowledging that there is still a long way to go, with many continuing to suffer appalling human rights violations. We should call out flagrant violations and actively push back against those who seek to sow doubt about the universality or relevance of human rights. It is important to demonstrate solidarity with those being persecuted or punished for trying to exercise their rights, and to do all we can to recognise the work of human rights defenders, some of whom face considerable personal risk and death.
When I was the Minister for human rights at the FCDO, and the then Prime Ministers Cameron and May’s Special Representative on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, I had the privilege of meeting many brave people who were victims of human rights abuses, and many who were valiant human rights defenders. When I listened to accounts of their lived experience, whether it was in south-east Asia, central or South America, Africa, the Middle East or the western Balkans, the theme was the same throughout. There was a lack of bitterness; there was dignity, and the impassioned request that the UK take action internationally to ensure that others might not suffer as they had and as their children so often had.
As parliamentarians, we have a key role in promoting the UDHR, its principles and the rights enshrined within it by ensuring, of course, our own Government’s compliance and holding them to account if standards slip, and by helping to generate the necessary political will to bring about positive change, both at home and overseas.
Can my noble friend the Minister update the House today on how the Government have recently challenged, both publicly and privately, serious violations committed by state and non-state actors? Can she tell the House what more the FCDO will do to ensure that the promotion and protection of rights is embedded in their decision-making processes for bilateral and multilateral trading agreements, so that the UK cannot be complicit in serious human rights abuses—for example, when engaging in security partnerships? For example, what action do they take on a cross-departmental basis to monitor the export of surveillance equipment to ensure that it cannot be diverted by authoritarian Governments to target dissidents and human rights defenders?
I note that the human rights guidance in the FCDO’s document Overseas Security and Justice Assistance has not been updated since 2017, when I left my ministerial role at the Foreign Office and went to DExEU instead. Will the Minister consider updating that guidance soon, and does she agree with me that a review of its provisions should involve meaningful consultation with stakeholders, including civil society organisations and non-governmental organisations?
I have a final request: will my noble friend ensure that the FCDO does more to support human rights defenders overseas, including environmental, land and indigenous rights defenders, who may so often face criminalisation, enforced disappearance and sexual violence?
Earlier this month, the UK made a joint statement with Denmark to the ministerial council of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The statement recognised that although “great strides” had been made in recent decades to advance human rights and fundamental freedoms, it had
“become more evident than ever that the fight for freedom, gender equality, justice and democracy is far from over, and that their defence requires our ongoing vigilance and principled action”.
I agree.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am so grateful to the powers that be for allowing me the enormous privilege of following the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. I congratulate her on bringing to the House such an important debate on the near anniversary of perhaps the greatest achievement in the history of international statecraft. I also congratulate her on a career rich with similar ambition for the
“inherent dignity and … the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”
as
“the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
She continues to do enormous credit to the tradition of Churchill and Maxwell Fyfe, to her party, to her country and to your Lordships’ House.
Sadly, I cannot continue my short remarks in quite such a positive vein while knowing how some of the most senior members of His Majesty’s current Government will have spent the actual 75th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A frantic phone-around to shore up petty performative political legislation, designed not so much to stop the boats as to undermine the courts in their vital role of safeguarding rights at home and internationally, is hardly the best way to promote the values in the declaration, still less to show the United Kingdom as a continuing force for upholding rights, freedoms and the rule of law in our shrinking, interconnected and troubled world.
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill dishonours the great work of the generation that established the declaration and the subsequent treaties, to which the noble Baroness referred, that were always intended to protect its values with binding law. It is not so much the elephant in the room as the woolly mammoth in your Lordships’ Chamber. It is a post-fact instrument of post-truth politics, literally seeking to alter an evidential reality unanimously found by our highest court: that Rwanda is not currently safe for asylum seekers and refugees. It attempts domestically to disapply treaties designed to implement UDHR values to which we are bound internationally, demonstrating bad faith on the world stage. It breaches the European convention that was the legacy of those seeking to rebuild our continent after World War II. Accordingly, it imperils the Good Friday agreement and our new relationship with the European Union, and it abrogates even the rule of law on which human rights depend in seeking to attack judicial scrutiny by putting Ministers above the reach of the courts.
As I speak, Members in the other place will still be hunkered down in tortuous media spinning of a document that would have the principal drafters of the post-war settlement spinning in their graves.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the UK’s national equality and human rights body. I will make some remarks in a personal capacity, but first I will speak for a moment or two about the work of the EHRC. Before I do, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in expressing gratitude that in this House today we have somebody of the stature of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to lead and open this debate for us; we are fortunate indeed.
We are frequently reminded that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the most translated document in the world. We know that it attempts to set a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations, the most basic of which is life, liberty and security for all. However, too many countries do not observe the basic, fundamental aspirations of the universal declaration. The EHRC plays an active role in holding the Government’s feet to the fire. Having said that, I do not intend to go into the many different areas that parliamentarians who receive our legislative briefings will be well aware of. On the back of Covid and the difficulties of continuity of data across our national institutions and research bodies, we are very pleased to have produced the Equality and Human Rights Monitor, which is a comprehensive account looking at five to 10 years of data on the state of equality and human rights in Britain. We found both progress and challenges in compiling that. I urge noble Lords to review it. It is a reference tool. It is not something you will read or use only today; it covers the whole ground of protected characteristics as they have progressed or regressed over this period. I hope it will continue to inform debates over the next few years.
I want now to share some personal reflections, not so much about the universal declaration itself but about the composition and structure of the Human Rights Council. It is a relatively newly formed council—we have to remember that it was formed only in 2006, in response to the General Assembly’s acceptance that the previous body, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, was not working as effectively as it might. This was an attempt by the General Assembly to achieve some sort of coherence in having more regular elections, staggered elections and elections by region, to get 47 places on the council.
Over the intervening two decades, we have come to know that elections to the council are dogged by controversy every year, as a third of places come up. The world is divided by the council into regional blocs, replicating the UN system itself. While the EU and NATO no longer split Europe, for example, into eastern and western Europe, the UN still does, giving us the possibility, on a regular basis, of electing Russia into the eastern Europe category. This year was a near miss, as Albania managed to get on with Bulgaria, but Russia did garner a significant number of votes. Asia gives us such joys as Kyrgyzstan—again, not a standout respecter of human rights—following in Russia’s wake in most of its rulings. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the region is now represented by Cuba, where standards of freedom bear only a passing relationship with any conception of human rights. Then we have the “western Europe and others” grouping—such a bizarre way to express countries with differences as significant as those between Luxembourg and the US. But such differences are only differences of scale, whereas the election of China is truly perverse. China, as ever, is able to buy its way on to the council, mainly through the use of threats, coercion, soft loans, hard loans—through its so-called development strategy of belt and road—and so on.
Surely now, 75 years later, we need to recognise that we will never achieve the aims of the universal declaration when we allow for the most egregious violators of human rights to hold sway over the decisions of our only international body meant to uphold standards. Has the United Kingdom or the FCDO given any thought to what comes next? Seventy-five years in, what are we looking for? If members are still violating the treaty of Westphalia several hundred years later, or the strictures of the Congress of Vienna, by invading other sovereign countries, surely we must pause to reflect on trying to deliver a better kind of system. It is not universal. It does not deliver human rights. Above all, it lets down the people in countries where the most egregious violations take place.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for securing this debate, and for the way in which she has stood for these issues for many years.
The United Nation’s adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a milestone in the history of our world. It marked a global commitment to put human beings above conflict, above the politics of division and above economic gain, granting each individual dignity without discrimination. Though we are 75 years on, promoting the human rights laid out in the declaration remains as vital today as it was in 1948.
The principles and values of human rights lie in the conviction that each human being is unique, made in the image of God and loved by God. Each person is valuable for who they are, not what they are able to do. Thus it applies to every infant and child, and to every frail elderly person, as much as to those who are regarded as wholly fit and able.
In the first place, if we are to promote human rights globally, it is essential that we uphold them in our own nation. Article 16 of the UN declaration states:
“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.
As raised in the debate last Friday in this Chamber, brought by my friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, family is crucial to our flourishing as humans. However, this is regrettably not reflected in all our Government’s policies. The two-child limit, for example, continues to push families into poverty, withholding support for children due simply to the number of siblings they have.
I now raise my concerns regarding the recent decision by the Government to override their commitments to global human rights agreements. Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not totally legally binding, it is a declaration of the core values that underpin the human rights agreements that the UK has since committed to in a range of international agreements and in the foundations of many of our laws.
Rwanda is a country that is close to my heart. I have visited it 20 times since 1997. It has a deeply painful history of suffering, yet I have observed at first hand how, as a nation, it has rebuilt itself in the past 30 years, bringing those who violated the human rights of others in the past to justice. It demonstrated to the world a remarkable way of handling this, at all levels of society, through its Gacaca courts. However, given reports from Human Rights Watch, as well as the United States Government, on the violation of human rights within Rwanda in recent years, questions are now being raised that our Government can simply rule that the country is indeed safe for refugees and asylum seekers to be sent to.
On the face of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill lies a declaration from the Home Secretary that he is unable to state whether the Bill is compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations. In producing such a Bill, we are disregarding the humanity of asylum seekers as fellow human beings—fellow human beings who are equal in dignity and possess the same freedoms as ourselves.
I remind the House that this is not an issue of boats; it is an issue of people. As a nation, we have a proud history of upholding and promoting human rights across the globe. Rightly, these human rights apply no matter the nationality a person is born to, no matter their method of travel or entry to a country, and no matter how many siblings they have.
Human rights also always imply human responsibility for one another. If we each want these rights, then we also each must defend them for others. We cannot decide to remove rights from others without diminishing ourselves and accepting that we thus remove those rights from ourselves. We have been at the forefront since 1948 of promoting human rights. Will His Majesty’s Government commit to continuing to lead the way, rather than, as currently appears, stepping backwards from that leading role?
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Anelay for securing this debate. It is my honour to follow her and the other speakers, who know much more about human rights and who are experts in this area. In particular, I thank my noble friend for all the work she has done on the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict initiative and for speaking so generously about the survivors. They never express bitterness—just a desire for respect, dignity and some element of justice, which I hope we can help secure. I am also grateful to my noble friend for reminding us of the basic tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It is down to each generation not only to uphold but to improve and push the boundaries in securing our common humanity. Yet we often fall short in defending even the basics. We see the universal declaration’s principles receiving lip service from those who transgress them, but also from those who believe themselves to be their defenders—sometimes our closest allies. Human rights should be more than mere rhetoric in speeches and interviews; they ought to form the very essence of our policies, both domestically and internationally. When we neglect these principles, we not only neglect those who are suffering, by failing to speak and act in support of them, but we also compromise our own standing, security and moral authority. Human rights protect us all; there is no point protecting only here but not over there.
Consider just one example: our rightful support for Ukraine. It is there that the ideals of a free and stable Europe are defended: the supremacy of sovereignty; the protection of borders; and the fundamental idea of human rights. However, we are often challenged that we apply one rule in Ukraine and another elsewhere. We rightly support and show solidarity to our Ukrainian friends and allies, but we have not shown remotely similar support for the people of Tigray or Sudan, or for Palestinian civilians. When we abandon Afghanistan and those who fought shoulder to shoulder with us, disregard atrocities in Darfur, or offer uncritical support to our friend and ally Israel, our commitment to human rights is questioned. Let us be candid with ourselves: do we champion human rights consistently or only when it aligns with our short-term interests?
In some cases, the accusation is that we do not care. In the face of atrocities or human rights violations, inaction is unacceptable. Back in August, the Minister of State for International Development noted the
“growing body of evidence of serious atrocities against civilians being committed in Sudan”.
Despite recognising this, four months on, collectively we have little to show by way of concrete action or concerted diplomacy to try and prevent further atrocities. Similarly, the contrast between our warm welcome to Ukrainians and our hostility towards refugees from other parts of the world has been striking.
It is sometimes suggested that worrying about our standing and the appearance of consistency is self-indulgent or naive, or both, or that those who believe and stand up for human rights have been captured by the wokerati. It is true that foreign policy is often about trade-offs and finding the least bad solution. But when we ignore our commitments, it gives other countries cover to do the same. Persuasion and alliance building are crucial aspects of foreign policy. It is certainly the case that the appearance of double standards has weakened our ability to make the case for supporting Ukraine to many countries.
There is a wider relevance as well. Many global challenges rely on trust if they are to be solved. Negotiations at COP, for example, rely on trust between countries that we will keep our word and that we will act in the interests of our own but also the wider good. The appearance of double standards undermines that trust and our ability to find solutions to some of the most pressing challenges we face.
Values upheld domestically ought to extend beyond our shores. Human rights must be an inseparable part of our Government’s policy, woven through every strand of our diplomacy, including support for international institutions and treaties, which very often have been drafted by British legal experts. This is a moral duty. It is also a route to a safer and more stable world, and it is in our national interest too.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, few people in your Lordships’ House have had such personal experience of the consequences of when human rights are violated as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. It is always a privilege to participate in debates in which she is involved. It is also a privilege to speak in a debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which she introduced with her characteristic knowledge but also showing how long-standing her commitment has been to international affairs and human rights.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, this 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a watershed moment. It was also this weekend 75 years ago that the new United Nations promulgated the convention on the crime of genocide. My fifth Private Member’s Bill on the genocide convention was given a First Reading last Monday. I hope that this time the Government will give it time to proceed. The genocide convention and universal declaration are inextricably linked, but it was the UDHR that provided the benchmarks—the tell-tale signs—that disrespect for human rights, especially of minorities, could morph so easily into atrocity crimes and genocide.
In framing the UDHR, Eleanor Roosevelt, René Cassin, Charles Malik and others, some notably from smaller and less powerful nations, were a determined group of enlightened people who drew on many cultures, beliefs and faiths. Peng-chun Chang, the vice-chair of the drafting commission was deeply influenced by traditional Confucian Chinese concepts of human dignity, saying the task was to “subdue people with goodness”. This led to “a spirit of brotherhood” being added to Article 1.
The Chinese Communist Party might reflect on Chang’s insistence that the UDHR has universal application, not least as China has ignored at least 11 of the 30 articles in the UDHR in relation to Hong Kong. The CCP is also accused of genocide in Xinjiang—I refer to my non-financial interests in the register—while, perversely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, touched on, taking a place on the United Nations Human Rights Council. China’s blocking of a UN debate on the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ report on the situation in Xinjiang is a disgrace. Now that the FCDO has accepted a decision by a German court that a genocide took place against the Yazidis in 2015, does this mean it will now accept determinations made by other competent courts in the case of Uighurs, for instance?
In 1948, the principle of universality was agreed with no dissenting voices, although the Soviet bloc joined Saudi Arabia and apartheid South Africa in abstaining. Although in today’s world, with its dangerous axis of authoritarians and dictators, that consensus has been smashed to smithereens, the dictators—Xi, Putin, Kim, Khamenei and the rest—will not necessarily have the last word. The universal declaration has been and can be a touchstone for the sorts of grass-roots movements that toppled totalitarianism in eastern Europe, saw off apartheid, emboldened the civil rights movement of Dr Martin Luther King and, in much of the world, replaced colonialism with independence.
The UDHR also spurred religious leaders to reassess their place in a plural society with, for instance, the historic Catholic promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae in 1965, the 2016 Islamic Marrakesh declaration of more than 250 Muslim religious leaders, Heads of State and scholars, and Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama. Today’s Article 18 of the UDHR, about the right to believe, not to believe or to change your belief, was framed against the backdrop of the Holocaust, and religious persecution is systematically honoured in the breach to this day, notwithstanding that declaration. Think, for instance, of the Uighur Muslims, Rohingya Muslims, Nigerian Christians, Iranian Baha’is, Falun Gong, Hazaras, Yazidis and other minorities. Think of the denial of rights to Afghan girls and women, the rape and violation of women in Sudan and Tigray—touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic—and the bleak denial of justice in so many places.
Let me put some specific questions that, following the debate, perhaps the Minister can ensure receive answers. In the case of the Uighurs, will we join the French in trying to have the Security Council veto removed when recommendations for referral of atrocity crimes are laid before it? In the first instance, perhaps the UK should secure support in the General Assembly. Ten years ago, a commission of inquiry into human rights violations in North Korea found crimes against humanity, but fear of a Chinese or Russian veto has prevented a referral to the ICC. Meanwhile, in breach of the 1951 refugee convention, China forcibly repatriates hundreds of North Korean escapees; incarcerates in jail Zhang Zhan, the young woman journalist who asked the right questions about the origins of Covid-19; and holds in prison the British citizen Jimmy Lai and 1,200 pro-democracy prisoners in Hong Kong. Why has the Foreign Secretary not called for their release?
Perhaps the FCDO could also tell us why in August it mysteriously removed from its website the listing of Darfur among the previous genocides. I have recently raised questions concerning Afghanistan, Tigray and Nigeria, and I would be grateful if the Minister could ensure that they receive replies. Cases such as these demonstrate why the UDHR matters so much and why we need to breathe new life into it on behalf of those whose rights are violated.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too welcome the aspiration of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to use the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to rejuvenate and promote its principles. However, this task faces some contemporary challenges.
One of the main legacies of the declaration is that human rights discourse is now so ubiquitous that it is possibly losing any meaning. In one recent school debate I was involved in on whether mobile phones should be banned in classrooms, the outraged pupils claimed that it breached their human rights to be denied access to social media. More seriously, we have an expansive transnational human rights industry with an endless array of lawyers, NGOs, commissions, consultants et cetera who certainly talk the talk. But my first concern is the danger that this ever-growing body of experts is discrediting human rights ideals among many voters by their disdain for democratic decision-making.
Because human rights claim to embody universal human dignity per se, they are often treated as sacrosanct and unchallengeable. Their adherents assume a high-handed, self-righteous, imperious manner, disdainful of the views, wishes and demands of national populations. In the UK we have seen legitimate attempts at changing how the country manages its asylum system run into the unyielding moral high ground of human rights walls, used to constrain elected legislators and limit the scope of the country’s political policy. But when human rights are used to undermine voters and national sovereignty, does that not betray the UDHR’s original 48 aims, conceived at a time in which self-governance of all sovereign nation states was itself embodied in principles of non-intervention and universal equality?
My second concern is the pick-and-mix approach to which human rights principles matter. I will give a couple of examples. When I first read the Online Safety Bill and realised that so much of it threatened free speech, I assumed the Chamber would be full of the usual human rights experts queueing up to cite Article 19, which states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of … expression; this right includes freedom to … seek, receive and impart information and ideas”
of all kinds, either orally, in writing or print, or “through any media” of his choice. In the event, there was a resounding silence and empty Benches, even though the legislation tears up Article 19 as a principle. Similarly, the year before, when a mere handful of noble Lords raised problems with the assault on civil liberties associated with many lockdown regulations, with citizens confined to their homes and the elderly, disabled, sick and dying denied access to families et cetera, I assumed that the human rights industry would be up in arms. No. Zilch. More silence.
Such silence speaks volumes, none more shocking than in response to the 7 October anti-Jewish pogrom in Israel. This was particularly tragic and ironic as the UN declaration was precisely conceived in the shadow of the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were annihilated because they were Jews—a fact worth stating as polling reveals that a fifth of the young think the Holocaust a myth. Now that “never again” is now, you would expect the human rights community to leap into leading denunciations of the worst display of anti-Jewish bloodlust since the Nazi regime. But despite filmed evidence of Jews raped, beheaded, burned alive and worse, the UN human rights organisations stayed silent for almost two whole months before condemning Hamas’s gruesome butchery, and they remain tight-lipped about the remaining 130 hostages.
A few weeks ago there was a cartoon in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper depicting an Israeli woman in bloody and torn clothes, saying “Me too”, while a panel of three UN women were shown—one covering her ears, one her eyes, another her mouth. Shameful. Conversely, we must ask why the UN human rights organisations have been anything but silent about Israel’s alleged human rights violations in relation to Gaza, labelling the undoubted brutality and suffering caused by war—arguably a just war—as genocide of Palestinians, which is a misnomer. In doing so, human rights advocates relativise the specific meaning of genocide, reducing it to a meme, a placard, a slogan—too often deployed by western activists as an anti-Semitic slur against our Jewish fellow citizens.
How can we defend the UN human rights leadership, which only this year appointed the UN ambassador for the Islamic Republic of Iran to chair a UN conference on human rights, representing a country whose morality police violently assault and lock up brave Iranian women who dare show their hair in public? It is a country where you can be hanged for insulting the Prophet Muhammad and belittling the Koran. It is a brutal regime that, in the immediate aftermath of 7 October, celebrated the Hamas terrorist atrocities.
I am afraid that such selective double standards in terms of whose human rights deserve attention and whose we ignore undermine the principles of the UDHR. Some of the problem lies at the heart of the human rights industry. I suggest to the Minister that for the principles of the declaration to be promoted genuinely we must stop looking the other way when human rights are reduced to partisan weapons for politicised ends, and human rights advocates are sometimes the problem.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed by the UN Assembly was a remarkable achievement. It is right that we should mark its 75th anniversary and I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has given us a chance to do so. The original agreement was signed by 48 nations, and now all 192 member states of the UN have signed in agreement with it. Despite terrible failures in implementation, it shows that there are human aspirations in common across political and cultural boundaries.
It is fashionable in some quarters to espouse different types of moral relativism, to think that values simply reflect a particular group, and in particular the power of that group in a world of perpetual conflict. But the UN declaration disabuses that. At its heart is the value of the individual and therefore the need to protect the life and liberty of every person, whoever they are, not least from the state. Although there was hugely significant input into the declaration from Church leaders and Christian sources, there was also influence from Confucian and other sources. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, emphasised, a feature of this is the declaration’s universality. There is something to be celebrated still today because of having this universal standard and benchmark.
Against that, of course, we have to point out that the failures of implementation of this universal standard are massive. In far too many countries, as sketched out by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has been indefatigable in pursuing these issues, there are ghastly human rights violations—as so many debates in this House reveal.
What steps, as the noble Baroness puts it, are His Majesty’s Government taking to address this? First, I suggest that the Government should continue to draw attention to violations whenever and wherever they occur. Whatever the pressures of realpolitik, and whatever the necessity to continue trading with countries that have repressive regimes, they should not be allowed to forget their heinous crimes. It may not always be possible to build this into a trade agreement, although we should certainly try to do so—but at least to the country with which we trade it should be made quite clear what our view is.
More specifically, we should continue to support the International Criminal Court. Individuals, especially Heads of State and warlords, need to know that there is a body which will in the end hold them accountable. Connected with that, we should continue to pursue the regime of sanctions where it is justified, not least in relation to Russia, and where appropriate in response to the Magnitsky Act.
Furthermore, we should continue to support the universal periodic review, in which member states are given the opportunity to have their human rights record reviewed by their peers. Of course, this is taken up only by those states which take human rights seriously in the first place, but it is important for every country to show willingness. If you show such willingness, at least you are trying to indicate that you yourself might be blind to certain violations of human rights in your own culture. From the point of view of the authenticity and reality of our commitment, we need to do this, not least in relation to our own country.
Finally, there are many countries in the world where human beings are denied their basic rights, with ghastly things happening at the moment in Iran, and in China, which is a surveillance state, as well as in Russia and so on. But I end by mentioning one which sadly is not on the world’s agenda, but where there are massive violations: the occupation of West Papua by Indonesia. Why does not the world know about this? It is, quite simply, because Indonesia does not allow any NGOs or any press to go in—yet Indonesia has occupied that country for three or four decades, and massive human rights violations are going on in it about which the world does not yet know fully. Will His Majesty’s Government press the Indonesian Government to allow access to the UN commissioner for human rights to visit that country? The world needs to know what is happening there.
We celebrate this Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which needs to be reaffirmed in every generation, and lament the fact that there are still so many countries in the world that are in gross violation of it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the passion of the noble and right reverend Lord, and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on securing this debate. It is a particular pleasure to recall that we were appointed to this place by Sir John Major some 27 years ago, and we are still fighting our corner.
On the day when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed in Paris, the world was in turmoil. In China, the civil war was coming to an end as the United States began to waver in its support of Chiang Kai-shek. The communists won decisively the following year. The Cold War was in full swing, with the Berlin airlift on a clear day carrying 60,000 tonnes of material over the Iron Curtain. There was talk of a western union and of the creation of a European assembly. The North Atlantic pact was being negotiated. Palestine, following a war with Egypt, was in flames; a year earlier, following the end of the British mandate, the UK had abstained on the United Nations resolution for partition and a two-state solution. Only the Liberals were in favour.
It was the Liberal Member of Parliament, Frank Byers, on the return of Parliament after the Christmas Recess in 1949, who asked Mr Attlee what changes the Government proposed to make to bring British legislation into line with the declaration’s principles. Mr Attlee said that the declaration was an aspirational statement and not a legally binding covenant—but that
“at home and in the British Commonwealth we approach more nearly to reaching these ideals than does any other country in the world”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/1/1949; col. 17.]
Lord Byers, as he became, was Leader of the Liberal Party in this House for many years. I remember him well, and his forthright Liberal principles can be heard today in the speeches of his grand-daughter, Lisa Nandy MP. In March 1949, subsequently, the Liberal Party assembly at Hastings passed a resolution endorsing and promoting the universal declaration, and it was the cornerstone of our manifesto in the 1950 general election.
While not creating international law in itself, the universal declaration became the basis of a number of legally binding conventions, including the European covenant of human rights. Perhaps the most apposite on this day, today, is the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The introductory note to the convention states in terms:
“Grounded in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of human rights 1948, which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, is the centrepiece of international refugee protection today”.
Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights simply states:
“Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”.
The very first recital to the refugee convention reads as follows:
“Considering that the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved on 10 December 1948 by the General Assembly have affirmed the principle that human beings shall enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms without discrimination”.
There in that first recital is a full statement of the position. Article 16 of the convention proclaims:
“A refugee shall have free access to the courts of law on the territory of all Contracting States”
and
“the same treatment as a national in matters pertaining to access to the Courts, including legal assistance”.
Article 32 states:
“The expulsion of … a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law … the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority”.
That is what the convention says. However, this Government would argue that the people coming over in boats are asylum seekers and not refugees—and they think that, if they act quickly enough, as this current Bill envisages, or if the hearing of asylum applications can be delayed for months or even years, asylum seekers can be parcelled off to another country before they get the protected status of refugees. Are these human beings enjoying fundamental rights and freedoms? I do not think so.
The legality of the Rwanda proposals is for a later date—and no doubt I shall enjoy sharing that debate with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. But let us consider the morality of it. Is it compatible with the spirit of the universal declaration? Is it compatible with the long-held values of this country? I assert that the answer is a resounding no. On the 75th anniversary of the signing of the universal declaration, its fundamental principles are being violated in front of our eyes—and for what? Is it just an attempt to keep a failed Government in office? It is un-British—or, as they say in my part of the world, it is out of order—and this 75th anniversary reminds us why.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on marking Human Rights Day and the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it is really good that this Chamber has the opportunity to mark these important events. The declaration makes it clear that universal human rights are part of what it means to be human, not gifts granted by the state. As we have heard, the declaration is not formally binding on UN member states, but it did inspire the European Convention on Human Rights and, let us not forget, our own Human Rights Act. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and other noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, are absolutely right to draw attention to the contradictions and tensions inherent in saying one thing and then doing something else.
It is important to understand that the UN, despite all its faults and all the problems, is an important part of our multilateral system. It deserves to be recognised as the place where we can raise our concerns about human rights violations and abuses. As we have heard, we are a member of the UN Human Rights Council, but there are other important forums where human rights can be raised, not least the General Assembly, ECOSOC and the Security Council, with all their imperfections, but also the UN Commission on the Status of Women. These are vital in terms of hearing voices in the international forums that are not necessarily heard. I pay tribute to the Government for leading debates at the HRC, and for raising issues and tabling resolutions concerning Syria, Sudan, South Sudan—the noble Baroness played a prominent part in those—and of course Sri Lanka. They have been incredibly important in tabling and voting on resolutions and in building a difficult consensus. It has not been easy, but we have been leading on that, including on Ukraine, Russia, Afghanistan and Iran.
I also pay tribute to the Government for ensuring that the mandate of the Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity was renewed. That is very important. When the declaration was first signed, oppressing people because of their sexuality was very common. We made huge progress because we engaged in those forums, and we have led the way. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is absolutely right: one of the most important mechanisms of the HRC is the process of peer-led reviews. Universal periodic reviews help shine a light on those abuses. We live in an imperfect world and we cannot necessarily effect the change we want to effect; but shining a light and raising concerns, constantly reminding people of acting in bad faith, if you like, is very important.
Noble Lords have heard me say before that the ingredients of a healthy democracy are not limited to politicians and Parliaments: an active civil society is vital. When nations fail in their most important task of providing safety, security and freedom for their people, it is always civil society that leaps first to their defence. The Government’s integrated review committed to promote open societies and work with human rights defenders as a priority, but how is this priority being translated into action? July’s FCDO Human Rights and Democracy Report stressed the importance of civil society. I would like to know just how many Ministers have been involved in that recently; I hope the noble Baroness can tell us. How have Ministers engaged with civil society groups to support their role as guardians of human rights?
Another area I am always very disappointed about is the FCDO’s failure to even recognise the role of trade unions in defending human rights. They are vital not only in supporting changes in society, but also in protecting people. I certainly know that the previous Labour Government strongly supported trade unions’ international activities, and I hope the noble Baroness will respond on that.
Finally, I turn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Last Friday marked British citizen Jimmy Lai’s 76th birthday, but also his spending 1,073 consecutive days in prison. Of course, he is one of the most important defenders of human rights in Hong Kong and one of the most outspoken critics of the Chinese Communist Party. His trial may start next week, and I hope the noble Baroness can reassure this House that we will be closely monitoring it and making sure that a British citizen is not left alone.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
My Lords, I have a large number of notes here, in the hope that I can do this debate justice by responding to as many noble Lords as possible. I thank my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns for getting this debate on the schedule in such a timely manner, celebrating this 75th anniversary, and for her extensive work on human rights over many years, as many in the Chamber have acknowledged. I also thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the foundation stone upon which we have built an enduring framework of rights and freedoms—a framework for freedom, equality, opportunity and justice that provides agreed benchmarks to hold all states to account. As reinforced by my noble friend Lord Ahmad in his intervention at the UN in Geneva today, the Government put promoting and protecting human rights at the heart of what we do. That means working with allied countries, institutions and civil society to protect and bolster the international human rights architecture and advance our human rights priorities. My noble friend Lord Ahmad met with a large number of civil rights individuals—150, I believe—on Thursday of last week at a celebration event for this 75th anniversary. This means taking action in public and in private when states fail to live up to their obligations. It also means making sure that our development work and broader diplomacy strengthens human rights in our contested and fast-evolving world.
We publish an annual Human Rights and Democracy Report, which sets out actions we have taken to tackle key concerns and to advance human rights, with a particular focus on our 32 priority countries. These countries are where we judge we can make a real difference through long-term, determined and sustained engagement.
On the UN Human Rights Council, we remain one of the most active and influential states working within the international human rights architecture. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, made an important point about some of the issues of some council members. We use our influence: for example, we have isolated Russia in the system of late, particularly with regard to elections for the HRC. As my noble friend Lady Anelay said in her opening remarks, as leading members of the UN Human Rights Council, we have taken robust action to hold Russia to account for its actions in Ukraine and for repression at home. I say to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, that we continue to call out wrongs. We have called out China for its treatment of Uighurs and democracy activists in Hong Kong, and we will continue to do so. Let me reassure my noble friend Lady Helic that we have led on resolutions establishing or removing UN accountability mechanisms for Syria, South Sudan and Sudan, among other states, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury.
We have broadened our human rights sanctions regime to punish those responsible for human rights violations in a range of priority countries. Indeed, if I consider some of the actions taken, in part through the ongoing and long-serving work done by my noble friend Lady Anelay, we have embedded human rights in all our gender equality and development work. Our international development White Paper sets out how we will continue to work with countries to protect human rights through peacebuilding and supporting justice and strong institutions.
Gender equality is one of our priority issues that sits at the nexus of our diplomacy and development work. We are pursuing the three Es outlined in our international women and girls strategy: educating girls, empowering women and girls by championing their health and rights, and ending gender violence. In response to the attempted rollback of the rights of women, girls and LGBT+ people in many parts of the world, we have sanctioned 15 individuals and entities during the last year alone for gender-based violence and acts of sexual violence in conflict. We are also working with countries such as the United Arab Emirates to secure a UN Human Rights Council resolution on girls’ education and climate change.
Trade was raised by a number of noble Lords. We are increasing the debt and poverty partnerships to enable the UK to achieve positive human rights impacts. For example, seeking to establish and secure growing trade relationships increases the UK’s influence and facilitates open conversations. We therefore raise human rights concerns during these conversations to ensure that our trading agreements continue to promote and protect rights.
In response to my noble friend Lady Anelay, the Government’s overseas security and justice assistance policy and guidance provide that rigorous assessment of whether UK engagement may contribute to a violation of human rights or international humanitarian law prior to any justice or security sector assistance being provided. I can reassure my noble friend that the guidance will be updated shortly and will reflect the views of a broad range of shareholders.
A number of noble Lords raised attacks on human rights in conflict zones. We have also prioritised support for accountability mechanisms. The UK-led referral of the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court was the largest in the court’s history. We are also supporting Ukrainian war crimes investigators, and we are working with the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court to prevent atrocities and hold perpetrators to account in Ukraine and elsewhere.
I shall try to answer some of the very diverse questions that noble Lords have put. My apologies if I do not reach all of them; if I do not, I pledge that we will write so that noble Lords can have the detailed answers that all the questions deserve.
I say first to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that the UK has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected, and of abiding by the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. We do not believe it is necessary to leave the ECHR in order to deliver on our major priorities, including tackling illegal immigration.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness’s flow, but I want to make it very clear and put on the record that I never advocated leaving. I suggested that the UK Government might consider what else they could do to expand the universality of human rights.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I certainly did not mean to mislead the House in any way over those comments. There is clear agreement that we believe the ECHR is delivering at this point in time, although there are always improvements that can be made.
On what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said about Rwanda, I am sure that we will have a very long debate as soon as the Bill comes to this House and that those issues will be raised. In the interests of time, I do not have much I can go into tonight, but it is fair to say that it has always been important to both Rwanda and the UK that our rule of law partnership meets the highest standards of international law, and it places obligations on both the UK and Rwanda to act lawfully. It is really important that the Rwanda partnership and the Illegal Migration Act will deliver the changes necessary to take away the incentive for people to risk their lives through illegal crossings, while complying at all times with international obligations.
I defer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham’s extensive knowledge of Rwanda, but the Box has prepared some remarks for me regarding the state that Rwanda is currently in. I can assure him that we are committed to upholding human rights everywhere, including in countries that we work closely with. Rwanda, of course, is deemed a safe and secure country with respect to the rule of law. It is a state party to the 1951 UN refugee convention and the seven core UN human rights conventions. The migration partnership fully complies with all national and international law, including the UN refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. With all international partnerships we have thorough, ongoing dialogue in which we will raise concerns, including on topics such as human rights. Our close co-operation with Rwanda on a range of issues, including climate, development and the Commonwealth, enables us to raise these concerns at the highest levels.
I turn to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, regarding human rights in China in particular. It is really important to stress that we have led international efforts to hold China to account on its human rights violations in Xinjiang. We were the first country to lead a joint statement on China’s human rights record there at the UN, and our leadership has sustained pressure on China to change its behaviour. There were a number of other questions from the noble Lord that we will follow up in detail in writing.
I will write to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, about Indonesia. There is nothing in my pack on it, and I am afraid we did not have a chance to respond in the time we had, but I appreciate him raising it in the House and we will certainly do what we can to follow up in writing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, raised the current situation in Gaza and Israel. I understand her frustration. Hamas can have no future in Gaza after its appalling terrorist attacks. It must release all hostages without delay, stop endangering the lives of Palestinians, and surrender them. Together with the US, the UK has targeted Hamas with a new tranche of sanctions in an effort to disrupt the group’s acts of terror. As the Prime Minister has said, we must work with our allies to provide the serious, practical and enduring support needed to bolster the Palestinian Authority.
On the other side of that coin, Israel, of course, has a right to defend herself. The Foreign Secretary has been clear that Israel’s actions must comply with international humanitarian law and that it must take every step to minimise harm to civilians. The Prime Minister has pressed Israel to ensure that its campaign is targeted against Hamas fighters and military objectives. The Foreign Secretary discussed this with the Israeli President during his recent visit.
There are, no doubt, some other questions that I have not got to, but I have 10 seconds to conclude. The 75th anniversary of the UN’s universal declaration falls at a significant juncture in the protection and promotion of human rights. After decades of progress, increased authoritarianism is a growing threat to human rights, and at a time when we face the greatest challenges in a decade, from ever more complex forms of conflict to far-reaching technological developments, the principles enshrined in the universal declaration—freedom, equality, opportunity and justice—provide the right path to navigate these new challenges, which is why the Government work relentlessly in support of human rights and remain as committed to the universal declaration today as our predecessors were on the day they signed it.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am afraid I must insist on clarifying the remarks she has attributed to me. I intentionally did not go anywhere near the European Convention on Human Rights. I spoke only in broad terms about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—in other words, the UN’s founding document. I want to put it on the record that I said to the House—and I think Hansard will confirm it—that I was not going to get into current controversy. I want to make that very clear.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
That is totally understood. I will make sure that the record reflects that.