House of Commons
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
We are calling for an immediate humanitarian pause, in order to get aid in and hostages out as a vital step towards a sustainable, permanent ceasefire.
Mr Betts
That is all very well, but the problem is that Netanyahu and the Israeli Government are simply ignoring all the pleas for restraint—those pleas have become empty words. What will the Government do to put real pressure on the Israelis to stop the unacceptable killings, enter into negotiations for a permanent ceasefire and stop the threats to permanently annex and occupy Gaza? Has the time come to stop selling to Israel arms that are being used to raze Gaza to the ground?
Mr Mitchell
As I told the House yesterday, the Foreign Secretary is in the region today and will pursue the vital policies that the hon. Gentleman has set out. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is an absolute priority for Britain to ensure that more aid gets in, but the Israeli Government have the right of self-defence and, as the UK Government continually make clear, they must exercise that right within international humanitarian law.
Jamie Stone
Like many other Members, I am sure, I have received an extraordinary number of emails from constituents who are deeply concerned about what is going on—these are people who would never normally get in touch with their MP. We must stop the killing. My party and I believe that an immediate bilateral ceasefire is the way forward. What steps are the Government taking with partners in the region and around the world to achieve that end?
Mr Mitchell
All of us want a ceasefire, but it must be sustainable. That is why the British Government are bent on ensuring that we get a humanitarian pause so that we can get far more supplies into Gaza, and, on the back of that, a sustainable ceasefire. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), we need a pause in order to get aid and support in and the hostages out.
Yasmin Qureshi
According to the UN World Food Programme, over half a million Palestinians in Gaza are starving. A famine is imminent. Allegations against 12 United Nations Relief and Works Agency staff are rightly being investigated, but cutting aid to UNRWA entirely is disproportionate and punitive. Has the Minister even considered the consequences of those cuts on women, babies and the seriously injured, and does he understand that they would breach the measures issued by the International Court of Justice to ensure that aid flows into Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
As I have set out to the House repeatedly, we are doing everything we can, along with others, to ensure that vital supplies get into Gaza, for the very reasons that the hon. Lady sets out. On UNRWA, it would be impossible for any of us to continue business as usual, given the appalling events outlined over the weekend. That is why we have made it clear that we will not produce further finance until we are satisfied that those matters have been addressed. With regard to what we are seeking to do through UNRWA now, we have provided additional funding in the past, and that will ensure that aid and vital supplies get into Gaza.
Paul Blomfield
The Government have consistently repeated their commitment to a two-state solution, and that is right, but for 30 years Israel has deliberately undermined that through the settlement of the west bank, in contravention of international law. Now Netanyahu has come clean and ruled out a two-state solution, so does the Minister agree that, if the UK’s policy is to be seen as anything more than empty words, we need to demonstrate our commitment to a viable Palestinian state by recognising it and by upgrading current Government advice against trade with the illegal settlements to a full embargo?
Mr Mitchell
The Government’s position on the issue of illegal settlements is absolutely clear. In respect of the two-state solution, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that progress has been made previously, in particular after grievous acts of terrible conflict and terrorism; that is when the big leaps forward towards a resolution of this desperate problem have been made. We hope that on the back of the horrendous events that have taken place on 7 October and since, additional progress can be made as soon as the political track can be restarted.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
The Palestinian Authority’s grip on security control across the west bank has been pushed out by the malevolent forces of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and local terror groups funded by Iran. Is it not the case that unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state now would risk equipping those dangerous actors with the trimmings and capabilities of a state?
Mr Mitchell
The British Government have always been clear that we intend to recognise a Palestinian state when the timing is right. My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard the comments that the Foreign Secretary made last night, which in no way deviate from that policy; the Foreign Secretary is pointing out how important it is to ensure that people can see that when a political track gets going, real progress can be made.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
If we cannot have a ceasefire, a humanitarian pause would of course be very welcome, but it will only be of any use if we can get the aid that is so urgently required into Gaza. What are the Government doing to overcome what the Foreign Secretary has described as the “ludicrous” checking regime put in place by the Israelis, and what more can we do to stop or avoid crowds of Israelis from gathering at crossings into Gaza, aiming to prevent aid from entering, and so obviate a famine?
Mr Mitchell
On my right hon. Friend’s second point, I can assure him that we are in regular touch with all the relevant authorities to try to ensure that does not hinder the entry of aid. On his first point, we should all be aware that the issue is not that there is not enough aid in the region, but that it is not getting in. That is why the Government, under the Prime Minister’s specific instruction, have been investigating how to get aid in through all means, including from the sea and from a naval corridor.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is really disturbing that BBC Online is reporting that the Foreign Secretary has changed the UK Government’s approach on recognition of a Palestinian state. Does the Minister agree that bringing forward and accelerating unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state would be to reward Hamas’s atrocity?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is no question of rewarding Hamas for the appalling acts they perpetrated in a pogrom on 7 October. The point that the Foreign Secretary has been making is that we must give the people of the west bank and Gaza a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future, but we must do so when the time is right.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The Minister will know that there is rising anger in the region about the desperate situation in Gaza, which makes a ceasefire much harder to achieve. More people are now dying of hunger and thirst than from bombs and bullets. He said yesterday that the UK is pausing funding to UNRWA, not cutting it, but given its critical role, will he reassure us that nothing will disrupt the supply of aid—not just into Gaza, but through Gaza—now and in the months ahead? He is right that these are serious allegations and we should be robust about how UK aid money is spent, but it would be unconscionable if we allowed anything to stand in the way of UK aid reaching those children right now. Will he promise that the UK will move heaven and earth to get that aid to them?
Mr Mitchell
The shadow Minister for development is absolutely right about the balance that has to be struck. Of course, we need to investigate rapidly the very serious allegations that have been made against UNRWA, but the assets we use for getting aid and support into Gaza depend on the assets that UNRWA owns—warehouses, vehicles and the other distribution mechanisms. As such, we need that inquiry to be completed as rapidly as possible. In the meanwhile, Britain was not intending to give any further support to UNRWA in this financial year; in the next financial year we will consider the position in precisely the way the shadow Minister sets out.
Mr Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The UK is committed to the primacy of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, and to freedom of navigation and overflight. We oppose any action that raises tensions, or the risk of miscalculation, in the South China sea. The Foreign Secretary spoke to his Philippino counterpart in December, and the FCDO issued a statement on 11 December, condemning Chinese unsafe and escalatory actions against the Philippines.
Mr Roberts
I declare an interest, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Philippines. The Minister is no doubt aware of a large number of videos posted on YouTube and other outlets, showing Chinese gunboats ramming and victimising Philippine fishermen in the West Philippine sea. This is a vital industry for the economy of the Philippines, which, as she knows, is one of our key strategic partners in the region. What discussions has she had with her Chinese counterpart to stop those unprovoked attacks and allow those peaceful fishermen simply to go about earning a livelihood to support their families?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I was in Vietnam in October, speaking at the South China sea conference, and I set out very clearly the UK’s position and raised the serious risks, which my hon. Friend highlights, posed by these instances of unsafe conduct against Philippino fishing vessels. The UK has provided £6.5 million in funding to support regional partners through an enhanced programme of maritime security capacity building in south-east Asia, which includes training on the law of the sea, and we continue to provide that support to help maintain that free and open Pacific.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that response. China is quite clearly a thuggish country; a bully country that thinks it can step upon anybody. They have an insatiable demand and appetite for everybody else’s resources. When will the time come that China will understand that they cannot bully the wee person—that we will stand with that wee person against them?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Gentleman sets out a really important position, and we want to continue to support and work closely with the Philippines. I was able to co-chair the first UK-Philippines strategic dialogue in November, where we are continuing to work with the Philippines across a number of fronts on how we can support them to ensure that they can sustain their agency and present themselves the positions, as he highlights, of wanting to be able to use their waterways freely and unencumbered.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
We are clear that for a peaceful solution to this conflict there must be a political horizon towards a two-state solution. Britain will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when it best serves the objective of peace. Bilateral recognition alone cannot end the occupation.
Hannah Bardell
Given the evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel, and now recognition by the International Court of Justice of the risk of genocide being committed by Israel, have the UK Government sought to ascertain what the Israeli military objective is in Gaza, and does the Minister agree with the motion tabled by the Scottish National party at the Council of Europe last week, supported by nine nations and 20 members, that an immediate ceasefire and a resettlement scheme for those bombed out of Gaza by Israel are absolutely essential?
Mr Mitchell
I have not seen the motion tabled by the SNP—and I probably would not agree with it if I had. We are always focused on addressing the points that the hon. Lady has made. When it comes to the International Court of Justice, and indeed international humanitarian law, the Government’s view is not the same as hers, but she may rest assured that we keep these things under very close review.
David Linden
There is now a live ongoing investigation by the ICJ into genocide in Gaza. Given the British Government’s reluctance thus far to recognise the state of Palestine, does the Minister not understand that failure to do so will soon result in the UK Government just recognising a cemetery?
Mr Mitchell
The Government’s position—and indeed, I believe, the position of those on the Opposition Front Bench—has always been clear: we should recognise the state of Palestine when the time is right. The Foreign Secretary last night added some further words to that commitment, but that is the commitment of the British Government.
Chris Law
Last night the Foreign Secretary indicated that the UK Government will consider recognising the Palestinian state in order
“to give the Palestinian people a political horizon so that they can see that there is going to be irreversible progress to a two-state solution”.
Can the Minister explain how that is possible when both the Israeli National Security Minister and the Finance Minister have advocated using the ongoing war as an opportunity to permanently resettle Palestinians from Gaza and establish Israeli settlements there, and the Israeli Prime Minister has openly said he is proud to have prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state?
Mr Mitchell
The Foreign Secretary was making it clear that we need a credible route to a Palestinian state and the offer of a new future. It is very important to lift people’s eyes to the possibilities once a political track is established. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that progress has been made. Progress that was made at Oslo took place on the back of appalling events when people reached for a political solution. The same is true of what followed the second intifada. The aim of the British Government is to get a sustainable ceasefire and move to that political track.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s comments about a big leap forward are noble—I recognise that—but as long as Hamas, who believe not in a two-state solution but in killing and raping Jews, cling on in Gaza; as Fatah is barely able to control the west bank; and as Israel is still in trauma, still trying to get 130 hostages, including babies, back from Gaza, what does he think that talk about early recognition of Palestinian statehood can achieve?
Mr Mitchell
I recognise the voracity of what my right hon. Friend says, but there is no change in the policy. He is right that Hamas must agree to the release of all hostages, that Hamas can no longer be in charge of Gaza, and that we need an agreement to provide governance, service and security there, which will involve the Palestinian Authority. The Foreign Secretary, in his meetings with President Abbas last week, sought to advance that agenda.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
On Sunday, a third of Knesset Members attended a conference calling for the return of settlements to Gaza and to the north of the occupied west bank. Some of those Members have also asked for a voluntary migration of Palestinians from Gaza, with Israel taking over control. Does the Minister agree that that is not in the best interests of Israel and that there should be a return to the pre-1967 borders, with both countries working together to maintain peace in the interests of their citizens?
Mr Mitchell
Yes, I do. The only viable long-term pathway is a two-state solution based on 1967 lines, with Jerusalem as a shared capital, that guarantees security and stability for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Surely the only political objective in Gaza is inextricably linked to the security objectives, because the grim reality is that Hamas do not seek a ceasefire, and Israel cannot be reasonably expected to pursue one with a group who actively seek its destruction, not least the commitment made by a senior Hamas official, Ghazi Hamad, who recently said:
“We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do this again and again”,
and that the 7 October massacre was
“just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth.”
The only political solution must be the elimination of Hamas and the release of the hostages.
Mr Mitchell
That is why the Government have made it clear that calls for a ceasefire on its own will simply not work. First, Israel absolutely has the right of self-defence, to address and deal with the cause of the terrible events of 7 October. Secondly, Hamas have made it absolutely clear that they do not want a ceasefire; they want to replicate the events that took place on 7 October.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
For a decade now, the Labour party has supported Palestinian recognition. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has said,
“statehood is not in the gift of a neighbour. It is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people.”
I welcome the Foreign Secretary adopting that position and rejecting the notion that recognition can only follow the conclusion of negotiations. After the unacceptable comments by Prime Minister Netanyahu, does the Prime Minister agree that no country has a veto over the UK’s decision to recognise Palestine?
Mr Mitchell
I can tell the shadow Foreign Secretary that we will pursue the policy that we think is right. The Foreign Secretary set out clearly in his remarks last night the importance of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future. In respect of the conversations that the Foreign Secretary will have had last week with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I cannot trade the details across the House, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Secretary will have represented the British position with Prime Minister Netanyahu, whom he knows very well, with great accuracy.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Palestinian recognition is an inalienable right, not a privilege to be conferred by others. Although I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary say last night that the UK,
“with allies, will look at the issue of recognising a Palestinian state”,
I feel we have been here before, most notably in 2014. Given Netanyahu’s categorical rejection of a Palestinian state, what are the next steps? When will we hear about them, and how confident can we be that we will not be sitting here in another 10 years, wishing we had acted to prevent a genocide?
Mr Mitchell
It is not easy to sustain the view that we have been here before—at least not to this extent. The British Government’s policy has been clear on the recognition of the state of Palestine. We are working extremely hard in the region and more widely internationally to secure a political track. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that that will be in the mix once that political track is able to start.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
We are committed to spending £1.5 billion on climate adaptation by 2025.
Wera Hobhouse
Extreme weather is already causing huge devastation, especially in the poorest communities across the world, who are also the least likely to find investors or to borrow from global financial institutions. At COP28 there was a breakthrough, and a loss and damage fund has finally been established. However, the money for the UK’s contribution will come from pre-existing climate finance commitments and the development budget. Should the Government, in the spirit of what the loss and damage fund represents, not establish a new, ringfenced loss and damage budget that is not taken from other budgets?
Mr Mitchell
We did support setting up the loss and damage fund at COP28 and we contributed specifically towards it. However, it is important that loss and damage does not draw from the same donors and the same official development assistance budgets as other development. It has to be different. It was because the UAE, as a non-traditional donor, put in $100 million to that fund that Britain was willing to support it, but we need new and different donors and new and different sources of funds.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I welcome the extremely important work the Government are doing in protecting vulnerable communities around the world. Will the Minister confirm to me that the £3 billion that the Government have committed for saving nature will be used on some of the very vulnerable habitat sites and animals around the world, such as those Environmental Audit Committee saw on a recent visit to Antarctica? Will he particularly think about whales, fur seals and of course the emperor penguin?
Mr Mitchell
I will think about all the mammals my hon. Friend has mentioned. I can assure him that our commitment is to biodiversity and to nature. We recognise the great importance of the work being done in the Antarctic, and indeed the contribution that he makes to that.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
From the floods to the fires, from melting ice sheets to ocean heat, the climate crisis is reaching a tipping point. Labour has a plan at home: doubling onshore wind, trebling solar and ending new oil and gas licences in the North sea. Labour has a plan internationally: a clean power alliance of developed and developing countries to drive forward the transition. Is it not the truth that the Government have no plan and have squandered Britain’s climate reputation to wage culture wars at home?
Mr Mitchell
The reason the Government were able to reduce the size of electricity bills for hard-working families was precisely because we are meeting our targets and will meet our international commitments. Britain’s international targets and commitments are enshrined in law as a result of the activities of this House. Internationally we are committed, as the right hon. Gentleman knows and as was set out to the House towards the end of last year, to spending £11.6 billion on ensuring that we meet our climate targets and produce climate finance. I would argue that that figure will be nearer £16 billion by 2026.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The Government recently set out our commitments on developing country debt in our international development White Paper.
Preet Kaur Gill
The main mechanism to tackle the debt crisis, the common framework for debt treatment, is failing due to the low level of participation by private creditors who own around 40% of low-income country debt. Does the Minister agree that there is strategic need for the United Kingdom to take debt reduction seriously and change its approach, given the crisis in Africa and the growing role of China and Russia in the developing world?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is right to point to the considerable difficulties that countries are finding. Some 15% of low-income countries are in debt distress, and 45% are at higher risk of that. The African Development Bank says that debt repayments in 2024 are likely to be six times the level of 2021. That is why Britain is working with other creditors to secure debt restructurings, most often through the G20 common framework, but also through the Paris Club.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The Government are engaging extensively to prevent an escalation of conflict in the middle east. The Prime Minister spoke to President Biden last week about that specific issue.
Alex Cunningham
I think we can all understand the anger towards Israel for the way it is systematically demolishing Gaza and needlessly killing so many of the people, as well as the need for it to be properly held to account. Does the Minister recognise that we must do everything to protect against others joining the conflict, and that activities such as those against the Houthis must also be proportionate and accompanied by more diplomatic work across the region to stop wholesale killing?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is right to make clear that all of us seek that there should not be an escalation of this conflict in the middle east. That is why right at the start Britain moved military assets to the eastern end of the Mediterranean. More recently, as he alluded to, we are expressing strong support for freedom of navigation on the high seas, stopping attacks by the Houthis. We are degrading their capacity to carry out their attacks, and have made clear that we will not accept that challenge to international freedom of the sea.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
One problem with the middle east is the sense of hopelessness among the Palestinian people, which is fuelling terrorist outrages. What steps can the Government take with our American friends to try to put pressure on the Israeli state to stop the imposition of new settlements in the west bank, so that we can gradually reduce tensions in the whole region? Is that not the way forward?
Mr Mitchell
We have made it clear that the settlements are illegal and should not have gone ahead and should not go ahead. On the wider point, we are working closely with our American friends and others through the superb diplomatic network that Britain possesses, to try to lift people’s eyes and move to the day after, when a political track can start. That is the answer to my right hon. Friend’s question—the political track, which can then start to offer hope in resolving this dreadful and long-standing problem.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Today the middle east is in danger of seeing a major escalation of conflict, and whether it is in Gaza, the Red sea, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria or Jordan, we are seeing aggression. If there is a common denominator in those conflicts, it is the malign influence of Iran, usually through its proxies. What are the Government doing to disrupt and stop the disruptive activities of Iran?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a meeting recently with the Iranian Foreign Minister to set out Britain’s view of and requirements from the relationship with Iran, and I think that was a most useful contact to have. The Foreign Secretary is in the region today, trying to ensure that the very points behind this question are accepted and honoured. We are working extensively with Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, Israel, Saudi Arabia and America. Those discussions are ongoing, and will address the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
Since February 2020 the UK has committed £357 million of humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. In response to winter we scaled up humanitarian support with additional funding to provide cash assistance, insulation, and support for energy and heating. The Foreign Secretary’s first overseas visit was to Ukraine. He continues to set out the UK ambition to international partners and did so in November during NATO and OSCE gatherings, and most recently at Davos, where he met Foreign Minister Kuleba.
Mark Eastwood
Tim Bamford, our local councillor for Denby Dale, has devoted his own time and expense to making several potentially dangerous excursions, driving a truck to deliver essential humanitarian aid to war-torn Ukraine alongside volunteers from the Yorkshire Aid Convoy. Will the Minister join me in thanking Tim—who is sitting in the Public Gallery—and all the fantastic team at the Yorkshire Aid Convoy for everything that they are doing to help the Ukrainian people, and wish them a safe journey for their next trip in March?
Leo Docherty
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in thanking Tim and Tina Bamford, both of whom are in the Public Gallery. The response of the British people to the tragedy in Ukraine has been remarkable and hugely generous, and we salute the courage and generosity of spirit shown by the commendable actions of the Yorkshire Aid Convoy.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
There are many billions of Russian assets frozen by western nations, and there is a strong moral case for Ukraine to use those assets to repel Russia’s aggression and rebuild its own economy. What progress has the Department made in talking to other nations to make that a reality?
Leo Docherty
I agree that there is a strong moral case for using Russian assets to repair the damage that Russia has wrought on Ukraine. We are clear about the fact that Russia should pay, and we continue to assess what legal path there might be to achieving that end.
Judith Cummins
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recently said:
“I think the big difference from last year to this year is that this year…There is somehow a trend towards getting used to Ukrainian suffering.”
It is more than 200 days since the Opposition tabled a motion necessitating Government legislation to bring about the full seizure and repurposing of Russian state assets within 90 days, but no plan has yet been forthcoming. Why are the Government so out of step with our allies and partners in this regard?
Leo Docherty
We are not out of step; we are leading the pack, and have been doing so for the last two years. Our resolve is shown by our own financial commitment but also by our permanent commitment to the UK-Ukraine relationship, which was demonstrated when the Prime Minister signed the UK-Ukraine agreement on security co-operation at the start of the year. We are in it for the long haul.
Richard Foord
Tomorrow Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General of NATO, will meet representatives of the Heritage Foundation, a Republican-leaning think-tank. He will meet allies of former President Trump in an effort to unlock $60 billion of funding for Ukraine. What efforts are the Government making to persuade Trump’s allies, and what contingency planning are they doing with our European allies for a scenario in which Trump and his allies are not persuaded?
Leo Docherty
Ministers engage constantly with counterparts around the world, including those in the US. When it comes to the NATO response, we have seen NATO expand and grow in the last two years. Putin thought it was weak, but it is now bigger and stronger than it was in 2022.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The International Monetary Fund estimates that Ukraine needs $37 billion this year just to manage the books. There is a special European Council meeting on Thursday to sign off a package of €50 billion in aid to Ukraine. The UK Government have been part of that coalition, so can the Minister assure us that Ukraine fatigue will not set in here? There is backing across the House for the continuation of these supportive efforts, and surely the most effective way to get aid to Ukraine is to transfer the seized Russian assets to finance for Ukraine’s reconstruction.
Leo Docherty
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we feel no fatigue when it comes to our Ukraine policy. We have exceeded last year’s commitment in terms of lethal aid, and we will be contributing a huge amount of other aid and economic support. Since 2022, our total humanitarian, economic and military support has risen to more than £12 billion, which I think demonstrates that our resolve is unflagging.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) about the attitude towards the Ukraine fight, and indeed towards NATO, of certain elements on the American political scene. Will our Foreign Office team do everything in their power to impress on our American allies that the peace of Europe depends on unquestionable American support for the NATO alliance in the future, just as it did in the past?
Leo Docherty
We continue to make that point to all our interlocutors. I should also say that we continue to make the point to all NATO member states that investing 2% of GDP in defence expenditure is a condition of membership.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I met the Leeds Ukrainian community in my constituency this weekend to hear about the desperate needs of war-torn Ukrainian citizens. With the Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán continuing to veto the EU’s £50 billion aid package to Ukraine, what diplomatic steps is the Minister taking to encourage Hungary to play its part in supporting Ukraine’s fight for freedom?
Leo Docherty
We are very active in our diplomacy with Hungary and neighbouring states. I was actually in Slovakia last week, talking about a similar set of issues. Diplomacy does matter and our judgment is that, in the end, Mr Orbán will do the right thing.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
The Foreign Secretary has made it clear to his Iranian counterpart that Iran must stop using regional instability as cover to act recklessly. He and Lord Ahmad have also underlined to Pakistan’s Foreign Minister the importance of avoiding further escalation. We welcome Iran and Pakistan’s subsequent commitment to dialogue in a joint statement released on 22 January, confirming that ambassadors will return to post, and we continue to monitor the situation.
Jonathan Edwards
As the Minister said, diplomatic efforts have eased tensions following the exchange of missiles earlier this month. However, the Minister will be aware that, over the weekend, Iranian gunmen murdered nine Pakistanis in the Iranian city of Saravan. The fact that both countries have launched air strikes against each other indicates how fragile the situation is in the middle east, and how interconnected acts of war and violence are across the whole region. How will the British Government ensure that their own actions do not escalate tensions?
David Rutley
As I said, Iran must stop using regional instability as cover to carry out its reckless acts. We recognise that it bears responsibility for any further escalation, and we are looking at all the tools that we have to bear down on the Iranian regime, including sanctions.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
We continue to press Eritrea bilaterally and at the UN Human Rights Council to end human rights violations. It may come as a surprise to the House to hear that Eritrea is an elected member of the UN Human Rights Council.
Patrick Grady
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Eritrea, I often hear the country described as the North Korea of Africa. Young people are conscripted indefinitely, and critics of the regime are arbitrarily detained and disappeared. Does the Minister agree that that perhaps explains why over 90% of asylum claims from Eritreans in the UK are granted by the Home Office? What more can the Government do to take steps to ensure an end to human rights abuses in Eritrea and elsewhere in the horn of Africa, which are push factors behind irregular arrivals in the UK?
Mr Mitchell
I think the hon. Gentleman pulls his punches; it is worse than he said. Eritrea ranks towards the bottom of the world press freedom index. We urge Eritrea to allow the UN special rapporteur for human rights access to the country, and we also seek the full withdrawal of Eritrean troops from northern Ethiopia, in accordance with the Pretoria peace agreement.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
We must not forget the abuses that are happening in neighbouring Sudan. Over 7 million people have been internally displaced, with 20 million in desperate need of humanitarian aid. Last night, the International Criminal Court prosecutor told the UN Security Council that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both the Sudan armed forces and the rapid support forces are committing atrocious crimes in Darfur. What hope does the Minister have that we can end the impunity, stop the rapes, murder and pillage, and bring peace to the people of Sudan?
Mr Mitchell
We are calling for an immediate ceasefire. There were talks in Addis before Christmas. We seek progress through the United Nations, where we hold the pen on Sudan, and also through the Troika, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and the African Union. We are doing everything we can to end the appalling situation in Sudan, which my right hon. Friend has just described with great eloquence.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The UK works closely with the international community including the G7 and G20 and through the UN to protect the human rights of all of Afghanistan’s people and to co-ordinate a consistent international response. In December my colleague the Minister for South Asia in the other place raised the recent attacks on Hazaras with the UN assistance mission in Afghanistan.
Rosie Duffield
Last week the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) and I met members of our respective Hazara communities. They also regularly attend the all-party parliamentary group on Hazaras, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow). My concern is that the kidnaps, rapes and persecution that the Taliban regularly use against the Hazara women and girls largely go unreported due to a lack of diplomacy or to journalists being unable to access the region. Would the Minister or a member of her team be prepared to meet those whose families are still stranded in the region and are subject to what is essentially the ethnic cleansing of the Hazara people?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Lady sets out some of the shocking issues that we know about. Indeed, Daesh claimed responsibility for the November attacks and we are continuing to see these challenges. I will happily take back her question to my colleague, and I am sure that he will be happy to meet them.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Since the summer of 2021, when the hopes and dreams of so many women and girls in Afghanistan were snuffed out, we have been struggling to get a strategy together. For 20 years the UK, international partners and Afghans themselves fought for a more hopeful future for women and girls. Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken with international partners to develop a sustained strategy for working in the region so that we can regain a sense of hope for the 40 million Afghans left behind to a future devoid of opportunity?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Lady highlights the frustration that we all feel. We are working closely with international partners at a number of levels to ensure credible monitoring not only of the violence and threats against religious minorities but of the challenges for women and girls across the piece. We co-sponsored a Human Rights Council resolution extending the mandate of the UN special rapporteur to monitor and report on the human rights situation, to try to make decisions together on how to tackle it.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Government set out their approach to China in the integrated review refresh last year. We must continue to engage with China to work towards open, constructive and stable relations to manage disagreements, defend our freedoms and co-operate where our interests align. The Foreign Secretary spoke with China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi on 5 December in pursuit of those objectives.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The results of economic modelling from the Rhodium Group, the RAND Corporation and, earlier this month, Bloomberg on the impact on global GDP of either an economic blockade by China on Taiwan or a full-scale invasion, are horrifying. Am I right that the Government have done their own economic modelling for both those scenarios? If so, will the Minister publish it?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Gentleman highlights the importance of understanding and planning for such economic coercion. This is an area of policy that sits within my portfolio in the FCDO. Across Government, we currently have a lot of focus on thinking about how we can build resilience in UK interests and support partners.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The Government are pursuing vital British national interest priorities. We are supporting Ukraine, and the Prime Minster has announced a further package of military support. We support Israel’s right to self-defence and are working towards a sustainable ceasefire and tackling the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. We continue strongly to support freedom of navigation on the high seas and to seek to make progress on Sudan. We are implementing the international development White Paper, which has been well received around the world. I continue to deputise for the Foreign Secretary in this House and regularly seek to keep the House updated.
Ian Byrne
The United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food, Michael Fakhri, said at the weekend that more than 2 million people in Gaza were facing “inevitable famine”. Now that the Government have opted to halt funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, how do they intend to ensure that the urgently needed humanitarian aid—as called for in the International Court of Justice ruling last week and which was central to the ruling—will continue to be delivered to the innocent men, women and children in Gaza, who must have a right to food?
Mr Mitchell
As I set out, the Government’s highest immediate priority is to ensure that aid and humanitarian support get into Gaza. We are relentlessly pursuing that objective. I have set out where we are on UNRWA, but there is no immediate effect on the food that it seeks to deliver in Gaza today.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Although I cannot comment in detail on future ministerial plans, I assure my hon. Friend that the UK Government have a broad and deep partnership with the Government of India. The Foreign Secretary has ambitions to further strengthen that relationship through trade and wider people-to-people relationships in defence, science and technology. On 13 November, in his first bilateral meeting, the Foreign Secretary discussed some of these issues with External Affairs Minister Jaishankar.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Access to critical minerals is vital as we face a climate and energy crisis, but this Government have repeatedly disregarded Latin America and ignored its potential. Will the Minister commit to working with countries such as Chile, Brazil, Peru and Mexico to deliver these essential supplies for a green energy transition?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
Both sides of the House agree that this is an important issue, and I can assure the hon. Lady that we are working very hard. I have raised the importance of critical minerals on my visits to all those countries, and not least on my recent visit to Bolivia.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend, the former Chairman of the Defence Committee, is absolutely right to focus on these threats. The Foreign Secretary recently said that all the lights on the global dashboard are flashing red. The Government know that the first duty of the state is to defend and protect its citizens from external aggression, and my right hon. Friend may rest assured that that will continue to be our highest priority.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Mr Mitchell
The American Government and the British Government have made it absolutely clear that they do not wish to see this conflict escalate more widely. Equally, the hon. Gentleman will accept that no country can accept with equanimity the appalling deaths of those American soldiers.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
British citizen Vladimir Kara-Murza has been moved from a Siberian prison to an unknown location, having endured four months of isolation. Why? Because his voice of freedom is such a threat to Putin. Vladimir has been poisoned twice and, under Russian law, should not even be in prison. What progress has been made on locating Vladimir and getting him released, so that we do not see him die in prison? What have we done to appoint a lead director for arbitrary detention?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
As the Foreign Secretary has said, we are deeply concerned about the reports that Mr Kara-Murza has been moved from the penal colony in Omsk to an unknown location. We are urgently following up to ascertain his whereabouts. Of course, Ministers have consistently condemned his politically motivated conviction and have called for his release, both publicly and privately. We will continue to do that at every opportunity. We have sanctioned 13 individuals in response to this case. I have met Mrs Kara-Murza and, of course, the Foreign Secretary has offered to meet her to discuss the case with officials in due course.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right in her analysis of what is happening in Sudan—throughout Sudan, and in particular in Darfur—where there is clear evidence of crimes against humanity being committed. Britain holds the pen at the United Nations, as I said earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). We work through regional and international alliances. We are clear that Sudan needs a comprehensive ceasefire and then movement back on to a political track, where former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok will play an increasingly important role.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Today is World Neglected Tropical Diseases Day and as I am sure the Minister is well aware, malaria affects more than 250 million people every year and causes the death of a child every minute. Given the news that the British-backed R21 vaccination has gained pre-qualification at the World Health Organisation, what commitment will my right hon. Friend give towards further support, including through the next replenishment of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance?
Mr Mitchell
Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the Jenner Institute at Oxford to see the remarkable people who made that progress. Every day, malaria kills entirely unnecessarily more than 1,000 children under five and pregnant women. Thanks to that brilliant British invention and technology, I hope very much that we will be able to make malaria history within the foreseeable future.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Mr Mitchell
The Government have been very clear about the position with UNRWA. We cannot overlook the appalling events that have been reported, but we are seeking to ensure that they are properly investigated. Britain has no additional funding plans for this financial year. We have already funded UNRWA, as have others, so I have no doubt that UNRWA’s support, getting food to those who desperately need it, will continue, but we cannot ignore the information that was brought to our attention.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I spent yesterday with NATO. One significant concern expressed to me was the acute need for the US to fulfil its commitment to Ukraine in 2024. Ahead of the Washington summit, will the Minister assure me that every effort will be taken to leverage political pressure on our allies and to secure the necessary support, for which we are very grateful?
Leo Docherty
On the road to Washington, we continue to make that point. The US will continue to be an integral part of European security, as will other European member states of NATO, which should ensure that they commit to their equal and required expenditure of 2%.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Mr Mitchell
We talk continually to the surrounding countries and have given specific support to Chad in dealing with people coming over the border. The situation in Sudan that the hon. Lady describes is absolutely appalling, with nearly 18 million people urgently needing food. If she wishes to discuss her specific cases with me and the Foreign Office, we should do so straight after Question Time.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
This year marks the 120th anniversary of the signing of the entente cordiale with France, 80 years since D-day and 30 years since the opening of the Channel tunnel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an incredibly important moment to reinvigorate that important bilateral relationship?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend will have seen the stratospheric improvement in relations with France and its President that have taken place under our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He and I were celebrating 120 years of the entente cordiale at the French residence last week. I have no doubt that that relationship, especially now, is in excellent condition.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady has raised a most important matter. Women bear the brunt of poverty, conflict and starvation. That is why the British Government have made it clear, particularly in the White Paper, that this matter remains a top priority. The White Paper announced £38 million of additional spending to support women’s rights organisations. As we know, women’s rights are under threat all around the world, and we are doing everything we can to support girls and women.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
As new heartbreaking testimonies of Hamas’s use of sexual violence and rape come to light from survivors of the 7 October attack, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the silence of many international organisations, such as the International Red Cross, on that appalling issue?
Mr Mitchell
I hope that my hon. Friend will draw strength and satisfaction from the fact that the British Government are not silent on that very important matter.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
David Rutley
I thank the hon. Member for that question on an important subject close to the heart of several people in the Chamber. I assure her that there is ongoing engagement with, of course, President Ali in Guyana, but also all the regional players. I have personally had conversations with Brazil, Colombia, the Commonwealth and the United States to keep the focus on that area, and Maduro’s plans at bay.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
What assessment have the Government made of the threat to the future of the Baltic states if Putin is seen to succeed in seizing territory permanently from Ukraine?
Leo Docherty
The Baltic states are on the frontline, and we therefore take great pride in the enhanced forward presence in the Baltic states, which includes our magnificent men and women in Tapa. That is part of our enduring physical presence to ensure that NATO has security on the ground. The matter is sharply in focus.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
As the death toll rises in Gaza, so does the misery of women and girls in the occupied territories. I am increasingly concerned that aid is not getting to them. The United Nations says that there is a chronic aid access problem, and that women are having caesarean sections without anaesthetic. What is going on? Is the aid not getting to them? What steps is the Department taking to ensure that it does?
Mr Mitchell
Tackling this is Britain’s central aim; the aim is to get humanitarian aid into Gaza, but also to ensure that there is a plan on the west bank to take forward a political initiative. Everything that we are doing is bent on trying to get the aid that is in the region through the narrow entrances into Gaza. We will continue to do that.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Minister has said several times in the last few days that the Government’s decision to suspend funding for UNRWA should not affect that agency’s ability to deliver immediate aid in the region. If it transpires in the days and weeks ahead that the opposite is the case and the agency is being compromised, will the Government immediately review their decision?
Mr Mitchell
Yesterday, I spoke to the head of UNRWA, Philippe Lazzarini. I made the point that it is essential that his review—which of course he is not conducting; the UN is conducting it—is completed as fast as possible for the reasons the hon. Gentleman set out. I am reasonably confident that it can be conducted within the next two months, and the British Government are watching this carefully.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have undertaken any further military action in Yemen since 11 January? If so, will he clarify whether the Government’s long-term plan includes committing to sustained military action in one of the poorest countries of the world?
Mr Mitchell
We are careful to ensure that our response to the Houthis in Yemen is proportionate and right. We are conscious of the importance of getting food into Yemen to feed people who are starving. That process is hindered by the grossly irresponsible acts of the Houthi terrorists.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Yasin Malik, a political leader of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, was given a life sentence in 2022. The Indian authorities appealed that sentence last year, seeking the death penalty, and the judgment is due on 14 February. Given the UK’s long-standing opposition to the death penalty, what discussions has the Minister had with the Indian authorities about this important case?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We always continue to make it clear that we disagree with the death penalty. My colleague the Minister for South Asia raised this issue most recently on 10 January, and we continue to highlight it. I know that he would be happy to discuss the case with the hon. Lady, if she wishes.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Foreign Office recorded over 500 deaths of UK nationals in Thailand in 2022, some 135 of which were of undetermined cause. In 2022 and the 10 years before then, no murders were recorded of UK nationals in Thailand. My constituent’s son was murdered in Thailand in 2019. Does the Minister still maintain that UK nationals do not get murdered in Thailand?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We work closely with Thailand, and our officials in the country, led by our ambassador, do a great deal of work around these difficult issues when they arise. I have picked up some of the consular cases myself. If there are specific issues that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise, I am happy to meet him to discuss them.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I have 10 and 11-year-old constituents—British citizens—who are stuck in the Israeli fire zone in southern Lebanon. The Foreign Office is urging them to return to the UK, but as their mother is not a British citizen, the Home Office is preventing that. Will the Minister help me to persuade the Home Office to relent on this issue?
Mr Mitchell
I am happy to look at the case that the hon. Gentleman raises immediately after Question Time, if that is convenient to him. The Foreign Secretary is in the region today, not far away from the country that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and I am sure that we will be able to advance the talks that are going on.
Telegraph Media Group: Proposed Sale to RedBird IMI
(9 months, 3 weeks 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
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the proposed sale of the Telegraph Media Group to RedBird IMI.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the urgent question for the second time in as many days. This is a media-focused day for me, as I will take the Media Bill through its remaining stages straight after the urgent question, so forgive me if one has made me insufficiently prepared for the other, or vice versa.
I am in the frustrating circumstance that I can say only what is publicly known and nothing of the specifics in answer to questions about the ownership of the Telegraph Media Group, which contains two of the world’s greatest newspapers—The Sunday Telegraph and The Daily Telegraph—and, in The Spectator, the oldest surviving weekly magazine in the world.
As hon. Members will be aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has issued a public interest intervention notice in respect of the anticipated acquisition of the group by RB Investco Ltd, further to the notice issued in November in respect of the RedBird IMI media joint venture, which remains in force. She is leading this process and examining it in great detail and with great care, but it is a quasi-judicial process, involving the Competition and Markets Authority, which looks at jurisdictional and competition matters, and Ofcom, which will be reporting to her on public interest considerations in relation to the media, expressly accurate presentation of the news and free expression of opinion. Both reports will be returned on 11 March.
My right hon. and learned Friend, as a very assiduous and diligent KC, is making sure that I, as Media Minister, am absolutely excluded from the process, because that is what it demands. I am not permitted to know about the scrutiny that is under way, or to interfere with it. She is also not permitted to take into account any political or presentational concerns in her deliberations, and we would not wish to cause there to be any chink of light here that would leave the process open to judicial review. That leaves me in an unenviable position: I face understandable expert probing by hon. Members, to whom I can offer no answer beyond what is in the public domain. However, this urgent question is as much an opportunity for hon. Members to make their concerns clear and their views known, as it is an opportunity for me to answer them. So I say: be heard, loud and clear.
Straight after this urgent question, I will take the Media Bill through its remaining stages and make the case for that legislation in broad terms. I will argue that a free media, not interfered with by Government or indeed Governments, able to articulate and reflect a broad range of views, free to speak and create, and able to project to the world what democracy, a plurality of views and debate truly mean, is something important that we should value. In many respects, it underpins what we mean by a free society. Of course, we all know that; it is something that we repeat, automaton-like, in a way that risks giving rise to complacency. However, as I watch the actions of authoritarian states in these times of turbulence; as I see western democracies in a knot of angst over our values; and as I see our populations question, from the safety of these shores, whether our values still matter, I am reminded of the need to make that case again and again.
I cannot speak to the specific media ownership question—I know hon. Members will understand that, and will help me keep within the tramlines—but I can speak about media freedom; the need for media to be separate from political and Government interference; the importance of a British voice, domestically and internationally; and the pride we can feel in media institutions, such as those in the Telegraph Media Group, some of which date back two centuries and drove changes in this nation as profound as the Great Reform Act. To this day, those who write for those institutions ask questions of us all with a rare inquisitiveness and preoccupation with truth. [Interruption.] I shall finish shortly. I will be hearing—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please do not tell me what you are going to do. I am in charge of the time. You are way over, and I expect you now to finish quickly.
Julia Lopez
I apologise, Mr Speaker, for over-speaking. I will listen to the points made, in the broadest of terms, and I suspect that I may agree with many of them.
Alicia Kearns
Thank you for granting this important urgent question, Mr Speaker. The Minister hits the nail on the head when she says that this is about freedom from Government interference, although it is quite something for us to start this urgent question knowing that we will get no answer to any of our questions. We have a proud tradition of a fiercely independent press in our country—a press who hold us to account in this place, and shine a light on misbehaviour and misdoings here and abroad. Yet a paper of record, The Daily Telegraph, and The Spectator, the longest-running magazine in the world and my personal podcast of choice, will be purchased by a foreign state. The concern here is about not foreign ownership, but foreign state ownership; in this situation, we cannot separate sheikh and state. Those are our concerns.
More broadly, I worry that we have allowed our media—critical national infrastructure for our democracy—to fall between the cracks. Our Defending Democracy Taskforce looks only at electoral concerns, and the National Security and Investment Act 2021 deals with 17 sectors, none of which is the media. We therefore have no protections against this sort of situation.
I have four questions that I hope the Minister will at least attempt to answer—I appreciate the restrictions that are in place. First, are there any examples from around the world of a nation with differing media values, to put it politely, acquiring the newspaper of another country? Secondly, will the Government commit to a national security investigation of these purchases? Thirdly, do the Government not recognise that their intervention in the United Arab Emirates’ purchase of Vodafone sets a precedent allowing them to intervene in this case? Finally, will they look either to extend the Defending Democracy Taskforce or those 17 sectors, to ensure that we can protect our media? We are dealing with something that will make us vulnerable not for five or 10 years, but for the rest of our lives, and we cannot afford for our media to be undermined.
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for her questions. As she is aware, a public interest intervention notice has been issued in this case, which means that I am not able to speak to a number of the points that will likely be raised. However, powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 allow us to look into acquisitions of this nature and to examine issues of media freedom of expression. We also have powers under the National Security Act 2023; the Cabinet Office has a role there. That will allow the Culture Secretary to look at some of the questions that my hon. Friend raises.
There will now be an investigation by not only the Competition and Markets Authority, but Ofcom, which will look into all these questions in great detail. That will allow the Secretary of State to make a judgment on what action she takes next. There may potentially be a longer investigation, after which she could be offered particular remedies, or could prevent a transaction. However, at this stage, I cannot speculate on what action she is likely to take.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I am frustrated with the Minister. I want to thank her for her answer, but frankly, it was not an answer. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, asked perfectly reasonable questions, which did not go into the specifics and zoomed out to the general, yet we still have no answers. A strong and independent free press is a cornerstone of democracy. We have a long history of that in the UK; The Spectator is the oldest magazine in the world. It is the responsibility of Government, regardless of their political persuasion or the newspaper under discussion, to safeguard the freedom to scrutinise, to expose wrongdoing and to speak truth to power.
We on these Benches recognise the legitimate public interest concerns raised over the proposed acquisition of the Telegraph Media Group, including about the accurate presentation of news, free expression of opinion in newspapers and the competition issues. I welcome the fact that the Government have asked further questions, and I await the conclusions of the investigations by the Competition and Markets Authority and Ofcom in full. But The Telegraph has been up for sale for months—the Secretary of State issued her first public interest intervention notice on 30 November. This process is ongoing. Employees at The Telegraph and The Spectator have been left in limbo, and senior journalists have expressed significant concerns.
Can the Minister tell the House why the Secretary of State has granted an extension to the deadline by which she expects to receive reports from Ofcom and the CMA in relation to the PIIN? I am sure she cannot, but I am just going to ask anyway. Can the Minister tell the House—this is a general one, so maybe she can—whether, in the light of the proposed sale, she has any plans to review the existing rules on media ownership? Has she or the Secretary of State considered that or had any conversations with colleagues about it?
With a general election approaching, in a significant year for democracy across the world and with record numbers of people going to the polls, the freedom of the press has never been more important. Now is not the time for the Government to have no answers or to be asleep at the wheel.
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for her rather hyperbolic intervention. We are having a debate because two public interest intervention notices have been issued. The Government take their powers in this respect seriously, and the Competition and Markets Authority and Ofcom will be given the space and time to look into all these issues in detail. Those notices were issued because the Secretary of State takes the issues of media freedom and the ownership of important British media institutions extremely seriously.
I therefore ask the hon. Lady to help us. Those investigations are under way; we must not prejudice them and must ensure they are watertight. The important question of media ownership is something that all Members of this House care about. It would be regrettable if I were to say anything in this Chamber that should prejudice that process, so I say again to the hon. Lady that action has been taken, it is something the Government take seriously, and I ask her to let the process take its course.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is hugely new for us to be told that we will not get our questions answered at the Dispatch Box. We are used to that happening anyway, but it is good to be told that it is a waste of our time being here in the first place.
To press on with not being answered, I say to the Minister that I and 28 others, across all parties, wrote a letter to her Department specifying that we were all opposed to this potential takeover. We made it clear that we are not opposed to it because we dislike that particular Government—although I have to say that that may well be a feature. Rather, we would oppose it if the French Government wished to buy the newspapers, or even if this Government decided they would control them. We would oppose that on the basis that it would trample right across the idea of freedom of the press.
Following the notice that has gone to the CMA, I simply ask the Minister whether she would ask the Secretary of State to create a new PIIN on the basis that RedBird IMI has twice disrupted the Government’s efforts to properly scrutinise the purchase. Particularly with the idea of debt being loaded into the purchase, we need a further detailed investigation. I would be grateful if the Minister did that, because this could easily turn into a disaster for this Government.
Julia Lopez
I did not say I would give no answers; I said I would be able to give general answers, and my right hon. Friend will understand why. These are very precise processes that must be kept watertight, and I would not want to do anything to prejudice them or the Secretary of State’s ability to act in a way that is in the interests of this country and the media. This is not a waste of time. It is an opportunity for this House to make its voice and opinions known on what is a controversial issue of great public interest—an issue that we as a Government are very interested in.
My right hon. Friend also makes the important point that his concern is not about the Government in this particular case, but about Government ownership in principle. It is something I appreciate and understand, and I am sure it will be in the Secretary of State’s mind.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
When hosting COP28, Sultan al-Jaber said that there was “no science” behind the climate change emergency. The Sultan is head of the UAE media council, and influential in the Telegraph takeover. I worked for many years as a journalist; I understand that democracy requires plurality in the media landscape. Sadly, in the UK the vast majority of titles are already skewed to the right—in Scotland, as we know, half the population support independence, but only one title supports that position. We do not want the situation worsening. I am in favour of a free, diverse and vibrant press ecosystem, and not in favour of a newspaper being owned as a loss-making public relations arm of a foreign state through access to our daily news cycle. Does the Minister agree that allowing the UAE to take over The Telegraph would be unhealthy in principle for our democracy?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an issue of principle, which I perfectly understand, as something that I speak about in relation to the BBC, and how it must have editorial independence from the Government. As a principle, I would be concerned about Government ownership of any media institution, but as he will be aware, I can speak only of principles.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When the wonderful Taylor Swift discovered that her back catalogue had been bought by a purchaser of whom she disapproved, she began to render it worthless by re-recording all her previous hits. Is that an example that journalists at The Spectator and The Telegraph might do well to follow?
Julia Lopez
I thank my right hon. Friend for his mischievous suggestion. I could not possibly comment on it, but I am sure that it has been heard.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am reeling from the comparison of Telegraph hacks with Taylor Swift. If the Minister cannot answer questions, maybe we could use this as an exercise in issuing some concerns. The National Union of Journalists’ concerns are obviously about jobs, but they are also about future editorial independence. It behoves the Minister and the Government to look at what sanctions could be used in future if agreements are reached but not kept to—Murdoch is the best example of that. In addition, I wonder whether it is time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, for a proper review of media ownership.
Julia Lopez
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for speaking on behalf of the NUJ and for raising what this means for media plurality and the ability of journalists to hold us here to account. I agree on those generalities, but I am afraid I cannot say anything more about the specifics of this case, as he will be aware. Once the process is over, I am sure there will be questions to go back to about how we best look into how our media is owned.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
For what it is worth, the proposal is said to enhance the competitive landscape, not diminish it. Does the Minister agree that this sort of decision must be made according to legal principles, not politics? It is not appropriate to consider political posturing from the left or right when deciding this important matter, which is part of the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial functions.
Julia Lopez
My right hon. and learned Friend is right to say that the Secretary of State will be under specific obligations to consider this matter without politics. Both the CMA and Ofcom will look at this carefully from a regulatory point of view. We as politicians should also have a right to some broad views about media ownership as we consider those questions. The Secretary of State is the departmental owner of culture, media and sport, and will have some considerations about how to ensure a dynamic media landscape. I am sure that she will carefully apply her legal brain to the application of those principles.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I think the House sees me for what I am, which is a shy and retiring Member. For years I have been teased in The Telegraph at the hands of Mr Alan Cochrane, and more recently in The Spectator. But that is democracy; it is the nature of the beast, and it is free speech. I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) that there is a national security implication. I think that the mood of the House is that this is simply not on—we all agree on that. The message should be passed back to the Secretary of State and to the Government that we will not wear this.
Julia Lopez
I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind me saying so, but I believe that when I last saw him, he was on his way to a Spectator Burns night party, so I hope the relationship is warm and cordial now, with no unkindness towards him from that magazine. As I said at the outset, this is a useful exercise in making the views of this House known on this matter. It is an important opportunity for Members to have their say, and I hope that they will be heard.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I must say I was amused by the Minister’s opening remarks, because I cannot recall any judicial review ever being triggered by statements in Parliament—not once. However, given that she wants a statement, not a question, in the event that the CMA and Ofcom report finds conditionally in favour in any way, she must not take the Murdoch ownership of The Times as an example, because since the sacking of its editor, that has been a failure, not a success.
Julia Lopez
As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the decision-making process is not mine. I will not be the person to make a judgment call on this matter. The CMA and Ofcom have until 11 March to issue their initial report. At that stage, undertakings can be accepted or a second stage can be opened. I am sure that all these questions will be in the Secretary of State’s mind as she makes that judgment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her answers, which are always very helpful, and we appreciate that. Can she outline if measures can and will be put in place to secure editorial freedom in the long term? We look to a nation with completely different ideals, but which has capacity to shape the media narrative and public information. How can we make sure that we retain trust?
Julia Lopez
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a public notice has been issued on this matter. Ofcom will look expressly at accurate presentation of the news and free expression of opinion when it makes its reports and judgments known. I hope that will give him some assurance about how the media considerations will be looked at, not just the competition aspects.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I fully understand the limitations on what my hon. Friend can say. Having covered for her until a few weeks ago as media Minister, I was given no inside information about this matter, either. However, she will be aware that it is now over five years since the Ofcom report to the Secretary of State that said that the internet has transformed the way that news is provided and consumed, and that there will need to be a fundamental review of the media ownership regime. Does she agree with that, and can she say whether the Government will undertake that review?
Julia Lopez
I thank my right hon. Friend for his expert cover for me. We discussed that subject in our handover, when he told me that there was no information that he could share because he was assiduous in his role and made sure that he was not involved in areas that he should not be. He asked about future ownership questions. He will be aware that we are debating the Media Bill after this urgent question. We have looked at some issues in relation to media, in particular the changing media landscape and how the internet has changed it. That has not covered all the issues that will be raised by this acquisition, but I am sure that once that the Media Bill has completed all its stages, we will be able to look afresh at the other holes in the landscape.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I appreciate that there is a limit to what the Minister can say about the potential sale of The Daily Telegraph to owners backed by the UAE, but are there any lessons for media freedom that the Government might learn from the creation of university branch campuses in the UAE, and what that has meant for freedom of speech?
Julia Lopez
I am afraid that is not a subject about which I know a great deal. I shall happily look into it and see whether there are any implications for our media landscape, but I cannot comment in relation to this specific acquisition.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the fact that we are in this position shows that clarity is needed about media ownership rules? We need a presumption against sovereign foreign states acquiring strategic UK media assets to further their influence, just as there should one be against acquisition by a foreign oligarch who might not have a commitment to the media. We need some certainty about how and where such an intervention can be made, and not purely on competition grounds.
Julia Lopez
That point has been raised by a number of hon. Members. We have tools for these kinds of acquisitions, as can be seen in the public interest intervention notices that we have imposed in this case. I reassure Members that we are not totally naked on this question; there are tools, under the Enterprise Act, that allow us to look into it. I am sure that once the process is over, we will be able to look back and say whether any further action or intervention is required.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As owners expect to have influence over editors and the editorial line, why do we not have a policy of ruling out all Government ownership of such organisations, which would make it much simpler?
Julia Lopez
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that simple point. It is one that I am sure will be considered once this case has passed.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Were a media outlet in an authoritarian state, or indeed any other state, to be threatened with foreign ownership, would the Minister responsible be as scrupulous in her answers as my hon. Friend has so properly been with us today?
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I am sure that many Members are, like me, concerned about foreign ownership of our institutions and businesses. Our national resilience, strategic independence and critical infrastructure, as well as our media, are vital. To quote the well-known album, how do we ensure that we do not end up selling England by the pound?
Julia Lopez
As I have said in answers to similar questions, we have powers to look into some of those investment and ownership questions, and they do not relate just to the media. We now have much broader national security and investment powers in relation to questions such as these and to other areas in which there is a critical national interest in the ownership of a particular asset. It would be wrong for Members to leave the Chamber with the belief that there are no such powers and that all these acquisitions can go ahead regardless of security and other implications.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Minister is absolutely right: Ofcom can apply a test, which it already applies, to broadcast licences. Does she agree that, given the changes in the media landscape, that should be rolled over to news websites and publishers that have significant scale?
Julia Lopez
We are looking at how we regulate online content alongside standard broadcasting and other media output. One outcome of the mid-term review is that some of the BBC’s online material will be considered in the same way as its other output. Those are all questions that the Department is looking into to ensure that media regulation and legislation are fit for what is a rapidly changing media landscape.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
It is clear that paying off the debt means that RedBird IMI has control over the titles. Indeed, it has already transferred the ownership of that debt to a new UK entity. Should not the Secretary of State also issue a PIIN on the debt to ensure that she retains control of the situation?
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend will be aware that this is the second such notice to have been issued. I am not able to speculate on or speak about any other action that the Secretary of State might be minded to take. I know that he will understand that. He will know that the broad principles of concern to him, about which he has written so eloquently and powerfully in recent weeks and months, are also close to my heart.
Autism (Early Identification)
Tuesday 30th January 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Autism (Early Identification) Bill 2023-24 View all Autism (Early Identification) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the training of teachers in relation to the early identification of autism; and for connected purposes.
For those with autism, the stats are stark. Fewer than half of autistic children say that they are happy in school; 73% of young autistic people say that their teachers do not understand their needs; only 20% achieve grade 5 or above in English and maths GCSEs, compared with 52% for all pupils; and, on top of that, autistic children are twice as likely to be excluded from school than their peers.
It does not get better in adulthood. Just 29% of autistic people are in full or part-time employment, and those in work are paid a third less than their peers. That is not right, especially when the potential of autistic children with proper support should not be underestimated. Autistic people have stronger attention to detail, creative talents, mathematical and technical abilities, and expertise in niche areas. Those of us who know autistic children know that they are honest and loyal.
We all know that an early diagnosis helps to identify what an individual child needs and what adjustments need to be put in place so that their strengths can be maximised. It provides a positive pathway instead of a negative one. It means that those with autism are more likely to find work. It helps to combat mental health issues, which affect 54% of those with special educational needs and disabilities and cost the UK economy £582 million.
However, 92% of children wait longer than the NHS 13-week deadline, and 46% wait more than 18 months—that backlog means that a quarter of children with autism will not be diagnosed while in school. In Norfolk between 2021 and October 2023, 1,141 under-18s were diagnosed with autism. Many wait longer than 18 months for their diagnosis—some even wait three years, and one waited 10 years. How many more of the 187,000 children in Norfolk will not be assessed at all?
The question is, why does a diagnosis not happen until much later? Unfortunately, there is often a “wait and see” attitude. However, not only is a delay in diagnosis extremely damaging for a child who is autistic, but it is unnecessary. Conditions such as autism have markers from six months old, as it becomes obvious through the way children learn, move or pay attention. Existing weaknesses in the SEND system, which were magnified by the pandemic, also make it difficult for people with autism to get a diagnosis. There are inconsistencies in how SEND is identified, a lack of joined-up thinking on care, and a lack of clarity regarding accountability and responsibility in organisations. That leads to delays in an already weak system, making the fight that many parents undertake to have their child assessed even harder.
Over a year ago in this Chamber, I mentioned Hayley Turner, a constituent who came to me as she was having difficulty getting the right support for her son, Rocky. I was asking about early years psychologists in Education questions, but it was partly through conversations with Hayley that the inspiration for this Bill took flight, so I would briefly like to share her story.
Rocky was two years old when his parents noticed that he was developing a little differently. It was when he started school aged four that it became clear that mainstream education was not the right fit and that those teaching him were not trained to teach children with neurodiverse conditions. That situation was very distressing for him and for Hayley, who had to fight to be heard. She went to tribunal and spent many hours putting together all the necessary paperwork to show that Rocky needed to be placed in specialist education. It was an unnecessary distraction that took Hayley away from being the mum she needed to be for both her children, which made everyday family life harder. Rocky is just one of thousands of children whose parents are fighting today for their children to have an adequate education. Indeed, the Government’s own SEND statistics show that 98% of parents win on appeal once they get to tribunal.
Those children are not difficult or troublesome. Hayley said something very poignant:
“Autistic children, whilst in mainstream schools, are easily misunderstood. They are just innocent children trying to survive in an environment that isn’t designed for them. They have to fail first before they are adequately supported and that’s not how a child should start their education.”
Rocky’s story was eventually a success story, but it is his story, along with other conversations I have had, that led me to introduce the Bill today. It is important to impress on all Members of the House that autistic children will not grow out of it: they will need extra help and targeted treatment to reduce the chance of negative consequences and financial burdens in later life. However, as it stands, just 39% of primary school teachers have more than half a day’s training in autism—such a small number. For secondary school, that figure drops to just 14%. SEND is seen as a specialist area—a bolt-on, not a built-in—with teacher training not including how to ensure that teachers can identify SEND markers. That needs to change. Autistic pupils routinely identify autism training for teachers as the single biggest change that would improve their experience of school. That can only happen if all teachers are trained in SEND.
It is for those reasons that I introduce my ten-minute rule Bill, the Autism (Early Identification) Bill, which will deliver support to increase autism assessment, reduce diagnosis waiting times and introduce mandatory autism training for all teachers. The Bill will provide a solid base through which all teachers will learn about early identification, the special educational needs code of practice, the pattern and sequence of child development, what needs to be done if a child has communication difficulties, and understanding and dealing with difficult behaviour. It will mean that if milestones are not met, help can be put in place; that fewer children will struggle in school; and that they will no longer be labelled difficult or disruptive. Through a Bill that ensures that all teaching staff can support autistic pupils well, schools will in turn become more inclusive places, where everyone—staff, pupils and parents—is truly valued and feels a sense of belonging.
I am encouraged by the openness of this Government to changes in the system. It is positive that the Government announced as far back as the last Queen’s Speech that every child will get the education they deserve, and that there is vision, ethos and strategic direction in our education system. I am also encouraged by the publication of the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, in which the Government stated that they
“will explore opportunities to build teacher expertise through a review of the Initial Teacher Training (ITT) Core Content Framework and Early Career Framework.”
I was encouraged by the Secretary of State’s comments at the Dispatch Box yesterday, and by a letter from the Minister last July that said that
“all initial teacher training courses must be designed so that trainee teachers can demonstrate a clear understanding of the needs of all pupils, including those with SEND”
and that
“all teachers are teachers of SEND”.
All those objectives are encapsulated in the Bill, but it would go further. Having a special educational needs co-ordinator in school is not enough, and only having a few providers of training is not enough. The Bill will ensure that all autistic children receive the support they need so that they can flourish, and that autistic and SEND pupils are not a forgotten piece of the puzzle, but an integral part of the education system. It will help the Government achieve their objectives in this area. The Bill is supported by the sector, which is keen to work with the Government on the finer detail regarding what training is needed and how it should be rolled out, as well as to work on technologies to make the system around education, health and care plans a lot easier and ensure that support can be easily reviewed so that it continues to suit the young person’s needs.
As I wrap up, I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) to please be bold in this area. Please support us, and use the essence of my Bill to make sure that the reforms really do make autistic children’s lives better. I thank FullSpektrum, Keystone Consulting and Ambitious about Autism, as well as my constituent Hayley Turner and everyone else who has supported me so much in introducing this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Duncan Baker, Sir Robert Buckland, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Sir Liam Fox, Mr Robin Walker, Edward Timpson, Jim Shannon, Marion Fellows, Peter Gibson, James Sunderland, Elliot Colburn and Steve Tuckwell present the Bill.
Duncan Baker accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed (Bill 154).
Media Bill
Tuesday 30th January 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Media Act 2024 View all Media Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 January 2024 - large print - (30 Jan 2024)
16:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 194 / Noes: 294 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 295 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:12 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 20 / Noes: 288 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 195 / Noes: 284 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We were going to begin with new clause 1, but Hywel Williams is not here, so I instead call George Eustice to move new clause 3.
New Clause 3
Consultation on section 50
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a call for evidence seeking views on alternative incentives to encourage publishers or regulators to seek recognition under the terms of the Royal Charter for the Self-Regulation of the Press.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the Government’s formal response to evidence submitted in response to the call for evidence required by subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State may not make an order under section 55(3)(ga) bringing any part of section 50 into force until the report specified in subsection (2) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”—(George Eustice.)
See explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Brought up, and read the First time.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Evaluation of nations-based production—
“(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 286 (regional programme-making for Channels 3 and 5)—
(a) in subsection (1)(d), at end insert “except where the company is a new start-up and has registered itself as being primarily based in that nation”;
(b) after subsection (1)(d) insert—
“(e) Ofcom must require a broadcaster listing a production as being based in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales to demonstrate prior to production that a production company has—
(i) a substantial base (consisting of a specified number of staff) within the nation;
(ii) a commitment to remain within the nation for a specified amount of time;
(iii) had a presence within the nation for at least 36 months.”;
(c) in subsection (3)(d), at end insert “except where the company is a new start-up and has registered itself as being primarily based in that nation.”;
(d) after subsection (3)(d) insert—
“(e) Ofcom must require a broadcaster listing a production as being based in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales to demonstrate prior to production that a production company has—
(i) a substantial base (consisting of a specified number of staff) within the nation;
(ii) a commitment to remain within the nation for a specified amount of time;
(iii) had a presence within the nation for at least 36 months.”
(3) In section 288 (Regional programme-making for Channel 4)—
(a) in subsection (1)(d), at end insert “except where the company is a new start-up and has registered itself as being primarily based in that nation.”;
(b) after subsection (1)(d) insert—
“(e) Ofcom must require a broadcaster listing a production as being based in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales to demonstrate prior to production that a production company has—
(i) a substantial base (consisting of a specified number of staff) within the nation;
(ii) a commitment to remain within the nation for a specified amount of time;
(iii) had a presence within the nation specified for at least 36 months.”.”
New clause 4—OFCOM review of on-demand programme service regulation measures—
“(1) As soon as practicable after Chapter 2 of this Act comes into force, OFCOM must carry out a review of its on-demand programme service regulation measures.
(2) This review must take account of—
(a) the size, and
(b) the turnover
of the services to which these regulations apply and assess whether the current application of the regulations is the most effective means to achieve the policy goals of this Chapter.
(3) In conducting the review described in subsection (2), OFCOM must consult with relevant stakeholders, including public service broadcasters, on-demand programme service providers and any other stakeholders as appropriate.”
This would require OFCOM to conduct a review of the Bill’s new on-demand regulatory code. The review must take account of the sizes and turnovers of the regulated services, and assess whether the current regulatory approach is effective in achieving the policy goals of the Bill. The review would have to be conducted in consultation with relevant stakeholders.
New clause 6—Age rating standards—
“Where Tier 1 providers use an age rating or other classification system to comply with the duties imposed on them by or under this Act for the protection of audiences from harm, they must—
(a) apply the age rating or classification system used by the video works authority based on their classification guidelines; or
(b) apply an age rating or classification system that is judged by OFCOM to be—
(i) based on a transparent set of appropriate standards;
(ii) applied consistently across content; and
(iii) informed by regular consultation with the UK public.”
This new clause ensures that, where age ratings are used by Video on Demand platforms, those ratings are the same as the ones used by the British Board of Film Classification or meet equivalent standards of rigour, transparency, and objectivity.
New clause 7—Adequate on-demand coverage to be available—
“After section 101 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, insert—
“101ZA Provision of adequate on-demand coverage
(1) The purpose of this section is to secure, in relation to a listed event, that if any person makes available on-demand coverage of the whole or any part of that event, adequate on-demand coverage is made available widely and free of charge to members of the public in the United Kingdom, whether by that person or another person.
(2) In this Part, in relation to a listed event or part of such an event, “on-demand coverage” means audiovisual content consisting of coverage of, or excerpts from, that event (or a combination of those), where—
(a) a person makes a range of such content available to members of the public, whether through a relevant service or otherwise;
(b) selections from that range can be made by the user and viewed at a time chosen by the user (even if it may be viewed only within a period specified by the person making it available);
(c) the selected content is received by the user by means of the internet; and
(d) the content otherwise meets any criteria or requirements specified (either generally or in relation to particular listed events) by regulations under section 104ZA;
and “on-demand rights” means rights to make on-demand coverage available for access by members of the public in the United Kingdom.
(3) Any contract entered into on or after the day on which section [Adequate on-demand coverage to be available] of the Media Act 2024 comes into force under which a person acquires on-demand rights is void so far as it purports—
(a) in relation to the whole or any part of the event, or
(b) in relation to access by means of the internet, in the United Kingdom,
to grant those rights exclusively.
(4) For the purposes of this section, on-demand rights are granted exclusively if the person granting them—
(a) has not granted any such right in respect of the whole or, as the case may be, that part of the event to more than one person, and
(b) is precluded by the terms of the contract from doing so.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), rights are not to be treated as having been granted to more than one person where the only persons to whom such rights have been granted are connected with each other.
(6) No person may provide on-demand coverage of a listed event unless authorised to do so under subsection (7), (8) or (9), even if that person is authorised to include live coverage of that event in a relevant service by subsection (2), (3) or (4) of section 101.
(7) The provision of on-demand coverage of a listed event is authorised by this subsection if—
(a) on-demand rights have been acquired by the provider of a relevant service falling within section 98(1)(a);
(b) that relevant service includes live coverage of that event; and
(c) the on-demand coverage provided that provider—
(i) constitutes adequate on-demand coverage of the event, and
(ii) may be accessed free of charge.
(8) The provision of on-demand coverage of a listed event is authorised by this subsection if—
(a) on-demand rights have been acquired by one or more persons;
(b) those persons are not connected with each other;
(c) the on-demand coverage provided by at least one of those persons—
(i) constitutes adequate on-demand coverage of the event, and
(ii) may be accessed free of charge;
and
(d) the person or persons who have acquired rights to provide the adequate on-demand coverage satisfy the requirements in relation to that coverage of any regulations made under section 104ZA for the purposes of this paragraph.
(9) The provision of on-demand coverage of a listed event is authorised by this subsection if OFCOM have consented in advance to such provision.
(10) OFCOM may revoke any consent given by them under subsection (9).
(11) The code drawn up by OFCOM under section 104 shall include guidance on the matters which they will take into account in determining whether to give or revoke their consent for the purposes of subsection (9).
(12) Regulations under section 104ZA (regulations about coverage of listed events) may include provision—
(a) specifying (either generally or in relation to particular listed events) any criteria or requirements that content must meet in order to be regarded as on-demand coverage for the purposes of subsection (2)(d);
(b) for determining for the purposes of this section what (whether generally or in relation to particular circumstances) is to be taken to represent the provision of adequate on-demand coverage of an event for the purposes of subsection (8)(d).
(13) Failure to comply with subsection (6) shall not affect the validity of any contract.
(14) Subsection (6) shall not have effect where the person providing the on-demand coverage is exercising on-demand rights acquired before the commencement of this section.
(15) In this section, “on-demand coverage” and “adequate on-demand coverage” are to be construed in accordance with regulations under section 104ZA.
(16) For the purposes of sections 104A (provision of information) and 104B (penalties for failure to provide information), any person making available, or wishing to make available, on-demand coverage of the whole or any part of any listed event shall be treated as a person who is within subsection (5) of section 104A.””
This new clause would secure that, where possible, adequate on-demand coverage of listed events, such as clips and excerpts, is made available free of charge to audiences in the United Kingdom.
New clause 8—Protection of digital terrestrial television—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall ensure that—
(a) the licensed public service channels continue to be broadcast via digital terrestrial television to as many of their intended audience as is reasonably practicable; and
(b) a sufficient number of digital terrestrial television multiplex licences are issued to deliver the licensed public service channels via digital terrestrial television and support a diverse range of commercial digital terrestrial television channels.
(2) OFCOM shall reserve sufficient frequencies for television broadcasting services accordingly.”
This new clause would place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to ensure that public service television channels continue to be broadcast via digital terrestrial television (DTT) and that sufficient licences are issued to keep the platform viable. It would also require Ofcom to make spectrum available accordingly.
New clause 9—Review of children’s access to public service broadcast content—
“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on how to ensure that children have access to public service broadcast content.”
This new clause would require a review of how to ensure children have access to public service content, given their viewing habits.
New clause 10—Digital rights to listed events—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the Broadcasting Act 1996 to make provision for coverage of listed events which is not live coverage.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
New clause 11—Delivery of public service content on relevant television services—
“After section 264A of the Communications Act 2003, insert—
“264B Delivery of public service content on relevant television services
(1) OFCOM must monitor the extent to which the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is met in respect of relevant television services.
(2) If OFCOM considers that the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is not being met in respect of such services, it may set whatever programming quotas it considers necessary to ensure that the remit is met.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “relevant television services” means—
(a) the television broadcasting services provided by the BBC;
(b) the television programme services that are public services of the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of section 207);
(c) every Channel 3 service;
(d) Channel 4;
(e) Channel 5.””
This new clause would give OFCOM powers to measure the delivery of public service content on the linear services of the public service broadcasters, and set quotas if it considered the current level to be unsatisfactory.
New clause 12—Regulation of selection services for on demand and online-only content—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the regulation of selection services for on demand and online-only content equivalent to the regulation of radio selection services provided for by section 48 and Schedule 9 of this Act.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend primary legislation.”
New clause 13—Gaelic language service—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, review whether a Gaelic language service should be given a public service broadcast remit.”
New clause 14—Age Classifications—
“When considering the adequacy of age ratings, OFCOM must assess whether any age ratings used by providers are—
(a) widely recognised by the UK public;
(b) underpinned by a transparent set of standards;
(c) informed by regular consultation with the UK public.”
New clause 15—Establishing a Broadcasting and Communications Authority for Wales—
“(1) A Broadcasting and Communications Authority for Wales (“the Authority”) is established.
(2) The Authority must perform the following functions—
(a) support for the broadcasting and media sectors serving audiences in Wales;
(b) oversight and accountability for public service broadcasting in Wales;
(c) facilitation and development of the production of content by broadcaster and media outlets in Wales;
(d) promotion and preservation of the Welsh language, identity and culture in broadcasting and media output;
(e) support for and development of English language content made in Wales and ensuring that it is relevant to Welsh audiences; and
(f) any functions the Secretary of State considers necessary to support further devolution of broadcasting policy to the Welsh Government.
(3) In performing the functions under subsection 2 the Authority must have regard to—
(a) public interest journalism;
(b) content for children and young people; and
(c) sport content and national events.
(4) In performing the duties under subsection (2) in relation to broadcasting and media matters in Wales, the Authority must consult—
(a) relevant Ministers in the Welsh Government;
(b) Members of the Senedd; and
(c) members of the public living in Wales.
(5) Section 1 comes into force at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) In preparation for the establishment of the Authority a shadow authority may be established in line with the functions set out in subsection 2 after the passing of this Act.
(7) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the appointment of officers to the Authority.”
This new clause creates a new independent Welsh Broadcasting and Communications Authority with responsibility and oversight for broadcasting and media matters in Wales to help reflect and meet the needs of Welsh audiences.
New clause 16—Listed Events—
“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 97 (as amended by section 299 of the Communications Act 2003), after subsection (1B) insert—
“(1A) The following events must be included in Group A of the list drawn up under subsection (1)—
(a) the Olympic Games;
(b) the Paralympic Games;
(c) the FIFA World Cup Finals Tournament;
(d) the FIFA Women’s World Cup Finals Tournament;
(e) the European Football Championship Finals Tournament;
(f) the European Women’s Football Championship Finals Tournament;
(g) the FA Cup Final;
(h) the Scottish FA Cup Final;
(i) the Grand National;
(j) the Wimbledon Tennis Finals;
(k) the Rugby Union World Cup Final;
(l) Six Nations Rugby Tournament Matches Involving Home Countries;
(m) the Derby;
(n) the Rugby League Challenge Cup Final;
(o) any match involving the national teams of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England pertaining to qualification for the events listed in paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f).””
This new clause would make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to place the list of sporting events in Group A of listed sporting events, ensuring they are available on free to air television in their entirety. The events consist of all current Group A events plus the home nations World Cup and Euro qualifiers.
New clause 17—Consultation on listing of events—
“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 97(2), after paragraph (b), insert—
“(ba) Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig (the Gaelic Media Service),”
(3) In section 104(4), after paragraph (b), insert—
“(ba) Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig (the Gaelic Media Service),””
This new clause would add Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig (the Gaelic Media Service) to the list of organisations which must be consulted when the Secretary of State is drafting or amending listed events and Ofcom is drawing up its related code of guidance.
New clause 18—Listed Events Fund—
“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 104ZA insert—
“104ZB Financial matters arising from the listing of events: the Listed Events Fund
(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a fund (the “Listed Events Fund”) with the purpose of minimising the consequential financial impact of the listing of events on sporting governing bodies who would otherwise suffer egregious financial distress.
(2) Payments from the fund shall be limited to governing bodies and other sporting rights holders who maintain their registered office in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England and whose primary geographic area of responsibility lies within one of these territories.
(3) The Secretary of State, following the revision of the listing of events in Group A, shall invite governing bodies and other organisations who could reasonably assess their turnover or income as dropping as a result of an event being listed in Group A (and who qualify under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section) to apply to him for payment from the fund.
(4) No organisation with a reported turnover of greater than £50 million per annum for the financial year in which any subvention may be paid shall be entitled to payment from the fund.
(5) The amount laid down in subsection (4) may be varied by the Secretary of State on an annual basis, but may not increase by a rate greater than that of the Retail Price Index as measured at any point in the three months previous to any proposed variation.””
This new clause would provide a fund under the auspices of the Secretary of State to be paid to governing bodies or other broadcasting rights holders who may experience financial detriment as a result of listing under Group A.
New clause 19—Diversity in the workforce of the public service broadcasters—
“(1) OFCOM must produce a report each year detailing diversity in the workforce of the public sector broadcasters (“PSBs”).
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) a breakdown by protected characteristic of the numbers of people in the workforce of each PSB;
(b) the percentage of the workforce on and offscreen who have various protected characteristics as deemed relevant by OFCOM;
(c) if the percentages reported under paragraph (b) are not reflective of the population as a whole or on a regional basis, a statement from each broadcaster on how they intend to increase diversity in their organisation.
(3) OFCOM may request any information they require from the PSBs in order to compile the report under subsection (1).
(4) Provision of data to enable OFCOM to produce the report under subsection (1) is to be considered by OFCOM when it assesses the extent to which a PSB has fulfilled its public service broadcasting remit.”
This new clause would require OFCOM to produce an annual report on workforce diversity within the PSBs.
New clause 20—On-demand programme services—
“(1) OFCOM must report to the Secretary of State each year on the percentage of people who are watching on-demand services that do not fall under the definition of on-demand programme services in section 368A of the Communications Act.
(2) If OFCOM reports concern that the definition is not providing protection for public service broadcasters on on-demand services that are being widely accessed by the public—
(a) OFCOM must write to the Secretary of State, and
(b) the Secretary of State must make a written statement to Parliament on how the Secretary of State intends to remedy this matter.”
This new clause would require OFCOM and the Secretary of State to keep under review the adequacy of the definition of on-demand programme services in section 368A of the Communications Act 2003.
New clause 21—Delivery of public service content on relevant television services—
“After section 264A of the Communications Act 2003, insert—
“264B Delivery of public service content on relevant television services
(1) Ofcom must monitor the extent to which the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is met in respect of relevant television services, including level of programming from a diverse range of genres including, among others, education, entertainment, music, arts science, sports matters of international significance, religion and specialist interests.
(2) If Ofcom considers that the public service remit for television in the United Kingdom is not being met in respect of such services, it may set whatever programming quotas it considers necessary to ensure that the remit is met.
(3) It is the duty of relevant television broadcasting services to prepare and publish a statement annually on their performance in the provision of public service content.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “relevant television services” means—
(a) the television broadcasting services provided by the BBC;
(b) the television programme services that are public services of the Welsh Authority (within the meaning of section 207);
(c) every Channel 3 service;
(d) Channel 4;
(e) Channel 5.””
This new clause would give Ofcom powers to measure the delivery of public service content on the linear services of the public service broadcasters, and set quotas if it considered the current level to be unsatisfactory.
New clause 22—Duty to report on workforce diversity and equality requirement—
“(1) Public service broadcasters (“PSBs”) must prepare and publish a statement on a workforce diversity and equality strategy within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) A workforce diversity and equality strategy must comprise a plan setting out how PSBs are taking appropriate steps towards improving diversity and equality within the workforce in the period covered by the plan, which must cover not more than three years.
(3) In particular, a workforce diversity and equality strategy must state a PSB’s objectives and priorities for the period it covers.
(4) A workforce diversity and equality strategy must include a summary and an evaluation of the activities and initiatives pursued or commissioned by a PSB in the exercise of its functions under subsection (1) in the period to which the strategy relates.
(5) Before the end of the period covered by a workforce diversity and equality strategy, PSBs must prepare and publish a strategy for a further period, ensuring that each successive strategy covers a period beginning immediately after the end of the last one.
(6) In preparing or revising a workforce diversity and equality strategy, a PSB must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.
(7) OFCOM must prepare and publish a report on workforce diversity and equality strategy statements produced by PSBs set out in subsection (1), in particular—
(a) summarising what actions a PSB is planning and taking in the exercise of its strategy under subsections (1) to (3);
(b) assessing what progress has been made towards achieving the objectives and priorities set out in a strategy in the relevant period.
(8) The first annual report by OFCOM on workforce diversity and equality is required to be published within a period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(9) OFCOM must prepare and publish subsequent reports on PSBs’ strategies and progress against them every three years thereafter.”
This new clause introduces a requirement for PSBs to publish objectives on the promotion of diversity and equality among the workforce and for Ofcom to monitor and report on PSB performance on meeting this requirement.
New clause 23—Duty to report on media literacy requirement—
“(1) Public service broadcasters (“PSBs”) must prepare and publish a statement on a media literacy strategy within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) A media literacy strategy is a plan setting out how PSBs are taking appropriate steps towards improving levels of media literacy among audiences in the period covered by the plan, which must be not more than three years.
(3) In particular, a media literacy strategy must state a PSB’s objectives and priorities for the period it covers.
(4) A media literacy statement must include a summary and an evaluation of the activities and initiatives pursued or commissioned by the PSB in the exercise of their functions under section (1) in the period to which the report relates.
(5) Before the end of the period covered by a media literacy strategy, PSBs must prepare and publish a strategy for a further period, ensuring that each successive strategy covers a period beginning immediately after the end of the last one.
(6) In preparing or revising a media literacy strategy, a PSB must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.
(7) OFCOM must prepare and publish a report of the media literacy strategy statements set out in subsection (1), in particular—
(a) summarising what actions a PSB is planning and taking in the exercise of its strategy under subsections (1) to (3);
(b) assessing what progress has been made towards achieving the objectives and priorities set out in a strategy in the relevant period.
(8) The first annual report by OFCOM on media literacy is required to be published within a period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(9) OFCOM must prepare and publish subsequent report on PSBs’ strategies and progress against them every three years thereafter.”
This new clause introduces a requirement for PSBs to take appropriate steps in relation to improving levels of media literacy among their audiences and for Ofcom to monitor and report on PSB performance on meeting this requirement.
New clause 24—Duty to report on viewer and listener consultation requirements—
“(1) Public service broadcasters (“PSBs”) must prepare and publish a viewer and listener consultation strategy (“consultation strategy”) within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) A consultation strategy is a plan setting out how PSBs are taking appropriate steps towards improving levels of engagement with audiences in the period covered by the plan, which must be not more than three years.
(3) In particular, a consultation strategy must state a PSB’s objectives and priorities for the period it covers.
(4) A consultation strategy must include a summary and an evaluation of the activities and initiatives pursued or commissioned by the PSB in the exercise of their functions under section (1) in the period to which the report relates.
(5) Before the end of the period covered by an audience consultation strategy, PSBs must prepare and publish a strategy for a further period, ensuring that each successive strategy covers a period beginning immediately after the end of the last one.
(6) In preparing or revising a media literacy consultation strategy, PSBs must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.
(7) OFCOM must prepare and publish a report assessing PSBs’ consultation strategies, in particular—
(a) summarising what actions a PSB is planning and taking in the exercise of its strategy, and
(b) assessing what progress has been made towards achieving the objectives and priorities set out in a strategy in the relevant period.
(8) The first annual report by OFCOM on PSBs’ consultation strategies must be published within a period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(9) OFCOM must prepare and publish subsequent reports on PSBs’ strategies and progress against them every three years thereafter.”
This new clause introduces a requirement for PSBs to produce a strategy and objectives for increasing levels of consultation with user listeners and for Ofcom to monitor and report on PSB performance on meeting this requirement.
Amendment 81, in clause 1, page 2, line 38, at end insert—
“(iii) a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content so as to permit fulfilment of the public service remit for television in the Gaelic language as spoken in Scotland”.
This amendment would require OFCOM to report on whether a sufficient quantity of audiovisual content in Gaelic is televised to meet the public service remit for television.
Amendment 1, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(5A) In assessing the extent to which the requirements of subsection (5)(b)(i) have been met OFCOM must have particular regard to the importance of content recognising the culture and heritage of those parts of the United Kingdom recognised under the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.”
This amendment requires OFCOM to have regard to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities when reporting on the fulfilment of the public service remit through audiovisual content by the public service broadcasters.
Amendment 86, page 3, line 13, leave out from “appropriate” to end and insert—
“level of programming from a diverse range of genres including, among others, education, entertainment, music, arts science, sports matters of international significance, religion and specialist interests.”
This amendment would add detailed description of the range of genres which Ofcom must report on whether the public service broadcasters have made available.
Government amendment 19.
Amendment 79, in clause 3, page 7, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) which is broadcast via UHF frequencies that can be received by a minimum of 98.5% of the population of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment amends the definition of public service for Channel 3 and Channel 5 to include an obligation to broadcast via digital terrestrial television, on the basis of the already existing licence requirements applying to PSB DTT multiplexes.
Amendment 80, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(d) which is broadcast via UHF frequencies that can be received by a minimum of 98.5% of the population of the United Kingdom.”
This amendments amends the definition of public service for Channel 4 to include a obligation to broadcast via digital terrestrial television, on the basis of the already existing licence requirements applying to PSB DTT multiplexes.
Amendment 82, in clause 8, page 9, line 29, at end insert—
“(c) a duration such as OFCOM considers appropriate of those independent productions are commissioned from smaller studios”.
This amendment would require OFCOM to require licensed public service channel regulatory conditions to include commissioning from smaller studios.
Amendment 83, page 9, line 29, at end insert—
“(1A) The regulatory regime for Channel 4 includes the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing that, in each year, not less than 35% per cent of Channel 4's total expenditure on qualifying audiovisual content is allocated to independent productions made by independent production companies with annual turnover not exceeding £25,000,000.
(1B) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1A) by substituting a different figure for the annual turnover specified in that section.
(1C) Before making regulations under subsection (1B), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) OFCOM,
(b) Channel 4, and
(c) independent production companies that are likely to be affected by the regulations.”
This amendment would require that at least 35% of Channel 4’s annual expenditure on qualifying audiovisual content be allocated to productions made by independent producers with annual revenues smaller than £25m. It also provides the Secretary of State the power to amend, following consultation, the revenue figure defining the production companies to which the requirement applies.
Amendment 84, page 10, line 15, before “commissioning” insert
““annual revenue” means the reported revenues published in the annual accounts of the respective independent production company, covering the most recently available period of 12 months;”.
This amendment would insert a definition for the purposes of Amendment 83.
Amendment 85, page 10, line 17, at end insert—
““independent production companies” has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991;”.
This amendment would insert a definition for the purposes of Amendment 83.
Government amendments 20 to 40.
Amendment 88, in clause 25, page 30, line 30, at end insert—
“(4) On the date on which section 21 comes into force, the Secretary of State must revise the list maintained for the purposes of Part 4 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 so that it includes—
(a) at least one cricket test match each year between the months of May and September;
(b) at least one cricket One Day International match each year between the months of May and September;
(c) all other currently listed Group A events.
(5) The events listed under subsection (4) must be allocated to Group A.”
Amendment 5, in clause 28, page 41, line 10, leave out “an appropriate” and insert “a significant”.
This would require that designated internet programme services are given significant prominence within regulated television selection services.
Amendment 78, page 42, line 3, at end insert—
“(f) any local digital television programme service that OFCOM determines is willing and able to offer an internet programme service.”
This amendment includes local digital television services within the prominence framework for designated internet programme services where OFCOM determines a service is willing and able to offer such a service.
Amendment 87, page 42, line 21, leave out “an appropriate” and insert “a significant”.
This amendment would require a provider of regulated television selection to give significant prominence to designated internet programme services.
Government amendments 41 to 49.
Amendment 6, page 69, line 1, leave out clause 31.
This would retain section 295 of the Communications Act 2003, which restricts C4C’s involvement in programme-making.
Government amendments 50 and 51.
Amendment 18, in clause 38, page 79, line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) When considering the adequacy of age ratings, OFCOM must report on the extent to which any age ratings used by providers are—
(a) clear and well understood by consumers;
(b) underpinned by a published and transparent set of standards; and
(c) informed by regular and substantive consultation with the UK public.”
This amendment sets conditions to be used by OFCOM when reporting on the adequacy of the age ratings classification systems used by providers.
Government amendment 52.
Amendment 7, in clause 44, page 83, line 36, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment and Amendments 8 to 13 would broaden the scope of the requirements placed by the Bill on local radio broadcasting licences, so that the current scope of local material as news, information and other spoken material is retained.
Amendment 8, page 84, line 6, leave out “news and information” and insert
“news, information and other spoken material and music”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.
Amendment 9, page 84, line 23, leave out “news and information” and insert
“news, information and other spoken material and music”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.
Amendment 10, page 84, line 24, leave out “news and information” and insert
“news, information and other spoken material and music”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.
Amendment 11, in page 84, line 26, after “news” insert
“, information and other spoken material and music”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.
Amendment 12, page 84, line 34, after “news” insert
“, information and other spoken material and music”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.
Amendment 13, page 84, line 36, after “news” insert
“, information and other spoken material and music”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.
Government amendments 53 to 59.
Amendment 2, in clause 50, page 114, line 7, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“(2) Section 40(3) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is omitted.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State the option in future of commencing subsection 2 of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Acts 2013.
Amendment 3, in clause 55, page 115, line 25, leave out “50” and insert “(Consultation on section 50)”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 4 and NC3, would require the Secretary of State to consult on alternative incentives to encourage publishers or regulators to seek recognition under the terms of the Royal Charter for the Self-Regulation of the Press, and to lay a report on the consultation before Parliament, before section 50 could be commenced.
Amendment 4, page 115, line 35, at end insert—
“(ga) section 50 (but see section (Consultation on section 50));”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 3.
Government amendments 60 to 74.
Amendment 17, in schedule 5, page 145, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) persons designated by the Secretary of State as the responsible authority under Section 4(1) of the Video Recordings Act 1984;”.
This amendment ensures that the British Board of Film Classification is consulted by OFCOM when drawing up the Video on Demand codes.
Government amendment 75.
Amendment 14, page 146, line 34, leave out “40 per cent” and insert “80 per cent”.
This would require Tier 1 on-demand services to provide subtitling for 80% of their on-demand TV content from the second anniversary of the publication of the accessibility code.
Amendment 15, page 146, line 36, leave out “5 per cent” and insert “10 per cent”.
This would require Tier 1 on-demand services to provide audio-description for 10 per cent of their on-demand TV content from the second anniversary of the publication of the accessibility code.
Amendment 16, page 147, line 1, leave out “2.5 per cent” and insert “5 per cent”.
This would require Tier 1 on-demand services to provide sign language presentation or translation for 5 per cent of their on-demand TV content from the second anniversary of the publication of the accessibility code.
Government amendments 76 and 77.
George Eustice
There are a number of new clauses and amendments in my name that I wish to speak to, but principally among them I will speak to amendment 2, which relates to the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Acts 2013. With the will of the House, I will press the amendment to a Division later today, but first I will briefly address some of the other amendments.
Amendment 1 is not actually linked to the debate about section 40, or indeed the Leveson inquiry; it is about something very different. It simply states that Ofcom, when considering and assessing the public service remit, should also have regard to the framework convention on national minorities. That is because the current framework acknowledges the importance of languages in this country and their recognition under the framework convention on minority languages, but it omits the framework convention on national minorities. That is of particular importance to places such as Cornwall, Scotland and Wales, where the culture and identity goes beyond just language. I hope the Government will consider addressing this matter in the other place as the Bill progresses.
New clause 3 addresses the simple reality that although the Government have said that they intend to repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, Ministers have confirmed to me that the Government remain committed to the continued existence of the royal charter on self-regulation of the press. That royal charter was established by David Cameron when he was Prime Minister, in response to the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry. Conservative Members voted to put in place section 40 in order to create an incentive to join the royal charter. Given that the Government have said that they want to repeal section 40, which created that incentive, but that they remain absolutely committed to keeping the royal charter, surely they should at the very least have a call for evidence to examine what other possible incentives might encourage publishers to join that royal charter.
If the Government did not believe in the royal charter on self-regulation of the press, they would simply bring forward Orders in Council to disband the royal charter, as is provided for under article 10 of the charter. The Government do not want to do that, so if they remain committed to the royal charter, let us at least explore those options. They could include giving publishers access to arbitration so that they can get a fairer share of the advertising revenue for the news content they produce. That remains an open problem; some Government legislation seeks to address it, but it could go further.
I wish to focus principally on amendment 2, since that is the one I intend to press to a Division. The amendment would simply put in place a more precise cut to deliver the Government’s objectives. Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 had two parts. The first part—subsection (2)—created an incentive for publishers to join because it gave them protection against those with deep pockets. There was a carrot and a stick in section 40. The carrot was that if, for the sake of argument, a Russian oligarch threatened a publisher and said, “We’re going to get Carter-Ruck to write expensive letters to you. We will see you in court if you publish this,” that publisher would have had protection because they would have been able to say to the rich and powerful, “We have confidence in our story and are going to run it, and if you don’t like the story, we will see you in arbitration; we won’t see you in court. If you insist on taking us to court and bypassing that arbitration, you will pay the publisher’s costs as well as your own.”
That was the carrot—the bit that the press never objected to. No one ever raised an objection to that. But there was also a stick—subsection (3) of section 40. The stick basically said that publishers who do not join a recognised regulator have more cost exposure to ordinary citizens who have had their lives and privacy violated and have no redress other than to bring legal action. The press never objected to the carrot; they only ever objected to the stick. Because they are a glass-half-empty type of industry, they of course tended to focus on the bit they did not like rather than the bit they did like, and they lobbied furiously to have that part of section 40 removed.
Then we come to the 2017 Conservative manifesto—let us be honest: it was not the best manifesto the party has ever drafted. Probably due to a drafting error, that manifesto pledged not just to remove subsection (3) of subsection 40, which was all that was required and which would have delivered the spirit of that manifesto commitment, but committed to remove the entirety of section 40, which was completely unnecessary.
Amendment 2 would remove the stick but retain the carrot. It would remove subsection (3) of section 40. In that, it would deliver everything the press have ever wanted, and therefore also satisfy the Government’s intentions.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
This is a point that I have often made. The hon. Gentleman’s “carrot”, as he calls it, seems very similar to anti-SLAPP legislation, which has been welcomed generally on both sides of the House, and I cannot see why anyone who supports anti- SLAPP legislation would not also support amendment 2. I certainly will support it and I hope that it gets support across the House.
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Anyone who truly believes in a free press, as he and I do, would want to ensure that we can protect genuine investigative journalism, and that the rich and powerful would not be able to intimidate and bully publishers with limited financial resources—many of them losing money—into not running a story that was essentially true.
Were amendment 2 to be agreed to, those publishers that chose not to sign up to a recognised regulator would have nothing to lose; they would be no worse off than they are today. Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, has had a very strong position that he would never join a recognised regulator. It would be open to him not to; he would be no better and no worse off than he is today, as if something ended up in litigation he would not be paying both sides’ costs.
A publication such as Private Eye, which famously has never joined anything, would also be free to stand aloof from any kind of regulator, and it would be no better or worse off than it is today. Publications such as The Daily Mail, which have wealthy benefactors standing behind them—people with deep pockets who are willing to pay for litigation and backfill the loses that such companies make—would be no better or worse off than they are today, in that they could decide not to join a regulator.
However, those small, plucky publishers that do not have wealthy benefactors standing behind them, and that seek to do genuine investigative journalism that might attract the attention of those threatening legal action, would have the option of joining a recognised regulator, so that they could get protection against that type of strategic litigation brought by the rich and powerful—people with deep pockets—against them.
So I say to the Minister that I can deliver everything that the Government seek, in a way that is fitting with the spirit of the Conservative manifesto but that keeps open the option of small publishers being able to gain some protection.
Let me remind the House why we ended up with section 40 in the first place. There was a public outcry about what was called the phone-hacking scandal—the widespread recognition that a culture had developed that enabled publishers to hack into people’s phones. It was David Cameron, the Conservative Prime Minister, who established the Leveson inquiry. It was David Cameron who chose Lord Justice Leveson to chair it, because Lord Justice Leveson was known as somebody who was not hostile to the press. Lord Justice Leveson invested huge amounts of his time in coming up with a very sensible set of proposals. It was David Cameron who then said we would implement those proposals, with cross-party support from all parties in this House, and it was the Conservative Whips Office that actually whipped the Conservative side of the House to implement section 40, as David Cameron wished to happen.
Let us remember that in that Leveson inquiry, dozens of victims of phone hacking came forward to give evidence, and they did so because the Prime Minister had set up an inquiry and they felt that it was sincere and genuine, and that they could contribute. We all have had constituency cases in which people have been through extraordinary tragedy, and it is painful for them; but often people who have been through such tragedy want to know that something good has come from it. Many of those witnesses who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry were the parents of children who had been murdered, who had had their life rifled through by the media, and they wanted something good to come out of that; so they went through the trauma and the painful experience of sharing those experiences, to try to help Parliament wrestle its way to a sensible compromise.
So let us have no nonsense from the Government Front Bench, trying to create some sort of wedge issue. This is a provision that the Conservative Government put in place, and the royal charter on self-regulation was a very Conservative approach to dealing with the challenge.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. He is making a strong case for his amendment, but I have one nagging doubt in my mind. I understand that he believes that if his amendment is agreed to and we remove the stick, newspapers will be protected from the rich and powerful, but what protection would remain for those who are not of means; those who do not have the money that they can risk in litigation to take on those publishers who may have defamed or libelled them, but who are not members of a regulatory body? This is not just about the rich and powerful. There could be people who do not have any money who are affected by newspapers, and I am not clear how, in his new landscape, they would be affected.
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but I am seeking to reach a compromise. His argument is for keeping section 40 in its entirety, so that those who do not have financial means and who face a publisher who refuses to act within any kind of reputable regulator would have some redress in the courts. Of course, in section 40 there was only a weighted presumption in favour of a particular approach to costs. It was never a hard and fast rule.
My right hon. Friend makes a strong case, but I am seeking to form a compromise with the House and with those on the Government Front Bench, and if it is their intention to do what the press want, they can accept my amendment and still look the press in the eye and say, “We gave you everything you wanted, which is the removal of the stick.” Maybe they hope they will get some positive coverage as a result of doing this favour; I suspect they will end up being disappointed by that between now and the general election. Nevertheless, I am trying to make a compromise with them. I hope that the Government will look seriously at this.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend help the House by saying whether he has had any communication with The Guardian or Private Eye on this proposal?
George Eustice
I had multiple conversations with lots of publishers when the original Leveson architecture was put together, particularly around the royal charter. I know that Private Eye has always objected to joining anything at all, and it would be completely unaffected by the proposal. It is not a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, and it was never a member of the Press Complaints Commission. It has always remained entirely aloof, and there is nothing in the proposal that affects its position. Nor would anything in the proposal affect, say, The Spectator, which also has a view that it would not join a recognised regulator.
As I said, small publishers that want to do genuine investigative journalism and that do not have people with deep pockets standing behind them could benefit from the proposal by signing up to a recognised regulator. Many of them are already members of Impress, which is the recognised regulator at the moment, but others may form different regulators or encourage IPSO to join and seek recognition, so that they can benefit from that cost protection.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I would like to run through a number of the amendments in my name, which have largely been promoted by the National Union of Journalists. I will also say that new clause 2 appears to be part of the unfinished business of Leveson, which we need to move on fairly swiftly to ensure that people have proper redress and protections, while maintaining the freedom of the press.
I want to cover a number of issues in my amendments, such as the protection of public service broadcasting, diversity within the sector, media literacy and the demands for consultation on media changes. New clause 21 would add a detailed description of the range of genres that Ofcom must report whether the public service broadcasters have made available. It would also give Ofcom the responsibility to measure the extent of public service broadcasting across specific genres and the ability to set quotas if it felt that specific genres were not covered adequately. It comes from a campaign by the Voice of the Listener & Viewer to protect the requirements in the PSBs’ remit to broadcast programmes within specific genres.
Section 264 of the Communications Act 2003 sets out in some detail the requirements on public service broadcasting across a whole range of different genres, including “cultural activity”,
“the extent that is appropriate for facilitating civic understanding and fair and well-informed debate on news and current affairs,”
religion and so on. I will not go through the full list—it is very detailed.
The problem is that the Bill, as it stands, updates that position, but with a generalised list of what will be taken into account and protected in terms of the genres of audio-visual content. There is a general concern that that could lead to a number of specific areas, such as science or religion, becoming vulnerable. There will still be a variety of genres that there is no specific requirement on public service broadcasters to broadcast.
The Select Committee carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill raised the matter in its discussions. It felt that the Government’s replacing the list of specific commitments required of a public service broadcaster with a general remit was a “step too far”. The Government’s response was that their amendment was simply a simplification. Even the Chair of the Select Committee said the simplification of the remit and enforcement of it for Ofcom would come at a considerable cost. A number of pieces of evidence submitted to the Committee drew attention to areas where the requirement on public service broadcasters could be significantly weakened, even to the point of the overall removal of content.
I will quote the example given by Anna McNamee, the executive director of the Sandford St Martin Trust, about what is happening with regard to the coverage of religion. She said:
“In 2003 ITV successfully lobbied Ofcom for its PSB quotas for arts and religious content to be removed”
and, unfortunately:
“In 2015 Ofcom noticed that ITV’s provision of religion and ethics had all but ceased.”
The lesson from that drawn to the Committee and the Minister’s attention was that there was:
“No quota: no obligation to do so”
and that, under competing pressures, individual genres and sections of broadcasting would be deleted overall.
What we felt was needed in the legislation was a statutory requirement that, where there is an identification of societal value of a particular genre, Ofcom would be able to track the PSBs’ performance and ensure that the distinctive content is available to audiences. That is a reflection of Ofcom’s own concerns so far. It has noticed a decline in the provision of those genres. Broadcasting legislation—until this Bill—has set out what is considered societally valuable content and defined the remit of Ofcom and PSB in that way. Unfortunately, this generalised statement within the Bill fails to enable that to happen in the future.
My new clause 21 would provide Ofcom with stronger powers, with a clearer remit of what should be protected and the ability to set quotas if it considers current levels in certain genres to be unsatisfactory. It should allow the regulator to stem the significant decline of those genres since 2013.
My new clause 22 would place a duty on public service broadcasters to publish their objectives on the promotion of diversity and equality among the workforce and on Ofcom to monitor and report on the public service broadcasters’ performance on meeting that requirement. That comes out of an analysis of what is happening with regard to the diversity of the workforce in broadcasting.
If public service broadcasting is to represent all sectors of the UK population, the workforce should be truly representative. That is a general view that has been expressed across the House. Ofcom has recognised that broadcasters with advanced data collection practices tend to have more representative workforces. The new clause would further empower Ofcom to specify what kinds of data companies should be required to monitor and publish, therefore ensuring that they are looking at the impact of their diversity policies.
Some of the figures on the lack of diversity in broadcasting are quite startling. If we take class as an example, people from working-class backgrounds are under-represented in the broadcasting sector. Some 28% of employees who provided data were from a working-class background, below the UK population figure of 39%. In terms of gender diversity, men remain dominant in most senior roles, in particular the important roles of director—74.5%—and writers, with 67.3%. The number of women in senior roles has actually dropped in recent years from 46.8% to 45.4%. That has been declining continuously over the past four years. The figures for ethnicity are also pretty stark in terms of the lack of representation. Again, we are finding that without adequate monitoring, there has been a lack of any form of influence to improve the situation.
The Creative Diversity Network ran a project called Diamond to monitor diversity, but a number of the unions did not participate because the broadcasters had failed to share their statistics. Nevertheless, there were significant contributions made by individuals working offscreen and onscreen, reflecting people’s concerns about the lack of diversity in terms of gender, ethnicity and disability. There are stark figures that demonstrate the lack of representation in public service broadcasting. This new clause is simply intended to ensure that adequate statistics are provided and data collected, and that Ofcom’s monitoring and intervention powers are strengthened.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I once met a young lady who was keen to work in television and she told me that she wanted to be a presenter. However, because she wears a hijab, she was sure that she would never get to be a presenter—she had never seen any presenter wearing a hijab. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel, as I do, that transparency in reporting those figures would help make clear to everybody what diversity is lacking?
John McDonnell
The reason for this new clause—I am not pushing it to a vote or anything—is to encourage the debate further, because we seem to have hit a brick wall, or a glass ceiling, whichever hon. Members prefer. Part of the reason those attitudes persist is the lack of ethnic minorities, particularly in senior positions. The figure for black, Asian or minority ethnic community members in all senior roles is just 13%, an under-representation compared with the population; for senior producers it is 5.5% and for heads of production it is 7.4%. South Asian representation offscreen at all levels has actually fallen to 2.4%, less than half of the figure in the population as a whole, which is around 5%.
The reason for this new clause is to stimulate debate because, in addition to the failure of the existing system to maintain levels, we are going backwards in some areas. Not only is the number of people with disabilities in senior roles at a low level, but it has not changed in four years. There needs to be greater intervention and more powers to monitor and to require the delivery of statistics, and there needs to be proper participation by public service broadcasters in that. Ofcom also needs the ability to intervene more effectively.
Just quickly, because other hon. Members want to speak, I will say that new clause 23 is intended to place on public service broadcasters a duty to report on media literacy. It would introduce a requirement for public service broadcasters to take appropriate steps to improve levels of media literacy among their audiences and allow Ofcom to monitor that to see how the public broadcasters are pursuing that media literacy requirement. The reason for this new clause is that things have moved on since the Communications Act 2003. I remember that debate at that point was around teletext; the huge expansion of social media had not been anticipated, still less the arrival of artificial intelligence.
I do not think I need to stress in this House the importance of countering misinformation, disinformation, fake news, conspiracy theories and the like across social media, or the need to raise the issue of media literacy more widely. Public service broadcasters have an even greater role and duty now not only to provide impartial and accurate information, but to increase media literacy and make greater efforts to reach all age groups in the UK, particularly young people.
The BBC’s Marianna Spring, as people will know, is charged with covering some of these issues for the BBC, and a number of other broadcasters try independently to check the veracity of factual claims or to make an assessment of the credibility of sources, particularly in areas where there is conflict around the world. However, there is a need now to be more explicit about the issues that people face in the interpretation of media. For that reason, it is time for a duty to be placed upon public service broadcasters to develop media literacy strategies, which will enable the receivers of their broadcasts to better understand and better cut through some of the misinformation that is being purveyed.
There has been debate in this House already about the need for a greater recognition within the media itself of the threat posed by artificial intelligence. We have already seen the danger of artificially generated news stories and images, with reports of inaccurate data being used to inform artificial intelligence-generated stories, false attributions to journalists and creators, and people discovering that their likenesses have been used without their knowledge or consent. That is why the NUJ is trying to encourage the debate about who is responsible for raising the levels media literacy. New clause 23 would simply put a statutory duty upon public service broadcasters to develop and publish a strategy for what they are doing to raise media literacy, and give Ofcom a role in monitoring that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
For information, I intend to call those who have tabled amendments before other Members.
I call Sir John Whittingdale.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have an amendment that I would like to speak to. It might be slightly unusual for the person who was the Minister taking the Bill through Committee then to seek to amend the Bill on Report, but I am sure it is not unprecedented, and I hope my amendment is nevertheless helpful to the Government. It is certainly my intention that it should be.
I have taken the Bill through Committee, and it has already been subject to a lot of scrutiny by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in this House and in the other place, and with the publication of a draft Bill. I am therefore slightly surprised to see the number of Government amendments that have been tabled. Most are relatively minor and technical, and I welcome the measure that would correct the anomaly around independent national radio, requiring it to continue to broadcast on AM, even though fewer and fewer people are now accessing radio by those means. It is right to remove that anomaly.
Amendment 78 addresses local television, which was the invention of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). Although it has had a somewhat chequered history, it is successful in a number of areas across the country, particularly outside London. Rightly, the Government have consulted recently on whether they believe there is a long-term future for local TV, and I am optimistic they will conclude that they would like it to continue. The Bill will ensure that those broadcasters that the Government regard as making an important contribution should continue to thrive in a different media landscape. That is the purpose of the prominence provisions, which safeguard public service broadcasters to ensure that whatever means viewer choose to access television, they can find those public service broadcasters easily. Local television is not currently included on the list of channels that should have due prominence. As we move forward into an age when more and more people rely on internet protocol television to access channels, it will become increasingly hard for them if local TV is not obviously available on IPTV sets.
I have a Sky Glass television, which is an IPTV set, and at the moment I cannot get local television on it at all. One reason for that—and the reason the Government have previously given for not including local TV on the list of channels to be given prominence—is the absence of an app to deliver local TV. When I was filling in for the Minister over the past few months I had a meeting with local TV and was told that an app will be forthcoming quite soon that will allow local television to be received by IPTV. The Government suggested in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) that they see a difficulty with that, and that because there are a large number of local television channels it would be difficult to give all of them individual prominence. However, I am assured by local television that they intend to come forward with a single app, which will be available on a number of major platforms and ensure that a specifically chosen geographical location in the country will receive the specific local TV channel that is appropriate for that area. We are only talking about one app. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in his letter that the Government will continue to monitor the situation and consider increasing the availability of local content.
As we know, media Bills do not come along every day, and this is our single opportunity to update the law covering the range of media services. It is likely that there will not be another opportunity for some considerable time. My amendment would allow Ofcom, at a future date, to recommend the inclusion of a local TV app, as and when it emerges, in the prominence regime. It would ensure that the Bill future-proofs the regime so that it can be amended in such a way. I hope the Government will consider adopting that measure. I understand it is unlikely that they will accept my amendment, but I ask the Minister whether she will continue to look at this issue and, if the Government believe it is appropriate, consider tabling an amendment to that effect in the House of Lords.
On new clause 3, regarding the abolition of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, I was slightly surprised to learn from my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) that the inclusion of a firm pledge to repeal section 40, which was not just in the 2017 Conservative manifesto but repeated in that of 2019, was a drafting error. It did not strike me at the time that either the initial pledge or the second one were drafting errors.
George Eustice
Is my right hon. Friend saying that there were no drafting errors in the 2017 manifesto?
Sir John Whittingdale
There may have been—I am not quite sure which others my right hon. Friend might be referring to, but I am pretty certain that that was not one of them.
George Eustice
Nobody ever said that they objected to the cost protections for the press contained in section 40. The arguments against section 40 were always shorthand arguments that essentially claimed falsely that it would require publishers to pay the costs of others—and that only related to one small part of section 40.
Sir John Whittingdale
My right hon. Friend is right, but as I think I pointed out on Second Reading, not a single major publisher has chosen to apply for recognition by the Press Recognition Panel through joining a recognised regulator.
George Eustice
But is that not precisely because the Government failed to move the incentives that encouraged people to join?
Sir John Whittingdale
As the Minister responsible, who said that we would not implement section 40, I had considerable talks. It was made plain that if the Government had implemented section 40, no major publisher would apply for recognition. My right hon. Friend talked about the carrot and stick, and his new clause would require the Government to look for alternative incentives to encourage publishers to apply for recognition, even if the existing carrot and stick were removed. He did not go into detail in his speech about what alternative incentive there might be; it sounded slightly like a reference to Marlon Brando’s making “an offer you can’t refuse”. The press have been absolutely plain: they object to any regulator that carries the stamp of Government approval. That is the fundamental principle that has caused every publisher to say that they will not apply for recognition.
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend knows that it is not a Government regulator. The Press Recognition Panel was established by the royal charter on self-regulation of the press. The Conservative party established that as a royal charter rather than a regulatory body for precisely that reason—to accommodate that wish of the press.
Sir John Whittingdale
I did not suggest it was a Government regulator, but nevertheless, any regulator that requires Government approval through the Press Recognition Panel is viewed by the press as having a Government stamp of approval, which they regard as unacceptable. My right hon. Friend spoke about the discussions he had, but he would agree that the stick and the carrot at that time were thought to be necessary to persuade red-top publishers such as The Daily Mail and The Sun to join a regulator recognised by the PRP. What I do not think he anticipated—indeed, nobody anticipated it at the time—was that not a single major publisher would agree to co-operate with the regime that was being put in place. That includes The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer and the Financial Times. Not one major publisher said that it would co-operate with the system that was put in place, so it has plainly failed. For that reason alone the Government should revisit the issue, remove section 40, and instead encourage those who do not currently accept the ruling of an independent regulator to join the one in existence, which is IPSO. I know that my right hon. Friend and I will not agree on this point, but his suggestion that it was somehow an oversight to include a commitment to repeal in the manifestos of 2017 and 2019 is simply not correct. He will be aware that there is unanimity among all the major publishers that section 40 represents an attack on media freedom. It is not just the publishers who hold that view; many campaigning organisations, such as Reporters Without Borders, have actually downgraded the UK’s press freedom rating because of the existence of section 40, and it is certainly viewed as an infringement of media freedom.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
This is one of the issues on which my right hon. Friend and I agree. May I suggest that those who wish to follow this up afterwards read a book called “The Laughter of Triumph”, by Ben Wilson? It is about William Hone and the fight for a free press back in 1817. The press should not be forced into any Government regulation; there should be the law of the land, and that is it.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that this is not the only issue on which we agree, but it is certainly one on which we hold the same view. For that reason, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) will press his new clause to a vote, because I shall not support him on it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We should remind ourselves why we are here: it is because those who were described by Alan Bates, the leader of the Horizon scandal complainants, as “small, skinny people” needed redress against the huge, overbearing press. The Hacked Off website pointed out that in 2021, only 0.6% of more than 14,000 complaints were upheld by IPSO—only 88 cases in total, which is a minuscule number. Is that a sign that the system is working?
Sir John Whittingdale
I do not think success can be judged simply on the number of complaints upheld. Indeed, as we have seen in other organisations, such as the BBC, we may find that a large number of those complaints relate to a single issue that has generated a great deal of concern. It is not as simple as, “There were x thousand complaints, and only so many were upheld.” Generally, however, IPSO is definitely an improvement on the Press Complaints Commission, which went before it. It is not perfect—no regulator ever is—and I myself have criticised it for not having yet imposed any fines, but the atmosphere surrounding the behaviour of the press is very different from what it was when, for instance, Hacked Off was created, and when I chaired the inquiry on phone hacking, which led to the establishment of Sir Brian Leveson’s report.
I do not want to detain the House any longer. I intend to press the Government, but not as far as a vote; I should say that I urge the Government to look at ways in which they can support local television through my amendment. Given the point about section 40, I cannot support the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I want to express my gratitude for the fact that the Bill has been prioritised in this new term, and is progressing quickly. For our public service broadcasters in particular, this legislation is long overdue. I want to refer to my amendment about the language surrounding prominence for PSBs such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. The Bill gives public service content an “appropriate” level of prominence on online services, which should make it easier to find not only the apps that take us to the BBC or ITV on a smart TV, but to find those channels on the traditional TV guide with which we are all familiar. However, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee made the suggestion, which I have tabled in the form of an amendment, that the word “appropriate” is perhaps unhelpfully subjective, and should be replaced with “significant”. The prominence of PSBs is an existential issue that should not be underestimated, so I ask the Government to consider that suggestion as the Bill progresses.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendment. I strongly agree with him: the issue cannot just be left in the air, given the importance of public service broadcasting. I therefore think that the guidance for Ofcom should be stronger than the Government have recognised so far. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what they propose to do about that.
Jamie Stone
I thank the right hon. Member for her intervention.
Let me move on to the subject of Channel 4 and the removal of the restriction on in-house production. I have concerns about that change to Channel 4’s model, which has worked extremely well for a long time, although the previous Secretary of State was not so keen on its existence—or, at least, its future. Channel 4 has historically supported the independent production sector throughout the UK, in places such as my constituency in the far north of Scotland, but there are concerns that allowing it to create its own content could destabilise the sector. Given the Government’s track record on Channel 4, my ultimate fear is that this could be used as a stick with which to beat the channel, although I hope that does not happen. That being said, Channel 4 and the independent production sector are integral to each other, which is why I am glad to see the channel’s qualifying independent commitment to the sector increased to 40%, and to hear that any changes are likely to be very gradual, allowing the market to adjust accordingly. That can only be a good thing.
I come to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) on listed events. The Government must take his proposal forward, so that major sporting events such as the Olympics, the Euros, Wimbledon and the World cup remain free to air in their entirety. In an increasingly digital-first world, digital rights must be included in the listed events regime. Let me turn to a subject that is close to my heart. Earlier this week, Ben Stokes said that England’s test win over India was his “greatest triumph” since he had become England’s captain. I think we can all take pleasure in that, regardless of which of the four corners of the United Kingdom we inhabit. I acknowledge the nod from my colleague on the Scottish National party Benches, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), for which I thank him courteously. I feel that this sort of shared cultural moment should be available for everyone to watch on free-to-air television. My amendment would enable people to see a cricket test and a one-day international on free-to-air TV each summer, and I hope that Members will strongly consider supporting it.
On the subject of local radio—something that I have mentioned in the past, and was beaten up about when I was a councillor long ago—I tabled amendments 7 to 13 to broaden the scope of the requirements in local radio broadcasting licences, so that the current scope of “local material” as
“news, information and other spoken material and music”
is retained. If only I could have heard myself say those words all those years ago! I can see the good that it does. It would not be right for the BBC to be left as sole provider of local speech radio. On a similar point, I welcome part 6 of the Bill, which safeguards the future of the industry with relation to voice-activated smart devices.
Local radio is integral to upholding democracy—a point made many times by many of us in this place. It provides trusted news and information, particularly during an emergency, as we saw during covid, and also provides entertainment. That is especially important to my constituents, who, as may be imagined, often face long drives across very large rural areas.
New clause 3 and amendments 2 to 4 relate to section 40 and our press, a subject already mentioned by a number of Members today. Ten years ago, all the parties made commitments to the victims of press abuse that we would introduce the system of regulation recommended in the Leveson report to protect the public from press wrongdoing. We in this country benefit from a vibrant and rich media, as was pointed out in an urgent question earlier today, but whereas our broadcasting media are the envy of the world, our print media languish at the bottom of international league tables when it comes to public trust and confidence. However, the Government now seek to repeal section 40, although they have no plans to replace it with any alternative mechanism of independent and impartial regulation. That not only leaves local and independent newspapers unable to defend themselves against expensive litigation in the form of strategic lawsuits against public participation, but makes it harder for a normal person to take legal action against a large publisher. As they say, those with the deepest pockets win.
These amendments offer two ways forward. New clause 3 and amendments 3 and 4 would permit the repeal of section 40, but not before there has been a consultation on alternative incentives for the Leveson system. Amendment 2 would repeal the part of section 40 that would disadvantage unregulated newspapers, but keep the part that protects local independent titles that have done the right thing and signed up to regulation. Under either of those amendments, national newspapers would face no detriment at all for their potentially bad behaviour—there is no free speech reason to object to them—but they allow us to show our support for the victims of press abuse and for the underlying principles of independent regulation.
Many sensible amendments have been tabled to this Bill, and I am glad that the majority of us in the House and, indeed, the industry are singing from the same hymn sheet. The world and the way in which our media operate have changed beyond recognition since the Communications Act 2003, and I and my party will be very pleased to watch this Bill make its way swiftly through both Houses, so that our legislation at last reflects the world we live in today. I close by paying tribute to Members for the great efforts that have been made on all sides of this House to make sure that this legislation is fit for purpose.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Father of the House.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for previewing the suggestion that time-shifted excerpts from listed events be available through public service broadcasters. I regret that test matches are not presently listed events, because I think that this country would have wanted to see the remarkable parts of the test match in India this week.
Some people may have only read press descriptions of Ben Stokes doing a backhanded flip to the wicket. That can be well described by people such as Neville Cardus and his successors, but it is even better to watch it in real life.
I believe that the number of listed events should be expanded. However, as the BBC and others have reminded us, the number of people watching events on the other side of the world at midnight or four in the morning might be 400,000, whereas those who would want to watch those events the next day might be 4 million or 14 million.
I believe that the new clause should be accepted, and I hope that the Minister will say some comforting words. Like many others, I do not propose to push my new clause to a Division today, but I do hope that the Government will respond by tabling an amendment or a new clause in the House of Lords that has the same effect. I could read out my full briefing, but the point has been well made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and may be made by others.
What is the reason for embracing the future? It is not just about linear television; there is the opportunity for other rights. So many rights are bought by commercial businesses outside this country. What do they care about what happens in one part of the world broadcasting framework? We must have a requirement to stop those who think they can make money by making most people not watch key events, and making those who do watch pay a lot. People should be able to watch coverage on ordinary public service broadcasting.
My belief is that, for major events, the competition between the public service broadcasters will be sufficient to ensure a fair return for those who buy the rights. I do not believe in having an unrestricted auction, so that people can buy rights that will exclude most people in the country from watching sporting events of great importance. There have been examples of rights holders—Sky has done this well—making an event available on normal public service broadcasting, as well as on their own service, when one of our national teams has got into a final. I pay tribute to Sky for doing that.
I want to follow up on the words of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who talked about genres in public service broadcasting. I thought I would table an amendment or a new clause that does what he argued for. I believe that Ofcom should have an explicit duty to make sure that public service broadcasters are held to account and explain how they are meeting the requirements for the various parts of public service broadcasting. Public service broadcasting can be very interesting and fully commercial; a large number of people may want to watch it, and it may be very popular, but not necessarily. Religion, science and many other areas listed in the right hon. Member’s amendment 86 are important.
I say to the Government: pay attention to what he has said, look to Colin Browne for what viewers and listeners have said, and accept the amendment, so that the requirements are explicit, and the responses by the public service broadcasters are open.
I believe that we can make a success of this Bill. I know that broadcasting regulation is normally about 10 years behind the technology, and I remember that about 30 years ago, David Mellor had to change a virtually complete Bill on Report because so much had changed between the Bill being drafted and its Third Reading in the House of Commons. I believe that we can make a major change, and I can sum this up to the Government in words that someone has offered me, which are absolutely right:
“Don’t let this opportunity pass by. The time to act is now. Once these moments go behind a paywall, that’s the final whistle.”
Let us make all major events available to all people, at least in excerpts, so that they can watch them in daylight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I refer hon. and right hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank all colleagues, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Eltham (Clive Efford), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), for their service on the Public Bill Committee and for doing really diligent and careful work.
In general, my colleagues on the Labour Benches and I are supportive of this Bill. It has been too long in the making, and the delays have held back the UK’s world-leading public service broadcasters. They have also affected the productivity of the creative industries as a whole, and the public service broadcast sector is such a large and important part of the creative industries and their commissioning. The last time broad changes were enacted for our public service broadcasters was in 2003. I think we can all agree that the world is now a very different place, but better late than never. Broadly speaking, I believe this is a good Bill, and we support it.
Our public service broadcasters are a fundamental part of British cultural life. If we did not have them, we would want to invent them, and this Bill gives them and the wider broadcasting industry the tools they need to survive in the modern world. The Bill contains crucial measures to ensure that UK broadcasters can thrive in a digital age by protecting radio services when they are accessed on smart speakers, and by ensuring the fair prominence of public service broadcasters on smart TVs. I will return to the question of prominence shortly.
However, the Bill does not take full advantage of the opportunity it creates to shape the broadcasting industry for the next decade. Although we will not seek to disrupt or delay the passage of the Bill, there are areas where we believe it can and should be strengthened and improved. I hope the Minister will listen to our suggestions in the new clauses and amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East.
New clause 9 concerns children’s television. For many children and young people, public service broadcasting is an important part of how they learn and in particular how they learn to understand the world—it is a central part of how their curiosity is ignited. The Bill as drafted fails to recognise that importance by neglecting to try to understand how the viewing habits of children and young people are changing. Provision for children by public service broadcasters is under threat because so few children now watch live TV. The top-rated programme on CBBC attracts as few as 50,000 viewers. Children carry entertainment in their pockets, and they can and do switch between various apps and platforms in a matter of seconds, which is understandably affecting investment in children’s programming.
That creates a vicious cycle: as investment and resources decline, so too does the quality of the output. Instead of trying to provide high-quality, uniquely British public service content for children, broadcasters are then forced to prioritise profitable content that offers little public value and can be sold internationally. Our new clause 9 would enable the Government to take an important first step, recognise the problem and explore routes forward. It would be a shame not to take advantage of this opportunity to shape children’s programming for the future, in what is supposed to be a forward-looking piece of legislation. I ask the Minister to give that some consideration.
The Bill also fails to go far enough on age classification. The hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) have tabled amendments in this area, for which I thank them, alongside our new clause 14, which shows the breadth of feeling across the House. All these amendments look to tackle the same underlying issue, which is that there is no consistency in how age ratings are currently used on streaming sites. Parents and children alike deserve to be able to have full confidence in age ratings so that when they pick something to watch, they can trust that it will be safe and age-appropriate. Ratings must be easily understood and recognisable by the public and underpinned by a transparent set of criteria that take into account British attitudes on everything from swearing to violence and anything else we might think of.
New clause 14 does not, in my view, overengineer the issue. It does not require every on-demand service to use any specific age rating provider, although we should collectively recognise that the British Board of Film Classification is a great example of best practice. Our public service broadcasters already follow stringent rules, which may mean that age ratings are not appropriate for their content, but where age ratings are already used, there should be clear criteria against which Ofcom can measure their success and quality.
The Bill also falls short when it comes to digital rights to listed events. Listed events have already generated some debate, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by other hon. and right hon. Members about various sporting events. This legislation is supposed to contribute to the future-proofing of public service broadcasters, but I feel that to do that it needs to go further. Our new clause 10 seeks to address that. The rights to broadcast moments of national sporting importance are offered first to channels such as the BBC and ITV, enabling the broadest possible range of British people to watch the likes of Wimbledon and the Olympics.
We agree with the aim of the Bill, which is to protect and modernise the system, while making a few changes to ensure that it is appropriate in the digital age, but unfortunately the Bill falls short in this regard. By not extending the regime to include online clips and highlights, the Bill risks preventing thousands upon thousands of people from feeling the joy of watching British athletes or cricketers compete on the world stage, particularly when those competitions are happening far away, as happened this week with Ben Stokes and co. Considering that the next men’s football World cup and the next two Olympics after Paris 2024—
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Gavin Newlands
The shadow Secretary of State mentions sporting events. In addition to protecting the Six Nations for us all in group A, would she accept the principle that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish football fans should have the same access to their national teams as English fans do at present?
Thangam Debbonaire
Of course I would, and I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East said in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to press me on a specific aspect, I am also happy to confirm that we would support the new clause tabled in his name if it were pushed to a vote. I will be interested to see whether colleagues in his party will support our new clause on Gaelic broadcasting, as they seemed not to vote for it in Committee. It will be interesting to see whether they take up that challenge as well.
It is likely that, even in the near future, key sporting moments will take place in the middle of the night in this country. Despite the fact that Conservative Ministers ordered a review of this in 2022, there is simply nothing in this Bill as drafted to update the listed events rules so that clips or highlights from those events do not get stuck behind a paywall. Our new clause 10 seeks to guarantee that action is taken on this issue, but it is flexible enough to accommodate whatever mechanisms are identified as most appropriate following their review. I also note new clause 7, in the name of the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), which is more prescriptive than ours but addresses the same issue.
If Ministers cannot lend their support to either of these amendments, they should at the very least publish the response to the review in full. It would be helpful if the Government took up the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East that criteria be published, so that we get a clearer sense, rather than having this ad hoc debate—sympathetic though I may be to certain sporting events. There is the question of national fairness—that is a principle—and also the question of what criteria we should use to add to the listings regime.
New clause 12 seeks to fix another problem with the Bill, which is that it fails to take the rising popularity of podcasts into account. I have mentioned podcasts before on the Floor of the House, and it gives me great pleasure to mention them again when discussing the regulation of selection services for audio content. Some 10 million adults listen to podcasts every week. It is emerging as a format that encourages collaboration, new partnerships, interesting discussion and the presence of a range of politicians and other personalities who have something interesting or unique to say. It seems counterintuitive, therefore, to exclude this fast-growing audio medium from the Bill. For example, the Bill as drafted guarantees access to the LBC breakfast show with Nick Ferrari but not to “The News Agents” podcast. Some of us will be listening to both, and we expect similar treatment for both. This new clause would simply provide that consistency.
New clause 11 is designed to ensure that public service content is available to linear services as well as online. Part 1 of the Media Bill introduces new measures to allow public service broadcasters to meet some of their remit requirements through their online services and on-demand channels. Given that streaming and on-demand are growing rapidly, this seems a reasonable forward-looking change. However, there are still millions of people who watch their television through a traditional broadcast set-up. This group of people primarily includes older residents, families in rural areas and those struggling with bills as a result of the cost of living crisis. It is crucial that they can still access public service content as usual. This new clause would give Ofcom the means to assess whether public service broadcasting delivery on linear services was adequate; and, if it found that provision to be inadequate, it would have the power to set binding quotas.
I have already mentioned new clause 13, which encourages the Secretary of State to consider and take advice on whether a Gaelic language service should be recognised as a public service broadcaster in its own right. This was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East in Committee. BBC Alba, the Gaelic language television service provided by MG Alba and the BBC, is a huge asset, providing a wide range of high quality programming for Gaelic speakers to enjoy and sustaining around 340 jobs, half of which are in economically fragile areas. However, despite apparent cross-party support for the service, Gaelic language broadcasting is still not recognised in legislation across the board in the same way as other minority language services are. That is not to say that Gaelic language broadcasting can be directly compared to Welsh broadcasting, for example, but it is an acknowledgment of the importance of language to our cultural life. Language is a daily expression of our history, and Gaelic language broadcasting is an important forum for that expression. It should therefore be considered for recognition in law.
Jamie Stone
I really hate to say this, but it is worth pointing out, in the context of Gaelic and Welsh, that the situation for Gaelic is very precarious indeed. It is strong enough in some of the Western Isles, but we need to remember that it needs to be nurtured big time now.
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid and valuable contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East, the shadow Minister with responsibility for media, has met those bodies recently. We understand the points that he is making and take them fully on board. This new clause, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend, is not prescriptive as to how we break the cycle; it leaves multiple options open to the Secretary of State.
I turn to clause 50 and the amendment tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who made his points earlier. The phone hacking scandal led to section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. That scandal involved egregious acts, and the treatment of victims of crime or tragedy by some sections of the media was a disgusting abuse of power. We all say that that should never be repeated. The majority of British journalists are decent and honourable, but there are some who even now continue to drag the good name of that profession into disrepute. That profession is a cornerstone of our democracy and it is important that the public are able to trust it, but at the moment we are at risk of the public losing faith in the profession of journalism, as was certainly also the case before section 40 was created and before that scandal was exposed.
We on the Labour Benches want a press that is regulated in a way that makes it accountable for its reporting and that meets the highest ethical and journalistic standards. We want to see a financially sustainable free press in the UK that can carry on holding power to account. Clause 50 repeals section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, but if the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth pushes his amendment 2 to a Division this evening, we will support it, because it offers a way through by keeping some of what he refers to as the carrots. Indeed, by removing some of the sticks, his amendment would incentivise more publishers to join up with an approved regulator, for the reasons that he has outlined much more coherently and clearly than I can now. We thank him for working co-operatively with us.
Sir John Whittingdale
It is interesting to hear that the Opposition intend to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), as they abstained in Committee. If a future Labour Government repealed section 40, would they put in place an equivalent or similar measure?
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am speaking about amendment 2, which we will support for the reasons that the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth set out.
I want to see publishers protected from defamation cases brought by Russian oligarchs and other wealthy individuals or corporations looking to evade scrutiny in the public interest. The Government have promised to do more to protect people from SLAPPs, but they have yet to come forward with concrete proposals. We would like to see those measures brought forward, as they are needed to secure our free press. We also look forward to seeing the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) on this subject.
It is an important principle that ordinary citizens should be able to access justice. As the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth said, amendment 2 would remove the stick. If that encourages more publishers to join the approved regulator, it would create more compliance with the arbitration scheme, which is another reason why we support the amendment. How will the Government protect publishers from SLAPPs and give complainants access to justice?
I acknowledge the amendments and new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). In addition to covering many of the issues that I also support, he clearly cares about the care that public service broadcasters should take in consulting and fully representing their audiences in both their workforce and their output. I ask every culture, media and sport organisation I meet, “Where are the women? Where are the people of colour? Where are the people from working-class communities?” Those questions have to be answered both horizontally and vertically, and my right hon. Friend made that case extremely well.
Before closing, I wish to raise a couple of concerns with the Minister on Government amendments 37 to 39. Those amendments appear to lack clarity and purpose, and they may weaken the position of public service broadcasters in future negotiations with commercial broadcasters. I urge the Government to reconsider them, and at least to make it clear to the House what problem they are trying to solve.
We support the Bill in general terms. I hope Members will join me in supporting the amendments I have outlined, including amendment 2 tabled by the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and our new clause 13 on Gaelic. We feel that these amendments would strengthen the Bill, benefiting people across the country and helping to support our broadcasters in the coming years.
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in support of amendment 18, tabled in my name and the names of other hon. Members.
I generally welcome this Bill as a valiant attempt to bring the law and regulation up to date in a fast-moving sector of our society, namely broadcasting and on-screen entertainment. I will focus on part 4, which deals with on-demand programme services and, in particular, clause 38, which will usher in a comprehensive review, to be undertaken by Ofcom, of audience protection and the production of a video on demand code.
This welcome Bill reflects how many people watch their entertainment today. My two oldest grandchildren, aged 19 and 18, rarely watch anything on television, but they are always on their tablets or smartphones. They have no concept of seeing what is on the box in the evening, and maybe even recording it, as my wife and I still do. They simply source and download what they want to watch, when they want to watch it, via video on demand.
It is therefore important that we ensure the very best protection is in place, not so much for them—they are both adults now—but for my 12-year-old granddaughter, my seven-year-old grandson and even my two-year-old granddaughter, who has her own tablet on which she watches “Peppa Pig” and “The Wheels on the Bus”—I can confirm that the wheels go round an awful lot. [Laughter.] After 20 years, I am so sick of hearing that song.
Ensuring adequate audience protection measures for video on demand is vital, and clause 38 makes a commendable start, but I believe that amendment 18—shades of which are mirrored in amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House, as was mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State—would enhance that protection. The amendment contains the following reasonable provision:
“When considering the adequacy of age ratings, OFCOM must report on the extent to which any age ratings used by providers are—
(a) clear and well understood by consumers;
(b) underpinned by a published and transparent set of standards; and
(c) informed by regular and substantive consultation with the UK public.”
I do not think that is asking too much, and I therefore hope the Government will consider it carefully.
The Government have said that the Bill’s objective is to bring in
“stronger protections from harmful or age-inappropriate shows through a new Ofcom…Video-on-demand Code”.
Amendment 18 simply sets out objective criteria to achieve this aim with regard to age ratings. All it requires is that age ratings are clear, transparent and reflect UK expectations about what is age appropriate. That is not a high bar to expect services to meet.
As others have said, we are very fortunate in the UK to have a tried and trusted classifier of content, namely the British Board of Film Classification, which has been age-rating our movies ever since I first went to the pictures in Tiverton to see James Bond in “Thunderball”—I wonder how many colleagues remember that underwater film—and probably for a lot longer than that. The BBFC now rates online content and video on demand.
Opinion polls and surveys tell us that parents understand and trust the BBFC’s rating system. My informal survey of parents in my constituency over the past few weeks has confirmed that. It is the gold standard, and the threshold against which Ofcom can consider the sector as a whole. It is therefore reassuring that Netflix, Apple and Amazon all use BBFC ratings for their video content.
Amendment 18 would not force every content producer to use BBFC ratings, but it would help to ensure that each rating system is fit for purpose. That is the bare minimum we can do to prevent commercial VOD services from exposing children to harmful content because, sadly, all is not well in this sector. It grieves me to say that that is particularly so in relation to Disney.
The current ratings free-for-all has seen Disney+ classifying scenes of sexual abuse as suitable for nine-year-olds and scenes of graphic, misogynistic violence or offensive antisemitic stereotypes as suitable for 12-year-olds. That is lower than it classifies some of its “Star Wars” and superhero content. Until we hold services to a minimum standard, we risk eroding public trust in age ratings as a child-protection measure, and thus perpetuating this entirely preventable harm.
The problem with Disney and Disney+ is that, for most of us, the brand conjures a sense of safety and security that is no longer warranted. When people of my generation hear the word Disney, we think of “Bambi” or “Cinderella”, so the thought that our grandchildren are in the next room watching a Disney+ video is intrinsically reassuring. But that would be an error of judgment, because much of its content is now dark and explicit.
Disney’s rating system is very different from the BBFC’s, and it is based on a Dutch system. Transparency and consistency must be part of the new VOD code, and Ofcom should consider the current lack of coherence and consistency in its review and future work.
Amendment 18 does not seek to change the scope of the Bill or prevent new innovations in audience protection. It is not about mandating any particular solution. Most of us know and respect BBFC age ratings, but nobody will be forced to adopt age ratings where they are not appropriate or not expected, such as on services operated by public service broadcasters. It is purely about setting objective benchmark standards to ensure that, where age ratings are used, they are effective for the purpose of child protection. As that is the stated purpose of the Bill, I hope the amendment will attract Government support.
It is not my intention to divide the House on amendment 18, but I hope that the excellent Minister will introduce similar amendments in the other place. If she does not, I am confident that similar amendments will be tabled in the other place that are likely to be supported, and I certainly would not vote against them when they come back to this place.
Kirsty Blackman
I want to respond briefly to the issues just raised by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter). I wonder whether he has looked at my new clause 20. The definition of “on-demand services” is not as he imagines. In the Communications Act 2003, it covers only those services whose “principal purpose” is the provision of programmes, so services such as those on the iPad or consoles would not be covered by the legislation as it stands. The legislation is specifically about those whose principal purpose is to do with providing programmes. It will cover Fire sticks, for example, or Sky Glass, as was mentioned by the Minister, but it will not cover those people watching on a PlayStation or on-demand services on iPads, so the prominence regime would not apply for those who are not watching on something whose “principal purpose” is television.
Anything in the Bill that relates specifically to on-demand services, therefore, even when it comes to age ratings or some of the other requirements we are putting on on-demand services, will apply only to Sky Glass, Fire TV and those sorts of things. That is why I tabled new clause 20, which would amend the Bill to recognise how quickly things move, as a number of Members have pointed out. The way that we consume media changes very regularly, and it has certainly changed dramatically in the 20 years since a media Bill was previously proposed.
I therefore ask Ministers to look at the definition of on-demand services and consider whether it continues to be appropriate; if it does not, new clause 20 would ensure that Ofcom is able to regulate all those places where people watch television. I originally tabled the new clause because of the incredibly high percentage, comparatively, of people in Scotland who watch television exclusively on consoles, without the PSB prominence that we might expect in services that are specifically for streaming TV.
I will speak to a number of the amendments tabled by Members across the House, starting with those tabled by the SNP. I have covered my concerns about the definition of on-demand services, and generally I do not think that the Bill as drafted is all-encompassing enough. The issue of smaller studios, which is covered in our amendments 82 to 85, was raised with me by the Media Reform Coalition. Having quotas for independent studios is good, but some broadcasters have a predilection to using only the super-indies, which account for about 20% of the companies that make independent productions; the smaller indies account for about 80%. Some broadcasters commission almost everything from that 20% of the market, from companies such as Endemol. Those companies do a great job, but they cannot be considered to be small independent studios. Amendments 82 to 85 would encourage public service broadcasters to move outside the scope of those largest independent studios and to give some of their work to smaller studios, which would have significant regional benefits.
New clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), looks at how the regions are accounted for, the production hours in each of the regions, and making sure that productions are genuinely regional productions, rather than a lift-and-shift from somewhere else. Those issues are important. Looking at the quota system for stuff being done outside the M25, for example, is not enough. Amendments 82 to 85 would augment the regional quotas recommendations proposed by the hon. Member for Arfon. If broadcasting companies had to look at the smaller independent studios, it would naturally encourage an increase in regional production.
I have one last point to make about the SNP amendments that has not been covered so much by other people. New clause 22, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is similar to my new clause 19 on the diversity of the workforce. That is incredibly important. I made the point in an intervention that I am concerned by the lack of diversity in public service broadcasting. I am concerned by that lack of diversity on and off screen. It is important to look at both areas when considering the future of PSBs. This is not about sticks, nor is it about carrots; it is about transparency. It is about ensuring that all individuals are transparent about whether they are meeting the test of having something that looks like the general population. It is clear that Parliament does not match the diversity of the population, given the incredibly large percentage of men in comparison with women still in this place, even though it has been going in the right direction. However, we need people on screen to reflect the population.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I emphasise the point that the hon. Lady made earlier in respect of the Gaelic language. In terms of language planning, extending the domain of a minority language is extremely important. That domain encompasses the media, including television and radio. She is perfectly right to argue for Gaelic television to be picked up in Aberdeen as well as in the Western Isles.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for backing up my point. I think we are very much on the same page. I am pleased at how much Welsh language TV has changed and moved in recent years. I congratulate him on his personal work to ensure that that happened. He was very clear about the history in Committee, and it was incredibly interesting to learn about that.
I support the amendments about age ratings. I agree that there should be consistency to them and that Disney tends to duck its obligations, which makes it more difficult for parents to make sensible decisions.
The shadow Minister talked about children’s television and the way that children access some television. Children in more deprived households are less likely to have access to smartphones or online systems, and therefore the only way they can access good children’s content may be through the public service broadcasters and their free-to-air services. I want to reinforce the shadow Minister’s point that it is incredibly important to protect those services because of the discriminatory and differential impact their loss would have on the most vulnerable children and those who are least able to access educational programming and have access only to free-to-air services as they air.
It is important to protect children’s television and ensure the provision of good-quality children’s television. I continue to talk and think about the importance of CBBC and CBeebies when my children were young. Other services are available but 10 or 12 years ago, those channels were at the centre of what children and families were watching. I hope that they continue to produce high-quality, useful and interesting programmes. Sometimes we just need to sit our children down in front of the TV and have a few minutes. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is thoroughly recommended at times.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington tabled new clause 21, about genres. We agree that there are issues with their removal from legislation. I hope that the Government will agree at least to keep a watching brief on that and that they are willing to ensure that Ofcom can change the genres covered or encourage extra genres to be added in a slightly easier way than is currently possible. The process for making changes is onerous and if problems are identified, it will be difficult for the Government to walk back from the position that they are including in the Bill. Giving Ofcom more flexibility to increase the number of genres would be helpful.
Let me deal with the issues about section 40 and the lack of independent regulators. I met members of Hacked Off yesterday. I have been speaking to the organisation throughout the Bill’s stages, and I tabled an amendment on the subject in Committee. I have concerns about the Government’s position on section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. I understand that, as the temporary Minister—if that is the correct term—the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) said, the provision was a manifesto pledge. I still do not think that it is the right thing to do. We still have significant issues with the Independent Press Standards Organisation. The right hon. Member cannot say that Impress is a state regulator and that it is not independent while at the same time stressing that IPSO is an independent regulator. Either they are both independent or neither of them are. A press-backed regulator and a state-backed regulator would be closer to my definition. I believe that IPSO is not independent, as do many people, if we look at the results and the number of people who go through IPSO processes and do not get the recourse that they hoped for or that natural justice would give them.
I spoke to an individual yesterday whose daughter had died. The seconds before the young woman passed away were filmed and posted on a national newspaper’s website. IPSO found that that was not intrusion into grief. It is against natural justice that that could happen. The individuals from Hacked Off and those who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry were told clearly by those in charge at the time, “We will make changes. We will ensure that there is recourse.” They were promised by those in the most senior positions that change would happen, yet 12 years on, those people are still waiting for any meaningful change to occur. Given everything that they have been through, they should not have to continue to fight simply to get the press to behave with a little compassion and common sense. I have massive concerns about the Government’s position, and I will support the amendments that the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) tabled. I have a slight preference for new clause 3 over amendment 2 because the new clause is very similar to the one that I tabled in Committee. However, I am happy to take the morally correct position and support amendment 2.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) will cover the sports issues.
Clive Efford
I have been perusing new clause 18, which the hon. Member tabled. It would establish a fund to compensate sports governing bodies for loss of income for sale of TV rights. Would that be a levy on the sports governing bodies, which the Government would redistribute, or would the money come from general taxation? It is not clear how it would be paid for.
Kirsty Blackman
I do not mean to be difficult, but the amendments are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and I was saying that he will cover the information about them. I am sure that he would be willing to take an intervention on that point and provide the answer. I have magnanimously allowed him to lead because I know very little about sport. He knows far more about it than me, so it made sense for us to divide up the amendments.
I want briefly to cover terrestrial television and specifically new clause 8, which the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) tabled, and amendment 80, which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and I tabled. The Scottish Affairs Committee did an excellent piece of work on that, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and the rest of the Committee on all their work. The Committee found that about a third of users in Scotland access television only through Freeview or digital terrestrial TV. Our amendment asks about the percentage of people who access television through means other than terrestrial TV. My biggest concern, which I made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, is about the potential for terrestrial television services to stop accidentally. If the Government refuse to make a commitment about those services’ future, we could end up with the networks degrading accidentally, with nobody willing to make investment in them because the Government have not been clear about their future. I would like the Government to make clear statements about what those services will look like in future. We want to ensure that our constituents can continue to access them and that there is no impact on the most vulnerable and those who live in the most rural areas.
The Bill tries to strike a balance between the rights and the responsibilities of public service broadcasters. Everything that the Government do in regulating them is about striking that balance. They outline the recognised public service broadcasters’ rights and their responsibilities to show certain genres and provide high-quality television. As a result of fulfilling those responsibilities, those broadcasters have the right to prominence on on-demand services. It is reasonable to consider public service broadcasters as different from other broadcasters because they have those responsibilities, which others do not share.
The changes to radio are also important. It was good to hear cross-party commitment to and positivity about radio in Committee. In the recent extreme weather events, people have relied on the radio. They need to know, for example, that a tree has fallen down on North Anderson Drive and that they cannot access the Haudagain slip road. My friend, who lives in Oxfordshire, had no electricity because of a recent storm, and could get updates only by listening to their car radio. Radio is incredibly important for resilience and I am pleased that Members across the House recognised that in Committee.
As I have made clear, the SNP will not oppose the Bill on Third Reading. Changes, which are long overdue, need to be made. However, there are some gaps in the Bill, including issues around future proofing, that have not been adequately addressed. As the shadow Minister did, I thank everyone on the Bill Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Arfon.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate about this important legislation, and to hear cross-party support for the Bill and the work done in Committee, on Second Reading, in which I took part, and now on Report. I warmly welcome the Bill and the work done by the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries and her team, as well as by the interim Minister, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), in the early stages.
I will focus on new clause 8, which I tabled. The new clause looks at what is not in the Bill and what has been omitted, which I hope the Minister will consider during her summing up and in the Bill’s remaining stages. Protection for digital terrestrial television and radio broadcast services that people receive via an aerial needs to be written into the Bill. New clause 8 would put in law for the first time a legal protection for these crucial life-line services. It would put a duty on the Government to keep issuing multiplex licences and on Ofcom to make available sufficient radio spectrum.
Currently, these services are guaranteed only until 2034, with the risk that they could be switched in 2030 —in just six years. Ministers hinted at Second Reading that these services will have a longer shelf life than 2034, which is welcome. However, I will focus my remarks on the Scottish Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, and our report, which I will come to, because at the Committee, the Minister said:
“What happens after 2034 is a live question.”
I agree that it a “live question”, which is why we need a live answer to the issue.
I welcome the Minister’s positive comments in Committee and those of the Secretary of State on Second Reading—indeed, I quoted a speech by the Secretary of State. There is a lot of positivity about what I am hearing from the Government and I hope they will go a step further by taking on the conclusions I have come to in new clause 8.
No one is pushing against the tide on the growth in streaming, but terrestrial television, often referred to as Freeview, and broadcast radio still account for the bulk of viewing and listening across the United Kingdom. I come to the issue from a Scottish angle, as I represent a Scottish constituency and am a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, where we discussed this at length, but the issue affects people across the United Kingdom. Research from Ipsos in 2022 showed that most adults had watched digital terrestrial television in the last year and 43% of adults watched digital terrestrial television every week. Some 76% listened to broadcast radio weekly.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was right to highlight the very good Scottish Affairs Committee report on the subject and she mentioned the issues. As the report says on page 13:
“Almost a third (31%) of households in Scotland only used Digital Terrestrial Television services…to watch television in the first quarter of 2022.”
Paragraph 33 highlights correspondence to the Committee from Laurie Patten, director of strategy and regulation at Arqiva, who argued that
“Scotland’s greater rurality than the UK average, its island communities, and its comparatively older population”
make terrestrial TV services especially important in Scotland. That is why we made that issue so prominent in the report. I have continued to raise the matter with Ministers, and proposed new clause 8.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North was right to say the issue is important not only to people in rural communities and older populations, and that it has an impact on some of the most vulnerable in society. The campaign group Broadcast 2040+ has assembled a coalition of groups representing those who rely on broadcast services the most. They include older people, who rely disproportionately on terrestrial television. Some 80% of those aged 75 and above only watch their media, news and programmes through that means, and they often struggle to access IP content.
Age UK is a member of the coalition. Their charity director, Caroline Abrahams, said:
“While broadcast TV and radio is enjoyed by many across the UK, it is especially important for older audiences particularly those on low incomes living alone. Many older people value the current universal services and would struggle to afford alternatives such as subscriptions services.”
Because they are free to air, they are also a lifeline to people on lower incomes or living in digital poverty, who often struggle to afford the additional cost of subscription streaming services and the cost of superfast broadband connections that are required to access them. Elizabeth Anderson, chief executive office of the Digital Poverty Alliance said:
“For the millions living in digital poverty in the UK, TV and radio broadcast services are vital sources of news, public education and entertainment. The universality of access to broadcast services must be paramount. Whilst many services have seen a rush to digital only delivery, applying this to TV and radio when so many lack the devices, skills and connectivity packages to access internet based media would simply push millions of people deeper into financial and social exclusion.”
Jamie Stone
The hon. Gentleman’s words strike a chord with me because he highlights exactly the issues in my vast, far-flung constituency. In the straths and glens of Sutherland, Caithness, Ross and Cromarty, there are many folk who cannot afford such services, precisely as he is saying. I am glad he is saying what he is saying, and I am listening with very great interest. It is important that this issue is aired.
Douglas Ross
The hon. Gentleman represents an extremely rural part of northern Scotland. My constituency is not quite so rural, but many people in Moray experience similar challenges to those of his constituents in the far north.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points and I am hesitant to interrupt him. Although I would not sell his constituency short, my constituency is also very rural. Our constituencies, in common with many of the rural constituencies in Scotland, are very low down the league table of superfast broadband coverage. As much as people might be able to afford or want streaming services, they do not physically have access to them—at least, not yet. Does he agree that makes his new clause even more important?
Douglas Ross
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point and for supporting my new clause 8. I will come on to not just the affordability but the availability of superfast broadband to get streaming services.
I highlight the importance of broadcast services for rural constituents, including mine in Moray, as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). Graham Biggs, chief executive of the Rural Services Network, has amplified that point, saying that the
“issue of safeguarding DTT and radio is of fundamental importance to rural areas where the population is much older than the national average and the least well served by broadband connectivity. We strongly support the Broadcast 2040+ campaign.”
I have been extremely encouraged by the work of that campaign to get some movement from the Government on the issue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan highlighted, the issue of broadband connectivity is of huge concern to constituents in his area, as well as in my Moray constituency. Large parts of Scotland and rural areas around the UK do not have reliable, high-speed broadband, so streaming TV is not an option. I have little confidence that the problem will be solved by 2040, particularly given some of the problems we have seen with the roll-out of the R100 programme in Scotland.
Even if that roll-out succeeds, all the targets are met and high-speed broadband is delivered across the country, the other measure that we must look at is broadband take-up. EY has recently undertaken a study on that, predicting that regardless of whether high-speed broadband is rolled out, more than 5.5 million properties in the UK will still not have a high-speed broadband subscription in 2040—well beyond 2034 as specified by my new clause. The report makes a number of other worrying findings and paints a compelling picture of the genuine dependence that millions of the most vulnerable members of our society have on broadcast services to stay connected and in touch. Any move towards an online-only system of TV distribution, without the option of digital terrestrial television, would put a significant group of people at risk of being left behind.
As for why I have tabled new clause 8 and why am I looking for certainty from the Government, both they and Ofcom are conducting reviews of the TV market. Ministers have urged us to await those findings, but 2034 is not far away and if these services are to remain, it is crucial that we attract investment and ensure that they remain commercially viable. To do that, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North correctly said, they need certainty from the Government. The danger is that without that longer-term certainty, beyond 2034, where the Minister has accepted there is a live question, broadcasters might run down their services and the technology might not be updated. If they get certainty from the Government, they can put in investment to ensure people are not without these crucial services and are not left isolated. If the commercial viability of the service is lost while millions of people are still relying on it, there is a real risk that, perversely, the Government would have to step in and use taxpayers’ money to keep the service going. My constructive proposal would not only help keep people connected but, in the long run, perhaps save taxpayers’ money. Surely it is better to provide the longer-term guarantee now that would enable that investment and deliver a good-quality, universal service for years to come.
I thank the Minister, the interim Minister and the Secretary of State and others who have listened to my concerns on this issue. I met the Minister just last week and I will continue the dialogue on this, because it is a crucial element that we should be debating in this House. I hope we will get some movement from the Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) said, Media Bills do not come along often, so this is an opportunity for this Minister, this Government and her Department to put my new clause 8 into the Bill and give that guarantee going forward. That would allow the investment to be made and secure the commercial future for DTT, ensuring that people in Moray, across Scotland and around the UK can continue to rely on those services for many years to come.
Hywel Williams
First, may I apologise for my late arrival to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker? I seriously underestimated hon. Members’ capacity for brevity on the previous business. This afternoon, I would like to speak to my new clause 15 and to refer briefly to new clause 1 and clause 28. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for her work with me in Committee—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It will not be possible for the hon. Gentleman to refer to new clause 1, because he was not here to move it at the beginning. He is fine to speak to new clause 15.
Hywel Williams
Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. New clause 15 seeks to establish a broadcasting and communications authority for Wales. That new independent body would have responsibility for and oversight of broadcasting and media matters in Wales, seeking to reflect the needs of Welsh audiences. Under my new clause, a shadow authority would fulfil the functions of that body before its establishment 12 months after the passing of this Act. The report by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales recommended that move. Some Members will know that the commission was set up by the Welsh Government and is under the chairmanship of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. It reported last week, and one of its conclusions was that there is a need to look at the devolution of broadcasting. An independent authority to regulate would be an integral part of that provision. Recent events have shown that there is a real need for such an authority in Wales. Some Members will know about the internal issues at S4C, the Welsh language channel, which make the argument that the current broadcasting framework is unsustainable.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case, and the events of the past week involving the commission vindicate the position he has taken. The recent difficulties in S4C have been very damaging for the channel. My firm view is that if the matter had been in the hands of Welsh Government Ministers and the Senedd, which can provide scrutiny and accountability, we would not have got to the damaging state we are in.
Hywel Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, with which I entirely agree. Even Welsh Conservative Members concede that the arguments for reserving powers over broadcasting have been undermined by what has happened, and by the Department’s actions—or inactions. We are concerned about S4C, and its funding has plummeted since 2010. The decision to fund it through the licence fee led to a 40% reduction in staff. In 2015, its chief executive officer, Ian Jones, warned about the effects of huge funding cuts and called for “tegwch” or fair play. That was a valuable contribution from him.
S4C’s independence is clearly at stake. We need to remember that there was a substantial and hard-fought campaign during the 1970s to establish the channel. Indeed, we had a discussion about that in Committee, in which the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) made some interesting points. I had the opportunity in the interim to consult the Cabinet papers, which I obtained from The National Archives. They show how the threat by the then Plaid Cymru leader Gwynfor Evans to go on a hunger strike was integral to the then Prime Minister’s decision to change course and allow the people of Wales our own channel. The Cabinet papers are very interesting to read, and I hope you will indulge my quoting briefly from them, Madam Deputy Speaker.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Am I correct in remembering that the Conservatives had promised a separate channel in their manifesto, and had broken that promise until Gwynfor Evans threatened his hunger strike?
Hywel Williams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point; that is what I am coming on to. However, a further argument arises from that unhappy episode, as I will show by quoting from the Cabinet papers. They state that the then Home Secretary, the late Willie Whitelaw, said that the Government
“would withdraw its plans to share Welsh language programmes between two television channels. Instead the programmes would, for an experimental period of three years, be broadcast on one channel as had been proposed in the Party Manifesto.”
That is the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.
What is more interesting is that the papers say that Willie Whitelaw
“still thought that the previous plans were preferable but he had agreed to change them in response to representations, put to him by Lord Cledwyn and others, of the views of informed and responsible people in Wales.”
The interesting point is the reference to
“the views of informed and responsible people in Wales.”
In fact, in the same Cabinet meeting, the Secretary of State for Wales said:
“Gwynfor Evans, the leader of Plaid Cymru, was threatening to go on what he called a ‘hunger strike’”,
before going on to say that there could be
“much tension and unpleasantness in Wales later in the year, if he persisted in this intention, and there would be a danger that Plaid Cymru would fall into the hands of extreme left wing leaders”,
mentioning no names. However, later on in the Cabinet papers, the Secretary of State for Wales said that it had been made clear in the press that the change been made in response to
“moderate opinion following very wide consultation in Wales.”
That is the point I want to make. The argument I am making for a Welsh broadcasting authority reflects settled and responsible opinion in Wales. As I said, the constitutional convention has met and taken evidence very widely over two years, and has come to the conclusion that broadcasting should be devolved to Wales.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for giving us a history lesson on the hard work of Gwynfor Evans. Anybody who is interested in this period in the history of Wales should watch the great drama that S4C recently commissioned on the life of Gwynfor Evans, and this campaign in particular. I was at Crymych rugby club at the weekend with Rhodri John, the actor who portrayed Gwynfor in the drama.
Hywel Williams
I can indeed recommend that production for anybody to have a look at; it is very interesting. I can also recommend the biography of Gwynfor Evans, which makes similar points.
The media industry in Wales is more than S4C. We have fantastic production companies, including Cwmni Da in my constituency, news outlets and radio—all kinds of things. The proposed authority would unite the media landscape in Wales under one regulatory roof and safeguard it from harms, including from large conglomerates. It would also focus on areas that are important to the people of Wales. The Labour Welsh Government’s expert panel on a shadow broadcasting and communications authority for Wales proposed that public interest journalism, sports and children’s media be areas of specific focus due to their cultural significance, position in relation to Welsh language ambitions and impact on long-term sustainability, among other reasons. The Welsh Government therefore propose a shadow broadcasting and communications authority for Wales. I look to those on the Labour Front Bench, as potentially the next Government, to give us reassurance that it is their intention to establish that authority, as well as the intention of the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff.
Wales needs to have a say on its own media landscape to ensure that what works for us is what we get. Prominent commentators such as Professor Tom O’Malley and Mike Birtwistle have said that S4C should be built on shared principles of social partnership, public interest and democratic pluralism; that is, as they say, the Welsh political tradition. An independent regulator for Wales would be better equipped to regulate, defend and promote our national broadcasting and media industry in Wales and ensure that those values are represented. That is my argument in favour of a broadcasting authority.
I will say a few words on the prominence of S4C on the selection services—a point that I also raised in Committee. S4C’s content must be readily discoverable and prominent on television services, but I seek assurances that the “appropriate degree of prominence” will not lead to the limiting of S4C’s coverage to specific audiences, thereby depriving people of a wide range of broadcasts. This language matches that of the electronic programme guides code, which allowed S4C to be on channel 166 on Virgin Media in Wales until 2021. The Government should provide clear principles to guide Ofcom in drawing up the new prominence code, so that public service broadcasters’ designated internet programming services appear prominently and are easily discoverable on screens.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I rise to support new clause 6 and amendment 17, both in my name. The Bill is a substantial piece of legislation and I fully support what the Government are seeking to do through it to bridge the gap in regulation between linear television and internet-based on-demand platforms.
Nobody would argue against the principle that we want to protect children from watching age-inappropriate or harmful content. That is, after all, why Parliament over many years has brought in legislation that mandates age ratings on cinema releases, restrictions on children buying DVDs and videos and, importantly, until the relatively recent past, a watershed for broadcast TV. The watershed, of course, ensures that programmes broadcast before 9 pm are generally suitable for children.
However, now that the vast majority of content watched by children and adults is accessed through on-demand streaming services, the watershed has become increasingly redundant. It does not matter if a programme was originally broadcast live after the watershed; once it is available to stream online, it can be viewed by anyone of any age at any time. That is why we urgently need to apply the same standards of child protection to on-demand video as we do to cinema releases, physical DVDs and linear TV.
While a time-based watershed clearly cannot be adapted for video on demand services, we are very fortunate in this country to have world-class expertise in applying age ratings to video content. The British Board of Film Classification has been empowered by Parliament, through the Secretary of State, to apply age ratings across all cinema and DVD releases in the UK. The BBFC does an excellent job of this, as colleagues have mentioned, and is a global leader in its field. It has produced a system of age ratings that the vast majority of the British population recognises, trusts and understands. Importantly, its ratings are based on regular consultation with thousands of people across Britain to ensure that they meet audience expectations.
We have the relevant age rating expertise already in this country, but as it stands, the Bill will not make use of that expertise. Amendment 17 would address this matter very simply by explicitly requiring Ofcom to consult the BBFC when drawing up the video on demand code. The code will set the rules for streaming platforms, including in relation to age ratings. Why would we not want to ensure that our world-renowned, Government-appointed experts are consulted as part of that?
There was a similar amendment to the Online Safety Act 2023 that required Ofcom to consult with the Children’s Commissioner, and I can see no argument against applying the same principle here. Getting age ratings right is incredibly important, as they will likely become one of the main audience protection measures that platforms employ and will, of course, future-proof the Bill. If parents do not trust the ratings, they will ignore them, and we will then not achieve our aim of protecting children.
That brings me to new clause 6 in my name, which is similar to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter), and I will reiterate some of his points.
Kit Malthouse
I am very supportive of the theme of my hon. Friend’s amendment. She made an extremely important point about consistency for parents. Those of us who are lucky enough to have children find ourselves in a forest of different media that they consume, some of which seem to decide the rules and ratings on their own—of course, there are websites to go to for third-party reference. Does she agree that it would be sensible to have a standardised view for parents, to manage consumption by their children, as it is the parents’ primary duty to manage that? We have seen in the past that the wider media industry will constantly push the boundary to try to get more under the wire for consumption by younger and younger people, such as in the deterioration of the watershed on terrestrial television. If an organisation such as the BBFC sets the tone and the standard, that must apply online as much as offline.
Miriam Cates
I agree with every word. The very important factor behind the BBFC is that parents trust it. It even has an app to search for any film or DVD, and it will tell parents not only the rating but exactly why it is there—swearing, violence or whatever. That detailed knowledge is crucial not only to gain parents’ trust but to create an industry standard, as my right hon. Friend said. If we have no industry standard, some companies will try to get around the requirements if there is a commercial advantage. The Bill should set out exactly that.
Gavin Newlands
I rise to commend my new clause 16 to the House, and to speak to new clauses 17 and 18, and amendments 79 and 80.
This summer will again see Scotland again in the finals of the men’s European championships in Germany. Thanks to listing, every game from the finals will be available free to air on the BBC and STV/ITV. However, once this summer’s Euro 2024 final concludes and Scotland have safely tucked away the Henri Delaunay trophy in the Hampden trophy cabinet, we will be back to the current set-up, which will maintain a paywall for the Scotland men’s national team games.
Last April, I hosted a roundtable summit on how to make progress on getting all of Scotland’s national team matches on free-to-air TV. Two things were clear: as it stood, that would not be an easy or quick fix, with umpteen moving parts and vested interests in the room; however, there was also a willingness to look realistically at what could be done with the right will and resources. We saw how grassroots participation rates in English cricket slumped when the England and Wales Cricket Board signed a deal with Sky and put almost the entirety of the first-class game behind a paywall. The lack of public interest was such that the ECB effectively had to invent an entire competition, purely for terrestrial television, as a shop window for the sport. I assume that we are all aware of the Billie Jean King quote:
“You have to see it to be it.”
No one at the Scottish Football Association, STV, Viaplay, the BBC, UEFA or anywhere else involved in football rights is sitting there plotting to do in Scottish football fans. They are all rational actors, working within the system created by the UK Government and UEFA to achieve their own goals.
Hywel Williams
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the unanimity of opinion. I should tell the House that the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the Senedd’s Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee have all called for the Six Nations rugby tournament to remain free to air for broadcasting. Indeed, the Welsh Conservatives have a whole Senedd debate on that matter tomorrow. Last week, I met a senior executive from BBC Cymru Wales, who said that losing the Six Nations, for example, which is currently shared with ITV, will be a blow both to the BBC and to the audience.
Gavin Newlands
I will come to the potential issue facing the Six Nations a bit later in my speech, but in the meantime, I am very much looking forward to visiting Cardiff this Saturday to watch Scotland beat Wales in that very competition.
Clive Efford
It is just that the hon. Gentleman’s extensive list of events neglects to mention cricket. I wondered whether there was a reason why he had excluded cricket from his list.
Gavin Newlands
All I have sought to add to the list is the Six Nations competition and any and all qualification matches for all home nations’ national football teams. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I am indeed a fan of cricket, which is probably not a majority position in Scotland. It is obviously not one of the main sports in Scotland at this time, although the SNP will be backing amendment 88, tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), despite the fact that its proposed new clause 25(4)(a) would cover only the English cricket team, given that Scotland does not yet have test status—it is only a matter of time, I am sure.
Gavin Newlands
I was going to go back to football, but I feel that we are staying on cricket, so I will.
Jamie Stone
I thank the hon. Member for his generous remarks. Whether it is cricket, football or whatever, getting people to watch sport in the way that is being advocated so strongly means that they might become more inclined to take part in that sport themselves, which could ultimately improve the health of Scotland and the health of the nation.
Gavin Newlands
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point: the power of sport is simply huge. Participating is obviously the best thing for the health of the nation, but viewing a sport—whatever sport it is—is likely to drive up participation rates. We have seen the opposite with the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Sky contract.
If I can cycle back to football for a second, the problem for Scottish football fans is that sometimes the goals of those involved—again, I am talking about UEFA, the BBC, Viaplay and all the stakeholders—do not coincide with maximising access. What is needed is a change to the system that would change those goals for the better for our fans. The system is currently short-changing fans in Scotland, while elsewhere on these isles, it is a very different story. Football fans in England enjoy free-to-air coverage of their national team via the current deal with Channel 4 and the forthcoming deal with ITV. Viewers in Wales enjoy free-to-air coverage of their national team thanks to S4C’s sub-licensed Welsh language coverage, and viewers in Northern Ireland get free coverage of the Republic of Ireland via RTÉ broadcasts—while many in Northern Ireland welcome that, I appreciate that, for others, it is akin to having England games broadcast in Scotland on Channel 4 and STV. Scottish fans, though, are left with the prospect of paying subscription providers to see their team in action. That is very unlikely to change without amending legislation to level the playing field for Scottish supporters.
Similarly, these days, we are used to murmurings about the Six Nations being moved from its current home on the BBC and STV/ITV to behind a paywall. The airtime available to rugby union fans on free-to-air TV is already incredibly low: last year’s world cup was a four-yearly aberration. As we all know, the Six Nations is a ratings winner and rugby’s big annual shop window to the wider public and the players of the future. Even old relics like me can be convinced to play again—although, having tried to do so last year, it would have been very much for the better if I had not.
Gavin Newlands
Stupidity, not a mid-life crisis—yet.
Italian supporters are guaranteed to see their team on free-to-air TV; Ireland supporters will see their team on free TV, as will France supporters; but Scotland, Wales and England supporters face watching a blank screen if the rights are allowed to lapse into subscription TV’s hands. The Welsh Affairs Committee, which has already been mentioned and on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) sits, had it right when it recommended in its report on broadcasting in Wales that
“the Government adds the Six Nations to Group A of the Listed Sporting Events, to ensure its status on terrestrial TV.”
Obviously, that is proposed in new clause 16.
These islands will host the men’s Euro 2028 championships, and there is a reasonable chance that all five countries might qualify. Viewers in England, Ireland and Wales will be able to see their teams live and in full throughout the qualifying campaign without paying a penny—beyond the licence fee, in case anybody wanted to challenge me on that. My amendment would guarantee that right to all across these isles through a simple amendment of the existing legislation, extending the protections that exist to protect “events of national interest”, in the words of the 1996 Act. Scotland’s journey in the past few years under Stevie Clark has shown how much interest there is across Scotland, and it is time that the legislation reflected that.
I am grateful to Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats for their support for the new clause. I hope that Tory Back Benchers who have been espousing the power of sport and arguing that sport should be shown on free-to-air TV will join us in the Lobby this evening.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I would like to address a number of the amendments we have been discussing—some I support, some I oppose. Let me start on a positive note with new clause 7, which was tabled by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The new clause seeks to introduce protections for digital on-demand coverage of listed events, including clips and highlights of those events, and allows for time-shifted viewing. That is increasingly important for audiences, as it would enable viewing on multi-use devices or the viewing of events that take place overnight in other time zones, as we often see with the Olympic games and sometimes the World cup, depending on where they are in the world.
There are practical examples of how that change would make a difference. At the Olympic games in Tokyo, the gold-winning performance by BMX specialist Charlotte Worthington was watched by only 400,000 people because it took place in the middle of the night, yet in the days that followed, different forms of short-form coverage of the race generated a nearly tenfold increase in views. It is not just about time-shifting; that can also happen just because that is how people absorb content these days. For instance, for the 2022 Commonwealth games in Birmingham, the TV reach was about 20% lower than for the 2014 games in Glasgow, but there were about six times more on-demand views of digital clips. The problem is that without enhanced regulatory protection, what should be shared national moments risk being lost to many people behind a paywall. This Bill is a genuine opportunity to safeguard the future of listed events, as they are now viewed, for future generations.
As it stands, the Bill offers no protection for digital on-demand rights, yet, as I said, that is now a key way in which many people consume such events. I support the new clause because it would ensure that, where possible, adequate digital on-demand coverage of listed events, such as those clips and excerpts, is made available free of charge to audiences in the United Kingdom. I pray in aid the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I am a member. When we looked at this question, we concluded:
“Digital rights should be included as part of the Listed Events regime to reflect sweeping changes in how audiences consume content since the original legislation was passed. We recommend that the Government includes provisions in the Bill to enable digital rights to be included in the Listed Events regime without the need for further primary legislation.”
I know the Government recognise the issue and have consulted the industry about it, but a year later they have not yet reported on the findings of their review.
If those protections were brought in, they would broadly mirror the framework that currently provides protection for live coverage. The new clause seeks to ensure that, where rights holders grant rights for digital on-demand coverage, it is not done on an exclusive basis and there is an opportunity for audiences in the UK to enjoy that coverage for free. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West has said he will not press his new clause to a vote at this stage, but I hope the Minister is listening and that the Government will take this away and move an amendment in the other place that meets the needs that my hon. Friend is trying to meet.
I also support amendment 78, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), which offers the possibility for local digital TV services to be given the protections of the prominence regime. I think he undersold the historic nature of having the Minister who took the Bill through Committee moving an amendment on Report. He said he was sure it had happened before, but I am absolutely sure it is the first time any Minster who took a Bill through Committee stage because of maternity cover has tried to amend it on Report. For parliamentary procedure nerds, that alone makes it an historic moment, but there are also great merits in his suggestion. While I am referring to him, I note that there have been various descriptions of him from those on the Opposition Benches as a “temporary Minister”. I should say to the House, from some experience, that all Ministers are temporary at all times. The only permanent thing in any Department is the permanent secretary.
Reverting to the substance of the amendment, local TV is an increasingly important part of the landscape. It is still very small scale, by its definition, and it has had a rocky past, but there is clearly a market and a demand for it, and it is increasingly becoming part of the broadcasting landscape. The only thing I would add, since the amendment was spoken to so well by my right hon. Friend, is that it must apply to genuinely local stations. It is important to establish that caveat.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend about local television. People talk about specified channels and programmes for languages, but there are many areas, such as my constituency and his, where it is important that local viewers get a chance to see their specific areas and discussions relevant to them, rather than just regional television. That is why it is important that local television should be included.
Damian Green
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There are distinct markets for regional TV and local TV. In some parts of the country the regions are so large that large parts of what national broadcasters tend to regard as local TV are not local to people and do not register with their interests, whereas local TV can genuinely do that, as local radio does and has always done.
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend will know that the royal charter on self-regulation of the press, which the Conservative party established, is still alive and well, and the Government have no plans for its dissolution.
Damian Green
My right hon. Friend’s amendment seeks to revive the argument from more than 10 years ago, but I think that argument has gone. The world has moved on and the press has moved on. We had a discussion about whether regulation or the application of the law is the appropriate way to do this, and I submit that the reason why press behaviour has changed is simply the effective application of the law, and the fact that many newspaper groups have had to pay huge amounts of money because they broke the law in behaving the way they did 10, 15 and 20 years ago. That led to the change in behaviour. Where my right hon. Friend and I would come closer together is on SLAPP cases, and the need for legislation to allow individuals not to be intimidated by rich publishing companies. I know the Government have committed to introducing legislation to see those sorts of cases dismissed at the earliest possible stage, and I urge my colleagues on the Front Bench to do that as soon as possible.
While I am in sceptical mode, I similarly question the need for the various new clauses, proposed by Members in all parts of the House, that would mandate a more rigid system of age classifications for programmes already regulated by Ofcom. I absolutely get the intention behind them, which is to protect children from unsuitable content, but I am instinctively wary of suggestions that would mean one regulator having to consult another before introducing a code of conduct. Ofcom has considerable powers, and it can operate those powers. I do not think it sensible to try to tie this down to any particular age classification system, not least because some public service broadcasters, who are pretty responsible in not trying to expose content that is unsuitable for children, operate systems of protection that do not rely on age classification. ITV has its guidance system, and many broadcasters operate a system involving a PIN that sensible parents will keep from their children so that they can be protected at home.
Lia Nici
Is that not exactly the point? We have world-class regulation in the British Board of Film Classification, which gives us a benchmark. A good arrangement would be for broadcasters and other platforms to register with an organisation like the BBFC and have to pay a registration fee, and for the regulator to regulate that rather than the other way round. My right hon. Friend talks about responsible parents, but we need to guide the people who do not know what to look for, who are not media-savvy, and who need some guidance. Even our public service broadcasters do not always get it right, and sometimes there is content that really should not be seen by those aged 15 and under.
Damian Green
I take my hon. Friend’s point, but I return to my original point. Given that the Bill and indeed our whole regulatory structure are based on Ofcom, and given that the Bill seeks to give Ofcom proper powers to provide, in this instance, protection for children in an appropriate way, introducing another different system would, I suspect, lead to more confusion rather than less.
Miriam Cates
That is precisely what the Bill will do: it will introduce a different system. At present Ofcom is responsible for regulating the public service broadcasters, which it does through the watershed, and the BBFC is responsible for DVDs and cinema. We now have a completely new landscape which resembles the DVD landscape much more closely because it is available on demand. It is therefore sensible to introduce an age-rating system based roughly on what the BBFC does, because the BBFC, not Ofcom, is the expert in that field.
Damian Green
I fear that we may go down a rabbit hole. Ofcom is the expert in that field, but the system is based on film classification. The age-rating system is designed for a situation where a person goes through a door and someone makes a guess whether that person was 16 or 18 or 12, for instance.
Miriam Cates
I take my right hon. Friend’s point. However, the BBFC classifies not just films but items that are streamed directly and never released in cinemas by tagging every rateable incident, such as a swear word or an episode of violence, and uses that system to come up with a verifiable, standardised rating that everyone understands. It is exactly the same process as the one that is used to verify a video on demand, and it is what Netflix already uses to rate its own videos.
Damian Green
Netflix uses it, but, as my hon. Friend herself said earlier, Disney does not. There will of course be differences. I think that overregulating will just lead to disadvantages for people who are trying to produce content, and that insisting on one system that is partly designed for one mode of operation may well not work for another operation. If Ofcom does its job effectively it will achieve what we all want to see, which is age-inappropriate content not being available to children. As I have said, involving more than one regulator normally leads to confusion and worse regulation than would have existed otherwise.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who, like me, is a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He speaks with authority on many of these issues, although I did not agree with everything he said. However, I certainly agree with him about broadcasting highlights of major sporting events, and I hope the Government are listening.
I welcome the position taken by Labour Front Benchers, who have said they will support amendment 2. I am delighted that they have been listening to those of us who have been involved in this issue for a number of years and who have supported the work of Hacked Off. I claim only a minor supporting role; other Opposition Members have done far more than I have. None the less, I have been at those meetings and in those discussions. At times, I have taken part in debates in which I have committed to support the aims and objectives of people who have been fighting hard through Hacked Off, and I am delighted that we are not closing the door on them completely today.
I commend the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) not just for his amendments, but for the way he has negotiated with others on this issue to get us to what I consider to be a compromise position—one that can allow us to go forwards and not close the door completely on the issue of an independent press complaints system. As he described earlier, his amendments remove the stick element, which is the element that is most opposed by people working in the press. I think it would have given them the incentive to join a proper independent complaints system. None the less, it is a sticking point and, in this compromise, removing it is the right thing to do at this stage.
Then there is the issue of the carrot. Many of us have taken part in debates in this place about SLAPP orders, which enable those with a great deal of wealth at their disposal to abuse our legal system in order to shut down independent reporting that exposes wrongdoing and shines a light into the places that need it.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My hon. Friend underestimates his own role in this area, which has been very strong. I suspect that, like me, he wishes that we were seeing section 40 commenced rather than repealed today, as I am sure do the McCanns, the Dowlers, Christopher Jefferies and all the other historical victims of press abuses. Given that we are going for the carrot rather than the stick—the carrot is better than nothing—can my hon. Friend explain why there is not universal support for that across the House?
Clive Efford
I will leave it to others to explain why they are adopting their position, but I do take issue with some of the assertions that have been made by some Government Members, who say that the current system is an improvement on what we had before. As I pointed out earlier, the IPSO system received over 14,000 complaints in 2021, but only 88 of them, or 0.6%, were upheld—less than 1%. I challenge anyone to say that it is a satisfactory situation to have so few complaints upheld.
I met a mother, Mandy Garner, for the first time yesterday. Her daughter was killed in a hit-and-run. In the 24 hours after Mandy was given the news and tried to relay it to her family, the Daily Mail went down to the scene of the crime and managed to purchase CCTV footage from a nearby shop that showed the accident taking place. The Daily Mail did not actually show the moment of impact in the media, but within that 24 hours, it posted that recording for people to watch under a clickbait headline.
That happened in 2020, 10 years after Hacked Off started its campaign. Mandy described her experience in an article:
“the Daily Mail published the CCTV footage of my daughter’s last moments the morning after her death with a lurid clickbait headline—just as we were trying to explain to our other children what had happened. I complained that it was an intrusion into grief and therefore in breach of IPSO’s code on this. I thought it was an open and closed case. Clearly, it was a breach. If it wasn’t, what actually would constitute a breach?”
Months of to-ing and fro-ing with the Daily Mail followed, while Mandy was mourning her daughter. She went on:
“Eventually…IPSO ruled that it was not a breach of their code. One of the reasons given was that you couldn’t make out my daughter’s face because the footage was ‘grainy’”.
There was nothing about how the footage would impact on the people who knew what had happened and knew who was involved, or about the family’s concern that the brothers and sisters of the young woman who had died would see the footage. If that is a satisfactory complaint system, I fail to understand what people think we were seeking to achieve when we went through all of Leveson and supported setting up the royal commission.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend and fellow Cornishman, the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). It would simply put a requirement on Ofcom to ensure that due regard was paid to the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities when assessing the fulfilment of the public service remit. This is of particular interest to us Cornish, because it is almost 10 years since the Council of Europe formally recognised the Cornish as a national minority and the Government accepted that recognition. This was a historic moment for those of us from the west of the Tamar, because although the Cornish have historically been recognised by this place as distinct from the English, this was the first time for a very long time that the Government had also recognised that. The Government said that the Cornish would be given the same recognition and status as the other Celtic nations of the UK—the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish. Over the last 10 years, we have been grappling with what that means in application. It is disappointing to say that, at times, the Government have been criticised by the Council of Europe for not doing enough to deliver on this new recognition and status.
The Bill gives the Government a straightforward opportunity to do something fairly simple yet tangible that would give meaning to the recognition of Cornish national minority status. It is clear that Cornwall has a history, heritage and culture that is distinct from England’s, and distinct within the UK. It is unique in many ways, and we have far more in common with our Celtic cousins around the fringes of the UK. We have our own language, and it has seen a revival over the last 10 or 20 years, with many schools now promoting the Cornish language and holding workshops. UNESCO has upgraded Cornish from extinct to critically endangered. It is important that we recognise and seek to continue this progress.
George Eustice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting amendment 1. He makes a powerful case for why Cornwall is unique and different. Does he agree that if the BBC had due regard for the framework convention on national minorities, it would take a very different approach to local radio? At the moment, the BBC treats Cornwall like any other part of England.
Steve Double
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point that I was going to make. There is clearly a role for the BBC in helping to protect, promote and inform about Cornish culture and the Cornish language. Measures in this Bill could be strengthened to ensure that the BBC plays that role, thereby helping the Government to fulfil their responsibility to give due recognition to the Cornish.
We have seen a revival and fresh interest in Cornish culture and history in recent years, some of which is down to the hugely successful “Poldark” series, which, for many, has brought to life the history of Cornwall and its role in the industrial revolution. Other programmes have also helped to put the spotlight on our unique Cornish culture. I think particularly of “The Fisherman’s Apprentice”, in which Monty Halls went to live in one of our very small fishing communities to highlight both the historical and modern-day struggles of such places.
We are looking for programmes that present a picture of the true Cornwall and our history, heritage and culture, not programmes that present the idealistic, picture-postcard view of Cornwall, and that are just adverts for more second homeowners. We have rich, deep and strong heritage and culture in Cornwall, which is what we want to present and protect. In this day of increased multiculturalism—I do not want to go down that rabbit hole—and with all that is happening in the world, it is important that we do everything we can to protect the uniqueness of our Cornish culture. It is clear that broadcast media can play an important role in helping us to do just that, and in helping the Government to give real meaning and value to the recognition of Cornish national minority status in the UK.
I am not calling for our own Cornish station, just as Scotland and Wales have particular stations—I am not going that far—but more could be done to set an expectation that the BBC will give due regard to Cornish protected national minority status in its public service broadcasting responsibilities. That is simply what amendment 1 would do. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth does not intend to press it to a Division, but I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to the points that we have made, and to the purpose of the amendment, and to look carefully at whether the Government can adopt the measure or something similar as a clear sign of the importance that they place on protecting and promoting our Cornish culture and heritage.
John Nicolson
I agreed with all of that, except I am not quite sure how four countries can be described as a fringe. Rather, I would call us the anchor holding the Anglo-Saxon peninsula otherwise known as England in place.
During the lengthy passage of the Bill, we on the SNP Benches have engaged with the UK Government in good faith. We all want a healthy, functioning, responsible and free media. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) covered many aspects of the Bill in detail, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat anything that she said, so I will concentrate on the aspect of language.
Historically, the Conservatives have expressed great support for the Gaelic language. Indeed, at my suggestion, the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I sit, has launched an inquiry on the future of Gaelic and other minority languages in these islands. Therefore, one piece of UK Government recalcitrance has been striking: why have the UK Government been so resistant to making statutory mention of the Gaelic language and of Gaelic services? We all agree, cross party, that this beautiful, ancient and vibrant language makes a vital contribution to our cultural life, and we know that its vastly positive impact dwarfs the miserly public expenditure on it.
I come from a long line of Gaelic speakers. Neither of my grandmothers had English as their first language—my mither’s mither was from Scotstoun and spoke Scots, and my faither’s mither came from the island of Harris and spoke Gaelic. I am the first generation not to speak the language at all. That is all too common a story in Scotland, where prejudice against and punishment of Gaelic speakers has seen the language retreat to the heartlands. Gaelic broadcasting has been vital in slowing the language’s decline by introducing it to new generations of young Scots, nurturing a more enlightened attitude towards Gaelic across Scotland and the United Kingdom.
Gaelic programme producers have offered their expertise; they volunteered to engage with Members during the drafting of the Bill and amendments to it. In particular, I mention John Morrison and Donald Campbell of MG Alba. It is therefore disappointing that the UK Government have not drawn sufficiently on that expertise and heeded the calls to reaffirm explicitly their commitment to Gaelic in the digital age. MG Alba, in its written evidence, said that the Bill
“will create a visible disparity in the treatment by Parliament of Gaelic and Welsh broadcasting,”
meaning that
“the Gaelic language will continue to be invisible in statute and, as a result, continue to suffer from unclear status and uncertain funding.”
I wish to record the disappointment felt among Gaelic broadcasters and the wider Gaelic-speaking community.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Member agree that one of the best ways for language lovers to cherish and build up languages, minority languages in particular, is to avoid what sometimes happens, which is the greater politicisation of minority languages? That becomes divisive, and people react badly.
John Nicolson
I do agree. I see no reason why languages should be party political. They are a shared cultural asset. When I look online, I am astonished to see people who do not share my constitutional position sometimes attacking Scots or Gaelic, as if it belongs to us and not them. The language belongs to all of us, as do the other national minority languages.
I hope that we will highlight some of the important shortfalls and opportunities when I join my friend the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and cross-party colleagues in taking evidence from expert witnesses during our minority languages inquiry.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)
I thank Members for their contributions to today’s debate, and indeed during prelegislative scrutiny and the Bill’s passage thus far. The Bill has fantastic support. I have worked on it since 2021 and I am pleased to be back in post, taking over from the interim Minister—whom I prefer to call the eminent, knowledgeable knight and former Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale); but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said, we are all temporary in this place. I am glad to take the Bill through its final stages, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon for his work and his defence of our position on section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. He is in the curious position of amending a Bill for which he was once Minister. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, our right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon is breaking new parliamentary boundaries.
As we all know, internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access broadcast content, but our public service broadcasters and radio services are governed by laws written 20 or more years ago. The Bill is vital to enable our PSBs to continue to be world leading in their content and to serve UK audiences, while also driving growth in the creative industries across the UK.
I shall briefly address some of the issues that have been raised, but I will first deal with the Government amendments. They are minor and technical and seek to ensure that the existing policy positions are properly operational. I have written to Members with more detail. I am glad to have the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, particularly for the radio amendments.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for his sustained interest. He is a passionate campaigner and has been pushing on section 40 for many years. The Government recognise the intent of his amendments, but their effect would not be to repeal section 40, but to delay its repeal while a consultation takes place. We feel that that would be at odds with our double manifesto commitment to repeal section 40 in full, notwithstanding my right hon. Friend’s view that the manifesto was not the best that we have produced and that there may have been some drafting errors in the publication.
George Eustice
I understand that new clause 3 would delay the commencement of clause 50, but that is not the case with amendment 2, which would simply remove one part of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
Julia Lopez
We have concerns about my right hon. Friend’s amendments as a package. One issue is about delay, but another is about some of the smaller publishers that do not wish to be part of a regulator. That has been debated at some length this afternoon.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon is pleased about the Government amendment on AM. We discussed the matter together. I note his points about local television. He kindly accepts the unlikelihood of our accepting his amendment, but we will continue to consider his representations.
As always, I am glad of the support of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). He suggested that the proposal to privatise Channel 4 was part of a vendetta, but it was borne of a fundamental concern for its sustainability. We have put forward measures in the Bill to give Channel 4 greater freedom. We want the channel to survive and to have the flexibility to continue doing what it does. To the point raised in relation to those new powers, it will be granted the freedom to produce its own content, but it does not have to use them if it does not feel that is necessary.
On public service content being prominently and easily accessible, as is already the case in the linear space, we want PSB content to be as prominent as possible, but there is a question in relation to appropriate language. As has been discussed at length, the core aim is to secure prominence for PSB services and content online, but for it to be flexible, operable and proportionate, so that we can design the Bill for innovation and consumer choice. We are giving Ofcom the power to establish that balance.
The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and others, raised the issue of digital rights. We recognise the intent behind the amendment to bring digital rights within the scope of the listed events regime. The Select Committee, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), made a recommendation that would support that outcome. While there is a great deal of support in Parliament for that and I am sympathetic, it is a complex issue.
We have seen how technical just the Government amendments to close the streamer loophole are. Adding digital rights would be a much bigger change, bringing more complexity. It is important that we maintain the right balance between access for audiences and the commercial freedoms that allow rights holders to reinvest in their sport at all levels. We want to get the balance right, and our priority is the impact on the public. It is important that audiences can watch and celebrate major sporting moments, but broadcasting rights provide sports’ national governing bodies with essential income, enabling them to invest in their sports, whether at elite or grassroots levels. We want to fully evaluate the issue, including how it could be best delivered, before considering legislation that enacts any particular conclusion. I assure Members the issue is under careful consideration and we have not yet made a decision.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The House will have listened with interest to the Minister’s response to the points made by Members from across the Chamber, but the Government have got to try to sort this out while the Bill is before Parliament. We want to hear from her that the Government are capable of coming to the Lords with an amendment or new clause that does not get rid of the interest for the commercial bidders, but says that, when digital and reproduction rights come up for sale, the interests of people in our country, our team and the sports that we regard as important, whether they are new or old, established ones, are taken into account. The House will not be satisfied unless the Government come forward with a proposal about what they can either agree with the rights holders or the potential rights bidders. The House of Lords will be right to insist on something that addresses that issue, and we want to support them.
Julia Lopez
I appreciate that my hon. Friend wants to put down a marker on the issue—I have heard that, and so has the Secretary of State. I maintain that the issue of rights is more complex than one might imagine. We want to get the balance right, and we will continue to look at that.
Moving to the amendments on the issue of age ratings, we are in complete agreement on the need to protect children and vulnerable audiences from harmful and inappropriate video on demand content. I have two children; I have pushed for children to remain in the remit and for there to be protections for them. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about the importance of public service broadcasters and access to them. A fundamental driving force of the Bill is that we want children to be able to continue to access public service broadcasters.
For the first time, we are bringing mainstream TV-like, on-demand services in the scope of a new video on demand code, to be drafted and enforced by Ofcom. I welcome the general support for the Bill given by my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter). Ofcom will be getting new powers under the Bill to look at broader protection measures and to mandate specific approaches in the code, if deemed necessary, which could be BBFC age ratings. We are trying to move to a more outcomes-based approach rather than a prescriptive approach. We think that there has been great innovation in the space of parental controls, which have often been more effective than a badge rating. However, I have heard what has been said in the House today and we will continue to listen on this subject.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North also raised the issue of protections for viewers watching on devices such as PlayStations. I simply wish to reassure her that the definition of “on-demand programme services” is not platform-specific; Disney and Netflix viewed on a games console would be covered. She also raised questions about the size of producers of content. Smaller producers are not keen on some of the proposals that she has made, as they are concerned that they might one day be larger producers and therefore be penalised. We would not want to disincentivise their growth.
Let me move on to Scottish broadcasting in general. We believe that the Bill will bring significant benefits to the Scottish broadcasting sector and creative economy. I do not underestimate the vital role that our public service broadcasters play in supporting that Scottish screen sector. The Bill contains provisions to encourage our PSBs to broadcast programmes in indigenous, regional and minority languages, such as Gaelic, by including them in our new PSB remit for television. I know that this is extremely important to numerous Scottish Members in this House, and I hope the Government’s efforts here are recognised. The partnership between MG Alba and the BBC is particularly significant for Gaelic language broadcasting. I can assure Members that the ongoing provision of Gaelic will be a key consideration as the Secretary of State and I progress the BBC funding review and the forthcoming BBC charter review. Of course, Scottish audiences will also continue to benefit from the prominence provisions in the Bill.
The Government are also aware of Members’ concerns about being able to access TV via terrestrial means, and I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) about that directly. The Bill does not include provisions on that, but I wish to reassure the House that the Government remain committed to the future of DTT and to protecting the millions of households who continue to rely on it. That is why we have legislated to secure its continuity until at least 2034, but let me be clear that 2034 is not a cliff edge for DTT. We have allowed the renewal of the current multiplex licences so that they last until the end of 2034, but that does not mean that DTT will not continue after that point. Even if the Government simply sat on their hands, Ofcom would still be able to re-advertise the multiplex licences, and our public service broadcasters could continue distributing their linear channels over DTT. Furthermore, specific primary legislation would be required to remove the multiplex licensing regime, for example.
We are always keen to make sure that major sporting events are publicly available as widely as possible, which is why we have the listed events regime, but this is a balancing act. It is another issue where we are trying to find a course through. Sports rights holders use income from the sale of rights to the benefit of the wider sporting sector. A lot of sports do not want the listed events regime to be opened up. I know that the Scottish National party likes the idea of a Government listed events fund, but SNP Members do not acknowledge the distortive effect it would have on the value of rights, nor do they say who would pay for it. I suspect that the UK taxpayer would and, once again, SNP promises would be paid for by everybody else.
Gavin Newlands
These SNP promises were to protect all governing bodies in the UK, not simply Scottish ones. I just want to correct the record on that. Will the Minister not admit that devolved sporting governing bodies are unfairly disadvantaged, given the size of our TV network, and therefore our free-to-air broadcasters are unable to bid, win and secure the rights? By contrast, the English Football Association, for example, has a large TV market, where we have seen ITV, then Channel 4 and now ITV again show the games.
Julia Lopez
I bow to my ministerial colleague the sports Minister on the intricacies of sports funding. However, on the listed events regime, it is for the Scottish Government not only to make a recommendation to us if they want to expand that, but to have the discussions with Scottish sporting bodies as to whether that is actually something they want.
I will finish by responding to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I am glad to say that culture and heritage are directly addressed in the updated public service remit for television. Ofcom is therefore required to ensure that public service broadcasters collectively make available content reflecting the cultural interests and traditions of the UK and different local areas within the UK, which I would expect to include Cornwall.
I thank you again, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all Members present for their contributions to the debate. I am grateful for the scrutiny the Bill has received; it has benefited greatly from the expertise of everybody in this Chamber. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I understand, Mr Eustice, that you wish to withdraw new clause 3.
George Eustice
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Gaelic language service
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, review whether a Gaelic language service should be given a public service broadcast remit.”—(Thangam Debbonaire.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Julia Lopez
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am glad that, as we finish the Bill’s passage through this House, it is with the same enthusiasm and cross-party support as when we began. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) told me that he had enjoyed the Public Bill Committee, which is quite the achievement. While we have made some changes to refine and clarify the intentions of the measures, the Bill and its aims remain relatively unchanged. This is in part down to the considered and thoughtful contributions from industry stakeholders following draft publication and throughout the pre-legislative scrutiny process.
I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for his efforts to prepare and introduce the Bill. I am grateful for his enthusiasm and thoroughness in ensuring that the Department continues to deliver for our broadcasters and journalists. He is a true champion of these industries and I know how appreciative they are of his work. Even now, he sidles up to me in the Lobby trying to get his particular issues over the line.
I would like to extend my particular thanks to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for its thorough pre-legislative scrutiny earlier this year. I thank all the stakeholders for the time they gave as witnesses to the inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and Baroness Stowell of Beeston have all, in their respective Chair positions, played a vital part in the Bill’s passage and I thank them for their work thus far.
I should also like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), for Aylesbury, for East Devon (Simon Jupp) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter) for their thoughtful and considered engagement. On the Opposition Benches, I extend my particular thanks to the hon. Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for the constructive way in which they approached the Committee scrutiny of the Bill.
Before the Bill moves to the other place, I should also like to say thank you to the significant number of DCMS policy officials and lawyers for their work in preparing such a substantial Bill alongside my parliamentary counsel. Finally, as is customary—and also because I mean it—I want to say thank you to the Bill team from DCMS: Victoria MacCallum, Charlotte Brennan, Lisa Bourke, Mollie McHale, and Elie Pelling. I would also like to thank Myrtle Macpherson and Liam Hunt from private offices, who have supported us throughout this process. We have a truly talented media team in DCMS, and I am grateful to them for all the work they have done and for the patience they have shown throughout the years we have been working on this together.
We have discussed the significance of the Bill at length. When it receives Royal Assent, we will launch a wide-ranging programme of secondary legislation to fully implement its measures. We will see further considered collaboration between the Government, industry and Ofcom as these new reforms are implemented. I look forward to seeing this important legislation come into force, and to supporting industry and Ofcom as we move into a new era for broadcasting.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire
I join the Minister in celebrating the collaborative and consensual approach to the Bill, although I am disappointed that the Government chose not to support the excellent amendments that we either tabled or supported. I am sorry that there has been no movement yet on SLAPPs, to which I hope we will return.
I thank everyone who has contributed today, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Clive Efford) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). I also thank my colleagues who sat on the Public Bill Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who did such a brilliant job on the Front Bench, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and for Eltham.
I also thank the Select Committee members who did such a great job of coming up with good ideas, and who were so thoughtful and considered in their work. I thank the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for being willing to communicate with me on possible amendments. I thank colleagues on both sides of the House who have been open to listening to difficult arguments.
The Bill’s stakeholders are many and varied. Some broadcasters are thrilled to bits and others still have questions, but they have all been willing to take time to talk to us. We have looked at a wide range of measures that we know are necessary for broadcasters, but section 40 has been difficult for many people. I respect the fact that people have approached this with serious intent, purpose and commitment.
We probably will not vote on Third Reading, because we all agree that the Bill is necessary. As the Bill goes to the other place, section 40 will be removed and we will not stand in its way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East outlined in Committee and as I reiterate now. However, we have missed an opportunity this evening for a more nuanced version of that repeal, and we are disappointed that amendment 2 did not pass.
There is a further discussion to be had about how we can protect the provision of trusted public interest journalism in the modern age. If we are in government after the next general election, Labour commits to working with the Press Recognition Panel, IPSO, Impress and anyone else we need to work with to ensure the highest standards of ethical journalism. Whether it is online disinformation undermining our democratic institutions, the decline of local press outlets or the rise of SLAPPs, all these issues have to be taken seriously.
For now, our aim must be to ensure the passage of this Bill so that these important measures reach the statute book. The film and TV industries remain crucial to our economy, contributing more than £18 billion in 2020 alone and supporting 280,000 jobs across the country. It is right that we update the law after 20 years, so, as well as thanking colleagues, I thank the Clerks in the Public Bill Office, who have worked incredibly hard to ensure the Bill receives proper scrutiny by assisting us in drafting amendments.
I thank the public service broadcasters, UK radio stations, TV and radio platforms, podcasters, viewer representative groups and all the other stakeholders. And I particularly thank the Hacked Off campaigners, who have been willing to speak so generously and openly about their often painful experiences.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading. As the Minister said, it was quite fun and enjoyable to serve on the Public Bill Committee—although the Whips Office should not see that as a hint that I want to be on every future Public Bill Committee.
The Media Bill is an important piece of legislation, and a key theme throughout its passage has been the importance of prominence for our public service broadcasters—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. I should declare that I have worked for three of them, and I am sure that Channel 4 will one day complete the set. That is not a hint that I will be looking for a new job in a year’s time, perhaps much to the Opposition’s chagrin.
I am extremely pleased with the new regime to ensure appropriate prominence for public service broadcasters, but I wanted to say a word about it. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that there will be detailed consultation on the work with Ofcom, but it is important that Parliament sets out clearly to the regulator what we mean by prominence. I look forward to the Government taking a robust stance to ensure that Ofcom feels entitled and empowered to adopt a muscular approach. It must be bold with the TV manufacturers in expressing the will of this place to ensure that the PSBs really are featured prominently.
We need look at only one recent example of television to prove the value of PSBs: the drama that has made the headlines in recent weeks, the ITV programme “Mr Bates vs. The Post Office”. It highlighted an injustice to millions of people who had not previously been aware of the Horizon scandal, despite the fact that it had been covered in many news media and that the Government were already working extremely hard to provide redress and recompense for postmasters well before the drama was aired.
“Mr Bates” has had an immediate and important effect, but the programme could only have been made by a PSB. The nature of that story is such that, yes, it is of massive interest to the UK audience, but its international appeal as a television programme might be less evident. ITV recognised the significance of the scandal, put serious money into it and took a commercial risk that would likely not have been approved by a non-PSB. That speaks to the value of the legislation before us.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this issue, but it is also right to highlight the role of the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). For 18 months before that broadcast, the Minister worked hard. We need to recognise that his 18-month contribution coincided with the ITV programme, and the two came together at the right time.
Rob Butler
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. As I said, the Government had been acting well in advance of the drama, but the programme made the public aware in a way that the news had not been able to. The Government made serious efforts—he is right to draw attention to the incredible work of the current Minister with responsibility for postal services—to achieve recompense and redress, but the TV drama made the public aware of the scandal and the need for redress.
Channel 5 has pointed out that public service content relies on “easy access” for viewers. Without the reforms in the Bill, the significant risk is that proper public-value content will be harder to find for audiences. That cannot be tenable. I am delighted that the Bill seeks to overcome that. It is imperative that Ofcom ensures and assures prominence for our PSBs, as the House expects.
I do not want to detain the House any longer, but I will just say that public service broadcasting is one of the things that makes this country special. There is a Britishness about our broadcasting system and market that is unique. The Bill recognises and protects that, and I am delighted to support it.
Kirsty Blackman
I want to say a few thank yous, but I will first talk about the Bill briefly. We need a Media Bill. I am glad that the Government are doing their best to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities with the PSBs, as I said earlier. It is important that the Bill updates the existing situation and improves things for internet access services. It includes many welcome steps forward.
I still have the concern I expressed earlier about the definition of on-demand services. I appreciate what the Minister said—for example, that Disney+ is covered by it—but if we look at TV viewing apps on a PlayStation, the order of the apps or of the programmes is not covered by the definition. Because a PlayStation is mostly for playing games, its on-demand TV section is not covered. I think more can be done to future-proof the definition and update it to ensure that it covers everything that the Government want it to cover. It should cover the ways in which people generally watch television, especially those methods that increase as time goes on. I do not want to be overly critical, but I wanted to flag that point again.
Coming to the thank yous, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) for his work and that of his team, especially on listed events. He has been working on that campaign ever since I have known him, and I am certain that the rejection of his new clause today will not result in him sitting quietly. He will continue to speak on behalf of Scottish football fans, although Six Nations rugby was also an important part of his speech.
We did not take oral evidence, which is fairly unusual for a Bill Committee that starts off in the House of Commons. I understand the Minister’s reasons for that decision, which involved the pre-legislative consultation that took place. However, several organisations were disappointed not to have the opportunity to give oral evidence directly to the Committee. I thank all those organisations that came forward. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned quite a few.
Many organisations have worked incredibly hard to ensure that Members of Parliament know their views. I particularly thank Broadcast 2040+, the Media Reform Coalition, BBC Alba, STV, Channel 4, BBC, Amazon and Hacked Off, members of which I met on several occasions, particularly about the amendments that we discussed today. I hope that we get close to what was promised to those who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and to a resolution that means greater fairness for everybody. Unfortunately, it feels as though the Bill is not the place where that will happen. It is clear from views across the House that change needs to happen to ensure that people get the redress and justice that they hope for.
I thank all those who have put time and effort into trying to improve the Bill. I thank all the staff who have worked on the Bill, whether those on the Government’s Bill team or the Clerks who have done their best with the messy amendments that I sent them and asked them to make into something that looks vaguely sensible. Those staff are never mentioned enough. I thank all those who have had an input into the Bill.
Damian Green
I congratulate the Minister and the Department on getting the Bill this far. If I may be presumptuous, in the unavoidable absence of the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I thank the Minister for her kind remarks about the Select Committee’s contribution to the scrutiny of the Bill.
This is probably the appropriate time to note the Bill’s historic nature. It is 20 years since the House passed an equivalent Bill. Twenty years ago, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat and Twitter or X—whatever we call it these days—did not exist. The entire landscape has changed completely. Regulating with tools that are 20 years out of date is impossible. That is why it is important that the Bill is future proofed. The thought occurs to me that if it takes 20 more years before the House comes back to the subject, by then we will doubtless get sound and vision beamed straight into our ears and eyeballs after pressing the chip that will have been implanted in us. Regulating that will be even more difficult. I was pondering which Minister will be here in 20 years to cope with that, and it will almost certainly be my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who has done the job on and off for several decades already. I have every confidence that he will still be doing it perfectly well in the 2040s when we next come back to the subject.
I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) about the importance of public service broadcasting, which is one of the glories of this country. That is something that we have got right over many years. I hope and expect that the Bill will allow us to continue to get it right for many years to come. I wish the Bill well for the rest of its passage.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
May I simply say that if the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) is here for the next Bill, I hope that I will be in the Chair to see it?
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Petitions
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition about the need for the Government to fund the household support fund from April 2024. The fund has supported over 10 million people since October 2022 to afford food and utilities during the cost of living crisis, preventing millions from being plunged deeper into poverty. Yet the Government are axing this funding in March 2024, with no regard for the most vulnerable families across the country. The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to provide adequate support for low-income households for essentials through the Household Support Fund, and ensuring this provision is extended beyond March 2024.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Manchester Gorton,
Declares that the Household Support Fund has played a vital role in supporting low income households to pay for essentials like energy bills and food following the pandemic and during the cost of living crisis; notes that since October 2021, the Government has provided over £2 billion to local authorities in England; further declares that over 10 million awards were made using this funding between 1 October 2022 and 31 March 2023, playing an important role it played in alleviating poverty; and further declares that the government has failed to commit to funding the Household Support Fund beyond March 2024 which risks plunging millions of people across England into poverty.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to provide adequate support for low-income households for essentials through the Household Support Fund, and ensuring this provision is extended beyond March 2024.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002900]
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk, relating to food insecurity. At this time of a cost of living crisis, it is shocking that one in four households in the UK with children have experienced food insecurity, with 28% of young mums skipping meals—a figure that rises to 37% for those on universal credit.
With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to those petitioners affected by the issue and other aspects of the cost of living crisis that I am hosting a cost of living drop-in event on Friday at the Reconnect Regal theatre and I encourage them to come along.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to review the rate of Universal Credit to ensure it covers the essentials and that no parent or child goes hungry, and also that the Government introduces measures to stop oil and gas companies profiting at record levels whilst families are unable to afford necessities.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that in a time of crisis in the cost of living, one in four UK households with children have experienced food insecurity, affecting an estimated four million children; further that in their struggle to feed their children, 28% of young mums are skipping meals each day, with this figure increasing to 37% among young mums on Universal Credit; and notes that while the spiralling cost of energy is affecting he cost of food production, storage and transport and families find themselves choosing between heating and eating, oil and gas companies post record profits, paying out billions to shareholders and continuing to be aided by UK Government subsidies and tax reliefs.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to review the rate of Universal Credit to ensure it covers the essentials and that no parent or child goes hungry, and also that the Government introduces measures to stop oil and gas companies profiting at record levels whilst families are unable to afford necessities.
And the petitioners remain etc.]
[P002906]
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
This petition, on behalf of the residents of Glasgow North, was drafted before the ruling of the International Court of Justice and the decision of the UK Government to cut funding to that United Nations Relief and Works Agency, but that makes the petition calling for an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people, the urgent release of all hostages and an end to the siege of Gaza to allow vital supplies of food, fuel, medicine and water to reach civilian populations all the more urgent.
The petition also recognises the resolution of the House on 13 October 2014, calling on the UK Government to recognise the state of Palestine, alongside the state of Israel. The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to join with others in the international community in urgently pressing all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire, and to call on the UK Government to recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow North,
Declares that the attacks by Hamas on Israel on 7th October 2023 were acts of terror, and unequivocally condemns the taking of hostages and the loss of innocent lives in those attacks; further that the petitioners condemn the disproportionate response of the Israel Defence Forces, and affirms that there must be an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; further declares for the urgent release of all hostages and an end to the siege of Gaza to allow vital supplies of food, fuel, medicine and water to reach the civilian population; further declares support for the calls by the United Nations and many other international actors for an immediate ceasefire on all sides of the conflict and supports the global consensus in support of a two-state solution with a sovereign, prosperous Palestinian state, living side by side with a safe and secure Israel; and notes the resolution of the House of Commons on 13th October 2014 calling on the UK Government to recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to join with others in the international community in urgently pressing all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire, and to call on the UK Government to recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002908]
Fossil Fuels: Lobbying
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
To avert climate breakdown, the vast majority of the fossil fuel industry’s coal, gas and oil reserves need to stay firmly in the ground. Yet successive Governments, led by different political parties, have failed to take the kind of action that the science demands. They have known the indisputable facts and the consequences of inaction. Such consequences include the fact that the costs of delaying, and of failing to address climate, economic and social chaos, far outweigh those associated with an orderly transition along the lines of a jobs-rich, inequality-busting green new deal. Yet Government after Government have continued with business as usual. Government after Government have refused to grasp that despite some breakthroughs, successes and progress, the big picture has continued to get worse.
I do not deny that we are now seeing record amounts of energy being generated from renewable resources, for example, but these very welcome achievements do nothing to eliminate the dangerous damage arising from the continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels. Given what the experts have been saying for decades now, we have to ask ourselves why this Government, and others before them, have presided over, and colluded in, the frankly criminal decisions that have seen yet more oil, gas and coal continue to be explored and exploited. The answer to that question can be traced back to one consistent factor: the role of the fossil fuel industry in our politics. For over those very same decades when climate scientists have been warning of the rapidly shrinking window to avert a climate emergency, fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists have been denying the science, and then they have delayed, weakened and sabotaged climate action. Those tactics have enabled them to make billions in profits, while heating the planet and destroying communities.
In this debate, I want to highlight some of the ways in which fossil fuel influence is exerted in our politics and to propose how it should urgently be curtailed. I want to start with a case study, featuring the little-known fossil fuel lobby group Offshore Energies UK—OEUK—whose members include North sea operators such as Equinor, Harbour Energy, BP and Shell, and whose activities have resulted in a windfall tax that actually rewards companies for digging up more oil and gas, and a “price floor” introduced entirely at the industry’s behest. Let me explain how that has happened. According to analysis of data in the public domain, OEUK and its members met UK Government Ministers more than 210 times in the year following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—that is nearly once every working day. In June 2022, in that one month, when the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill was drafted and consulted on, the industry went into lobbying overdrive: OEUK and its operator members had twice as many meetings with Ministers as they did in the month before or after. It also held a parliamentary reception, in the name of the all-party group on the British offshore oil and gas industry, for which it provides, conveniently, the secretariat. The main message for the MPs and peers in attendance was that the windfall tax would “undermine and disrupt” investment in the sector. In a meeting a few days later with the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, the industry spelt out what it wanted to see in the Bill. Its recommendations, also put in writing to the Treasury, included protection for petroleum revenue tax repayments, which are, in essence, an existing tax break that can pay fossil fuel firms back for taxes they have paid in the past. The subsequent legislation did exactly as OEUK requested. Moreover, it introduced an enormous 80% “investment allowance”, which, combined with existing tax breaks, means that fossil fuel companies can claim £91 back for every £100 they invest in UK oil and gas extraction. As a result of that climate-wrecking loophole, Shell, for example, went on to pay no windfall tax at all in 2022.
The lobbying around the Bill was happening in the context of a wider lobbying campaign by OEUK, which had been urging the Treasury all year to reinstate regular meetings of the so-called “fiscal forum”, an advisory group that basically invites OEUK and its members to shape their own tax regime. On 9 December 2022, they got their wish; the fiscal forum met again, hosted by the new Chancellor, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), and the industry used the meeting to claim, yet again, that the windfall tax would harm investment in the sector. That meeting occurred in the wake of the Chancellor’s already having announced further changes to the windfall tax regime that would, in effect, see taxpayers actually paying and handing over money to oil and gas firms for investments being made. None the less, those companies wanted still more and they used the fiscal forum to demand that a price floor be introduced—and, surprise, surprise, they got it.
In spring 2023, OEUK board members of Harbour Energy and Equinor met with Treasury officials. The minutes, secured via a freedom of information request, state that the “Equinor reps smiled” at Government’s reassurances—yes, I am sure they did.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The hon. Lady is eloquently setting out how the Government are responding to heavy lobbying from the fossil fuel industry. Does she agree that no future generation—neither our children nor our grandchildren—will ever thank us, the politicians of today, for having put all our energy and focus into the energies of the past? Does she agree that the fossil fuel industry should really look at itself as well?
Caroline Lucas
It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member that I completely agree with her. I do wonder what our own kids will think when the planet continues to heat still further, and what their kids, in turn, will think. What were we thinking of? What was the fossil fuel industry thinking of, certainly, beyond its profits? Apparently very little.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. She has been assiduous in her commitment to these issues. Indeed, I would go as far as to say the hon. Lady has, on many occasions, been the conscience of this House on these issues. Does she agree that it is essential that votes cast and actions taken in this place are influenced by facts and reasoned opinion, and never by one individual or group? While there is a place for lobbying—let us be honest: it is through lobbying that we learn more; I understand that—it should be only a part of the consideration of any issue.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Member for both his comments, with which I agree, and his kind remarks. He is right: of course, lobbying happens, but a line gets crossed when money starts to change hands. There are perceptions—never mind what the reality is—of Members and groups potentially pursuing interests that are to their own advantage, rather than for the public good.
In June 2023, after sustained further lobbying meetings, letters and statements in the press, the Government introduced the price floor that OEUK had so assiduously lobbied for—surprise, surprise. To summarise: privileged access and meetings with Ministers, an opaque, official-looking lobbying group and an oil and gas fiscal forum advising the Treasury collectively resulted in significant changes to Government plans, which, in turn, resulted in a windfall tax that raised just half of what the Government had promised and saved corporations billions. All, of course, at a time of record fossil fuel company profits and a cost of living crisis for consumers. That is what happens when we let fossil fuels into every corner of our politics.
That is only the tip of the iceberg. Last year, it was reported that Gulf states pushing fossil fuels at COP28 had hired the now Lord Hammond and Lord Maude, along with former Prime Minister Tony Blair and other former leading politicians as “consultants”. As we know, it is incredibly easy for senior British politicians and civil servants to swap Government offices for consultancy retainers; they simply have to register with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—a body which even its chair, the former Conservative MP and now Lord Pickles, admits is toothless—if they take up any new paid or unpaid work within two years of leaving office. For example, ACOBA’s response to Lord Hammond working for Mohammed bin Salman’s regime was to note that his inside knowledge of the UK Government could be
“perceived to offer an unfair advantage”,
and then it went ahead and approved it all the same. When, in 2021, Lord Hammond’s advisory work was deemed by ACOBA to have breached the rules, the only sanction was a strongly worded letter.
I know and accept the convention not to criticise the conduct of individual MPs or peers, so I simply want to set out facts that are already in the public domain and on the public record. It is not just former Ministers going through the revolving door between parliamentarians and the fossil fuel industry to take up lucrative consultancy roles. Second jobs, placements, internships and sabbaticals are all different sides of the same coin, and all too often a lot of coins are made or exchanged.
Members of this House can benefit financially from the fossil fuel sector in other ways, too, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) presumably did when she held £70,000 worth of shares in Shell for five years when she was Environment Secretary, as published in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in August 2023. I have done the courtesy of alerting any Member to whom I am referring in this Chamber, by emailing them to let them know. The right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) also did in the shape of payments from oil company clients to business advisory service Zahawi & Zahawi, pieced together in research carried out by journalists Jonathan Watts and Pamela Duncan for The Guardian, from his shareholdings in an oil and gas exploration and production company, and the £1 million worth of donations he received from fossil fuel companies, including a regular monthly payment of £30,000 that stopped only when he became a Minister.
The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—who is in this place and with whom I have had a conversation to inform him that I am about to reference some of his interests—has been a Member of this place since 1997. He served as the Energy Minister under the now Foreign Secretary, and held down a second job for BB Energy, which trades more than 33 million metric tonnes of oil every year. As a strategic adviser, he was paid £50,000 per year for the equivalent of around 11 days’ work, according to his own Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Three of the biggest donors to the Conservative party are funders or board members of the climate science sceptic think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, or its spin-off Net Zero Watch. Companies from Cardiff Airport to ExxonMobil are handing out football tickets and passes for hospitality events to MPs across the political spectrum. In fact, I think I can safely say that there is probably only one UK-wide political party represented in Parliament that has not had some kind of handout from the fossil fuel industry, whether donations, expenses-paid trips, salaries or gifts. At this point, I give credit to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for going public about the food hamper sent to her by staff at Heathrow in the hope it would secure her support for their third runway. They obviously did not know her very well.
Financial benefit cannot be divorced from conflict of interest or perceived conflict, It is worth noting that there is no requirement on Members of this House to declare any income from dividends or any income gained from the sale of shares. Given the seemingly routine way in which shares get moved into blind trusts when MPs become Ministers, as used by the current Prime Minister and Chancellor, or the £70,000 threshold at which we are supposed to publicly declare a shareholding stake, the idea that we have transparency around conflicts of interests is laughable.
The evidence suggests that Members of the other place are just as at risk of the perception, at least, that they are influenced by dirty fossil fuel money. A total of 43 peers have a significant stake in the industry according to 2021 data. There, the declaration threshold is lower at £50,000. It is lower again at the Senedd and Holyrood, but they are certainly not immune to fossil fuel influence. A lower threshold would clearly be an improvement, but we need to do more than just tinker with the existing rules. In the vast majority of these instances, nobody is doing anything that breaks the parliamentary rules. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 only restricts about 5% of lobbyists—mostly trade unions representing workers, and charities. Meanwhile, corporations can pretty much do what they like, and consistently they do.
When we realise, as analysis by The Guardian clearly shows, that there is a direct link between fossil fuel money and the positions that MPs take in Parliament, it is self-evident that the rules cannot be fit for purpose. I believe that being an MP is about serving the public interest, not the interests of fossil fuel companies. In case anyone wants to suggest that they are working in the public interest, let me remind the House of the economic impact of continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels: public debt could rise to 289% of GDP by the end of the century if climate change is left unchecked, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility.
The climate impact is well known: if we want to be in with even a 50% chance of staying within the all-important 1.5° limit, we cannot open new fields, and we should be phasing out existing fossil fuel infrastructure in ways that will secure a just transition. That is not what these companies are using their influence to make happen, and they are frighteningly effective. Climate Action Tracker cites the Government’s doubling down on North sea oil and gas extraction as a key factor in the UK’s insufficient rating on compatibility with the Paris agreement and 1.5°. These companies’ dirty fingerprints can be seen all over our politics, and it is time to clean things up. What does that look like?
First, there would be a firewall between the industry and decision making—no lobbying meetings. If meetings are happening—for example, about the best way to secure the green transition—there must be full transparency, delivered in something approaching real time, not months after the event. At present, the Government publish details of some meetings every three months or so—often, it is every six months—but they are incomplete at best. I had to ask a series of formal parliamentary questions to expose a lunch that the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), had with Saudi oil company Aramco. It was missing from his official declaration. First I was told that that was because it was a “social” occasion, and then that there had been an administrative oversight. All that happened months after the event—an event that, frankly, should never have happened in the first place.
It goes without saying that the behind-closed-doors cosy dinners, drinks events and so forth have to be dragged into the sunlight. There is no convenient line between social events and political business for Ministers or Ministers-in-waiting. If they have conversations about policy, either off or on the record, with someone from the oil and gas sector, or indeed another sector that stands to benefit, they should be required to make that public pretty much immediately.
A proper firewall means no industry representation on panels, Government research bodies, or expert or advisory bodies; no fossil fuel involvement in climate negotiations; no place on Government delegations to international negotiations or trade missions; no staff exchanges between the industry and Government Departments; far greater periods between leaving a ministerial role and Parliament, and consulting for an oil and gas firm, for example, with a complete ban on any sitting parliamentarians doing that kind of work, paid or otherwise; no implicit endorsements from politicians as a result of their speaking alongside industry representatives, or at events with which the industry has any kind of association; and certainly no fossil fuel company sponsorship of political party conferences.
Last year, Chevron co-hosted an event at Conservative party conference with the tagline:
“Can fossil fuel companies play a role in the energy transition?”
We know that the only role that they want to play is one of delay and obfuscation, so why should they be able to pay to get privileged access to Ministers and potential Ministers?
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Lady will be surprised to learn that I agree with some of what she has said. It would certainly be wrong of such companies to lobby Ministers on any interests that they have. She will know that my views on these matters long predate any such interests—and for the record, I never lobbied any Minister on any matter connected with the interests that she has described.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I understand, of course, why he would want to make it. I would simply say that there is concern around perceived influence as well as direct influence. I have no reason to doubt for a second what he has just said—I am sure that it is absolutely true—but at the same time, when people outside this place look at the facts that I have been laying out this evening, in a dispassionate way I hope, alarm bells will start to ring, at the very least. We are talking about an industry that has a massive impact on the future of our planet, and I think it right, given the access that it appears to have to people in high places, to have this debate and raise those questions in this place.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Lady agree that, although we all roughly agree that we need to get to net zero, the biggest problem is the pace of change? The fossil fuel industry has successfully lobbied us all to say, “Not so fast! You can’t do it so fast. Don’t pull the rug from under our feet.” That is the biggest danger we face, because if we miss the target, there is no point talking about net zero. We have a 2050 target and we need to reach it urgently; we cannot delay any further, or go at a slower pace than necessary.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, which reminds me of a powerful thing that the US campaigner Bill McKibben says: delaying is the new denial, and winning slowly is the same as losing. There is a real imperative here to be fast.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this Adjournment debate, and on the strength of her arguments. I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about her contribution to this House over the years. It has been a pleasure to serve with her over the last decade and more.
Would the hon. Lady add to her list the need to reduce the overall cost of politics? An article I read recently estimated that spending in the forthcoming general election will dwarf anything that has happened before. The expenditure on social media alone will be greater than for the last official campaign period. Political parties go looking, as they are at the moment, for vast amounts of money to spend on electioneering, but it comes at a cost, because the funders who give them that money then want something in return.
Caroline Lucas
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his kind comments. It is always a great pleasure to work with him, and I agree entirely: when it comes to spending on elections, we seem to have an arms race that is out of control, which of course drives the obsession with getting more money to line the war chests that enable parties to fight those elections. A cap on that funding is urgently required, which brings me to the next point I wanted to make.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
To take the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) made about elections a bit further, does the hon. Lady have any confidence that things might change following the next election, given that the Labour party has said that it will stand by any licences granted between now and then?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is incredibly disappointing that Labour has, in a sense, not followed its own logic; it is happy to say that it will not accept any new licences, but if Labour were to make the clear statement right now that once it got into power—if it did—it would revoke those licences, that could have a chilling effect on all the licences that are going ahead. They are going ahead at a huge rate, and the Government want to see them go ahead even faster. When an official Opposition has it in its power to stop that process and chooses not to, “disappointing” is too polite a term, frankly.
I was coming to the issue of dirty money in politics. I want to see an end to it, because it comes with strings attached that are tying up in knots our chances of a liveable future. There can be no conceivable justification for allowing the fossil fuel lobby to directly or indirectly buy favours from politicians, so there should be no donating to MPs or to political parties, and no donations in kind, whether that is to all-party groups or via football tickets, event sponsorship or trips overseas. At the same time, the rules on conflicts of interest need redesigning to shut out vested fossil fuel interests, not simply have them declared on the record. It is time to close the revolving door. No side jobs or cosy secondments; no blind trusts, putting things in the name of one’s spouse, or raking in money from shares or second jobs; and of course, much tougher sanctions for breaches of the rules—including suspension, for example.
Thirdly and lastly, the preferential treatment meted out to the fossil fuel industry must come to an end—most immediately, the handing over of public subsidies and other incentives for fossil fuels must end. Most notably, that comes in the form of favourable tax regimes, which in the past have resulted in oil companies paying less than $2 in tax per barrel of oil pumped from the North sea, compared with the $15 per barrel that companies pay if they are operating in Norway.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. Does she agree that it is quite frustrating to look at the regime in Norway, which collects more tax, meaning that the people of Norway have a fund for the future, while we will not have anything at all by way of legacy benefits from the oil and gas industry—only an unliveable planet, if things continue as they are?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her eloquent intervention. She is exactly right. She underlines the point that stopping these vast subsidies for the fossil fuel industry is not only the moral thing to do, or in the interests of the climate; it is in the economic interests of the future of this country. The wealth fund in Norway is a very good model that we could, and should, have followed.
What I have described is one of the countless ways in which our politics is siding with and enabling the fossil fuel sector, as well as the banks, lawyers, lobbyists, consultancies, think-tanks and many others that feed off it. Those companies should have no place in our politics; if they do, it is undemocratic, and deeply dangerous for climate action, given that their priority is putting forward policies that actively and significantly undermine the UK’s climate commitments. Instead, we should seek to change politics into a force that sides with the economic writing on the wall, and the only chance we have of a liveable future: a transition to a climate-safe future with the public we are elected to serve.
I will bring my remarks to an end with three questions for the Minister. First, can he tell me who in Government has overall responsibility for monitoring the influence that fossil fuel companies have as a result of their political lobbying? Secondly, can he confirm whether the Government are satisfied that the checks and balances in place are sufficient to ensure that parliamentarians are not influenced by fossil fuel lobbying? Thirdly, does he agree that this goes to the very heart of how Government and Parliament are run, and therefore warrants the establishment of, for example, a new dedicated Select Committee to properly and regularly scrutinise the influence of the fossil fuel industry, and indeed other corporate influence on political decision making, as well as to make recommendations for change?
We are talking about not just the impact on climate but the standing of Parliament in this country. I think many people look at this place and draw conclusions that are not particularly favourable; it looks as if we are out for ourselves. We need to clean up politics, both because it is the right thing to do and because it might be just one step towards beginning to rebuild our reputation with the British public.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on gaining this Adjournment debate, and echo in part what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said: although we do not agree on everything, we appreciate that she is to some extent the conscience of the House on these matters, and is always there to encourage Government and everyone else to go further.
I am pleased to be able to respond to some of the points that the hon. Lady raised. She made the case that the interactions between representatives of fossil fuel companies, political figures and those in public life should be transparent. The Government believe that lobbying is a legitimate part of political development in all areas, as long as it is conducted transparently and ethically to maintain the highest standards in public life. The Government outlined wide-ranging improvements to transparency around lobbying in their “Strengthening Ethics and Integrity in Central Government” policy statement of July 2023. These include revising guidance to widen the range of lobbying engagements declared by Departments, and linked reforms to the consultant lobbying framework. These measures, when implemented, will ensure that all lobbying activity, irrespective of which sector is being represented, will be conducted openly and in accordance with the principles expected of participants in public life.
In the UK, a number of systems ensure that lobbying activity is conducted honestly and transparently. Taken together, these systems, which set the rules for the consultant lobbying industry, Ministers and Government Departments, Members of Parliament and political parties, ensure that it is clear whose interests are being represented in public life. The register of consultant lobbyists, created by the lobbying Act—the Transparency of Lobbying, non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014—has significantly increased transparency around the work of consultant lobbyists since its creation in 2015. The register makes it clear whose interests are being represented by consultant lobbyists, and provides accessible online information about those undertaking consultant lobbying and their clients, as well as details of investigations into alleged breaches of the Act.
The Act also established an independent registrar of consultant lobbyists, who has powers to monitor and enforce compliance and administers the register of consultant lobbyists. The register of consultant lobbyists complements existing transparency mechanisms, including the quarterly publication of ministerial meetings with external organisations, business appointment rules and industry-led regulation, such as subscription to industry codes of conduct.
From January 2024 onwards, meetings held between Ministers and consultant lobbyists will be declared through routine quarterly transparency. This will also apply to those senior officials who are subject to meeting declarations. New transparency guidance was published on gov.uk in December 2023, detailing stricter minimum standards for meeting descriptions, to ensure that declarations contain relevant, constructive information. As I said, new guidance expands the scope of transparency declarations for senior officials to include meetings held between external organisations and individuals, and directors general, finance and commercial directors, and senior responsible owners in the Government’s major projects portfolio.
The code of conduct for Members of Parliament sets out the standards of behaviour expected of Ministers, and the rules on the registration and declaration of interests. The code provides that Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and must always be open and frank in declaring any relevant interest in any proceeding in the House or its Committees. It is for the Standards Committee, not the Government, to consider any changes to the approach to the registration of interests.
Caroline Lucas
The Minister is obviously going through the existing architecture that is supposed to guard against undue influence from lobbyists, corporations and so on. I wonder whether he would agree with his presumably former colleague, now Lord Pickles, who admitted that the office of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is toothless, and that work does need to be done on that. If when a Member breaches the rules they simply get a letter telling them, “You should not do that again,” that will hardly be a sanction that anyone will be particularly worried about.
Alex Burghart
Obviously, the Government take seriously anything that Lord Pickles says, and I certainly do. He was my predecessor in Brentwood and Ongar, and I hold him in high regard. There is a process by which such comments are considered, and we will continue to go through it.
I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate that a chunk of the framework that I have just set out is new, and it is important that we give it a chance to work. What governs a lot of our thinking—perhaps where we diverge from her—is the fact that we cannot envisage a situation in which it would be wise to shut energy companies out of the discussions. We consider them to be fundamental to the transition to net zero. We also believe that some may have a role when we get to net zero and that it is clear that some fossil fuels will be necessary even when we reach that destination.
Consequentially, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and her Ministers regularly met a wide range of stakeholders to discuss issues relating to energy security and net zero. Of course, that includes meeting oil and gas companies and representative organisations, as well as environmental organisations and charities. For a sector that supports around 200,000 jobs and is at the forefront of the drive to net zero and the energy transition, where the workforce is transferable to green jobs of the future, that is a responsible position to take.
The Prime Minister has reiterated that net zero is a priority for this Government, and we remain absolutely committed to meeting our legally binding net zero target. More than ever, we are determined to adopt a fair and pragmatic approach to net zero that minimises the burden on working people. No other country has matched our record on decarbonisation. Unlike most other countries, the UK’s climate commitments are set in law. The UK is a net importer of oil and gas and a fast-declining producer, hence new oil and gas projects simply reduce the fall in the UK supply; they do not increase it on current levels. The new Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill will not undermine those commitments.
Caroline Lucas
The Minister is being generous with his time. He will know that just today the Climate Change Committee issued an interim report saying that the Government are off target when it comes to their commitments and the thresholds they are meant to meet. He will also know that the same committee has been pretty critical of, for example, the new Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill. He cannot simply rest on his laurels and say that we had a good reputation in the past and therefore things are going to go well now—we are off track right now.
Secondly, the Minister talked about consultant lobbyists, but they are a tiny proportion of who is doing this work. For example, the Foreign Secretary was not registered as a consultant lobbyist when he worked for Greensill. The consultant lobbying issue is, frankly, a complete red herring here. We need to look beyond that at who is speaking to whom and with what effect.
Alex Burghart
Alas, I have no laurels on which to rest; I am merely a junior Minister. Obviously, the Government are keen that we have a fit-for-purpose regime that ensures that lobbying is transparent. That is why we have introduced a number of the changes that I have already outlined.
On the report published today by the committee, the hon. Lady will have to forgive me because I have not yet had time to consult it, but we always take the committee’s findings seriously. She will also be aware that it has previously said that, even when we get to net zero, we will still require some fossil fuels for certain purposes.
Sir John Hayes
I think the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has got a point about ACOBA, and so does Lord Pickles. Happily, I have never breached ACOBA’s rules or any parliamentary rules, as she knows, but if anyone did so, surely there ought to be some measure that ACOBA could take? My hon. Friend the Minister has been through the process, as those of us who have been Ministers all have, and he will know that my own, long-established views on these subjects are unaltered, unaffected and uninfluenced by anything I do outside this place. But none the less, the point remains.
Alex Burghart
It is hard to imagine my right hon. Friend breaking any rules, I have to say. I know the authorities will have noted what he said on ACOBA.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has clearly articulated her views on how the UK should aim to reach the goal of net zero. That we might differ on that does not detract from the core principle that a range of energy stakeholders all have a role. The Government’s firm belief is that lobbying activity has an important and legitimate role to play in the policy development process, so long as interactions between lobbyists and political actors are properly declared.
We support the existing rules, which apply to the lobbying industry, Government and Parliament—both to individual Members and to informal groups and all-party parliamentary groups—and we shall continue to drive forward reforms to improve transparency. The hon. Lady might disagree, but in a democratic society, public policy is best informed by engagement and political debate. Elected representatives have to meet a wide range of people, not just people they agree with; that is democratic engagement. Such debate should be supported by an independent free press, and then, at the ballot box, we should trust the people.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Coronavirus and Influenza) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
On a point of order, would it be in order for us to say happy birthday to our wonderful Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield?
The Chair
I am sure the Chairman of Ways and Means would always want to acknowledge that sort of event, so happy birthday to the Government Whip. I call the Minister to move the motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Coronavirus and Influenza) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I also want to pass on my best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield; it is always best to keep in with the Government Whip.
In autumn 2020, as part of the response to the covid pandemic, a number of temporary amendments were made to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to support the deployment of covid-19 and flu vaccinations following public consultation. This instrument looks to amend the temporary provisions in those regulations—regulations 3A, 19 and 247A—in order to maintain them and support the ongoing delivery of covid-19 and influenza vaccination.
Regulation 3A enables trained healthcare professionals or staff under the supervision of healthcare professionals to conduct the final stage of assembly, preparation and labelling of covid-19 vaccines without requiring additional marketing authorisations or manufacturer’s licences, provided that vaccines are supplied under NHS arrangements or by suppliers of medical services to His Majesty’s armed forces. Regulation 3A allows for the reformulation and reassembly of authorised covid-19 vaccines without the need for additional marketing authorisations.
Regulation 19 has enabled covid-19 and flu vaccines to be moved safely between premises at the end of the supply chain by providers operating under NHS arrangements or suppliers of medical services to His Majesty’s armed forces without the need for a wholesale dealer’s licence. Regulation 247A has provided a mechanism to expand the workforce that is legally and safely able to administer a covid-19 or flu vaccine without the input of a prescriber, using an approved protocol. Regulations 3A and 19 have sunset provisions and will cease to have effect on 1 April 2024 unless extended today. Regulation 247A is only permitted for use during a pandemic, so we want to amend it to be valid outside a pandemic for a temporary period.
The regulations continue to play a vital role in the covid-19 and flu vaccination programmes and have helped us to roll out both vaccines this autumn and winter. We are committed to protecting those who are most vulnerable, guided by the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Although for most people covid-19 is no longer a serious risk, for some it remains one and vaccines are still the first line of defence for those people. In our latest roll-out, more than 11.8 million covid vaccines have been administered by NHS England since national bookings opened on 11 September last year, and more than 17.9 million flu vaccinations were administered in England during the latest autumn campaign. That includes more than 4.5 million people who received their flu and covid-19 vaccines at the same appointment. The regulations we wish to extend today play a huge part in making that happen.
The Government have engaged a broad range of stakeholders to determine whether to retain the provisions in the 2012 regulations beyond their current period, which ends in April. That initial engagement led the Government to propose an extension, as key stakeholders, including NHS England, said that without these regulations the covid-19 and flu vaccination services would be negatively impacted. Following that engagement, the Government ran a public consultation from 7 August to 18 September 2023 on proposals to temporarily extend the regulations until 1 April 2026 while a permanent solution is developed.
In regulation 247A, condition A, which requires there to be a pandemic for it to be used, would be removed. We had 220 responses, and there was a high level of support for the change.
Eighty nine per cent of respondents agreed that regulation 3A should be extended. It is important to note that covid-19 vaccinations are not available as pre-filled syringes, so a lot of work is done when a covid vaccination clinic is running. The regulations will make that as efficient as possible. The consultation found that the flexibilities of the arrangements for safe assembly and preparation at the pace and scale required mean that our vaccination programmes are as efficient as they can be.
Again, there was a high level of support for regulation 19, with 91% agreeing that it should be extended. There was a similar level of support for the change to regulation 247A, with 82% agreeing with the proposal to remove condition A so that the regulation can be used outside a pandemic.
The regulations have played an important role in reducing workforce pressures, so we are looking at how that can be made permanent. Work is being done to see how we can use our learning from the regulations and the tools they offer to reduce workforce pressures in the future and increase our capacity to deliver hundreds of millions of covid-19 and flu vaccinations. The regulations have also released qualified healthcare professionals to deliver other care across the system.
There are a range of benefits to extending the regulations. The Government propose to temporarily extend the provisions to 1 April 2026 and, in the case of regulation 247A, to remove the requirement that there should be a pandemic or imminent pandemic when the medicine is supplied while a more permanent solution is developed. Extending the provisions will allow the Government to work with system partners to undertake a fuller consideration of longer-term mechanisms that could be deployed to better support the delivery and administration of covid-19 and flu vaccines.
In the short term, however, given the high level of support expressed in the consultation and at a time when covid-19 and flu continue to be prevalent, there is an ongoing need to support the continued safe and effective supply, distribution and administration of covid-19 and flu vaccines by maintaining the provisions to April 2026. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Christian Wakeford
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. The Minister will note that I am not the shadow Minister, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead has any additional questions she will write to the Minister. I will start by wishing the hon. Member for Beaconsfield a happy birthday, though unlike the Minister I do not need to keep up a good relationship with the Whips’ Office anymore.
I first want to pay tribute to all those who have done so much to blunt the impact of the unprecedented pandemic that came to the UK nearly four years ago. A remarkable effort has been made by our health and care staff, our scientists and others in public services who have done so much to keep the public safe and vaccinate millions across the country as quickly as possible. The positive impact of the vaccination programme cannot be overstated. It not only undoubtedly saved so many lives and drove down cases of covid-19, but finally allowed us all to end the lockdowns and reclaim our freedoms.
As the Minister set out, today we are considering regulations to update legislation pertaining to the movement and supply of covid-19 and influenza vaccines. The changes seek to extend the sunset clauses of regulations 3A and 19 to 1 April 2026 and alter regulation 247A to extend its provision until 2026, instead of the current restriction on its use to only during a pandemic. Extending the provisions, which includes allowing the NHS to continue to use an expanded workforce, appears to be an important intervention to continue to allow the deployment of safe and effective covid-19 and influenza vaccines at the pace and scale required to keep the public protected.
The draft regulations aim to build on the hard work of the covid-19 vaccine roll-out across the country. It will be of no surprise that Labour finds them uncontentious and will support them. As shown by the mostly positive responses to the Government’s consultation last year, the provisions appear to have proved very beneficial to stakeholders in the health and care sector. Regulation 247A appears to have reduced workforce pressures while increasing flexibility in the workforce and providing opportunities for career progression. The impact assessment highlights the positive expected value of these regulations and shares the conclusion that vaccinations are a powerful and beneficial tool to tackling viruses and diseases like influenza and covid-19.
None the less, we have some questions for the Minister. In the impact assessment, the Department mentions its work to move towards a permanent approach that will likely alter these provisions again in the future. As they will be extended only by two years, there appears to be a need for a long-term solution. Can the Minister provide us with any detail about the progress the Department has made in its planning for a permanent approach and when we should expect the developments to be brought forward?
I also wanted to ask the Minister about the wider issues of vaccine take-up, vaccine hesitancy and vaccine misinformation. They are especially poignant given the recent measles outbreak across the country, where too few of our youth were protected against a potentially deadly virus. The Minister will likely be aware of calls last autumn for the Government to extend this winter’s covid vaccination booster programme to the 12 million people in the 50-to-64 age cohort. Can the Minister explain why the provision was not extended to that age cohort and whether the Department is worried that we have left millions without proper protection during this winter?
In recent months, it has been proposed that covid-19 vaccinations could be accessed privately, in a similar way to what happens in the United States. Can the Minister share any details about whether and when those vaccinations could be available on the high street? I would also like to raise the issue of health inequalities faced by ethnic minority groups and the most deprived in our society. Last winter, influenza admission rates were 2.6 times higher and covid-19 admission rates 2.1 times higher for individuals living in the most deprived areas than for those in the least deprived. The rate of emergency hospital admissions for influenza was 1.6 times higher for black British people and other minority ethnic groups than for white ethnic groups. I am sure the Minister agrees that the findings emphasise the need to improve vaccine coverage across all ethnic groups and among the least well-off to reduce the risks associated with both influenza and covid-19. What are the Government doing to tackle these inequalities?
Finally, I would like to ask the Minister to explain what the Government are doing to tackle the vaccine misinformation that continues to be widely shared across the country. It remains a large barrier to the delivery of safe and effective vaccines to those who need them and could have a major impact in the future if we face similar health emergencies. While we support the instrument today, I hope the Minister can address the points I have raised. We must ensure we achieve the ultimate goal of sustaining the supply and improving the take-up of safe and effective covid-19 and influenza vaccines at the pace and scale required.
Maria Caulfield
I am pleased that we have cross-party support for the regulations. They are important in ensuring that we can deliver an efficient vaccination roll-out, particularly with a potential spring roll-out coming early this year.
In answer to the questions from the hon. Member for Bury South, yes, we are working to look at a more long-term solution. We are engaging with key stakeholders such as NHS England, and proposals will be made. There will need to be a consultation, and we will set out the date of that so that everyone can engage with it. It is one thing to put temporary measures in place, but it is another thing to put in long-term, sustainable measures, so it is important that all stakeholders are consulted, particularly those in primary care.
The regulations today extend only to Great Britain. Northern Ireland is not included because health is a devolved matter and there is not a sitting Assembly, but work is going on with Northern Ireland officials and there was positive news today of the potential of the Assembly restarting. We want to make sure that Northern Ireland will be covered by the provisions once there is an Assembly.
Christian Wakeford
On that point, it was helpful to have the news today about the Northern Ireland Executive. If, for any reason, they take a long period for this—they have two years to catch up on—will there be a further SI to implement these provisions in Northern Ireland?
Maria Caulfield
Ideally, we would not want to do that, because it is for Northern Ireland to determine its own health decisions. However, I can say that Department officials have been sharing draft materials with Northern Ireland officials so, once the Assembly is up and running, that could potentially happen fairly quickly.
On the point that the hon. Member for Bury South made about vaccine hesitancy, it is absolutely true that we are seeing vaccine and immunisation hesitancy across the country. It is very unhelpful that some of these misleading claims are being made, but, when we engage with community leaders, faith leaders and primary care teams that know their communities, we are able to engage.
We had a very successful covid-19 vaccine roll-out, getting to communities that are usually under-represented in vaccination programmes. During covid, that was thanks to the work of the Equality Hub and teams such as the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. We are now using them again, particularly in London and the west midlands, for the measles immunisation programme, and we should be able to update colleagues about progress on that fairly swiftly.
Although it is not an issue with covid-19 and flu vaccines, there is concern among the Muslim and Jewish communities, and among Seventh-day Adventists and Rastafarians, about the use of pork in some of the measles vaccines. I would just reiterate that there are non-pork-based measles vaccines available, so that should reassure communities on the alternatives. However, there is work to be done in providing reliable information, getting the confidence of communities and making that vaccine as accessible as possible. That is why we are also working with our school teams to ensure that when young children need immunisation, it is as accessible as possible.
The hon. Member touched on the availability of vaccines. We follow JCVI advice and we expect to publish the JCVI advice for the spring roll-out fairly shortly. For those not covered by NHS vaccine programmes—we did not do the over-50s this year—we are looking at the options of a private market for covid-19, as is currently the case for flu. We are having discussions with both suppliers and pharmacies to see what is possible. Again, we will support any moves towards that as much as we can.
The hon. Member’s final point, I think, was about ensuring that we can cover as many people as possible with the vaccines. It is down to the JCVI advice. We almost always follow its advice, and it looks at a range of risk factors. That will also change over time; we may move to an annual covid vaccine at some point, compared with the spring and autumn roll-outs, but that will all be guided by the JCVI advice. Obviously, if a variant of concern emerges, that will change things.
The flexibility that these regulations provide really makes a difference, and we have had a positive reception from NHS England—from primary care—about the difference that it has made to the skills mix and career progression of many who administered the vaccines, as the hon. Member pointed out. It has also been a real opportunity to develop the workforce. I hope that that answers hon. Members’ questions. I thank them for their cross-party support.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister to move the motion, I remind colleagues that today’s debate is exactly, per the regulations’ title, on the deduction of union subscriptions from wages in the public sector. It is not a general debate on Government economic policy, strikes, the merits or otherwise of trade unions, or anything else. I will be calling Members to order if they go out of scope. It is a serious piece of work that is in front of us, and it needs to be treated with respect.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I will have to jettison a large part of my speaking notes now, Mr Paisley!
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023.
To cut to the chase, the Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations, also known as the check-off regulations—not Anton Chekhov, the 19th-century Russian playwright, but check-off—stem from section 15 of the Trade Union Act 2016. It is the last piece of secondary legislation to be brought into force as part of that Act.
The regulations aim to modernise industrial relations in the UK. They define a relevant public sector employer for the purposes of section 15 of the 2016 Act. That provision requires relevant public sector employers that allow employees to pay union subscriptions directly through payroll—a process known as check-off—to charge trade unions a cost substantially equivalent to the cost they incur for providing the service. In addition, public sector employers must be satisfied that there is an alternative way of union members paying their subscriptions aside from check-off, such as through direct debit.
Should employers not be able to secure payment substantially equivalent to the costs of providing check-off, and there is an alternative payment available to employees, employers must cease to provide check-off. That will ensure that check-off services are provided by public sector employers only where there is no cost burden to the taxpayer and to guarantee members have choices about subscription payment methods.
The regulations will not come into force until a reasonable transition period has elapsed to allow everyone adequate time to make arrangements to comply with the regulations. To that end, the regulations will come into force on 9 May 2024, six months after laying. That is a generous transition period, considering that the regulations were previously due to be laid in 2017, so employers have had a significant period of awareness of the impending changes.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister has said that six months is an appropriate period, but during the debates on the Trade Union Bill in Parliament, the Government committed to a consultation period of 12 months, not six months. Will the Minister explain why the Government’s position has changed?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Member will be aware from my opening remarks that the Bill that floated this idea was given Royal Assent in 2016. A few international events got in the way of our completing the passage of the secondary legislation, but we think that given how much time has elapsed and how aware everyone is of the changes, there is no great problem in moving from 12 months to six months.
The Government have also provided to the House the explanatory memorandum and a full impact assessment, and we have published on gov.uk guidance to be issued to public sector employers to help them to familiarise themselves and comply with the regulations. The check-off regulations will deliver value for money for the taxpayer. The impact assessment has identified that the intervention will equate to a present benefit saving of approximately £1.5 million a year. However, I wish to be clear that the regulations stem from the Trade Union Act 2016, which was introduced in response to a 2015 manifesto commitment. As such, and despite delays owing to other Government priorities relevant to the UK’s exit from the European Union, the coronavirus pandemic and so on, this has been a long-term ambition of the Government in our aim to modernise industrial relations in the UK.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is, as ever, an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.
It is extraordinary, when there are so many other pressing issues that the Government should be tackling, that they decide to prioritise pushing ahead with this legislation, which will squeeze yet another few pennies from hard-working public servants—people who are already working their socks off in sectors such as the NHS and other frontline services, trying to meet ever greater demand with shrinking resources. They are bearing the burden of the highest taxes since the second world war, and the latest gimmick of giving back tuppence in national insurance contributions does not make up for the at least 10p in additional tax burden that this Government have taken from them. These are public servants whose wages have nowhere near kept up with inflation and who are now facing a real cost of living crisis. Make no mistake, if this cost burden is placed on trade unions, they will inevitably have to pass it on to their members. What is it that the Government have against their own workforce? They will be charging for the toilet paper next.
According to Government documentation, the overall cost to employers is some £1.5 million, which, as noted in the draft impact assessment, equates to a matter of pennies per employee. Once established, as current check-off systems are, costs are minimal—usually arising from just having to add or remove colleagues when they begin or finish their employment—but once employers have to try to disaggregate that cost and raise an invoice for a trade union, the workload is increased. The trade unions, dealing with multiple public sector employers, will have a considerable amount of additional work and additional costs.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The TUC has expressed concern that the regulations could deny some members access to trade union services, which could infringe their rights under article 11 of the European convention on human rights, which protects freedom of assembly and association. Does my hon. Friend agree that these regulations are the latest attempt by the Government to make life more difficult for trade unions and their members?
Dame Nia Griffith
I agree with my hon. Friend. The guidance issued has considerable flaws. It was not even available when the regulations were debated in the other place in December. The guidance is non-statutory. That means that employers do not necessarily have to follow it and can decide for themselves what they consider to be “reasonable costs”. Even within the guidance, there seems to be no mechanism for trade unions to challenge employers’ calculations of reasonable costs. The guidance states baldly:
“If no agreement can be reached and the relevant trade unions do not agree to pay the amount, then the employer may wish to consider taking steps to stop administering Check-off”.
In other words, it is take it or leave it. There is no pathway or mechanism for trade unions to challenge the employers’ calculations of reasonable costs or their decision to terminate check-off. In other words, there is no redress, and the trade unions are put in a position where their only options are to pay what the employer demands or end check-off. What a disgraceful way to treat their loyal workers and their workers’ representatives.
It is as if the Government have completely forgotten, or are choosing to ignore, the immense benefits of having trade union recognition in the workplace. Up and down the country, in both the private and public sector, on a daily basis we see trade unions and employers sorting out a whole range of issues amicably. Time was when Conservative Members recognised the valuable role of trade unions, but now one would almost think that the Government are looking to pick a fight with the trade unions and their own hard-working public servants. The Government’s draft impact assessment suggests there may be
“some loss of goodwill with employees and trade unions”.
There may indeed, and I would not underestimate the value of goodwill in services where so often we find individuals going above and beyond to deliver a good service.
Returning to the guidance, it looks as if the employer has carte blanche to allege additional cost. The example is given of additional cost being justified in the case of what is called “late” notification being given by a trade union of a change in membership fees—whatever “late” may be. This is from a Government who talked about a 12-month period, then a six-month period, and now they want to implement these changes by 9 May, leaving barely three months to have everything worked out. This is from a Government who, in September 2022, with no notice sent the financial institutions into a spin and left people overnight with hundreds of extra pounds to pay on their mortgages or their rent.
On the matter of consultation, according to the draft explanatory memorandum, it sounds as if the consultation was simply to identify the various public bodies that would be covered by this legislation. We read:
“No public consultation was carried out as the principles of this provision were debated extensively in Parliament during the passage of the Trade Union Act in 2016.”
Furthermore, we are told:
“Trade union officials and others gave evidence during the passage of the Act and the Government listened to their comments.”
Make of that what you will, Mr Paisley, but I do not think the Government were doing much listening. To say that now there is no further need to seek advice or comment or to consult more widely is shocking.
There has been no opportunity for either the public or the main parties affected by this legislation—namely, the employees and the trade unions—to feed back on its implementation, because, the Government say, they did this seven years ago. If there had been proper consultation on the implementation, there would have been an opportunity for the trade unions to raise the issues of how an employer would determine costs and what the process for resolving a disagreement over the costs would be, rather than the situation of no redress that the Government are now trying to push through.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Is she not concerned, as I am, that there was not only no public consultation, but no consultation with the devolved Administrations? Given that the regulations will affect public sector workers and public bodies in Scotland, it is extraordinary that there was no consultation with the Scottish Government, who are their employer and who have clear manifesto commitments on industrial relations.
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed I am. As the hon. Member will know, reflecting the will of the people of Wales, the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 disapplied devolved Welsh public sector employers from the provisions of the Trade Union Act 2016. Non-devolved bodies that operate in Wales are subject to the jurisdiction of the 2016 Act, however, so there is certainly an impact on people in Wales. There should have been full and proper consultation with the devolved Governments.
I hope the Minister will address this in his concluding remarks, but will he look again at what happens if the charges that the employer wishes to impose upon a trade union for providing check-off are considered unreasonable by the trade union? Will he look at working with trade unions and employers to agree some form of mechanism to resolve a disagreement?
In the draft impact assessment, the estimates for the scale of the use of check-off range from the 10-year-old TaxPayers’ Alliance figure of 90% of the workforce to the more recent Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy figure of 65% of the workforce. The TaxPayers’ Alliance says that some 22% are already paid for by trade unions, whereas the Local Government Association says that 67% are already paid for. One would think that the Government could, without relying on external organisations, produce an accurate figure for how many employees are served by check-off and whether the costs are recovered from the trade unions. They certainly expect trade unions to have accurate information on whether their members are up to date with their subscriptions when they ballot for industrial action.
The current cost of check-off, which is estimated to be some £1.5 million, pales into insignificance when compared with the latest figures we have of nearly £10 billion wasted on personal protective equipment. Only last Thursday, the Department of Health and Social Care published its annual accounts, and figures showed that some £9.9 billion of the £13.6 billion-worth of PPE that the Department bought between 2020 and 2022 was unusable, and its value is now less than the Government paid for it. Rather than scrabbling to claw back a few pence from their employees, the Government should be making much more effort to chase down those who ripped off the British taxpayer by millions and billions, but they have done nothing to recoup that money. That is why Labour is committed to creating a powerful covid corruption commissioner to help recoup billions of pounds that has been lost to waste, fraud and flawed contracts.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I was not intending to intervene in this debate, Mr Paisley, mindful of your stricture at the outset, but we appear to have drifted into a wider consideration of the Government’s response to covid. I was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time, and I gently point out that we did instigate a number of controls to try to make sure that wherever wrongdoing relating to the procurement of PPE had been perpetrated against the taxpayer, it would be followed up. That is something that the Department continues to do.
I further observe—I will conclude my remarks in a moment, Mr Paisley—that it was the Labour party that was urging us at the time to disregard ever more processes and to do ever more to procure at pace, to a point when the shadow Chancellor was urging us to go to historical re-enactment companies to procure PPE. I do think that in chiding the Minister and seeking to make a point, the hon. Lady—
The Chair
Order. We are not getting into the settling of scores. I encourage the shadow Minister to stick to the scope of the statutory instrument. Otherwise, we could be here for a very long time.
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed, Mr Paisley.
What I am saying is that the Government should be concentrating their efforts there, not on trying to squeeze a few more pennies from their hard-pressed workforce. The Opposition will oppose this legislation, because it will cause unnecessary bureaucracy, put an additional financial burden on hard-pressed public sector workers, and do nothing to improve good will between the Government and their loyal public servants.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group and my membership of Unison, Glasgow city branch, which is one of the largest branches of that trade union.
What we have in front of us is not quite the non-controversial, bland instrument we heard about from the Minister. He suggests that a small change is being made, but of course he knows it is far more controversial than that. I think it is important to point out what can be deducted from a public sector worker’s wages other than subscriptions, as that will set the scene of what is really going on here. People can pay their bills, their council tax and their rent. They can make a charitable donation: when I was employed by Glasgow City Council, I made a regular donation to a South Africa charity founded by the great Denis Goldberg, Community H.E.A.R.T. A worker’s staff association subscriptions can be paid through deductions from wages, but a colleague sitting next to them who is a member of a trade union now faces legislation to curb that activity. It is quite extraordinary what other subscriptions people will allow to come off pay—employers of cyclists might come up with a scheme to promote cycling, for example.
We are in the collective bargaining arena, and it seems to me, as one who was a member of the Committee on the Trade Union Bill that discussed at length the arguments around check-off when the Government tried to stop it altogether, that once again we have a Government who do not understand or have little understanding of what takes place in a collective bargaining unit in a trade union organised workplace. I am concerned that the instrument reflects a bias toward staff associations and against trade unions.
I have tabled many questions on this topic in the nearly nine years that I have been a Member of Parliament. There are also legal risks: every time the Government have tried to do something around check-off, it has ended up in a court defeat for them. If they were a football team with that sort of record, they would be firmly in the relegation zone. Every time they have been taken to court around check-off arrangements, they have been defeated. It is worth quoting Mr Justice Supperstone’s remark in one such case:
“I am not impressed by the argument that check-off is only or primarily for the benefit of the union as such, rather than for its members in their capacity as employees.”
We have employees of public services who want their trade union subscriptions to be taken out of their pay packet, and the Government seem to have an issue with that. I cannot understand the Government’s fascination with this. A Government who are supposed to be all for small government and against state interference oppose voluntary arrangements between a trade union and a public sector employer. It is quite extraordinary, but we know why the Government have put themselves in that position: it is because they have for many years tried to curb the activities of the trade union movement. They are doing that because, as we all know, the benefits of trade union membership in a workplace are increased wages, better terms and conditions, and a decreased likelihood of being dismissed. That is a fact. It seems to me quite extraordinary that the Conservative party and this Government oppose those principles, on which the trade union movement of which I am a proud member was founded.
I am equally concerned about the lack of consultation with the devolved Administrations. It is quite extraordinary that we have public sector workers in Scotland, some working for the Scottish Government, some for a Westminster Department, some for other public bodies, yet there was no consultation with the Scottish Government. Is it because they would have been told by the Scottish Government that they were not interested in interfering in this regard? We know that any time a trade union has been approached to make a contribution to the employer for a check-off arrangement, it has met that request. Why do the Government want to interfere where the employer and the trade unions are happy for check-off arrangements to be made, at very little cost? It is more blue tape—not red tape, but blue tape. The most regulated part of the economy seems to be the trade union movement. It is a case of laissez faire in some parts of the economy, and Stalinism when it comes to these arrangements. It is extraordinary that the Government can go from one to the other, with no intervening period.
I am similarly concerned that the Government’s approach is in breach of International Labour Organisation rules, as we have seen in countries such as Congo, on which the ILO committee of experts reported that
“since the check-off system was abandoned…there has been no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay.”
That is the agenda here: to have trade union subscriptions paid by other means than from the pay packet. It is a device to try to ensure that the size of trade unions in the workplace is reduced and that they are derecognised. We know that that is the Government’s agenda. This is not the uncontroversial, bland statutory instrument that the Minister presented; it is very much the opposite. If the Government push ahead with this measure, they will find themselves in court again, probably facing defeat. There are very real issues about that.
Last, there is the change from the commitment that the implementation period would be 12 months. I say this with great respect for the Minister—he and I were on the Work and Pensions Committee together, so I know how assiduous he is—that that is not an uncontroversial change because of technology; nor is it modernisation. The Government committed to a 12-month implementation period. I think it is disgraceful that they are reneging on that commitment; they need to be called out on it and to justify that change, as the Minister has not done.
This statutory instrument strikes at the heart of trade union organisation in the public sector. It is insidious, and I too will oppose it today.
Alex Burghart
I thank all those who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Llanelli says that this is not a pressing issue, and I am inclined to agree with her, because that is why it has taken us the better part of eight years to get to this point. We put this relatively minor measure on hold while we were dealing with much larger issues.
The hon. Lady talks about it being a matter of a few pence. At £1.5 million a year, I am not sure I agree with her definition of a few pence, but if it is just a few pence, I am sure that the trade unions will be able to cover the cost, as they justly should. They all have a choice to make on whether to pass the cost on to their members, but they may wish to consider the size of their expense accounts before doing so. The main thing here is the principle that the public services should not be providing for the trade unions a service that is unremunerated. This delegated legislation will help to embed that principle.
Regarding challenges, our view is that there are existing and well established processes for resolving disputes between our public services and the trade unions which will be fit for purpose in this instance. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton raised a question about the ECHR. The regulations deny no one the right to join a trade union, so that issue will not arise.
I am pleased to be able to tell my former colleague on the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, that Scotland was consulted on the scope of the regulations. The Minister for the Cabinet Office wrote to relevant Ministers. This is obviously and clearly a reserved area—
Alex Burghart
I will give way to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton first.
Afzal Khan
Can the Minister explain why the Government failed to consult the unions? The instrument clearly affects them.
Alex Burghart
I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the trade unions were consulted as part of the work we did during the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016. To be clear: for a lot of people, direct debit is much more effective. It is often much better for trade unions, too. Going back over Hansard, I noticed that in 2016 a number of trade union websites were actively encouraging members to move to direct debit, because they thought it was a better process.
Chris Stephens
Trade unions were doing that because at that time the Government had stopped their members’ rights to have their subscriptions come off their wages. The Minister said—after his distasteful attack on trade unions, which I hope he will reflect on—that this is clearly a reserved area. I accept that, unfortunately, employment law is reserved to this place—it would be far better if it was under the aegis of the Scottish Parliament—but industrial relations are not. Industrial relations are between employer and employees. Why should the Government interfere in the voluntary arrangements between an employer and a trade union?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. This is a matter of the relationship between the public sector employer and its employee. That is why it is a reserved matter.
In his closing remarks, the hon. Gentleman said that membership of trade unions leads to higher wages. That was not necessarily the lesson of the 1970s. I hope he will reflect on that part of history. As for his reference to Stalinism, I should probably take that in the spirit in which it was delivered, but as we are having a political dust-up, I will remind him what Stalinism was. Real Stalinism involved the death of tens of millions of people at the hands of perhaps the most brutal regime the world has ever seen, and that was the result of socialism.
Chris Stephens
I listened intently to the Minister, and there are still some questions that have not been answered. In the time that we have left, and I understand that we do have time left, there may be an opportunity—
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Paisley. Can an hon. Member speak twice? The hon. Member for Glasgow South West has already spoken.
The Chair
The right hon. Lady is a very experienced Member and she will know that the Member may speak as many times as I call him.
Chris Stephens
I am grateful, Mr Paisley. As I understand it, when time is available, Members can speak—
Chris Stephens
Thank you, Mr Paisley. I was trying to help the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal.
There are still some outstanding questions. Given the Government’s track record in court in relation to check-off, how confident is the Minister that this particular statutory instrument will not lead to court action from a trade union or individual? It is important that before the Committee makes a decision the Minister tells us how tight the legislation is. This is a serious issue. The Minister is smiling, but he knows that the Government keep losing in court on this. How confident is he that if a trade union took this matter to court, it would not win?
Alex Burghart
I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to know whether a trade union will bring legal action, he had better ask the trade union. We believe that the regulations are fit for purpose.
Dame Nia Griffith
I would like the Minister to clarify the issue of the employer setting a rate and the trade union disagreeing with that rate. There is no mechanism for that. The Minister mentioned “the usual”—going to ACAS or whatever—but the fact is that the legislation needs some redress or balance. It is all stacked in favour of the employer, who picks the figure, and the trade union has to take it or leave it. Perhaps the Minister could give us a better answer on that point.
Alex Burghart
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave a few moments ago. She will know that there are existing, well established processes for dispute resolution between trade unions and public sector employers, and we believe that those will serve in this instance.
The Chair
Before I put the question, I remind colleagues that paragraph 13.2 of the rules of debate states that Members are entitled to speak as many times as they wish.
Question put.
Ministerial Corrections
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Johnston
On the funding rates, we announced the funding rates for three and four-year-olds in April last year, and for two-year-olds in November.
[Official Report, 22 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 25.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson).
The correct response should have been:
David Johnston
On the funding rates, we announced the funding rates for two, three and four-year-olds in November last year.
David Johnston
We set our rates by conducting a survey of 10,000 providers, in order to understand the costs they face and set the rates accordingly.
[Official Report, 22 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 30.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Wantage.
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist).
The correct response should have been:
David Johnston
We set our rates by conducting a survey of 9,000 providers, in order to understand the costs they face and set the rates accordingly.
David Johnston
I set out in my statement the additional money that we had given to the sector in the last financial year and this one to help it to meet those cost pressures—that was anchored to the survey of 10,000 providers that I talked about.
[Official Report, 22 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 31.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Wantage.
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton).
The correct response should have been:
David Johnston
I set out in my statement the additional money that we had given to the sector in the last financial year and this one to help it to meet those cost pressures—that was anchored to the survey of 9,000 providers that I talked about.
David Johnston
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the increased cost pressures that everybody has to face. That is why we gave an additional £204 million in the last financial year and a further £400 million in the current financial year to help meet those pressures, based on the fact that we surveyed 10,000 providers in order to understand exactly what they are paying for all the things he outlines.
[Official Report, 22 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 32.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Wantage.
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
The correct response should have been:
David Johnston
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the increased cost pressures that everybody has to face. That is why we gave an additional £204 million in the last financial year and a further £400 million in the current financial year to help meet those pressures, based on the fact that we surveyed 9,000 providers in order to understand exactly what they are paying for all the things he outlines.
Petition
Energy bills support
Criminal Justice Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Tuesday 30th January 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 View all Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 January 2024 - (30 Jan 2024)
The Chair
I remind Members that any speaking notes need to be sent by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please make sure that your devices are on silent. As you know, tea and coffee are not allowed during the sitting.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mrs Latham. I am wearing my spectacles today; I usually wear contact lenses. I have noticed that in this Committee room the LED lighting—I presume that is what it is—is perhaps set to cool white rather than warm white, and that has an impact on the sight of people like me.
Are you able to guide me on who I should speak to about this Committee room to ensure that the lighting is more appropriate for all Members, particularly people like me who find it very difficult to see in this cool light? Perhaps we could conduct a survey to see what type of optics LED lights work best with. Is Mr Speaker, somebody in facilities management or somebody else on the estate able to advise me on the best quality LED lights, whether warm or cool, for people with sight like mine?
The Chair
It is funny you should say that; I cannot see the Annunciator very well because of the lighting. You could go to the head of facilities or speak to Sir Charles Walker, who heads the Administration Committee where he will be able to bring the matter up. It meets every Monday.
Alberto Costa
Further to that point of order, Mrs Latham. I was desperately trying to hear you and I could not, which is another issue that we ought to take into consideration. I know that colleagues have from time to time raised the issue that the acoustics in these wonderful neo-gothic Committee rooms are not necessarily appropriate for the mid-21st century.
Again I ask, Mrs Latham: do you know what the appropriate body is when it comes to acoustic issues? We must ensure that all of us can hear, whether we have hearing aids or not—in my case, I do not have a hearing aid; I like to think that my hearing is okay. Nevertheless, I did have difficulty in hearing the response that you gave to my previous point of order. I would be grateful if you could repeat that response, in addition to giving me another one about the person to whom I should direct complaints when it comes to acoustics in these types of Committee rooms.
The Chair
I said that you could either go to Sir Charles Walker or the head of admin services. My response is the same for the hearing issue. I said that I cannot really see the Annunciator because of the angle of the lights, so that is a problem. I do not have problems here, but I have great difficulty hearing in Portcullis House rooms; I find they are very poor. It is worth reporting the matter to Sir Charles Walker because he can raise it in the Administration Committee. Several of us in this room are on that Committee. We have heard what you said and we can back it up.
New Clause 45
Administering etc harmful substances (including by spiking)
(1) In the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, for sections 23 to 25 substitute—
“23 Administering etc harmful substance so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person intentionally or recklessly, and unlawfully, administers a harmful substance to another person, and
(b) the administration of the harmful substance endangers the other person’s life or inflicts grievous bodily harm on them.
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person unlawfully causes a harmful substance to be administered to or taken by another person,
(b) the administration or taking of the harmful substance endangers the other person’s life or inflicts grievous bodily harm on them, and
(c) the person intends that, or is reckless as to whether—
(i) the harmful substance is administered to or taken by the other person, and
(ii) the administration or taking of the harmful substance will endanger the other person’s life or inflict grievous bodily harm on them.
(3) In this section “harmful substance” means any poison or other destructive or noxious thing.
(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine (or both).
24 Administering etc harmful substance with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person unlawfully administers a harmful substance to, or causes a harmful substance to be administered to or taken by, another person, and
(b) the person does so with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy the other person.
(2) In this section “harmful substance” has the meaning given by section 23.
(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).
25 Alternative verdict on trial of offence under section 23
A person who is—
(a) charged with an offence under section 23, and
(b) found not guilty of that offence,
may be convicted of an offence under section 24 (if it is proved that they committed it).”
(2) In consequence of the amendment made by subsection (1), in the following provisions for “maliciously administering poison etc” substitute “administering etc harmful substance”—
(a) paragraph 8(e) and (f) of Schedule 1 to the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978;
(b) paragraph 5(g) and (h) of Schedule 2A to the Housing Act 1985;
(c) paragraph 10 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003;
(d) paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003;
(e) in Schedule 2 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, paragraph (b) of the entry relating to offences under the Offences against the Person Act 1861;
(f) paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015;
(g) paragraph 4(c) of Schedule 1 to the Sentencing Act 2020;
(h) paragraph 23(f) of Part 2 of Schedule 9 to the Elections Act 2022;
and in section 72(2)(d) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 for “poison” substitute “harmful substance”.”.—(Chris Philp.)
This new clause re-casts the offences under sections 23 and 24 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (administration etc of harmful substances) and the procedural provision under section 25 of that Act relating to those offences
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 46
Sexual activity in presence of child etc
(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 11(1) (engaging in sexual activity in presence of child), in paragraph (c) for the words from “he engages” to the end (not including the “and” at the end of the paragraph) substitute “A engages in it when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed,”.
(3) In section 18(1) (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in presence of child), in paragraph (c) for the words from “he engages” to the end substitute “A engages in it when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed,”.
(4) In section 32(1) (engaging in sexual activity in presence of person with mental disorder impeding choice), in paragraph (c) for the words from “he engages” to the end substitute “A engages in it when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed,”.
(5) In section 36(1) (engaging in sexual activity in presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of person with mental disorder)—
(a) in paragraph (c) for the words from “he engages” to the end substitute “A engages in it when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed,”;
(b) in paragraph (d) for “paragraph (c)(i)” substitute “paragraph (c)”.
(6) In section 40(1) (care workers: sexual activity in presence of person with mental disorder), in paragraph (c) for the words from “he engages” to the end substitute “A engages in it when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed,”.”—(Chris Philp.)
This new clause amends offences of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child or person with mental disorder (B) so as to remove the requirement that the person knows or believes that B is aware, or intends that B should be aware, that the person is engaging in it.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Latham, as we commence our final day of line-by-line consideration of the Bill. [Interruption.] I see that colleagues are very enthusiastic about undertaking the last lap.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, who would ordinarily have moved this Government new clause, has just arrived. With your permission, Ms Latham, might I hand over to her so that she can speak to it?
The Chair
Yes, but let me correct the Minister: it is Mrs Latham, not Ms Latham. Having been married nearly 56 years, I do not think “Ms” is right.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
I apologise to the Committee for being late—I had left something behind.
The new clause amends a number of existing criminal offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Currently, it is an offence for a person intentionally to engage in sexual activity where, for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification, they do so when a child is present and they know or believe that the child is aware that they are engaging in the sexual activity. There are similar offences that target such behaviour where the victim is an adult with a mental disorder.
We have listened carefully to those on the frontline, who have identified a small category of cases involving this type of behaviour where there was insufficient evidence that the perpetrator knew, believed or intended that the child, or the person with a mental disorder, was aware of the sexual activity, most typically because the child was asleep. The new clause will expand the criminal law so that successful prosecution does not depend on the alleged victim’s awareness of the sexual act or the defendant’s intent. It will capture cases where, for example, a defendant masturbates over a sleeping child for the purpose of sexual gratification and subsequently seeks to argue that they did not believe the child was aware of the activity and did not even intend that the child should be aware of the activity. The new clause therefore alters the mental elements of the offences.
I thank the National Police Chiefs’ Council, a number of individual police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service for bringing to the Government’s attention these troubling cases, which have informed our response and led us to conclude that we should amend the existing offences to protect vulnerable adults and children. The amended offences will retain the need for a link between the child’s presence or observation and the perpetrator’s sexual gratification. That requirement is critical because of the risk of over-criminalising those who engage in sexual activity with no malicious intent where a child may be present, such as parents sharing a bedroom.
We want to ensure that these behaviours are prosecuted, not just to bring offenders to justice but, importantly, to enable the management of offenders and to prevent further escalation where there is the potential for a more serious sexual offence against children or vulnerable adults.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Latham, for the Committee’s final day.
The new clause is a welcome addition to the Bill. Clearly, experts have identified that the person B knowledge gap is really important and is creating risk with respect to those who seek gratification in this way. It is right that that loophole is closed. My only question for the Minister is about the sort of scale we are talking about. She mentioned a small number of cases. Do the Government have an estimate of the number of cases that the measure is likely to apply to?
Laura Farris
I do not have any indication of the number of cases, but we have heard from the police that there have been problems with getting a prosecution where they cannot prove intent.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 46 accordingly read a Second time and added to the Bill.
New Clause 47
Maximum term of imprisonment for certain offences on summary conviction
“In the following provisions for “6 months” substitute “the general limit in a magistrates’ court”—
section 1(6)(a) of the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 (unlawful sub-letting: secure tenancies);
section 2(7)(a) of that Act (unlawful sub-letting: assured tenancies and secure contracts);
section 30(3)(b) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (breach of certain orders or requirements);
section 339(2)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2020 (breach of criminal behaviour order);
section 354(4)(a) of that Act (breach of sexual harm prevention order);
section 363(2)(a) of that Act (breach of restraining order).”—(Laura Farris.)
This new clause provides that the maximum term of imprisonment for certain offences, on summary conviction, is the general limit in a magistrates’ court.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Removal of parental responsibility for men convicted of sexual offences against children
‘(1) After section 2 (parental responsibility for children) of the Children Act 1989, insert—
“2A Prisoners: suspension of parental responsibility
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person (“A”) has been found guilty of a serious sexual offence involving or relating to a child or children; and
(b) A had parental responsibility for a child or children at the time at which the offence was committed.
(2) A ceases to have parental responsibility for all children, for a time specified by the sentencing court or until an application by A to the family court to reinstate parental responsibility has been approved.””—(Jess Phillips.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I put my name to this new clause tabled by the Mother of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)—she has had some mentions. I absolutely agree with it. It is important, but, to be completely honest, for me it is far too small in its approach. I believe that the family courts in our country are harming—well, killing—children. Yesterday, the head of the family court division said on BBC Radio 4 that austerity is harming children and putting more children into care. We have been campaigning on family court justice for a decade, and progress has been slower than slow; I cannot think of an adjective. But people who abuse their families should not be allowed access to their children.
The new clause is specifically about those convicted of sexual offences against children. To be completely clear, those convicted in our family courts of sexual offences against children are not barred from parental responsibility for their own children—they can be barred from seeing anybody else’s children, but their own children are not immediately excluded. I am afraid that child abuse cases are taking place in our family courts, and not only do we allow children to be alone with parents who are abusers, but we sometimes remove children from the person trying to keep them safe and place them with those abusers. The new clause would protect children specifically from fathers convicted of serious child sex offences.
When a man commits a serious sexual offence, he has to go on the sex offenders register and is prevented from working with children. That protects other people’s children but not his own, and he retains parental responsibility. Currently, a father convicted of child sexual offences automatically retains parental responsibility. My right hon. and learned Friend’s new clause would make the default position that he would lose his parental responsibility, subject to that being reinstated by a family court on his application if it is judged to be in the child’s best interest.
The new clause follows important work done on this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—including through the Victims and Prisoners Bill Committee, which I was also on—and Jade’s law, which was added to that Bill to protect children by removing parental responsibility from a man who kills a child’s mother, or a parent who kills any parent. The new clause would similarly remove the parental responsibility of the father where he is convicted of sexual offences against children.
There is a BBC News article relating to Bethan in Cardiff, who has spent £30,000 protecting her daughter from the child’s father, who has been convicted of paedophile offences. The clause would make it the default position that parental responsibility is removed in such a case, meaning mothers do not have to go through such an arduous and expensive process. It could, however, be reinstated by the family court on application if it is judged to be in the best interests of the child.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Latham. I welcome the new clause tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham and outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley. New clause 3, as we have heard, seeks to remove the parental responsibility of people convicted of sexual offences against children and I welcome the tremendous cross-party support it has received. The new clause’s core aspect is the welfare of the child. I am one of those whose ambition in being elected to this place was to work for the benefit of young people, and the new clause does that.
The proposal would go some way to strengthening the law around the welfare of a child whose parent has been convicted of sexual offences against children. There are very limited cases where the court has allowed an application to terminate a person’s parental responsibility. They include a 1995 case in which the court terminated the parental responsibility, acquired by a parental responsibility agreement, of a father who had been sent to prison for causing serious injuries to his child.
In 2013, the court removed the parental responsibility of a father who had been imprisoned for sexual abuse of his child’s half-sisters. In a further case in 2013, the court terminated the parental responsibility of a father who was serving a prison sentence for a violent attack on the child’s mother. Finally, in a 2021 case, the court terminated the parental responsibility of a father who had a significant offending history, including sexual offences against children. In other words, this is already happening.
On Second Reading, I spoke about the need to amend the Bill so that offenders who have sexually harmed children and are sent to prison as a result lose the ability to control their own children from behind bars. That measure is long overdue and will ensure all children are safe from those dangerous predators, including their own parents. The key problem to address is: how can a man—it is usually a man—considered too dangerous to work with or be around other people’s children be allowed to have parental responsibility that effectively makes him responsible for all manner of decisions affecting their child’s life, but which may not be in the best interests of the child? Why should any child be subject to any form of control by a convicted sex offender who is unlikely to be part of their lives for years ahead, and possibly forever?
In response to a question on the proposed new clause, Dame Vera Baird told Committee members that she had reservations about the definition of a sexual offence in the context of the Bill as she felt it might be too wide. That said, I hope the Government will at least support the new clause in principle and perhaps return to the issue on Report so that we can take another step in the quest of all of us here to protect children. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Laura Farris
The new clause seeks the automatic suspension of parental responsibility where a parent has been convicted of a serious sexual offence against a child. We understand fully the motivation in bringing the new clause. We have discussed it and I respect the remarks that have been made. I want to confine my remarks to the contours of the current system and where that fits in relation to Jade’s law, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has already alluded to, and how that was introduced in the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
Starting with the current state of the law, the paramountcy principle is the cornerstone of the family justice system. There must be full consideration of the best interests of the child as a starting point. The hon. Member for Stockton North has just given an example of a number of cases where the parent had committed a very serious sexual offence and the family court acted accordingly to suspend parental responsibility.
Jess Phillips
Perhaps the Minister would like to see my email account, which has a folder specifically for the thousands of cases from the family court where the cornerstone is absolutely not the safety of the child. There are lots of cases where that does not happen—far more than the handful that have been referred to.
Laura Farris
I noted what the hon. Lady said in her opening remarks, but I will go through the legal landscape before I come to other issues. As I say, we are carefully considering the force of the new clause.
In cases in which a parent has been convicted of a child sexual offence, the family court has the power to strip out parental responsibility. That decision is made only after careful consideration of the best interests of the individual children, to ensure that their needs are the driver for action. Decisions about suspending or restricting parental responsibility have significant ramifications for children, which is why judges prefer to consider each case on its individual merits and make a decision that is specific to the best interests of that child.
We must not conflate suspending an individual’s parental responsibility with a punishment. It is a step that is taken to protect the child from harm, and because of that it must be taken when it is in the best interests of the child. The new clause, as drafted, makes no provision for the consideration of the best interests of the child. For that reason, we think it engages article 8 consideration under the European convention.
Members are of course aware that the Government recently tabled an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that will automatically suspend parental responsibility where a parent has been convicted of the murder or the manslaughter of the other parent. We wish to make clear that distinction. In many cases in which one parent has killed the other, the children involved will have no one left to exercise parental responsibility, apart from the killer of their other parent. In such circumstances, we think that it is right that whoever is left caring for the child, whether that be a grandparent or even the local authority, is spared the onus being on them to commence family proceedings to restrict the offender’s parental responsibility.
Where a parent has committed a serious offence other than murder or voluntary manslaughter, it is likely that there will be another parent able to exercise parental responsibility and apply to the family court.
Jess Phillips
Does the hon. Lady think it is okay for a woman who has been abused and had her husband convicted of paedophilia to pay £30,000 in order to keep her children safe?
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That case has caused concern, and we have been looking carefully at the legal aid position, which I will come on to.
As I was saying, where a parent has committed a serious offence other than murder or manslaughter, it is likely that there will be another parent able to exercise parental responsibility and make the application to the family court—I will come to legal aid in a moment—for the well-established method of restricting the offender’s parental responsibility.
Lord Meston, a family court judge who sits in the House of Lords, made a speech on the Victims and Prisoners Bill in which he warmly welcomed the inclusion of Jade’s law as a way of automatically restricting the rights of the other parent. I just say this in passing. He was invited to consider whether there should be the automatic suspension of parental responsibility if another kind of crime was committed. He said something that we have noted as part of our thinking:
“However, on reflection, I do not think that the Crown Court should be expected, as part of a sentencing exercise, to make automatic prohibited steps orders”
in different cases. He continued:
“The Crown Court will not have, and cannot be expected to have, a full appreciation of the family’s structure and dynamics, and of the circumstances of the children concerned, and will not have input from Cafcass.” Lords—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2023; Vol. 834, c. 2094.]
That is not determinative of our thinking, but it is the reflection of a family court judge who sits in the other place. That is what he said in relation to Jade’s law while, of course, welcoming it.
The automatic nature of the new clause would mean there would be no space for the court to consider the wishes of the other parent or the wishes of the children as to whether the matter should be brought to a family court.
Jess Phillips
The new clause clearly states that the other parent can apply to the court to have their wishes heard, but it is not the responsibility of a completely innocent mother, in most cases, to have to protect her child from a sex offender.
Laura Farris
I accept that the new clause gives the other parent the right to return to the family court, but effectively it could force a child to make applications to the family court to have their wishes considered.
Laura Farris
Because there has to be an application for the reinstatement of parental responsibility. That is what the new clause states at proposed new section 2A(2).
Jess Phillips
The hon. Lady said that a child would have to make an application to the family court. How is that the case?
Laura Farris
The child would have to advance what their best interests are to the family court, if parental responsibility has already been suspended.
Laura Farris
We have carefully considered the case in Cardiff. I want to make it clear that legal aid is available for a prohibited steps order and specific issue order in specific circumstances, subject to means and merits tests and evidence requirements relating to domestic abuse or the protection of children being met. Where the subject of an order has a relevant conviction for a child abuse offence, it is likely that the application would satisfy the relevant evidence and merits criteria. We are looking into why that was not the case for the lady in Cardiff.
Jess Phillips
Could I also open all the other cases with the Legal Aid Agency? The vast majority of people I encounter—there are thousands, and I have sat in the family court for hours—have not been able to access legal aid. Every one of them is a victim. Perhaps the Minister could look into that.
Laura Farris
That warrants a response, and the hon. Lady will get one.
My final point, to which the hon. Lady alluded in her opening remarks, when she said she hoped the provision might go wider, is that one of the conceptual difficulties with the new clause is that it would seek to remove parental responsibility in cases of serious child sexual abuse, but it is silent on, for example, child murder. Or what about perhaps a serious case of terrorism, where we could advance a plausible argument? We think there are issues around the scope of the new clause.
Jess Phillips
I could not agree more—the scope needs to be much wider—so will the Minister and the Government, by Report stage or in the Lords, finally act on the harms review by tabling amendments to the Bill that we can all be proud of?
Laura Farris
As I say, we are looking at the definitional issues. We are also looking carefully at the paramountcy principle, which underpins the way in which cases are approached in the family court. The new clause has a worthy aim. We have huge sympathy for families in these circumstances and want to do as much as possible to support them in getting the right outcome for their children. At present, we do not think the new clause is the right way to do that, and we urge the hon. Lady to withdraw it.
Jess Phillips
For nearly 10 years I have had Ministers stand in front of me and say, “We are a bit worried about” some legal word or other. How many children have died because of family court proceedings in the 10 years that we have been trying to raise the alarm? The family courts in our country will be the next Rotherham or Rochdale. State-sanctioned child abuse is going on and we all just turn a blind eye. The things that I have seen in courts are harrowing. I have watched children being removed from their loving mothers and placed fully in the care of paedophiles—proven child abusers. For me, we cannot casually sit here and pretend that that is okay.
Funnily enough, one of the people I started this campaign with, all those years ago, was the current Justice Secretary. Why is it taking so long to do something about the family courts in our country? They are actively dangerous, everybody knows it and nobody is doing anything about it. It is like the Post Office; I will not be one of those people who sat by and did nothing.
I will not press the new clause to a Division, because its scope is not wide enough and does not deal with half the harms that I see. If the Minister wants to take away the parental responsibility for children from terrorists she can knock herself out—I will support it. I will support any movement towards progress in the family court, because I have seen none. I look forward to the Government coming forward with an all-singing, all-dancing proposal that will make children safe. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mrs Latham. I find it really hard to hear my colleagues in this room. Could I ask you, and other hon. Members, to please speak as loudly as possible?
The Chair
I agree. I do not think the microphones are doing a very good job today, so I will try to speak up.
New Clause 5
Sexual interference with a corpse
“(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 70, insert—
‘70A Sexual interference with a corpse
(1) A person “P” commits an offence if—
(a) P intentionally performs an act of physical interference with the body of a dead person, and
(b) the physical interference is sexual.
(2) For the purposes of this section, physical interference may include—
(a) P touching the body of a dead person with any part of P’s own body, and
(b) P causing any item or substance to make contact with the body of a dead person.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.’”—(Stephen Metcalfe.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause, tabled in my name and the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), is a distressing one, and I apologise in advance for any upset that my speech causes, either in this Committee Room or to those who may read the Hansard report. I know that the Minister has been discussing the matter with my colleagues, who are more versed on the issue, and I know that the shadow Minister has been briefed, so I will not go into more detail than is necessary for the purpose of moving the new clause.
In 2021, David Fuller was convicted of the historic murder of two young women in Tunbridge Wells following a cold case review that eventually led to his identification. In the course of the police gathering evidence for his conviction—for which he received a whole-life tariff—video recordings were recovered of Fuller, who was an electrician at the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, that showed him sexually assaulting the dead bodies of women and girls in the hospital mortuary.
There were more than 100 female victims of Fuller’s abuse, ranging in age from nine to 100. He received convictions for sexually penetrating corpses, which under current law carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. However, the evidence gathered by the police showed that Fuller also seriously sexually assaulted victims in a non-penetrative way—I will not go into the details here for it to be clear as to what is meant by that.
Unfortunately, the current law only applies to penetrative assault and does cover any form of sexual assault that is non-penetrative. Fuller committed heinous acts such that, had the victims been alive, he would have been convicted and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment for each offence, but as they were sadly not alive, he was not. There is clearly a loophole in the legislation that I am sure everyone will agree needs to be closed; that is what the new clause aims to do.
The new clause creates a new offence of sexual interference with a corpse and provides for a maximum sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment—which I, my colleagues and, I hope, the Committee agree would be fitting for such a disgusting crime. I know that the Minister is meeting my colleagues soon, so I will not press the new clause to a vote, but I suspect the Committee would be very keen to hear the Minister’s response and a commitment to amending the legislation.
Victims of Fuller had already been robbed of their lives. Fuller then robbed them of their dignity, and then suitable justice. The hurt, distress and damage done to the families of Fuller’s victims is immense. They had the unimaginable shock of being told what that vile man did to the bodies of their loved ones—their daughters, sisters, nieces, aunts, wives, mothers and grandmothers—when they were in the protected space before they were laid to rest. I do not want to think there will be future cases like that, but if there are, I hope we can make a difference by making sure that such acts are crimes and providing sentences that fit their gravity.
Alex Cunningham
I will be brief. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is a distressing new clause, but the Opposition believe it is very much necessary. I was briefed on it last week by the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, and I was really shocked by what he had to tell me about the murderer David Fuller. The facts have been outlined to the Committee today. Fuller was of course jailed for murder, but that someone could carry out the assaults that he did on dead people and not be prosecuted beggars belief. None of us can comprehend the distress caused to the families of the deceased people Fuller violated. It is important that we ensure that anyone who acts as he did is suitably punished.
I note that the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock does not intend to press the matter to a vote, but I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to his cause and that of the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. I reiterate our support for the new clause and ask the Government to bring forward a new clause, perhaps on Report, to deal with this most horrendous crime.
Laura Farris
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock for his speech. I am grateful for the opportunity—
The Chair
Order. May I intervene? I have been passed a note to say that the mics in the room are for the audio recording of proceedings, not for amplification in the room, so Members should be advised to speak up if others are having difficulty hearing. I understand that when somebody has their back to the people they are speaking to, it is very difficult to hear, so would the Minister mind speaking up a little?
Laura Farris
Thank you, Mrs Latham. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the new clause. I hope people can hear me this time.
It is actually quite rare in this place that we find that there is a crime that is not reflected at all in the law. This is one of those examples. It follows the truly disgusting offending by David Fuller. I want to start by acknowledging the experience of his victims’ families and how distressing it has been for them. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells for their work on this matter.
The Government have been reviewing the sexual penetration of a corpse offence in section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which currently carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment following conviction on indictment, and we agree that there is a gap in the law. Section 70 applies only to sexual penetration of a corpse, so any form of sexual touching falling short of penetration is not currently a criminal offence. The Government have therefore concluded that the criminal law should be expanded to include non-penetrative sexual activity with a corpse.
The Government have also concluded that the current statutory maximum does not adequately reflect the harm caused by an offence of this nature, and that it should be increased from two years’ to five years’ imprisonment. We therefore support my right hon. and hon. Friends’ laudable aims in tabling their new clause.
In the interests of completeness, I will set out why we cannot accept the new clause as drafted. It would not repeal section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act but would create a new offence, in proposed new section 70A, with a higher maximum penalty than the behaviour already covered by section 70. It would also introduce the concept of interference with a corpse. With respect, we say that is unnecessary, because touching is already defined in section 79(8), and we think that section can be expanded and read across to apply to victims in the circumstance we are discussing. Introducing a new concept of interference, which could arguably be interpreted differently, could lead to confusion in the prosecution of the offence, which we think is not necessary.
In addition, the offence in the new clause as drafted does not require the offender to know or be reckless to the fact that what is being interfered with is a dead body. We think the mental element of the offence is important so that we capture those who are genuinely committing a criminal offence.
Again, I thank all the Members who have spoken on this matter, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford who have been to see me. They continue to make efforts on behalf of their constituents who have been so badly affected by this uniquely disgusting and horrific crime. We support the intentions behind the new clause, and I look forward to working with hon. Friends to find a way to bring forward the necessary legislation in this Bill. With that reassurance, I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw his new clause.
Stephen Metcalfe
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Complicity in joint enterprise cases
In section 8 (abettors in misdemeanors) of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, after “shall” insert—
“, by making a significant contribution to its commission,”.—(Peter Dowd.)
This new clause would clarify the definition of ‘joint enterprise’ (or secondary liability), so that an individual must make a “significant contribution” to an offence committed by another to be criminally liable.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Latham.
New clause 16 mirrors the Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) in attempting to amend the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861. It clarifies that a person must make a significant contribution to a crime to be guilty of it. The private Member’s Bill, which has cross-party support, will have a Second Reading debate on Friday 2 February. The 1861 Act states that those
“who aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of ”—
an offence—
“…shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.”
However, the doctrine of secondary liability or joint enterprise, as it is more commonly known, is still older. Through common law, developed by the Court, “aid” or “abet” has now shifted to “assist” or “encourage” for establishing secondary liability. In many situations, this test is entirely reasonable. Most people would agree that an armed robber at a bank heist gone wrong, for example, can be deemed as culpable as their partner who actually shot a person, because they make a significant contribution to the crime by carrying or supplying a gun and threatening the cashier, for example. The problem, according to many legal experts, is that joint enterprise laws are sometimes used in a much wider way, often to convict people who have made no significant contribution to the crime at all. Campaigners have long warned that these laws can be used as a racist dragnet to maximise convictions.
Recent Crown Prosecution Service data, recorded and released as a result of legal action by Liberty and the campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association, suggest that black people are 16 times more likely than white people to be prosecuted for homicide or attempted homicide under joint enterprise laws, yet no assessment of the reasons for this shocking statistic—and it is shocking—has been made by the Crown Prosecution Service, or, as I understand it, by the Government.
In 2016, the Supreme Court, in the case of R v. Jogee, said that the law on joint enterprise had taken a “wrong turn” for more than 30 years. It restored the proper law of intentions so that those who intended to commit or assist a crime, rather than those who only might have foreseen it, could be properly convicted. That was, as the BBC said, a moment of “genuine legal history”. Research by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies identifies that the judgment has had little to no effect from joint enterprise changes, charges or convictions, and the Court of Appeal has decided that prisoners whose juries had only been directed to consider foresight, rather than intention, should not have a retrial. The situation is gravely unjust for many prisoners, and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) tried to address it in his Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Bill.
It is a myth that the Supreme Court fixed joint enterprise in 2016. It left under-addressed what constitutes “assist” or “encourage”. There is currently no threshold or test for whether someone made a significant contribution to a crime to be convicted of it. That flexibility gives rise to uncertainties and injustice. For example, joint enterprise laws are being used to convict young people who are seen fighting, but not with the victim; young people who are not present at the scene; women who have no control over their boyfriends’ conduct; and young people who listen to certain kinds of music, where trials focus on character and culture rather than on contribution to a crime. In the recent case of Fiaz, the Court of Appeal suggested that a jury need not be specifically directed by the judge to consider the legal significance of a defendant’s contribution towards an offence. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to hear that case, so it falls to Parliament to enact safer legal frameworks.
What would the new clause do? It would simply add weight to the words of the 1861 Act, inserting:
“by making a significant contribution to its commission”
and thereby enshrining in statute a common-sense safeguard against inappropriate or over-zealous prosecutions. That is an important principle in a fair and effective justice system. By clarifying that someone must make a “significant contribution” to an offence in order to be criminally liable, the new clause seeks to restore Parliament’s original meaning and to correct a second wrong turn by the court with respect to joint enterprise. That would help to ensure that persons who make no significant contribution to a crime are never again convicted of being complicit in that crime.
Of course, that would not prevent the use of alternative charges in cases involving multiple accused persons, nor would it prevent the prosecution of multiple persons for a crime in which they all made a significant contribution. It would not help anyone who is already convicted under this doctrine—I referred to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield—but it would be an important step in preventing the unfair and unjust use of joint enterprise laws against innocent people in the future. I understand that there may be some objections; as far as I am aware, the Government have not made any formal response to the proposed change but have let it be known that they are potentially resistant to the idea. I hope that the Minister's response to the Committee will clarify any of those objections.
In my view, it would be hard to object to the new clause on the grounds of unintended consequences as to do so would be an acknowledgement of the belief that some people deserve to be found guilty of offences—sometimes very serious offences, such as murder—despite making no significant contribution to the commission of those offences. As such, Ministers may claim that the amendment is unnecessary on the grounds that our current laws—whether “aid” or “abet” in statute or “assist” or “encourage” in common law—already imply a significant contribution or that the current flexibility of the law is part of its strength, as it means that it is for the jury to weigh up and decide on the facts of a particular case.
That is not the case according to Dr Felicity Gerry KC, who was lead counsel in the Jogee case. She described the following generic examples, all of which are based on real cases: a boy, cycling to and from an incident, who has no contact with the victim; a driver who drops friends off to collect drugs, and a fight happens outside the car; a passenger in a taxi, where others get out of the taxi and go to an area where a stabbing occurs, but that passenger has no contact with the victim; schoolchildren who gather for a fight and one of them dies, but they are all prosecuted even when they have had no contact with the victim and have no weapon, putting them all in risk of being convicted, without separating those who contribute and those who do not contribute; autistic children who find it difficult to assess what others will do; children exploited to sell drugs who get caught up in the actions of others; a woman whose violent boyfriend gets angry with some people and runs after them around a corner—she follows a short while later and pulls another person’s hair when she thinks he is being attacked; and a woman looking for her shoes during violent disorder.
All those scenarios describe circumstances in which people can be convicted of serious crimes, despite making no significant contribution to that crime, so it is not correct to claim that “significant contribution” is already implied by law—it is not.
Jess Phillips
In a case that I have come across, a woman who was a victim of domestic abuse was charged under the crime of joint enterprise and received a longer sentence—because she pleaded not guilty—than the person who abused her and killed somebody by pulling the trigger of a gun. Is my hon. Friend concerned that in some cases of joint enterprise, those who have not had it proven that they had a significant part to play get longer sentences than those who did?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend gets right to the nub of this matter, and she is absolutely right. I agree with her point. Dr Gerry points out that the case of Fiaz, in which she was lead counsel, highlights the need for legal clarity. Judges are currently required to direct juries to consider the significance of a defendant’s contribution to an offence, and that is leading to numerous miscarriages of justice. Only Parliament can fix that.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. If the new clause is unnecessary, as may be claimed, can the Minister explain why when schoolchildren spontaneously gather for a fight and one of them unfortunately dies, they are sometimes all prosecuted even when they have had no contact with the victim and no weapon? That is one of the many such examples provided by Dr Gerry, who, as I said, was the lead counsel in the landmark Jogee case.
Is the Minister be willing to meet Dr Gerry and other experts in this field who can explain why this change of law is so badly needed? Can the Minister explain why the Crown Prosecution Service’s own database suggests that black people, as I indicated earlier, are 16 times more likely than white people to be prosecuted for homicide or attempted homicide under joint enterprise laws? What assessment have the Government made of the reasons behind that remarkable statistic? It is shocking. Is it not obvious why campaigners say that joint enterprise is too often used as a racist dragnet? Finally, will the Minister agree that it is not in the public interest to prosecute those who have not made a significant contribution to a crime?
Alex Cunningham
I begin by paying tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle on the new clause, and the ongoing work of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), who we have already heard has introduced a private Member’s Bill to the House on the same issue. I am sure that Members across the Committee will share my admiration and respect for the campaigners from JENGbA, who have been tirelessly working on challenging injustices in joint enterprise convictions for well over a decade.
As we have just heard, the new clause mirrors the Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill, which we hope will receive its Second Reading on Friday 2 February. I would prefer to see the Government making commitments on this matter, as it is a complex area of law and practice and any reforms will need careful consideration and monitoring to ensure that they are working, especially after the unexpected absence of change following the Jogee decision in 2016, which I will come back to later.
I am glad that the new clause has been tabled to enable a discussion in Committee, because the issue deserves more parliamentary time. Even though we have had many criminal justice Bills before this House in the past 10 years, all while alarms have been raised about continuing problems with joint enterprise law, Parliament has not engaged substantially with the issue for some time. During my tenure as shadow Justice Minister, I met the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and the PCS, among others, and heard about ongoing challenges with joint enterprise convictions, despite the decision in Jogee and the very active collaboration between campaigners, legal practitioners and academics over the last decade. So I will be very interested to hear from the Minister about the work her Department has been doing in this area and, indeed, about any ongoing engagement it has had with campaigners, experts and practitioners who are collaborating on reform in this area.
The processes of prosecution and conviction in our criminal justice system should be fair, transparent and accountable, but joint enterprise law can be vague and confusing, and it can lead to apparently unjust outcomes. Some examples of individuals who are potentially at risk of being prosecuted under joint enterprise have been provided by Dr Felicity Gerry KC, who was the lead counsel in the case of Jogee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle has already outlined them to the Committee.
In 2016, when the Supreme Court ruled that the law of joint enterprise had taken a “wrong turn” for over 30 years, it restored the proper law of intention so that those who intended to commit or assist a crime, rather than those who might have foreseen it, could be properly convicted under joint enterprise law. These are all based on real cases, and as I have said, my hon. Friend has given the example of the taxi passenger getting out and becoming involved in a stabbing, or the woman who pulled somebody’s hair while trying to defend her boyfriend who may well have carried out a serious offence. Those individuals were charged under joint enterprise law, and they were at risk of extremely lengthy sentences, as if they were the primary offender, even when it is very difficult to discern how they contributed to the crime in question. Joint enterprise law has been used to convict young people who have not been present at the scene of the crime, and young people who listen to certain kinds of music, and there is a risk that such a trial focuses on character and culture, not contribution to a crime. My hon. Friend spoke about that in some detail. It is clear that joint enterprise law needs to be reformed in some way.
Last September, the CPS finally recorded and published a set of pilot data about joint enterprise cases, as a result of legal action by Liberty and JENGbA. While the results were shocking, they were, sadly, not surprising, as they confirmed much of what has been said by joint enterprise reformers for years. The data revealed that over half of those involved were aged under 25. Some 30% of the defendants in the cases were black, compared with the 4% of black people in the wider population, and black 18 to 24-year-olds were the largest demographic group identified in the pilot data. The data illustrated what we already knew about joint enterprise, which is that there is a serious racial disproportionality in its use.
The CPS pilot data suggests that black people are 16 times—I repeat, 16 times—more likely than white people to be prosecuted for homicide or attempted homicide under joint enterprise laws, which is a very significant divergence. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister the results of the data analysis, particularly about what she believes are the reasons behind the shocking disparities, given that the CPS has said that no conclusions about its decision making can be drawn from the pilot data. At the very least, we have to ask questions about the possibility that this level of divergence is at least in part caused by discriminatory practices in our criminal justice system. Looking at those figures, is the Minister confident that the framework for joint enterprise prosecutions is fit for purpose?
It has taken a number of years for the CPS to finally publish data on this important issue, but now that we have it, we must ensure that the Ministry of Justice is using that data to explore how it can best improve practice. I would also be grateful if the Minister could share any other plans for data collection and analysis in relation to the application of joint enterprise law, and anything she is aware of in the Ministry of Justice, the CPS or other Government body that is happening to progress this.
I was personally quite surprised at the scale of joint enterprise prosecutions, with the CPS data showing 680 defendants in 190 cases of homicide or attempted homicide across six of 14 CPS areas in just six months. That number is considerably higher than I would ever have anticipated. If the Minister has any thoughts on the number of prosecutions, I ask her to share them with the Committee. The high level of joint enterprise prosecutions demonstrates that at the very least it is an issue deserving of considerably more active consideration by parliamentarians and the Government.
Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister could speak to any discussions that she has had in her Department about the recent Fiaz case, in which the Court of Appeal suggested that a jury need not be specifically directed by the judge to consider the legal significance of a defendant’s contribution towards an offence. Dr Gerry has argued that the case highlights the need for additional legal clarity, as judges do not always direct juries to consider the significance of a defendant’s contribution toward an offence. Does the Minister also recognise the need for additional clarity in that area, and has her Department considered any means by which that may be achieved? It is an area with substantial cross-party recognition that more needs to be done to increase the fairness, transparency and accountability of prosecutions, and I look forward to hearing the Department’s position on the matter.
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Member for Bootle for tabling new clause 16, which would amend section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 to provide that a person must have made a “significant contribution” to an offence committed as part of a joint enterprise to be indicted or punished as a principal offender. Its effect would be that the prosecution would have to identify the precise nature of the defendant’s role in aiding, abetting, procuring or counselling the commission of a crime committed in order to prove that the defendant had made a significant contribution—a threshold that need not currently be met.
Joint enterprise is a common law doctrine used in a variety of situations, most commonly to describe a situation in which two or more individuals have a common purpose to commit any criminal offence, or a secondary party encourages or assists the principal offender to commit an offence. It is a long-standing principle of criminal law that in either of those situations, both or all of the offenders may be held equally responsible and could be subject to the same penalty.
The hon. Member for Bootle has set out a number of examples, but I will start with a high-profile one. Members of the Committee may well recall the Victoria station attack in 2010, when a group of young men chased another young man over the ticket turnstile and down the escalator, where they set upon him. In the course of that attack, the young man was kicked in the head and torso repeatedly and was stabbed, and he died. At the end of it, the cause of death was multiple injuries, but it was impossible for the coroner to say who had struck the fatal blow with the knife or who had administered the fatal kick to the head. The whole group of assailants was put on trial; a number were convicted of murder and a number were convicted of manslaughter. That was classic joint enterprise, where they went with a common purpose to attack seriously an individual, and it could not be identified who had made the significant contribution, but the young man—the victim—was killed.
I say with great respect that R v. Jogee, which went before the Supreme Court in 2016 and to which the hon. Members for Stockton North and for Bootle both referred, was not an ordinary case. It was not even close to being an ordinary case. The Supreme Court reviewed 500 years of common-law jurisprudence on joint enterprise, and not only changed the law but issued really important guidance. I would like very briefly to talk the Committee through the framework that the Supreme Court applied, because it will help to explain why the Government will not accept new clause 16 today.
The Supreme Court said that it circumscribed the ambit of the offence and removed, as a matter of common law, the principle of parasitic accessory liability. To give an example that is sometimes given in case studies, if two people go to a farm with the purpose of stealing some farm machinery, and the farmer approaches them, and then person No. 1 pulls out a weapon and uses it on the farmer, that would not be decisive evidence that person No. 2 intended to kill or cause serious harm. That would previously have been the case under the principle of parasitic accessory liability, but the Supreme Court said that that went too far. In plain English, it said that joint enterprise cannot be inferred from the fact that it was foreseeable that a secondary offence would take place; there has to be an intention to assist. It said that the existence of foreseeability was something that the court should treat as evidence of intent, but was not necessarily decisive of it.
The judgment concluded by saying that joint enterprise essentially requires two elements. The first is a conduct element: the accessory must encourage or assist the crime committed by the principal. Secondly, the prosecution must show that the mental element existed, in other words that the accessory intended to encourage and assist the commission of the crime committed by the principal.
I have done a bit of a review of the case law—although I question whether it is helpful or unhelpful to go through case law during a Bill Committee in which nobody has the opportunity to read the case report—and am satisfied that there have been examples of case law since the Jogee case that show that approach being fairly applied. One example is of a group of young men who undertook a burglary on a care home. One person was tasked with searching the rooms before the others went in. In the course of events, one of the residents of the care home was brutally attacked. The young man who had done the search went in to try to stop it; he established that in court. He was convicted of burglary but not of the secondary attack, because that had not been his intention as part of the joint enterprise exercise.
Jess Phillips
Can the Minister tell me what protections are in place for the woman in the case that I outlined? She was considered to be an accessory to a crime. She was a victim of coercive and controlling behaviour, and the crime was a part of a pattern of domestic abuse.
Laura Farris
In that circumstance, the defence of duress would be available to the victim in the ordinary way.
Jess Phillips
Currently, that is absolutely not what is happening in our criminal courts. It is currently no defence for victims of domestic abuse in these cases to say, “I’m a victim of domestic abuse: that’s why I ended up here.” The Minister is saying that there is the defence of duress; I am saying that it never gets used. It does not stack up, and this is not happening in reality. She has spoken of her pride in the Government over coercive control. Does she think that there need to be specific elements, within this conversation about joint enterprise, to protect people who are coerced into such behaviours?
Laura Farris
We will come on to some amendments of that nature and I will deal with them in due course, but the defence of duress is a standard defence in the criminal context. [Interruption.] These are the criminal defences that get advanced.
In response to the hon. Member for Bootle, this is an area of the law that is intrinsically linked with other inchoate offences such as encouraging or assisting a crime. We think that it is too difficult to require the prosecution to prove a significant contribution; as we say, the very important case of Jogee has set clear parameters for both the conduct element and the mental element, which we think creates the correct framework of common law. For those reasons, the Government are unable to support the new clause, and we ask the hon. Member for Bootle to withdraw it.
Peter Dowd
I take the Minister’s points in good faith. Nothing that I say today—nothing whatever—condones any attempted criminality, but the question of proportionality, which we have discussed several times, is key. The Minister gave the example of a young man breaking into a care home, who was able to prove that he assisted the person. In that case, he was having to prove that he was not guilty. A fundamental element of British law is that someone is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round. I see the perplexed look on the Minister’s face, but the young man in that case had to prove that he was not guilty. This was not about the prosecution proving that he was guilty.
I do not want to go into the detail of these cases; I am just trying to make the point that the Jogee case went so far, but it still did not deal with the question of proportionality. One defence solicitor said:
“They don’t need to prove that you did anything. If you’re part of a gang, it doesn’t matter, because the actus reus”—
that is, being there—
“and the mens rea”,
the state of mind,
“is being in the gang”.
That could be applied in so many different cases. It could apply in boardrooms, and right across the piece: “You were there. You are guilty.” That is almost what it is saying, and that is what lawyers and Dr Gerry are trying to get the Government to consider.
Let us have the debate and have the discussion with the experts. The whole point of British justice is that when issues are raised and potential injustice arises, we think it through and work it out, instead of just closing the door. The danger in this situation is that the Government are closing the door and effectively saying that the Jogee case is the final say on this matter. I do not think it is.
However, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who has done sterling work, will be addressing the issue in the debate on Friday 2 February. On that basis, I will withdraw the new clause, but I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to what I have said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 17
Offence of failing to remain at the scene of a traffic collision
“In section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable—
(a) If a person other than the driver of the vehicle suffered a fatal injury—
(i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
(b) If a person other than the driver of the vehicle suffered a serious non-fatal injury—
(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both;
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
(c) In any other case—
(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both;
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.’”—(Peter Dowd.)
This new clause would expand the existing offence of failing to stop after a road collision to create more serious penalties for failing to stop after collisions which result in death or serious injury.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 18—Time to report road collision—
“In section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, omit subsection (6) and insert—
‘(6) In complying with a duty under this section to report an accident or to produce such a certificate of insurance or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, it is an offence for a driver—
(a) not to do so at a police station or to a constable as soon as is reasonably practicable, and
(b) not to do so within two hours of the occurrence of the accident in relation to reporting an accident, or within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident in relation to the production of a certificate of insurance or other evidence.’”
This amendment would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to reduce the time within which a driver must report a road collision in which they were involved from twenty-four hours to two hours, and make it an offence not to report an accident.
New clause 49—Amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988—
“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In each of the sections listed below, after ‘a road or other public place’ insert ‘, or a private place adjacent to a road,’—
section 1 (causing death by dangerous driving);
section 1A (causing serious injury by dangerous driving);
section 2 (dangerous driving);
section 2B (causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving);
section 2C (causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, driving);
section 3 (careless, and inconsiderate, driving).”
This new clause would extend the Road Traffic Act 1988 so that a range of driving offences can be committed in private places adjacent to roads as well as on public roads or in public places.
Peter Dowd
New clauses 17 and 18 relate to the offence of failing to remain at the scene of a traffic collision. My new clause 17 is clear and unambiguous. As Members will see from the explanatory statement, it would expand the existing offence of failing to stop after a road collision and would create a more serious penalty for failing to stop after a collision that results in the death or serious injury of the person hit by the vehicle. I emphasise the element that refers to victims of serious injury or death.
I put on the record the support provided to me by RoadPeace, particularly by Lucy Harrison. I want to mention Pauline Fielding, who died last year; her son was killed in an accident several decades ago, and she was a sterling advocate and campaigner on the issue in the north-west. I put on record my thanks for the work that Pauline did. I also thank Cycling UK, particularly Roger Geffen; Amy Aeron-Thomas at Action Vision Zero, who has worked on the issue; and a number of other organisations that have campaigned for many years. However, everything I say today is my responsibility and not that of others.
Why have these measures not been put on the statute book before? Promises to review the law have been made in the past and, to be fair, have been partly fulfilled, but there remains a great deal to do. It has been 10 years since the Government said that they would undertake a full review and consultation on traffic offences. Regrettably, as we discuss these issues, no full review has taken place. It seems to me that there is an irrefutable case for introducing these amendments, or a variation of them, on potential penalties. I am not servile to the wording of the new clauses; there can be variations on a theme. I recognise the legislative pressures on the Government and the workloads within Departments, but sometimes there are issues that have to be faced up to. In my view, this is one of them.
Let me set the context for these proposals. Every 16 minutes, someone is killed or seriously injured on a road in the United Kingdom. That is quite a stark figure, as I am sure hon. Members will agree; it is an official figure based on the average over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. To put it into an annual context, it means that 31,000 men, women and children were killed or seriously injured in collisions, out of a total of about 135,000 casualties right across the piece, including very minor collisions. In a year, 1,766 people killed were killed—1,711 in Britain and 55 in Northern Ireland—and 28,941 seriously injured: 28,031 in Britain and 910 in Northern Ireland. Road deaths have increased by 10% since 2021 and are close to pre-pandemic levels. Serious injuries are up 8% since 2021. I stand to be corrected, but on average, if I have my figures right, 85 people are killed or seriously injured every year in each of our constituencies. That is seven every month. The lives of our constituents are lost or irreparably damaged or changed.
Meanwhile, many drivers simply leave the scene of the collision—as many as 17,000, according to figures from the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. Not all of those are related to serious injury or fatality, which this clause deals with, but many families are left bereft and victims are left to carry on with their lives while perhaps very physically or neurologically damaged, not to mention the ongoing psychological impact of not knowing who was responsible and of not being able to settle. Let us say that families approached us in our constituency surgery having found out that some of the drivers involved in collisions had fled the scene—in other words, they had hit and run—and had avoided potentially more serious consequences as a result. What would we say to our constituents?
In preparing this speech, I pondered whether to give case examples of lives destroyed and families left shattered. I decided not to. Members have had so much to take in already—we have heard that today—that I do not think that adding to that with more tragic narratives would be appropriate, but I will challenge them in a different way. For the purposes of the debate, I will set aside the emotional effect on the victim’s family, knowing that their daughter, son, brother, sister, mother, father or other relative has been left on the road or the side of the road to die by a fleeing driver because the driver decided not to stop, or, having stopped, got back into the car and drove off.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 49 on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and others. The new clause would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to provide that dangerous and careless or inconsiderate driving offences may be committed on private land adjacent to the highway. In August 2017, 22-month-old Pearl Melody Black from Merthyr Tydfil was tragically killed while walking with her father and brother. Pearl was killed by an unoccupied vehicle that rolled from a private drive in Merthyr on to a highway and down a hill, crashing into a wall that subsequently crushed Pearl and injured her father and brother.
In the months after the incident, officers from the serious collision unit of South Wales police worked tirelessly to put together a case to provide justice for the family. In short, all tests concluded that the car was mechanically sound and that it had rolled because the handbrake was not fully engaged and the automatic transmission was not fully placed in park mode. The case was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service in March 2018 and was worked on by the London office as well as by an independent QC hired by the CPS. Everyone was hopeful of a conviction under the causing death by dangerous driving category, and the CPS looked at other possible options. However, in June 2018 the CPS stated that it was unable to send the case to court as a glitch in the law states that the vehicle must have started its journey on a public road for a prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Even though Pearl was killed on a public road, the fact that the vehicle started its descent from a private drive meant that prosecution was not possible.
The coroner stated that the vehicle was well maintained and it seemed that the issue was very much driver operation. The inquest heard that the handbrake had not been fully applied in park mode. The inquest into Pearl’s death was heard in October 2018 and the outcome was that it was an accident. However, with the support of South Wales police and the CPS, Pearl’s parents have been seeking a change in the law to prevent other families from being unable to secure justice due to a legal loophole following such a tragic and completely preventable accident as this. As Gemma and Paul acknowledge, it will not help to bring justice for Pearl, as legislation is not retrospective, but if this law can be changed to prevent anyone else from suffering this injustice again, it may provide some comfort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney put forward a ten-minute rule Bill that had cross-party support, including mine, but it fell due to a lack of parliamentary time. Meetings with various Justice and Transport Ministers have been helpful in that they were all sympathetic, but there is currently no major transport Bill that could provide a vehicle for this change. This new clause would therefore allow for the change to be made.
It is wholly wrong that, in cases as tragic as the one I outlined, justice cannot be achieved. There can be no conviction simply because the land on which the incident took place is not classified as public. If the law were changed in relation to driving offences occurring on private land adjoining public land, that would be a powerful deterrent to road users being careless, as well as those who have no doubt exploited the current loopholes in the law to avoid conviction when they have undoubtedly been at fault. People would be more likely to take care and pay more attention when parking or driving on private land close to public land if they knew that there could be serious consequences for their careless and reckless behaviour.
There are a huge number of instances where private land adjoining public land is readily used and potentially dangerous to those around it, including residential driveways, schools and nurseries, supermarkets, shopping centres, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries to name some of the more common ones. When we consider those examples, we can see that driving on that specific category of land can present a high risk to people in everyday situations, and especially children, the elderly and some of the most vulnerable among us.
I am sure that all hon. Members agree that nobody who has suffered the loss of a loved one or had an accident or an injury as a result of a driving offence should have to endure the injustice of seeing those responsible go free simply because of a loophole in the law. Prosecutions for driving offences—indeed, for any illegal action—should be based on what happened, not where it happened.
Alex Cunningham
I shall be brief. My hon. Friends the Members for Bootle and for Swansea East have addressed new clauses 17, 18 and 49, and I pay tribute to them and to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for the work they have done on road traffic incidents. All three new clauses illustrate the need for a sentencing review for serious road traffic offences, and Labour is committed to doing that alongside sentencing for other serious crimes across the system.
The Minister and the Committee heard the tragic accounts outlined by my hon. Friends, including that of a runaway car that killed a young child. Sadly, in that case, there could be no justice for the child or her family as no offence related to the circumstances of her death. Surely that cannot be right. I am sure the Minister agrees that we have a duty to act in all three areas outlined in the new clauses. Has she examined the impact of those measures on cost, particularly in relation to the additional cost of prison places? If she has not, will she consider doing so before Report and share that information with the Committee, so that we are better informed? If she cannot support the new clauses today, I would be obliged if she told us what action, if any, her Department is considering for such offences and whether the Government plan to address them in the Bill at a later stage, or perhaps during Committee of the whole House on the Sentencing Bill, which I believe is due within the next few weeks.
There can be no doubt that the new clauses would close loopholes in the law that currently prevent families of loved ones killed in tragic circumstances from achieving either justice or closure. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Members for Bootle and for Swansea East for compellingly setting out the impact of various forms of driving offence that are raised in our surgeries. When we talk about driving offences, there is often a narrow focus on things such as drink-driving for which the penalties are serious; we do not talk enough about things such as causing death by dangerous driving, which can be unbelievably reckless and irresponsible and cause the most serious harms.
The hit and run that the hon. Member for Bootle so powerfully described was an extension of dangerous driving. Whether panic, cowardice or other offences that the perpetrator is concerned about come to the fore, such incidents are absolutely devastating for the families of the victim. I therefore pay tribute to those hon. Members for the way in which they presented the new clauses.
It was helpful to hear that the hon. Member for Bottle is not wedded to the language he has used in his new clause. I had some remarks to make about that, but I will not spend too much time on that because of his indication. I do not know whether this applies to the hon. Member for Bootle too, but I understand that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is having conversations with the Department for Transport. I hope the hon. Member for Bootle will allow time for those conversations to happen and for us to engage with them before the Bill comes back. With all that in mind, I will lay out the framework for how we deal with the hit and run issue and I will then come on to the other points and where the Government’s thinking lies at present.
Laura Farris
Hon. Members will know what I mean: those things that are not cars. There is, therefore, quite a lot of classification. We have a two-part system.
Mark Garnier
I am slightly confused. I get all the stuff about not being insured and not needing a driving licence, but surely if a person clobbers somebody with a quad bike and causes them injury, there has to be some recourse?
Laura Farris
My hon. Friend is correct, but that would be a civil action for negligence, for which remedies would be available. We treat private land separately, but I think the was saying something rather different, about where private land becomes public land. When the index offence takes place, it relates to a motor vehicle on public land; we are not dealing with particularly difficult definitional issues. I undertake to take that point away; I had not understood it from the motion and the explanation of the hon. Member for Swansea East, so it might require some further thought. I hope conversations are happening in the Department for Transport, but I will ensure that that point is included in the Department’s thinking.
I point out, in the interest of completeness, that there is a broad definition of land that is defined as “private”. Some complications may exist around the classifications of private land, such as that used for military, commercial or other official purposes or land that is exempt from legal proceedings for offences committed there. There is a legal framework in place. Accidents on private land are covered by civil law and compensation—I talked about negligence in relation to a quad bike. In extreme cases such as gross negligence manslaughter or breaches of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the criminal law may be engaged too. With all that in mind, I urge hon. Members to withdraw the motion.
Peter Dowd
I hear what the Minister says, and I will withdraw the motion. It was a probing amendment in an attempt to give consideration to this issue, which affects so many people—our constituents—day in, day out; I gave the figures. As I said, I recuse myself from giving examples, because they are dreadfully distressing for people and I do not want to distress Members any more than I need to. I recused myself from giving examples, of which there are so many, but I hope the Minister hears the spirit of what I tried to say. It is not about people wanting vengeance; it is about getting an element of justice. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to these matters, because at some point they will come back.
I acknowledge and accept that this is not a transport Committee, but my proposals are within the scope of the Bill, so the Government have the power to pursue them if they wish. I ask the Ministers to take them away and think about them. I will be in touch with the Department for Transport, although, as I mentioned earlier, Departments are often packed out with work. None the less, this issue is of such import—it impacts on the lives of our constituents day in, day out—and we and the Government must consider it very carefully as early as practically possible. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 19
Use of another person’s dwelling place for criminal purposes: cuckooing
“(1) A person ‘P’ commits an offence if—
(a) P makes regular use of or takes up residence in a residential building lawfully occupied by another person ‘R’,
(b) P uses the residential building as a base for criminal activities including but not limited to—
(i) dealing, storing or taking unlawfully held controlled drugs,
(ii) facilitating sex work,
(iii) taking up residence without a lawful agreement with R in circumstances where R is under duress or otherwise being coerced or controlled, or
(iv) financially abusing R.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) ‘building’ includes any structure or part of a structure (including a temporary or moveable structure), and
(b) a building is ‘residential’ if it is designed or adapted, before the time of entry, for use as a place to live.
(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This new clause would make cuckooing an offence. Cuckooing is where the home of a vulnerable person is taken over by a criminal in order to use it to deal, store or take drugs, facilitate sex work, as a place for them to live, or to financially abuse the occupier.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would make cuckooing a specific offence. I believe that action on what should be a clearly defined crime has support across the House—including, I understand, from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the hon. Members for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) and for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), among others.
I have also received support from the Police Superintendents’ Association for the new clause. The PSA states:
“There is clear need for legislation of this kind, with evidence showing that cuckooing is a widely used tactic in many serious offences, including those linked to serious and organised crime, such as county lines drug supply and human trafficking. Vulnerable people are often targeted and exploited to facilitate long-term criminal operations, through the use of their property. These amendments would provide police and partners with an effective means of tackling this and better safeguarding those at risk.”
It goes on:
“Any legislation would need to ensure that evidence thresholds are clear and that exact wording around offences is robust, so that vulnerable people can be appropriately safeguarded. Vulnerability must be reflected in this legislation, with clear reference to those victims who consent to criminal activity under duress or who are unaware of the activity being carried out.”
The PSA raises other points that it believes should be considered:
“Inclusion of reference to evidence of a written legal agreement or clear proof which must be provided by a suspect, to show compliance on the part of any individual suspected of being subjected to cuckooing; Including local authorities as interested parties, with reference to ‘R’, as properties owned by local authorities or housing associations are typically used in the committing of these offences; Wider legislation for repeat offenders that move on to additional victims/properties.”
The National Crime Agency explains that cuckooing occurs when drug dealers or other criminals
“take over a local property, normally belonging to a vulnerable person”
and use it as a base from which to run their criminal activities, with the person still living in the property. I hope that, working across the Benches, we can ensure that those who prey on such people are properly held to account. Cuckooing is often associated with county lines drug supply, in which illegal drugs are transported from one area to another, often by children or vulnerable people who are coerced into doing so by organised criminal groups. It cannot be stressed enough that it can also be an independent venture, with one or more people preying on individuals by taking over their homes and controlling their lives. As well as having to live with what is effectively a drugs—or other crime—den in their own home, the victims may see their home being used for accommodating sex work, or be financially abused by the criminals.
Cuckooing is a terrifying experience for the vulnerable adults who are targeted by these criminals. I do not think that any of us can comprehend what it would mean to have our home taken over in such a way. I suspect that there is not a member of this Committee who does not have a vulnerable adult in their constituency or know someone who lives alone and could be targeted by such unscrupulous criminals. Everyone should feel safe in their home.
Police work with local authorities to deliver a safeguarding response for victims of cuckooing. For example, the Metropolitan Police Service has dedicated cuckooing officers, who work with partners to safeguard victims and divert them from the criminal justice system. However, cuckooing is not defined in legislation and is not a specific offence, and data on cuckooing is limited. An article in Inside Housing in November 2023 showed that only seven police forces recorded cases of cuckooing, and many local authorities do not record cases either, as analysis by the London Assembly Labour group last year showed. I do not know why we do not have more records of this kind of behaviour. I suspect that it goes on across the country, particularly in areas of deprivation and areas where vulnerable people do not have the support that some of us would hope for and expect. Perhaps the Minister could outline any plans she may have to require crimes of this nature to be reported.
Because of the sensitive nature of the crime and the vulnerability of the victims, it is difficult to illustrate it in any detail. One example that has come to light involves a vulnerable man in Leytonstone whose mother died two years ago. His life effectively fell apart, and he had difficulty coping. His house was taken over by a criminal—or perhaps criminals—who has been using it for drug dealing, possibly prostitution and other criminal activities. I am told that the takeover of this vulnerable person’s home happened in what is considered a nice residential street, so as one can imagine it has been a massive shock for all the neighbours.
As it stands, the law does not provide sufficient authority to enable the police and local authority to address the situation properly. If our new clause had already existed, there could have been an earlier and therefore more effective intervention to protect this man, whose life in his own home has been made hell. I hope, for that reason alone, that the Committee and Government will support our new clause. The Ministers and Government Members can feel entirely comfortable in doing so, as it is Conservative policy—or, at least, it was until late last year.
Jess Phillips
I support the shadow Minister’s every word and point out, as he has done, the level of cross-party support for a change to this particular piece of law. In some way, I hope to outline some of the reasons why not many cases of cuckooing have been brought forward. I saw a case of a young woman, who was exploited from childhood into adulthood through the care system—and then in her own private property; men would come around to rape, sexually assault and sell her in her own property. People might, perfectly reasonably, say, “Why wouldn’t you call the police?” Well, there were kilos of cocaine and heroin left in her property, and she was absolutely convinced—nothing that I could convince her otherwise—that she would be criminalised if she called the police to her home. In other cases, there might be a cannabis farm in the ceiling, for example, and people are convinced that they will be criminalised.
Without doubt, there are more people in our prisons who have been victims of human trafficking than there are human traffickers. Certainly, for those charged under any of the crimes in the Modern Slavery Act, there will be many more people in our prisons who should actually have been saved by the provisions in that Act that say that criminalisation should not occur—yet it does, every single day; we continue to criminalise people in that manner, even when they are the victim of the crime. The vulnerable people in these cases know that, so they do not report the crimes.
We have had lots of discussions about finding weapons that are not just a kitchen knife in people’s houses. If authorities were to go into the home of a young woman who had been in the care system and had been difficult at times, and they found lots of drugs and weapons, do we honestly think that she would not be convicted of that crime? If we do, we are not living in reality at all. It is vital to have an understanding of what happens in these cuckooing cases. We need to recognise it to try to overcome some of the criminalisation, and the threat of criminalisation, that already exists.
I have met girls who have had photographs taken of them holding guns that have been used in fatal injuries, as a threat to them that they will be put up for that crime. When somebody has been groomed that well, they will believe it, no matter what I say—even if I say, “I will stand next to you in the courtroom and I will make sure this doesn’t happen.” It does happen. Recognising in law that this crime is specifically about taking over a home, and leaving incriminating evidence around the place, is really important in changing that.
Chris Philp
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton North for the thoughtful and considered way in which he moved the new clause. He and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley both expressed sentiments about protecting vulnerable individuals from the practice known as cuckooing, and I will start by saying that the Government are just as concerned as they are. We are united in our shared desire to protect vulnerable people from the exploitation that they both described, so we are unanimous in our objectives in this area.
As the hon. Member for Stockton North said, most commonly the practice of cuckooing is associated with drug dealing, but it can be associated with other forms of criminality. I will raise a couple of points about his new clause. First, as it is currently drafted, there would be no requirement for there to be any coercion. For the proposed new offence to be made out, it would simply be sufficient for somebody—the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator—to occupy a residential building lawfully occupied by another, and then to commit a criminal offence.
The new offence of cuckooing would be made out even if there was no coercion and, in fact, even if it was done consensually. If the person who owned the house gave their free consent, without coercion, to the alleged perpetrator, the new offence proposed by the new clause would be committed. As I say, there is no requirement in the drafting for any form of coercion or even non-consent, whether or not there was coercion or exploitation. The way it is drafted goes beyond what I would expect in a cuckooing offence, where I imagine there would be some form of coercion, and non-consent by the person who owns the property.
Alex Cunningham
Subsection (1)(b)(iii) includes
“taking up residence without a lawful agreement with R in circumstances where R is under duress or otherwise being coerced or controlled”.
It does address coercion.
Chris Philp
With respect, those sub-limbs of paragraph (b) say “or”. It is only one of those requirements that needs to be met, not all of them. Although it is true that in the hon. Member’s drafting, subsection (1)(b)(iii) does require coercion or duress, the other sub-limbs—(i) and (ii) in particular—do not require duress. If that had been an “and”, it would be different. That would require all the conditions to be met, including criminality and duress. However, because the end of the line in sub-paragraph (iii) says “or”, that is only one possible sub-limb that can be met. The other sub-limbs, which the criminal offence includes but is not limited to, could be engaged as well. For example, if somebody was dealing drugs, that would engage paragraph (b)(i) even if there was no control or coercion. I think the Committee can see that because of that word “or”—
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 30th January 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 View all Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 January 2024 - (30 Jan 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 145, in clause 41, page 66, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) only where they are incurred in the provision of services or the carrying out of works that would not ordinarily be provided by local authorities.”
This amendment would mean that services or works that would ordinarily be provided by local authorities are not relevant costs for the purposes of estate management charges.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 150, in clause 41, page 66, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) where they are incurred in the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only where the requirement for those services or works is not the result of defects in the original construction.”
This amendment would ensure that services or works on private or mixed-use estate that are required as a result of defects in its construction are not relevant costs for the purposes of estate management charges.
Clause stand part.
Richard Fuller
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I remind colleagues that we have moved from the clauses that relate to what was termed the “feudal” system of leasehold to the rather more modern problem of estate management charges, which in large part, although not exclusively, are incurred by those who own their homes. Essentially, the charges have arisen because of issues to do with adoption by local authorities. They are charges for a range of services in what might be termed, but are not necessarily, public areas, and for what might be, but are not necessarily, services or provisions that would normally be provided by a local authority.
It is worth bearing in mind how rapidly the issue of estate management charges has grown. From being essentially non-existent, or at least very rare, I think the charges now cover at least 1 million or 1.5 million homeowners—perhaps the Minister will tell us it is an even higher number. One issue is that we are essentially creating a two-tier society of council tax payers: people who pay council tax once to cover a range of public services, and residents in parts of our country who pay for those services twice—once through their council tax and again through their estate management charges.
The provisions in part 4 deal with a number of changes that seek to improve the rights of those subject to estate management charges and to improve access to redress. I commend a number of my local residents and councillors, most importantly Councillor Jim Weir of Great Denham, as well as 30 of my Conservative colleagues who wrote with me to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State to ask them to include the provisions in the Bill. I am grateful to them for doing so. Most particularly, I thank the former Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch—and the current Minister for their help and guidance on these matters. The provisions will enable us to make a great amount of progress. However, it is clear—and it was clear from the evidence the Committee received—that there is another path, or at least it is clear that the public also desire to abolish or reduce the current system of estate management charges, rather than improving it and the rights that people have. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
At issue is the matter of adoption. In the summary on page 4, paragraph 2 of the Competition and Market Authority report that looks into estate management charges and other issues, it states that
“evidence gathered in our market study to date has shown that, over the last five years or so, amenities on new housing estates that are available for wider public use (ie not for the exclusive use of households on the estate), are increasingly not being adopted by the relevant authority. This appears to be driven by the discretionary nature of adoption, housebuilders’ incentives not to pursue adoption and by local authority concerns about the future ongoing costs of maintaining amenities”.
That gets to the crux of the issue. The decision process for creating estate management charges takes place in a cosy discussion between the developers of new estates and the local authorities, both of which have an interest in ensuring that they are not the ones to carry the cost for a range of communal services. Guess who ends up paying the bill? It is homeowners up and down the country, who have no role in that cosy discussion. I wish to influence that cosy discussion through my amendment.
It is tricky to change the process of adoption, and I think you would consider it out of scope, Sir Mark, if we sought to do so in the Bill. In the evidence session, I heard colleagues talk about some of the risks involved in leaving councils with unadoptable roads and poor-standard infrastructure that the council tax payer has to pay to bring up to standard. No one on the Committee wishes to see that happen. My amendment would not force adoption, then, but essentially take the payer—the householder or homeowner—out of the equation for paying for those costs. It would exclude services or works that would ordinarily be provided by local authorities so that they would not count as costs that could be incurred by estate management charges.
My hope is that the amendment would pour a dose of reality on to developers by saying that they could no longer pass the buck for the costs of poor-standard infrastructure used by the public to homeowners on their estates. They would have to bring them up to standard, and then councils could adopt them.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I rise to speak to amendment 150, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale. As we have heard, part 4 of the Bill deals with the regulation of estate management. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire provided an extremely comprehensive overview of the problem and its prevalence.
The distinct set of problems faced by residential freeholders on private or mixed-tenure estates that part 4 seeks to address is well known and well understood. Those problems include: excessive or inappropriate charges levied for minimal or even non-existent services; charges imposed for services that should by right be covered by council tax; charges that include costly and arbitrary administration fees; charges hiked without adequate justification; and charges levied when residential freeholders are in the process of selling their property.
In addition to a general lack of clarity and transparency about how estate management charges and fees are arrived at and how they break down—these problems are not dissimilar to those experienced by long leaseholders in respect of service charges—residential freeholders on privately owned and managed estates clearly suffer from inadequate transparency in other unique respects. For example, as I have said in past debates on the subject in the House, it would appear to be fairly common for residential freeholders not to be notified of their future liability for charges early in the conveyancing process; many learn of their exposure only at the point of completion. Even in instances in which residential freeholders are notified about their future liability in good time, many have to confront the fact that their contracts do not specify limits or caps on charges and fees.
There is clearly a distinct problem with management fragmentation on many privately owned estates that have been constructed throughout the country in recent years, with residential freeholders even on relatively new estates frequently having to navigate scores of management companies, each levying fees for services in a way that further exacerbates the general lack of transparency and potential for abuse that they face in respect of charges and fees. Underpinning all those issues of concern is a fundamental absence of adequate regulation or oversight of the practices of estate management companies and the fact that residential freeholders currently do not enjoy statutory rights equivalent to those held by leaseholders.
There has been a broad consensus across the House for some time that residential freeholders on new build private and mixed-tenure estates require greater rights and protections, and the Government have recognised publicly—for at least six years, by my count—that they need to act to address the range of problems that freeholders face. Labour therefore welcomes the Government’s decision to use the Bill to create an entirely new statutory regime for residential freeholders based on leaseholders’ rights and is fully supportive of the intent behind the provisions in this part of the Bill.
Although part 4 sets the broad framework for regulating estate management, much of the detail necessary to bring that framework into force will come via regulations. We take no issue with that, and do not intend to pre-empt the regulations by attempting to prescribe a series of requirements on the face of the Bill. However, we believe that, where possible, we should seek to use part 4 not only to provide greater protection to residential freeholders who live on the estates, but to contribute to a reduction in the prevalence of such arrangements—a point that the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire was driving at.
Although additional protections of the kind introduced under part 4 will almost certainly still be required, in its “Private management of public amenities on housing estates” working paper, published on 3 November last year, the Competition and Markets Authority stated that
“we consider that reducing the prevalence of private management arrangements would be the most direct route to address the root cause of our emerging concerns”.
The CMA made it clear in that working paper that reducing the prevalence of private management arrangements would require a mix of legislative and policy changes more fundamental than the introduction of regulatory protection, and drew attention to the fact that it would result in a wider set of consequential changes, not least the potential for
“significant impact on local authority finances and resources at a time when local authority funding is already stretched.”
That is why, while we very much sympathise with its intent of ensuring that residential freeholders on private or mixed-tenure estates are not charged for services that should by right be covered by council tax, we have reservations about amendment 145. We are concerned that it will, in effect, force local authorities to adopt public amenities on new housing estates, irrespective of circumstance, or—if compulsion is not the intent of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire—would see those amenities degrade and deteriorate as a result of not being maintained by either the private management company or the local authority.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his detailed look at my amendment. First, will he explain to the Committee where he sees compulsion on local authorities in the amendment? I cannot see it. Secondly, will he explain why his more material concern about the possibility of items degrading and estate management not doing anything would not be addressed by the strengthening provisions that the Government are putting in the Bill on behalf of homeowners?
Matthew Pennycook
Under my reading of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, if it is ensured that services or works that would ordinarily be provided by local authorities are not relevant costs for the purposes of charges in this part, who will pick up the bill? If the local authority is not compelled to adopt the amenities, our concern is that no one will maintain them. To address his point directly, I worry that his amendment would not ensure that the private estate management company picks up the charge. I will come to why I think our amendment is a superior way of addressing this very real problem.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. It may interest him to know that I was on a private estate in Kingswood at the weekend, for some reason. It soon became apparent that the developer had gone into liquidation and the estate was being run down in a quite dreadful way. As my hon. Friend said, in that situation, the developer itself and the management of the estate had, to all intents and purposes, ceased—residents were very voluble on things not being done—but the local authority had not adopted the road in the first place, and the services were suffering accordingly.
Matthew Pennycook
We are all driving at the same point. I was very much taken by the CMA’s conclusion that reducing the prevalence of these arrangements requires a combination of the mandatory adoption of amenities and putting in place corresponding common adoptable standards. If we do one without the other, we risk some unintended consequences.
My concern about the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire is that we cannot simply remove from estate charges costs that should in an ideal circumstance be borne by local authorities and then expect the private management company to simply pick them up. I fear that the more likely scenario will be that the amenities are not properly maintained. That is a real concern, and should be for residential freeholders on the estates. As the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire outlined, there are some good reasons why local authorities are reluctant to adopt public amenities on private or mixed-tenure estates.
Richard Fuller
I would hate to detain the Committee because we have a lot to go through, but let us understand the economic process here. Initially, the local authority and the developer will work out whether to adopt roads. The developer will then have to decide whether to set up an estate management company, which may or may not deliver facilities and services that would normally be covered by council tax. If the amendment is part of legislation, no property manager in their right mind will accept taking on the responsibility because they will not wish to be liable. Here is the flow of responsibility: one cannot lumber home owners with the cost, the property manager will not be lumbered with the cost for the reasons outlined—it may go bust—so the developer will then have to recognise that there is nowhere for it to turn.
Matthew Pennycook
We fundamentally disagree on where the logic chain leads. I do not think that, on the basis of the amendment, the developer will be forced to pick up the costs. It is far more likely that they would build below what would be considered a common adoptable standard and then leave residential freeholders to live with substandard amenities. We could debate this further, but that is my take on the hon. Gentleman’s amendment: it would not force the management companies to do that. That is a real concern.
As I said, there are a variety of reasons why local authorities often do not take on responsibility. The most common one is that the public amenities on new housing estates are not built to a determined, adoptable standard. In those circumstances, one can hardly blame the local authority in question for a reluctance to adopt roads and common services that it will have to repair and maintain a great cost. My central argument is that if we are to reduce the prevalence of these arrangements, we must ensure that we introduce a common adoptable standard for public amenities on estates at the same time as we require mandatory adoption, as the CMA advises.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Mark. The civil engineer in me rises to agree with the hon. Gentleman completely; it is slightly embarrassing that we once again find common cause. The point is well made: if a set standard is identified that will be accepted universally by councils as one they would be prepared to adopt, and forced on the developers, the developers will meet that standard, but if they are left with any opportunity to build something substandard, they will always take it and they will frequently try to go further and not even meet the standard that they have prescribed in their own design work. I am sure that all Committee members will have seen examples of that in their constituencies. I again find common cause, and I hope the Minister considers these points.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; it is a habit that I hope he continues because I think there is common ground here. When it comes to common adoptable standards, Ministers have often put it to me—the Minister no doubt will; previous Ministers have done—that local authorities have the tools they need to drive up the standards of public amenities that are constructed, but there is clearly something going wrong in that they are not ensuring that those standards are in place. As a consequence—not in every instance, but in many—local authorities have good reason to be reluctant to take them on.
We have tabled amendment 150 in an attempt to challenge the Government to consider how they might utilise the regulatory framework introduced by part 4 to drive up the standards of public amenities on the estates in question—that is the other half of the equation that I think we are all agreed we need. Our amendment would ensure that services or works on private or mixed-tenure estates that are required as a result of defects in construction are not relevant costs for the purposes of estate management. I think that, rather than the amendment of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, would be the incentive that developers need to ensure that high standards are in place at the point that they hand the estate over. Ours is consciously a probing amendment and I hope the Minister will understand and appreciate the problem that it attempts to address, as does the hon. Member’s amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on it.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I rise briefly to add my weight to the comments of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. I wholeheartedly share the concerns on this issue expressed by my Bedfordshire neighbour, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. I know that, like me, he has received a lot of correspondence from constituents who find themselves with a variety of challenges and exposed by a situation whereby regulation simply has not kept pace with best practice.
As the CMA outlined last year, we have gone from a situation in which it was simply the norm that estates were adopted by the local authority to one in which that is far from the norm. In the last week, I have spoken to residents right across my constituency who have faced incredibly high service charges. Estate management companies are looking for the next frontier for their rent-seeking behaviour, often by charging fees for services that would normally be covered by council tax. Such is the fragmentation on estates, as the shadow Minister set out, that they sometimes even duplicate the fees charged by other management companies on the same estate.
Barry Gardiner
The Minister will recall that in response to a Government consultation in 2018, the Government committed to introducing a section 24 right for freeholders on housing estates, but that has not appeared in the Bill. It would have given those freeholders the right to go to a first-tier tribunal and appoint a court protective manager. The Minister and his officials may wish to reflect on and remedy that failing in the Bill. However, even that would be an imperfect measure, because it would not ensure that leaseholders in homes on estates had the same rights as leaseholders in a development block, for whom the Bill seeks to facilitate the right to manage. Will the Minister look at that issue and ensure that that provision is realised?
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and it is good to continue debating these issues this morning. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have raised such important points. I do not think that the disagreement between Members on any of the Benches is about whether there are issues; the question is rather about the technicalities of how to approach them, what to do and what is proportionate.
I will talk briefly about the amendments. Although the Government cannot accept them now, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and the shadow Minister will listen to the points that I make; the broader point is that I am listening carefully and have a lot of sympathy for the underlying point, which we are all trying to solve. The question is about how we do it and whether we need to go further.
There was an extended debate between my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. I will not try to repeat that, but not because I do not want to give due regard to everything that my hon. Friend put on record or to his underlying point. He is absolutely right that there is a problem; we all see it in our constituencies. The challenge, as I see in my constituency of North East Derbyshire, is that there is now a move towards greater estate management outside the demise of the local representation of the state. It works in some areas and for some elements, but there are specific areas and specific estates in which it clearly does not work. We have all heard the stories about the issues that are visible.
In the past, it would have been typical for local authorities to have adopted estates, but that is moving further and further away from reality. There is a question about whether there are some elements of estate management where it is reasonable to have some kind of arrangement outside the aegis of the state, but equally I accept the argument that that has gone too far in certain areas.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I have listened carefully to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for his reference to the work that we did together.
I want to ask the Minister to expand a bit more on his comments, as I am sure he will. The argument has often been made that if we make clear to the people who are buying those homes what they are actually getting into, and if we give them a schedule of charges, the regime will be more acceptable. That is the heart of the issue: if customers know what they are buying, presumably they can freely choose whether to buy that property or a different type of property.
I think we all agree that there should be freedom of choice and that the buyer should take responsibility for their choices. However, does the Minister think that the current regime and framework are adequate to provide choice? My personal view is that we do not have that, and that that is at the heart of the problem. But even if we provide that choice, a fundamental philosophical problem remains. I am interested in his view on the balance of those two issues.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a huge amount of knowledge, expertise and background in the subject. She is right to highlight the tension with agency. As long as there is sufficient knowledge in the decision being made, the logical extension is that the decision was made on the basis on the preponderance of the facts, and people should therefore be willing to accept the consequences of their choices.
Equally, through colleagues and in our postbags, we have all seen the reality that this does not work in all instances, and it is not necessarily clear where it works. We have examples of where an indication was given about some of these things, but the reality is very different from what may have been said during the sales process. A different estate manager may take over, the developer may disappear or things may change. The reality of what happens on the ground with estate management charges can be very different from what has been talked about.
The question is therefore not whether there is an issue, but how we drive up standards. Clause 41, which I will address in a moment, seeks to drive up standards through transparency. There is a perfectly legitimate question—it has been correctly posed via the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, and has been outlined by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire and others—as to whether that is sufficient or whether additionality is needed. Although I cannot accept the amendments today, because I think that there are genuine questions about whether they would work, the Department wants to continue looking at the issue. I would be happy to talk about it at a future stage.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the debate. Warrington is a new town. Over the past 60 years, about 100,000 homes have been built in total. From looking carefully at the borough council’s own details on estate adoption, it is clear that there are currently 13 estates that are not adopted, where there have been agreements in place with the council but, for all kinds of reasons, developers are not doing anything. One problem seems to be that in many cases the estates are built out over many years and things change. Some estates have been building for 13 years. The builders have changed, the involvement of council officers has changed and the structure of how things are built out has changed.
There seems to be no redress for householders so that what was promised in the first place can be delivered. That is a real problem. When the Minister is looking carefully at the issue, can he bear in mind that it is not a straightforward case of “The developer promised to do this, but they haven’t”? Things can change dramatically over time, and there is a complicated path. I think that that is what the Minister is saying; it is certainly my experience in Warrington.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Committee will indulge me, I have personal experience of examples of this in North East Derbyshire, and I know the complexity involved in getting this correct. I have an estate by an unnamed developer in the south of the constituency, near Wingerworth, where this discussion is going on already. Before Christmas, I spent two hours talking to representatives of owners on the estate and to the estate management company itself. I recognise the complexities on an estate that was being managed relatively adequately from afar but clearly still had issues.
The second example—this is why we have to be so careful to get this right—is from the other side. Fenton Street in Eckington has been unadopted for more than a century. The residents recognise that it is unadopted and have bought their houses understanding and acknowledging that. Possibly it was been adopted many decades ago, but there is no record.
We have to make sure that this works for everybody. In an ideal world, everybody would be scooped up and this would all be fixed in one fell swoop with whatever a benevolent Government could do, but that is not the reality of the choices that we face. Nor is it often the reality of what happens when a Government try to do things that work in the way that we all intend. Although I understand the intention behind the two amendments, I encourage hon. Members to withdraw them.
Barry Gardiner
The Minister has not responded to the point about a section 24 court-appointed manager. Would that not give a power enabling redress for residents in situations such as the one he outlines, where there has been a complete failure to adopt and maintain? Will he commit to considering that point as part of the mix?
Lee Rowley
We may touch on some of those elements under later clauses. The hon. Gentleman’s core point is about whether the Government are willing—without providing any guarantees in this place—to look at additionality. Of course we are. There are the usual caveats, which I have explained in previous sittings, about what we can do, how we do it, and the priorities, but this is an area in which we are listening carefully.
In conclusion, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to consider withdrawing their amendments. I hope that they have heard that I am serious and willing to look at the issue again, although I cannot offer guarantees at this stage.
I will turn briefly to clause 41, to put on the record exactly what the clause contains and what we are voting for. Freehold homeowners on private and mixed-tenure estates who pay estate management charges have fewer protections than leaseholders paying the service charges that we have spoken about. Clause 41 will introduce limitations on what estate management companies can charge homeowners through estate management charges. Subsection (1) states:
“Costs incurred by an estate manager are relevant costs…only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred.”
Clause 41 will ensure that where these costs are incurred in the provision of services or the carrying out of works, they will be relevant costs only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard.
Subsection (2) makes it clear that when an estate management charge is payable in advance, only reasonable costs are payable. Furthermore, after reasonable costs have been incurred, any necessary adjustment must be made to the charge by repayment, reduction of subsequent charges or any other method. Those new rules are equivalent to requirements in the leasehold regime and provide homeowners with more confidence that they will not be overcharged. We seek to provide increased protections for homeowners through the clause. I commend it to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
Amendment 150 was a probing amendment. I take on board the Minister’s statement that the Government are looking at the issue and that they do not believe that this legislation is the appropriate vehicle to deal with it.
If the Minister is willing to respond again, I would like a bit more clarity on precisely why in many cases amenities on estates are not being built to an adoptable standard. I think we all agree that we would like to see such a system. The Minister introduced a different problem, namely circumstances in which residents might not want their amenities adopted; I think that that would be a relatively small number of estates, but we would have to account for them. In general, we want to reduce the prevalence of arrangements and see adoption becoming mandatory in most circumstances.
Will the Minister expand on why the Government think the common amenable standards are not being met across the board? In a previous debate, the then Minister stated:
“The local authority has powers to ensure that developers build and maintain communal facilities to the standards and quality set out in the planning permission.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 132WH.]
Is something going wrong with the standards that most local authorities require at the planning permission stage? Is the section 106 agreement breaking down in some way? What is the reason? That might give us an insight into the solution that the Government have in mind and into why common adoptable standards are not currently the norm.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are a variety of scenarios. I am not sure that residents of Fenton Street would not take the opportunity to adopt if they were given the opportunity; it is more about the broader challenges of getting a single coherent answer to a very complicated set of questions that have come about in the past few decades or over a longer period.
The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point about the outcome of the planning system. Everybody, irrespective of party, would want the planning system to work to a point where there are common standards for roads and public spaces. There is an interesting question as to why that is not the case. It is an area that as a Minister I intend to look into in more detail.
The question is whether is it a systemic problem or a matter of individual circumstances, where it is working okay in some areas but not in others. Anecdote leads to bad policy and bad law, but in my experience as a constituency MP it has worked in a number of areas and not in others. That suggests that there is variability and that it is therefore not a systemic issue, but that might be different elsewhere in the country. It is an area that I think we should look at more; I am not sure whether it needs legislation. That is an open question, but it is definitely something that I am keen to understand more.
Richard Fuller
I have listened with interest to hon. Members’ contributions, particularly in respect of my amendment 145. I strongly believe that we need to close down the trend to create two tiers of council tax payers —those who pay once and those who have to pay twice—and ensure that we all pay only once. My amendment would directly address that issue. I would therefore like to put it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Lee Rowley
Clause 42 introduces new obligations on estate managers where the costs they wish to charge a homeowner exceed an appropriate amount. It mirrors sections 20 and 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Subsection (1) places an obligation on estate managers to consult homeowners where the costs for works or services exceed a given threshold. Subsections (2) to (4) confer a power to allow the Secretary of State to determine the appropriate threshold in regulations; the Secretary of State may also determine whether the threshold is to be a total sum or if the costs for individual homeowners exceed an appropriate amount.
Subsections (6) and (7) confer a power on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the consultation require-ments and the provisions that may be included in the consultation process. Issues that may be in regulations are not exhaustive, but may include matters of relevance, including details of the proposed works, the provision of estimates, and requirements to have regard to homeowner observations and to specify reasons for carrying out the works if they proceed. We recognise that there are occasions where it may not be appropriate or possible for estate managers to consult homeowners—for example, where urgent or emergency works need to be carried out. Subsections (5) and (8) to (10) therefore allow estate managers to seek dispensation from the relevant tribunal of the need to consult. However, should estate managers fail to obtain dispensation or follow the consultation requirements, individual homeowner contributions are capped at the appropriate amount. The Government will engage extensively with stakeholders to determine the appropriate threshold for consultation and what the detail of the consultation arrangements should be. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I wish to probe the Minister a little further on the clause. As he said, it introduces requirements for estate managers to consult managed owners if the costs of any works to be charged as an estate management charge exceed an appropriate amount, which will be set out in regulations. Overall, the Government’s aim in this part of the Bill is clearly to introduce statutory protections for residential freeholders equivalent to those enjoyed by long leaseholders with regard to service charges.
If I understood the Minister correctly, he has confirmed that the Government’s intention with the clause is to establish for residential freeholders an equivalent to section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. If that is the intention, can the Minister confirm that the new requirements provided for by the clause will include requiring estate managers to have regard to written observations from residential freeholders on charges in excess of the to-be-determined appropriate amount, and where necessary to justify in writing the reasons why they awarded a contract to a tenderer that neither submitted the lowest estimate nor was nominated by a resident?
Furthermore, if the clause is indeed intended to mirror the operation of the existing section 20 consultation process, I urge the Minister to consider what might be done to address the known deficiencies of the process, including the fact that a leaseholder’s sole means of redress if they take issue with the landlord’s decision is the tribunal, and that there is no statutory meaning of what “have regard to” means in the context of the consultation. While he does so, I encourage him to take the opportunity to overturn, or at least modify, the decision of the Supreme Court in the 2013 Daejan Investments Limited v. Benson case, which has proved so detrimental to the consultation rights of leaseholders. I make this series of points because the Homeowners Rights Network, among others, has questioned the logic of extending to privately managed estates a regime that is not always effective in protecting residential leaseholders from unreasonable charges associated with major works.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich encourages me to seek to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court! That could start a whole heap of discussion early on a Tuesday morning, but I will withhold further comment for now.
The hon. Member is absolutely right that clause 42 is intended to mirror section 20 of the 1985 Act. He is correct that the intention is to consider written responses as well; I hope that that reassures him. We will need to go through a consultation process: although we have said that our intention is to mirror section 20 of the 1985 Act to give confidence about the direction of travel, what is appropriate for these individual circumstances will need to be discussed, and I hope that we can pick up that discussion within the consultation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Limitation of estate management charges: time limits
Lee Rowley
I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 43, page 68, line 7, leave out from “not” to end of line 12 and insert
“given a future demand notice in respect of the costs before the end of the period of 18 months beginning with the date on which the costs were incurred.
(2) A ‘future demand notice’ is a notice in writing that—
(a) relevant costs have been incurred, and
(b) the owner will subsequently be required to contribute to the costs by the payment of an estate management charge.
(3) A future demand notice must—
(a) be in the specified form,
(b) contain the specified information, and
(c) be given in a specified manner.
‘Specified’ means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The regulations may, among other things, specify as information to be contained in a future demand notice—
(a) an amount estimated as the amount of the costs incurred (an ‘estimated costs amount’);
(b) an amount which the owner is expected to be required to contribute to the costs (an ‘expected contribution’);
(c) a date on or before which it is expected that payment of the estate management charge will be demanded (an ‘expected demand date’).
(5) Regulations that include provision by virtue of subsection (4) may also provide for a relevant rule to apply in a case where—
(a) the owner has been given a future demand notice in respect of relevant costs, and
(b) a demand for payment of an estate management charge as a contribution to those costs is served on the owner more than 18 months after the costs were incurred.
(6) The relevant rules are—
(a) in a case where a future demand notice is required to contain an estimated costs amount, that the owner is liable to pay the charge only to the extent it reflects relevant costs that do not exceed the estimated costs amount;
(b) in a case where a future demand notice is required to contain an expected contribution, that the owner is liable to pay the charge only to the extent it does not exceed the expected contribution;
(c) in a case where a future demand notice is required to contain an expected demand date, that, if the demand is served after the expected demand date, the owner is not liable to pay the charge to the extent it reflects any of the costs.
(7) Regulations that provide for the relevant rule in subsection (6)(c) to apply may also provide that, in a case set out in the regulations, the rule is to apply as if, for the expected demand date, there were substituted a later date determined in accordance with the regulations.
(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”
This amendment would require notice of future service charge demands (as envisaged in clause 43(b)) to be given in accordance with regulations.
Lee Rowley
We are aware that there is no clear limit on when homeowners on private and mixed-tenure estates can be charged for works and services, regardless of when the costs were incurred. Homeowners could therefore be subjected to unexpected estate management charge demands, making it difficult for them to plan for and finance those costs. That could be the case if in future there are long-term works that take some time to complete.
Clause 43 introduces a new 18-month time limit for estate management companies to demand payment for works that have been carried out. If they fail to issue a demand within this period, the costs will not be recoverable and homeowners will not be required to pay them. Paragraph (b) sets out arrangements making it clear when the homeowner will not receive a demand for payment within the 18-month period. It requires the estate manager to notify in writing before the end of the period that the costs have been incurred and that the homeowner will be required to contribute through their estate management charge. If the estate manager does not notify, the homeowner is not liable to pay. The clause seeks to provide greater certainty for homeowners; I commend it to the Committee.
Currently, when works are undertaken estate managers may require a homeowner to pay the costs up front or pass on costs to the homeowner once the work has been carried out. Clause 43 will require estate managers to charge homeowners for works within 18 months. Amendment 53 introduces new subsections (2) to (9), which require estate managers to specify the costs incurred, the expected contribution of homeowners and the date by when the demand will be served. The intention is to give homeowners certainty about the costs that have been incurred by the manager, their own individual liability, and when they are likely to receive the demand. The amendment requires estate managers to issue a future demand notice if they will be passing on costs more than 18 months after works are carried out. Subsection (2) defines a future demand notice as a notice in writing that the relevant costs have been incurred and the homeowner is required to contribute.
New subsection (3) sets out that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers can, by regulations, specify the form, the information to be included and the manner in which the future demand notice must be given to the homeowner. Subsection (4) details that regulations made by the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers may specify as information to be included in the future demand notice an estimated amount of the costs incurred, an amount that the homeowner is expected to contribute, and a date by which it is expected that the service charge will be demanded. We will work with estate managers, managing agents and homeowners to set out what a future demand notice may contain, to ensure that notices have the right level of information.
New subsection (5) lays out that regulations may provide for a relevant rule to apply where the homeowner has been given a future demand notice and the demand for payment is served more than 18 months after costs were incurred. New subsection (6) details the relevant rules and the homeowner’s liability to pay the estate management charge where a future demand notice contains estimated costs, an expected contribution or an expected demand date. New subsection (7) allows estate managers to extend the expected demand date in cases specified by regulations, for example because of unexpected delays in completing the work.
Through these measures, we seek to provide homeowners with more certainty about costs. I commend amendment 53 to the Committee.
Amendment 53 agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Determination of tribunal as to estate management charges
Richard Fuller
I beg to move amendment 139, in clause 44, page 68, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) Where the appropriate tribunal has made a determination on an application under subsection (1) or (3) that an estate management charge is not payable because the costs incurred by an estate manager are not relevant costs under section 41(1)(b) (services or works to be of a reasonable standard), the tribunal may impose a penalty on the estate manager which is payable to the residents of affected managed dwellings; and the tribunal may determine how much of the penalty is to be paid to the residents of each affected managed dwelling.”
This amendment would enable the tribunal to impose a financial penalty, payable to residents of affected managed dwellings, where estate management work has not been completed to a reasonable standard.
The clause is an excellent step forward in ensuring that freeholders will have rights to access a tribunal when there are errors and poor provision of services on their estate, so I very much welcome it. Through the amendment, I seek to probe the Minister about whether we have got the balance right to enable effective use of the tribunal. The amendment essentially says that in addition to requiring that poor-standard, poorly provided services are brought up to standard, the tribunal could impose a financial penalty on the management company.
It requires a tremendous effort for people to take cases to a tribunal: they often have to make a collective effort and gather evidence about what has gone wrong, and they may have to go through weeks, months or potentially years to get to the point where they can take a case successfully to tribunal. If the only remedy at the end of that is that those services have to be brought up to standard, where is the incentive not to provide defective services in the first place? By enabling the tribunal to impose financial penalties, the amendment would redress the balance, with the bias more towards those suffering from poor service in the first place.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling this probing amendment. I agree that where works and services are provided and charged for on freehold estates, their costs should be charged to residents only if they are of a reasonable standard. As he indicated, clause 41 makes progress in that regard. Clause 44 allows for the appropriate tribunal to determine whether an estate management charge is payable. Should the tribunal find that services or works charged for have not been carried out to a reasonable standard, it will determine the amount that the homeowner is liable to pay. That is equivalent to the leasehold regime, and I do think that tribunals are the best placed to make that decision.
On whether additionality is required, the appropriate tribunal is not an enforcement body; it is not a weights and measures authority or a district council. If a financial penalty were applied for works not completed to a reasonable standard, the appropriate tribunal would need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that that was the case. My hon. Friend may say—I have some sympathy with the point—that people would probably not go to tribunal, given its complexity. In addition, if people want to sue for defective works and such things, they can do so through other parts of the legal system; that form of redress is available if necessary.
If we were to introduce penalties for works or services not completed to a reasonable standard on freehold estates, the challenge would be in the implications for the tribunal and the equivalent leasehold regime. Therefore, while I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point, I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment it on the basis that it would probably move the tribunal too much in one direction and create a whole heap of other consequences that we would need to think carefully about, and which I do not think we can accept at the current time.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Richard Fuller
I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 44, page 69, line 6, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide—
(a) that an estate manager’s litigation costs incurred as a consequence of an application under this section may not be recouped through the estate management charge, except where the tribunal considers it just and equitable for such costs to be so recouped;
(b) for the right of an applicant under this section to claim litigation costs incurred as a consequence of an application under this section from the estate manager, where the tribunal considers it just and equitable in the circumstances.
(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may amend primary legislation.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations preventing estate managers from passing their litigation costs on to residents through the estate management charge, and providing for residents to be able to reclaim their litigation costs from an estate manager.
The amendment, which is in a similar vein to the previous one, is designed to probe the Minister on whether we have got the balance right in the clause to enable effective use of the tribunal by those who would wish to bring a case against estate managers. As we heard when we discussed the clauses on leasehold, one of the biggest concerns that people have is that they will face open-ended litigation costs. In this case, the litigation costs will essentially be cycled back through the estate management charges, and therefore effectively end up being paid by homeowners on the affected estates.
Amendment 140 is designed to prevent that passing on of litigation costs. It also recognises that many homeowners may wish to take action but not have the wherewithal to pay the litigation costs. Paragraph (b) of the amendment therefore enables residents to claim the litigation costs arising from their application. I am interested in the Minister’s view on the balance of litigation in such circumstances—we have spoken about it in relation to other circumstances. I think we all want the tribunal to work, but for that to happen, people must not be put off by the fear that they may face significant direct or indirect litigation costs.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to support the amendment. We discussed litigation costs in relation to clause 34; we strongly argued for a general prohibition with very limited exceptions. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact, which applies to part 4 as a whole, that we should not replicate the flaws of the leasehold system in the newer system of estate management charges. Our arguments in relation to the leasehold regime therefore apply equally here, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the point.
Lee Rowley
I will try directly to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, to which we are sympathetic. It is important that litigation costs are not passed on. On the leasehold side, there is clear evidence that that is happening, but the question is whether there is clear evidence of it happening in the area of estate management. From speaking to officials, we do not see that clear evidence at the moment. However, if any members of the Committee or others have such evidence, I would welcome it. If it is happening, I am sure that we would be happy to consider the issue as the Bill progresses.
Richard Fuller
With the Minister’s assurance that he will keep a watching brief on the issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Clause 44 grants homeowners a new right to apply to the appropriate tribunal for a determination on whether their estate management charge is payable, and if it is, how it should be paid, by whom and to whom it should be paid, and the date by which the payment should be made. Under this provision, the tribunal will enforce the newly established reasonableness principle set out by clause 41, which requires estate management services to be reasonable, and any works or services to be of a reasonable standard.
The clause requires estate management companies to charge the correct fees from the outset, thereby reducing the number of homeowners being overcharged for works and services on their estate or being at risk of legal action. The clause also sets out the circumstances in which an application cannot be made, including when the homeowner has already agreed to, but not paid, the charge, or in which the issue has already been subject to a decision by a court. That will prevent homeowners from bringing unjustified or vexatious claims, which can lead to delays in the payment of valid estate management charges and negatively impact the upkeep and good management of the estate. The clause delivers on a Government commitment to increase protections for existing homeowners, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Demands for payment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Where homeowners on a managed estate pay an estate management charge, it is essential that they have transparency about what they are paying for. Currently, there is no universal approach for demanding payment of such a charge, so there can be inconsistencies between estates and potential confusion for homeowners. Clause 45 mirrors the obligations that we introduce for leaseholders elsewhere in the Bill. Subsection (1) enables the Secretary of State to prescribe a standard form for demanding payment and the information that it should contain. We will work closely with the sector to ensure that that is the right level of information and detail. Subsection (2) makes it clear that failure to provide information in the new standard format means that homeowners do not have to pay the charge, and any provisions in the deed, lease or any other contractual document for non-payment will not apply. The Secretary of State will also have the power to create any exemptions if our work with stakeholders demonstrates a good case for them both now and in the future. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Annual reports
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Clause 46 introduces a new obligation for estate management companies to provide homeowners on their estates with an annual report, which might cover issues such as budgets for the year ahead and details of planned works.
Subsections (2) and (5) require that the report must be provided within one month of the end of the 12-month accounting period, although it may be provided earlier if it is practical and expedient to do so. Subsection (4) defines the 12-month accounting period as starting either on a date agreed between the company and homeowner or, if no period is agreed, on 1 April. Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to prescribe the detailed contents of the report, while subsection (6) allows the Secretary of State to provide exceptions from the duty to provide a report.
The detail will be set out in secondary legislation and allows the Secretary of State to respond effectively to changing market circumstances. We will work closely with the sector and relevant parties to ensure that we have the right level of detail and consider the case for any exceptions.
Matthew Pennycook
Briefly, when we discussed the regulation of service charges in clauses 26 to 30, we made a number of specific arguments about how those clauses might be tightened and strengthened. Can the Minister give us a commitment that if the Government determine to amend those clauses in any way, they will seek to read across the equivalent changes to this part of the Bill or, if they do not think that they apply, to justify where wider deviations between the two regimes are necessary? As I said, we are mirroring broadly the statutory protections in place for long leaseholders here, but where they differ, the Committee would certainly welcome clarification as to why.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He tempts me into hypotheticals, but I hope that we are demonstrating our willingness to try to work constructively to see where areas can be improved. I must caveat that with clarity that we will not be able to improve every area; of necessity, prioritisations will need to be made. Of course there will be disagreements in this place and elsewhere about what is possible, but we shall see; if there is read-over, we shall see.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Right to request information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
As part of our reforms to drive up transparency, clause 47 introduces new provisions to enable freehold homeowners of managed dwellings to request information from their estate manager.
Subsections (1) and (3) give owners of a managed dwelling the right to require an estate manager to provide information. As per subsection (2), that information may relate to estate management. One example of such information might be a health and safety assessment of communal areas. The estate manager will be required to provide relevant information that they have in their possession.
We know that, sometimes, the estate manager will not have that information to hand, so subsections (4) and (5) introduce an obligation for the estate manager to request the information from a third party and, if they hold it, that the third party is required to provide it. Subsections (6) and (7) create an obligation where the other person under subsection (4) does not have it, but knows who does. This person must make the request to the person who does have it, who in turn must provide the information, and—presumably—so on and so on.
Subsections (1) and (8) allow the Secretary of State to prescribe further details of these requirements in secondary legislation, such as the type of information to be provided, how a request can be made and when the request can be denied. We will consult on that to make sure that it works effectively. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Richard Fuller
I beg to move amendment 141, in clause 49, page 72, line 26, leave out “£5,000” and insert “£50,000”.
This amendment would increase from £5,000 to £50,000 the maximum amount of damages which may be awarded for a failure on the part of an estate manager to comply with the obligations imposed by clauses 45 to 48 (rights relating to estate management charges).
Richard Fuller
The Minister or shadow Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we covered issues to do with penalties earlier. The intent of this proposal is to ensure that damages in the leasehold and freehold system are the same. I therefore think I ought to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Without rehashing the debate on clause 30, I rise briefly to put on record that the Opposition think that the point the amendment is driving at is well made. We need equivalence between the two regimes, but we were concerned, notwithstanding damages versus penalties and all the rest, that the proposed financial penalty is too low to act as a serious deterrent to the type of behaviour that we are trying to do away with.
Richard Fuller
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Meaning of “administration charge”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Currently, freehold homeowners on managed estates have very few protections relating to the cost of administration charges they may be liable to pay. This can leave homeowners paying excessively high administration charges that they are unable to challenge. We will address this issue and give homeowners greater protection. We intend to do that by mirroring the existing framework in place to protect leaseholders.
Clause 50 provides a definition of an administration charge. It is
“an amount payable…by an owner of a dwelling”.
That amount must be in connection with applications or approvals in connection with a relevant obligation, the provision of documents, the sale or transfer of land, a failure to make a payment by the owner, or a breach of a relevant obligation. Subsections (2) and (3) allow the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to amend the definition of an administration charge by regulations, which must be done using the affirmative procedure. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Duty of estate managers to publish administration charge schedules
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 143, in clause 52, page 74, line 10, leave out “£1,000” and insert “£10,000”.
This amendment would increase from £1,000 to £10,000 the maximum amount of damages which may be awarded for a failure on the part of an estate manager to comply with the provisions of clause 51 (duty of estate managers to publish administration charge schedules).
Amendment 144, in clause 52, page 74, line 13, at end insert—
“(5) An estate manager may not for any purpose set off damages payable by the estate manager to the owner under subsection (2)(b) against any present or future liability of the owner to the estate manager.”
This amendment would prevent estate managers from recouping damages from residents through subsequent charges.
Clause 52 stand part.
Lee Rowley
Homeowners on managed estates can be subject to high and unreasonable administration charges, as I indicated. Part of the problem is the lack of clarity or transparency surrounding them. Clause 51 introduces a duty for an estate manager to publish an administration charge schedule if they expect to impose an administration charge.
Subsection (2) requires that the schedule should include the detail of administration charges that the estate manager considers to be payable and their associated costs. Where the cost cannot be confirmed before a charge is payable, the method of determining the cost should be included. Subsection (3) requires a revised schedule to be published if an estate manger revises the administration charges. Subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to prescribe in regulations the form and content of the administration charge schedule and how it is to be provided to homeowners. We will work with all relevant partners to ensure that we obtain the right level of detail in regulations.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for his amendment 143, which would increase the maximum amount of damages from £1,000 to £10,000. I hope that, potentially, our discussion on the previous clause would apply here, and I repeat that the Government intend to write to all Committee members about this issue in the days ahead.
Amendment 144 seeks to ensure that any damages that the tribunal orders payable under Clause 52 (2)(b) cannot be recouped from residents through subsequent charges. I agree with my hon. Friend that residents should be protected from future charges. An estate manager can only recover costs incurred in estate management. A tribunal order to pay damages would not be regarded as falling within the definition of costs of estate management.
The transparency measures included in clauses 46 and 47, in the form of the annual report and the right to obtain information upon request, would also deter estate managers from attempting to recoup these costs. That is because it would become obviously visible and it would be clear that it was not related to estate management. I note, however, my hon. Friend’s concerns and I am listening carefully on this matter. I hope that he might see fit to withdraw his amendment, having heard the Government’s response.
Finally, clause 52 sets out the enforcement provisions that reinforce the new duty in clause 51 to publish a schedule. A freehold homeowner on a managed estate may make an application to the appropriate tribunal if an estate manager has not published a schedule, or has done so but contrary to any provisions determined by the relevant Ministers.
The appropriate tribunal may order that the estate manager provides a correct schedule within 14 days of the order being made, and it may also order that the estate manager pays damages not exceeding £1,000 to the homeowner. We believe that this is a proportionate and effective enforcement mechanism where an estate manager fails to comply with its obligations. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Richard Fuller
Many thanks to the Minister, again, for proposing further changes to help homeowners who are affected by estate management charges. I am pleased to hear him reiterate that he will consider the issues raised in my amendment 143 about the appropriateness of charges. The shadow Minister raised similar concerns about those being set at an effective level.
On amendment 144, will the Minister consider writing to the Committee about how, in practice, not passing on damages, fees or charges to residents will work? Great Denham is a new part of my constituency, and in an estate of a few thousand houses, there may be 50, 60, 70 or more property management companies. All of them are discrete limited companies and all were set up as subsidiaries of one or more parent company. We need to be sure, from the Government’s point of view—given that some of these limited companies could go bust—about where the trail leads to. Under corporate law, as I understand it, there is no requirement for a parent company to be liable for the losses of a subsidiary that goes bust, and we want to ensure that liabilities flow upwards to the ultimate holding company.
Presumably, the payment of administration fees or dividends may go from subsidiary companies to the very large companies that are the ultimate parents. Is the Minister able to explain how he sees that working in practice? If not, or if it is too detailed to talk about now, perhaps he could agree to write to give some examples to the Committee in due course.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend highlights an important point. I think it is better that I write, but in principle, the transparency we seek to bring and the requirement to clearly articulate the charges that have been made, either in the annual report or elsewhere, aim to provide the sunlight that means that it is clear who is paying for what, and, if it is not a reasonable charge, there is a process that can be followed. But I will write to him with more on that, if that is helpful, because we all want to get this right.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise briefly to support the argument made by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. There is a specific problem on privately managed estates, which I referred to when speaking to clause 41, relating to the fragmentation of multiple estate management companies. I share his concern, which partly speaks to whether the penalties are appropriate in terms of enforcement. On some estates, residential leaseholders will face a situation where, yes, there may be a requirement for an annual report and there may be a degree of transparency, but the onus will be on them to go through six or seven sets of accounts from the different subsidiaries. We need to look at how we can simplify some of the management structures that companies use, which could cause huge amounts of confusion for residential leaseholders, and, as I say, put the onus on them to try to work through different sets of accounts in a way that they might find difficult to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Limitation of administration charges
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
I hope that some of the comments I am about to make will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire that we are keen to get this right.
Homeowners on managed estates can be subject to excessive administration charges, with little understanding of what fees they may be liable to pay. Subsection (1) puts a stop to that by introducing a requirement for all administration charges to be reasonable. Subsections (2) and (3) require that an administration charge is payable only if the amount or the description of how the amount is to be calculated has been published on an administration charge schedule for 28 days. Subsection (4) sets out other conditions under which an administration charge is not payable to the estate manager. They include circumstances where the estate manager is charging homeowners on the same estate different amounts for carrying out similar tasks, and therefore prevents them from being charged at different rates. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Determination of tribunal as to administration charges
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Clause 54 introduces a new right for homeowners on managed estates to challenge the reasonableness of administration charges they are liable to pay. This approach delivers on a Government commitment to give freehold homeowners the equivalent right as leaseholders with regards to the charges they pay, and allows homeowners to get an independent assessment of whether the charge they are being asked to pay is justified and appropriate.
Subsection (1) sets out the basis on which homeowners may make an application to the appropriate tribunal and describes those issues on which the tribunal is able to be determined. They include: whether the administration charge is payable and, if so, by whom and to whom it is payable; the amount that is payable, as well as the date by, or on which, it is payable; and the manner in which it is payable. Subsection (2) is clear that this application can be made whether or not any payment has been made. Subsection (4) confirms that any payment made by the homeowner does not mean that they have agreed or admitted to its reasonableness. Subsection (3) sets out instances when an application may not be made to the tribunal. These measures mirror those provisions that apply to leaseholders under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
This clause, alongside clauses 50 to 53, brings the rights of homeowners on managed estates in line with those of leaseholders with regard to administration charges. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Codes of management practice: extension to estate managers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Clause 55 amends section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. It enables the Secretary of State to approve or publish a code of practice in relation to managed estates. The effect of this clause mirrors the position in leasehold, for which the Government have approved two codes of practice. These codes outline best practice for managing agents, landlords or other relevant parties in relation to residential leasehold property management. An approved code of practice may be taken into account as evidence of a breach of an estate manager’s obligation at a tribunal or a court. I commend this clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56
Part 4: application to government departments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Clause 56 deals with the issue of Crown land, and makes it clear that the measures in part 4 should apply in circumstances where estate management functions are carried out by or on behalf of Government Departments. We consider that there are no grounds to exclude homeowners who live on land owned by Government Departments where they pay a contribution. They have as much right to hold the estate manager accountable for the charges it spends. There may be a very small number of locations where land that could now or in the future be built on is owned by His Majesty or other parts of the Crown Estate. In such circumstances, the Crown will act by analogy—in other words, it will ensure homeowners on such estates have access to equivalent rights. Prior to Second Reading, the King and the Prince of Wales granted consent in writing. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Interpretation of Part 4
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Clause 57 provides a comprehensive definition of terms used in part 4 of the Bill. For key terms used in the Bill, such as “estate manager” or “relevant costs”, it points to other parts of the Bill where they are defined. Subsection (2) sets out the definition of an “owner” of a dwelling as being either the person who owns the freehold land that comprises a dwelling, or the person who is a leaseholder of a dwelling under a long lease. This ensures that all homeowners who pay a contribution can enjoy the new protections in this part. It also makes it clear that, where homeowners rent out their property or let it out under an assured tenancy, they—not the occupants of the dwellings—are entitled to these protections. This clause provides the more comprehensive definition of relevant measures that inform the regulatory framework in part 4. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Meaning of “estate rentcharge”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Part 5 of the Bill addresses issues relating to rentcharges. Since the Rentcharges Act 1977, the creation of most types of rentcharge has been prohibited. The main class of rentcharge excepted from the general prohibition is known as an estate rentcharge. Estate rentcharges are usually mechanisms for a management company to obtain contributions towards the costs of maintaining communal areas.
Part 4 of the Bill creates new protections for homeowners who pay an estate rentcharge to an estate manager for the provision of estate management services. Clause 58 makes a minor amendment to the Rentcharges Act 1977 to amend the definition of “estate rentcharge” in section 2 of the Act. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that payments may be made to cover improvements to communal areas as well as maintenance and repairs. This ensures that it aligns with the definition of the service charges that leaseholders must pay, and allows estate managers to pass on costs of any improvements to the areas they look after, and will ensure that they meet their legal obligations as well as having sufficient funds to carry out such works. The sums paid for improvement will still be subject to the protections in part 4—for example, the requirement to be reasonable. This is a clarificatory amendment, and I commend clause 58 to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
This is a clarificatory amendment, and we do not take issue with it. I will speak on our concerns about rentcharges in relation to clause 59.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Regulation of remedies for arrears of rentcharges
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Remedies for the recovery of annual sums charged on land—
“(1) Section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925 is omitted.
(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) has effect in relation to arrears arising before or after the coming into force of this section.”
This new clause, which is intended to replace clause 59, would remove the provision of existing law which, among other things, allows a rentcharge owner to take possession of a freehold property in instances where a freehold homeowner failed to pay a rentcharge.
Lee Rowley
An income-supporting rentcharge is an annual sum paid by a freehold homeowner to a third party who normally has no other interest in the property. Under the 1977 Act, no new rentcharges of this type may be created, and all existing ones will be extinguished in 2037. Most income-supporting rentcharges can be for relatively small amounts—typically between £1 and £25 per annum—and the majority of freehold properties affected by these rentcharges are located in the north-west and the south-west of England.
However, a loophole remains. Failure to pay a rentcharge within 40 days of its due date means that, under section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the recipient of the rentcharge may take possession of the subject premises until the arrears and all costs and expenses are paid. The rentcharge owner may alternatively grant a lease of the subject premises to a trustee that the rentcharge owner may set up themselves. The Government believe that that law is unfair and can have a grossly dispro-portionate consequence for a very small amount of money not being paid. This clause seeks to address that and ensure that freeholders cannot be subject to a possession order or the granting of a lease for rentcharge arrears.
Subsection (2) introduces new sections into the 1925 Act. Proposed new section 120B details that no action to recover or require payment of regulated rentcharge arrears may be taken unless notice has been served and the demand for payment complies with the new requirements. Those requirements set out what information the notice must include. The section also sets out that the homeowner does not have to pay the rentcharge owner any administrative fee.
Proposed new section 120C sets out various requirements relating to the serving of notice under proposed new section 120B, aimed at ensuring that freeholders receive the demand of payment at the address of the charged land. Proposed new section 120D confers powers on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a limit on the amounts payable by landowners, indirectly or directly, in relation to the action of recovering or requiring payment of regulated rentcharge arrears. That provision seeks to avoid abuse of administration costs charged when simply accepting payment of arrears, and the process of removing any restriction on the freehold title at the Land Registry. The charge does not affect the cost that is paid directly to the Land Registry itself.
Clause 59 (3) and (4) to clause 59 seek to disapply rentcharge owners from using the provisions set out in sections 121 and 122 of the 1925 Act. In doing so, they provide additional protection to avoid rentcharge owners rushing to invoke those provisions. The effect of those subsections is to make any action to reclaim arrears using the 1925 Act void retrospectively once the provisions are introduced. Subsection (5) ensures that the provisions of the clause apply to rentcharge arrears that have arisen before and after the changes come into force. Subsection (6) inserts new section 122A into the 1925 Act, which details that an instrument creating a rentcharge, contract or any other arrangement is of no effect to the extent that it makes provision contrary to the provisions in this clause. Clause 59 delivers on a Government commitment to protect freehold homeowners from the disproportionate effects of falling into arrears in the payment of their rentcharge.
I turn to new clause 4, for which I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. It seeks to abolish section 121 of the 1925 Act. The effect of the new clause would be that a failure to pay any form of rentcharge would prevent the owner of the rentcharge from granting a lease on the property, or from taking possession of it until the fee was paid. We are sympathetic to the issue raised by the shadow Minister, and we have recognised that forfeiture is an extreme measure and should only be used as a last resort. Although in practice it is already rarely used, I recognise that the potential consequences may feel disproportionate. That is why we have included clause 59, which disapplies this remedy for income-supporting rentcharges where we know that homeowners pay nominal sums for very little in return.
As with leasehold forfeiture, any changes will require a careful balancing of the rights and responsibilities of interested parties. We are concerned as to what this new clause could mean where a homeowner pays estate rentcharges that are essential for the management of their estate, or any other form of legitimate rentcharge. The Government want to ensure that where they are required to be paid, these charges are paid in a timely manner so that the smooth running of the estate can continue. If estate management companies are unable to recover these sums, there is the potential that the costs will fall to other homeowners or that the upkeep of the estate will worsen. We are keen to understand any unintended consequences before abolishing section 121 of the 1925 Act all together. We need to weigh up the needs of the estate with the stress and uncertainty that we know this law can cause for some homeowners and lenders. We are listening carefully to the arguments, and I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. I hope that, with those reassurances, he may consider not moving his new clause.
Matthew Pennycook
I was slightly surprised, in a welcome way, by the Minister’s response, in that he seemed to indicate that the Government are open to considering the abolition of section 121 of the 1925 Act all together, notwithstanding the need to ensure that there are no unintended consequences, but we are debating clause 59 as it stands, which does not propose that, so I hope to convert the Minister’s sympathy into agreement with our position if I can.
Part 5 of the Bill concerns rentcharges, which in general terms can be understood as an indefinite, periodic payment made in respect of freehold land by the current freeholder to a third party or “rent owner” who has no reversionary interest in the charged land in question. In some cases, the charge relates to the provision of a service; in others it is, in effect, simply a profit stream for the interested third party. All rentcharges, as the Minister made clear, are covered by the Rentcharges Act 1977, which prohibited the creation of new so-called income-only rentcharges and provided that all such rentcharges will be extinguished in 2037.
The 1977 Act does not detail the remedies available to a rentcharge holder whose rentcharge is not paid, although any can simply sue for a money judgment. It is section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925 that creates two additional remedies for rentcharge non-payment. First, unless excluded by the terms of the rentcharge itself, there is a right for the rentcharge holder to take possession of the charged land in question and retain any income associated with it so long as the money owed, whether demanded or not, is unpaid for 40 days. Secondly, unless prohibited by the terms of the rentcharge, and assuming that the money owed is outstanding for at least 40 days, there is a power to demise the land to a trustee by way of a lease in order to raise the funds necessary to pay the arrears and costs.
In short, the 1925 Act provides for the power to seize freehold houses for non-payment of a rentcharge, even if the arrears are merely a few pounds, and allows the rentcharge holder to retain possession or render it in effect worthless by means of maintaining a 99-year lease over it, even if, as demonstrated by the 2016 case of Roberts v. Lawton, the rentcharge is redeemed or the underlying debt cleared. In our view, the remedies provided for by the 1925 Act are a wholly disproportionate and draconian legacy of Victorian-era property law. As I have said, the 1977 Act prohibited the creation of new rentcharges and provided for existing rentcharges to be abolished in 2037, but 13 years from now is still a long time away and any lease granted prior to the abolition will remain in force. Rentcharges are therefore an area of law in respect of which legislative reform is long overdue, and the need to protect rent payers from what amounts, essentially, to a particularly severe form of freehold forfeiture as a result of the relevant remedies provided for by the 1925 Act is pressing.
With clause 58 having amended the definition of estate rentcharge, clause 59 seeks to provide for revised remedies for arrears by amending the 1925 Act. As the Minister has set out, clause 59, in place of the existing two remedies for rentcharge non-payment under the Act, proposes requiring the third party or rent owner to issue an appropriate demand before they can seek to recover or compel payment, and gives the Secretary of State the power by regulation to limit the amount payable by the freehold homeowner in respect of rentcharge arrears or to provide that no amount is repayable. Although we appreciate that the intent of the clause is to better protect freehold homeowners from the existing disproportionate remedies that are available to rentcharge holders when rentcharges go unpaid, we believe it is an overly complicated and onerous attempt to make more palatable the methods of enforcing rentcharges provided for by the 1925 Act that are simply not justifiable in any form.
No one disputes that there might be a need for legitimate and reasonable rentcharges. Indeed, if and when the Government finally deliver on the pledge to require all new houses in England and Wales to be sold as freehold properties, such charges will become even more important as a means to ensure that freehold houses contribute towards communal estate services. However, the threat of their being enforced by means of the draconian remedies in section 121 of the 1925 Act must, in our view, be removed.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He makes a strong case for his arguments. As I have indicated, although I will not accept new clause 4, we do think there is an argument that is reasonable to be had here, while recognising that we need to consider the consequential potential of any change. I am happy to discuss that further with him separately to see whether we can make further progress at a later stage of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that answer. I am tempted to not move the new clause, but I can only deal with the piece of legislation in front of me. What is in front of me is not a placeholder clause that says, “We will review the 1925 Act”; it is a clause that puts in place an amended version of the remedies. We feel so strongly about this point that we will vote against clause stand part, but I will take the Minister up on his offer to discuss a more sensible way of dealing with the types of contraventions that we have discussed.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Clause 60 sets out the meaning of references throughout the Bill to other Acts. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Power to make consequential provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Clause 61 gives the Secretary of State the power to make provision that is consequential on the Bill through regulations, including provision amending an Act of Parliament. We do not take such a power lightly and, in drafting this legislation, we have sought to identify necessary consequential amendments on the face of the Bill. Long residential leasehold is, however, a complex and interdependent area of law. Therefore we consider it prudent to take the power in Clause 61 in order to ensure that, should any further interdependencies be identified at a later date, those can be addressed appropriately.
There are various precedents for such provisions, including section 92 of the Immigration Act 2016, section 213 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, section 42 of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, and section 20 of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Regulations
Lee Rowley
I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 62, page 80, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) A power to make regulations under Part 4A also includes power to make different provision for different areas.”
This amendment would expressly provide that a power to make regulations under the new Part to be inserted after Part 4 includes the power to make different provision for different areas.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 56.
Government new clause 9—Appointment of manager: breach of redress scheme requirements.
Government new clause 15—Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes.
Government new clause 16—Redress schemes: voluntary jurisdiction.
Government new clause 17—Financial assistance for establishment or maintenance of redress schemes.
Government new clause 18—Approval and designation of redress schemes.
Government new clause 19—Financial penalties.
Government new clause 20—Financial penalties: maximum amounts.
Government new clause 21—Decision under a redress scheme may be made enforceable as if it were a court order.
Government new clause 22—Lead enforcement authority: further provision.
Government new clause 23—Guidance for enforcement authorities and scheme administrators.
Government new clause 24—Interpretation of Part 4A.
Government new schedule 1—Redress schemes: financial penalties.
Lee Rowley
Turning first to new clause 15, some leaseholders and homeowners on freehold estates do not currently have access to redress outside of the tribunal or the courts. I should note that part 4 of the Bill will give comprehensive rights and protections to homeowners on freehold estates, including access to the relevant tribunal. Though property managing agents are required by law to join a Government-approved redress scheme, there is no such requirement for leasehold landlords and freehold estate managers who manage their property or estate themselves. This means that for issues that fall outside the court or tribunal’s jurisdiction, such as poor communication or behavioural issues, those leaseholders and homeowners on freehold estates can make a complaint only through their landlord or estate manager’s own complaints process. If there is no complaints procedure, or once the leaseholder or homeowner has exhausted it, their access to redress is exhausted.
New clause 15 will fill this gap by providing that leasehold landlords and freehold estate managing agents who manage their property or estate can be required to join a redress scheme. The redress scheme will independently investigate and determine complaints made by a current or former owner. A redress scheme will need to be approved by, and administered by or on behalf of, the “lead enforcement authority”—the Secretary of State or other designated body. The Government have taken powers that will allow us to make exemptions to the requirement in specific circumstances and also a power to amend the definitions in this section. New clause 15 will fill gaps that leaseholders and homeowners on freehold estates currently experience in access to redress. I commend the clause to the Committee.
New clause 16 makes it clear that the redress scheme provided for under this part may act under a voluntary jurisdiction. That means they may allow for members to join the scheme who are not required to join under new clause 15. The scheme may also investigate and determine complaints outside their jurisdiction at their discretion, including complaints by people who are not current or former owners of a relevant dwelling. The scheme may offer voluntary mediation services and allow for certain complaints or circumstances to be excluded from their remit. The voluntary jurisdiction may be subject to the approval conditions that the redress scheme must comply with under new clause 18, which I will come to in a moment.
New clause 17 gives the Secretary of State the power to make payments, including loans, or give financial assistance to establish or maintain a redress scheme. The Government expect the costs of the redress scheme to be funded by the scheme themselves—for example, through charging membership fees. However, there may be some circumstances where the provision of funding is needed. The clause offers flexibility in that instance.
New clause 18 makes provision for the approval and designation of redress schemes. The approval conditions will apply to the future redress scheme and must be satisfied before the redress scheme is approved or designated. The approval conditions will be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State and will include, but are not limited to, those conditions set out in subsection (3). In addition, new clause 18 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide for the process for making applications for the approval of a redress scheme, the time the approval or designation remains valid, and the process for approval or designation to be withdrawn or revoked. It also allows for a scheme to set membership fees to cover the cost of providing the service.
I will now turn to new clauses 19, 20 and 9, and new schedule 1. To ensure compliance from landlords and freehold estate managers who are required to join a redress scheme, we need to ensure that robust enforcement mechanisms are in place. New clause 19 does that by allowing an enforcement authority to impose financial penalties where breaches of regulations by not joining a redress scheme occur. It also allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow for the investigation of suspected breaches, and for co-operation and information sharing between enforcement authorities for the purposes of investigation.
New clause 20 sets out the amounts of the financial penalty that enforcement authorities may impose on landlords and freehold estate managers who do not comply with the requirement to join a redress scheme. An initial penalty for breaching the requirement may be up to £5,000. However, repeated breaches could lead to a penalty of up to £30,000. The new clause also allows the Secretary of State to amend the amount of financial penalty in regulations to reflect changes in the value of money.
New clause 9 provides a route for leaseholders to apply to the tribunal for an order to appoint a manager in place of their landlord if their landlord has failed to join the redress scheme. As with other “reasons”, leaseholders can apply for an order that a manager be appointed, and the tribunal will make one if
“it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case”.
Richard Fuller
The Minister will be aware of concerns about the practical application of this provision when it is put into practice, and the pressures on the tribunal. Under new clause 9, as I best understand it, homeowners will have the right to go to the first-tier tribunal to ask to change from company A to company B as their estate manager. If that is the case, why does it have to go through a tribunal? Why is it not feasible for people to determine that themselves without referring to a tribunal?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I recognise the significant body of views in this place and elsewhere about the ability to appoint a right to manage company or a representative directly, and I have certainly heard those concerns. In this case, working within the framework of the proposed legislation, we wanted to ensure that there is a route to allow a manager to be appointed if a landlord refuses to comply. Of course, we would hope that a landlord would not refuse in the first instance.
The Government have also provided in new clause 13 that homeowners on freehold estates can apply to the tribunal for an order to appoint a new manager for the estate if a relevant estate manager has breached the requirement to join a redress scheme. New schedule 1 sets out further provisions relating to the penalties set out in new clause 19. It will require an enforcement authority to give a landlord or freehold estate manager whom they suspect of breaching the requirement to join a scheme a notice of its intention to issue a financial penalty before issuing a final notice. Those who are given a notice by the enforcement authority may make representations. The schedule sets out that where an enforcement authority imposes a financial penalty, it may apply the proceeds towards meeting the costs and expenses incurred in carrying out its functions. Any proceeds that are not so applied will be paid to the Secretary of State.
New clause 21 gives the Secretary of State the power to provide that a future redress scheme provider may apply to a court or tribunal for an order that a decision made under the scheme be enforced as if it were an order of the court. That may be necessary if there is an issue with landlords or freehold estate managers not complying with the redress scheme’s decisions.
New clause 22 makes the necessary provisions for the role of the lead enforcement authority. That is defined by new clause 15 as the Secretary of State, or another person designated by the Secretary of State. New clause 22 provides that the lead enforcement authority will have necessary oversight of the scheme. It also provides that if the Secretary of State decides to designate the role of the lead enforcement authority to another person, the Secretary of State will still have the appropriate power to direct the lead enforcement authority. That includes provisions to make payments and to bring the arrangement to an end.
New clause 23 provides for the Secretary of State to issue or approve guidance for enforcement authorities and the administrator of the future redress scheme about co-operation. It makes clear that the Secretary of State will exercise powers under new clause 18 to ensure that the administrator of the redress scheme has regard to guidance issued or approved under the section. Importantly, the amendment also requires the enforcement authority to have regard to the same guidance. New clause 24 makes necessary provision for the interpretation of this part of the Bill, including the definitions used. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Lee Rowley
Clause 63 states the territorial extent of the Bill. It applies to England and Wales. We have worked closely with the Welsh Government to develop the reforms, and we will continue to engage with them. That will ensure that the legislation operates effectively to deliver long-term improvements to home ownership across both England and Wales. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64
Commencement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Clause 64 makes provision for the commencement of the Bill. The substantive provisions of the Bill will come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State by regulation. For a number of policy areas, regulations need to be drafted and laid before Parliament before the provisions in the Bill can commence. Hon. Members should be assured that we are not intending to have any unnecessary delay in implementation, and the Department is working hard to plan and carry out the associated programme of secondary legislation. Subsection (2) sets out that the provisions for section 59, namely the regulation of remedies for rent charge arrears, come into force two days after the Act is passed. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I have two brief points. On the general commencement provisions, the Minister just made it perfectly clear that there are no firm dates for commencement on all the issues that require regulations. I take on board what he said about not seeking any unnecessary delay, and that is welcome. However, I push him to go slightly further to give us a sense of the timetabling of some of the more important provisions in the Bill, because leaseholders watching our proceedings will want to know when the rights provided for by the Bill can be enjoyed.
I have a point specifically on subsection (2), which specifies that clause 59 comes into force at the end of a period of two months, as I understand it—the Minister said “two days”, and I think it is two months. Given that some of the provisions in clause 59—I am thinking particularly of new subsection 120D(4)—bring the relevant provision into force on First Reading on 27 November 2023, why is there a two-month delay after Royal Assent? Why not bring the measures into force on Royal Assent?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Obviously, as he will know, I do not need to push too heavily the point that we need to get the Bill through this place. We are trying to move it as quickly as we possibly can, but the other place may have other ideas, although I hope that it will not. I hope I can provide assurances that we will try to get these things moving as quickly as possible.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about subsection (2), I thank him for correcting me; it is two months. As I understand it—I am happy to go away and review it—there is a relative convention in these instances. However, given the desire and intention of all parties, including the Secretary of State, to move as quickly as possible, we will see whether we can speed it up.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Short Title
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lee Rowley
Clause 65 sets out that the short title of the legislation is to be the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mr Mohindra.)
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (Tenth sitting)
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 11—Appointment of substitute manager.
Government new clause 12—Conditions for applying for appointment order.
Government new clause 13—Criteria for determining whether to make appointment order.
Government new clause 14—Appointment orders: further provision.
Lee Rowley
Homeowners who pay estate management charges for the upkeep and management of their estate must be able to hold their estate management company to account. The Government are committed to giving homeowners the right to apply to the appropriate tribunal to appoint a substitute manager where the estate management company is failing them. The intention is that the substitute manager will then carry out the services set out in an order that will be issued by the tribunal.
New clause 10 introduces the first stage in the procedure for doing so. It will require one or more homeowners to issue a notice of complaint to their estate management company.
Subsection (2) sets out what information must be contained in the notices. Subsection (3) sets out the grounds for issuing a complaint, which largely mirror the grounds set out under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 that apply to leaseholders. Subsections (4) and (5) make it clear that a notice may be issued jointly with more than one complainant, and that it is not necessary for the grounds for complaint to be the same for each complainant.
Subsection (7) defines the term “qualifying period”. It gives the estate management company a period of six months from the time at which a complaint is received to remedy the complaint before the homeowner can move towards the next step. That is a sensible period to ensure that estate management companies have sufficient time to address concerns fully. It gives homeowners time to gather the evidence required to demonstrate failings, should that be necessary, to any tribunal. I commend new clause 10 to the Committee.
New clause 11 will introduce arrangements to allow owners of managed dwellings to apply for the appointment of a substitute estate manager. Subsection (1) requires an application by an owner of a managed dwelling to be made to the appropriate tribunal. Once it receives an application, the appropriate tribunal may appoint a person to carry out functions in connection with estate management as the tribunal sees fit. That appointed person would then carry out functions instead of the estate manager or the agent acting on its behalf.
Subsections (2) to (4) refer to other new clauses that set out the process to be followed and the issues that must be take into account. Subsection (2) refers to new clause 12, which sets out the conditions that must be met for the person to make an application. Subsection (3) refers to new clause 13, which sets out the criteria that the appropriate tribunal must consider in deciding whether to make an order.
Subsection (4) refers to new clause 14, which makes further provision in relation to appointment orders, including what may be contained in such an order and under what terms an order may be varied or discharged. Subsection (5) sets out the two key definitions that apply to this new power: it defines an appointment order, and then defines a substitute manager as the person appointed under the appointment order. New clause 11 sets out the parameters for the new power and how it should be used; I commend it to the Committee.
New clause 12 sets out the conditions for an application for an appointment order to be made under new clause 11. Subsection (1) sets out the main condition that must be met: the homeowner must have given a notice of complaint and must have given the estate manager the required six-month period to resolve that complaint. The homeowner must also have issued a subsequent final warning notice, such that it is clear within a reasonable time period that either the estate manager is not capable of taking steps or not willing to take steps to remedy the problem.
Subsections (2) and (3) set out the arrangements for an appointment notice where it is given jointly by a number of homeowners. Critically, they allow additional homeowners to join the final warning notice even if they were not part of the initial complaint. Importantly, people who have provided the initial notice of complaint must also sign the final warning notice.
Subsection (4) sets out what a final warning notice must contain, such as the addresses and names of those issuing the notice. The notice must also set out the grounds on which those people consider that the appropriate tribunal should make that order. The final warning notice must give the estate manager a reasonable period in which to solve the problem. The Secretary of State and equivalent Welsh Ministers have the power to specify what other information might be required.
Subsection (6) allows the appropriate tribunal to dispense with the need to make a final warning notice if it is satisfied that it would not be reasonably practical to do so. New clause 12 provides clarity about what steps are required in order to make an appropriate order to the tribunal. I commend it to the Committee
New clause 13 sets out the criteria and grounds on which the appropriate tribunal may make an appointment order. Subsection (1) defines the estate management arrangements that are within scope of an appointment order by allowing the appropriate authority to set out in regulations any exemptions, should they be required.
Subsection (2)(a) states that the appropriate tribunal may make an appointment order if it is “just and convenient” in the circumstances. Subsections (2)(b) and (3) set out the grounds under which an appointment order may be made. In broad terms, these are where the estate manager has breached an obligation; where a management charge or an administration charge may be unreasonable; where a manager has failed to comply with a relevant code of practice; and where the estate manager has failed to belong to a redress scheme. However, the appropriate tribunal is also able to issue an order if it considers that there are other circumstances that make it just and convenient to do so.
Subsection (4) sets out the grounds under which an estate management charge under subsection (3)(b) is taken to be unreasonable. Subsection (5) will allow the appropriate tribunal additional freedom to make an order in circumstances in which
“a period specified in a final warning notice was not a reasonable period”,
or in which the final warning notice did not contain all the required information. I commend new clause 13 to the Committee.
New clause 14 sets out further provision relating to the making of orders to appoint substitute estate managers. Subsection (1) sets out matters for which the appropriate tribunal may wish to make a provision in an appointment order, such as provision allowing the substitute manager to become party to certain rights and liabilities, provision for remuneration to be paid to a substitute manager by the estate management company, and provision setting a time limit for how long the manager may carry out its functions.
Subsection (2) allows the appropriate tribunal to
“vary or discharge…an appointment order.”
Subsection (3) sets out the conditions under which an appointment order may be varied or discharged. Subsection (4) states that
“the appropriate tribunal must have regard to whether”
or not the estate management company is part of a “redress scheme” in deciding the terms of the appointment order, or when it considers variation or discharge of the order. I commend new clause 14 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 10 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 11
Appointment of substitute manager
“(1) The appropriate tribunal may, on the application of an owner of a managed dwelling, by order appoint a person to carry out, in place of an estate manager, such functions in connection with the estate management relating to that dwelling as the tribunal thinks fit.
(2) Section (Conditions for applying for appointment order) sets out conditions that must be met for a person to make an application.
(3) Section (Criteria for determining whether to make appointment order) sets out criteria the appropriate tribunal must consider in deciding whether to make an appointment order.
(4) Section (Appointment orders: further provision) makes further provision in relation to appointment orders.
(5) In this section and sections (Conditions for applying for appointment order) to (Appointment orders: further provision)—
‘appointment order’ means an order under subsection (1);
‘substitute manager’ means a person appointed under an appointment order.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC10, would allow owners of managed dwellings to apply for the appointment of a substitute estate manager.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 12
Conditions for applying for appointment order
“(1) An owner of a managed dwelling may make an application for an appointment order in relation to an estate manager only if—
(a) the owner has given a notice of complaint to the estate manager,
(b) the qualifying period in relation to that notice has ended,
(c) the owner has, after the end of the qualifying period but before the application is made, given further notice to the estate manager (a ‘final warning notice’), and
(d) the condition in subsection (5) is met in relation to the final warning notice.
(2) If the owner gave the notice of complaint jointly with other persons, the owner may not make an application for an appointment order unless—
(a) the owner does so jointly with each of those other persons that remain owners of managed dwellings in relation to the estate manager, and
(b) the final warning notice was given jointly by the owner and each of those other persons.
(3) The owner, or the owners acting jointly in accordance with subsection (2), may make an application jointly with an owner of a managed dwelling who did not give the notice of complaint to the estate manager (a ‘joined applicant’), if the final warning notice was given jointly by the owner or owners and the joined applicant.
(4) A final warning notice must—
(a) specify—
(i) the name of the person (or persons) giving the notice,
(ii) the address of their dwelling (or the addresses of each of their dwellings), and
(iii) if different, an address (or addresses) at which a person may give notice to that person (or one or more of those persons) in connection with the application,
(b) state that the person or persons giving the notice intend to make an application for an appointment order in respect of the dwelling specified in the notice,
(c) specify the grounds on which the appropriate tribunal would be asked to make such an order and the matters that would be relied on by the person or persons for the purpose of establishing those grounds,
(d) where those matters are capable of being remedied by the estate manager, require the estate manager, within a reasonable period specified in the notice, to take specified steps for the purpose of remedying them,
(e) state that, if those matters are remedied, the person or persons will not make an application, and
(f) contain any other information specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5) The condition in this subsection is met if—
(a) the matters specified in the final warning notice were not capable of being remedied, or
(b) the period specified in the final warning notice for the matters to be remedied has expired without the estate manager having taken the required steps to remedy them.
(6) The appropriate tribunal may by order dispense with a requirement in subsection (1), (2) or (3) if the tribunal is satisfied in light of the urgency of the case that it would not be reasonably practicable for the requirement to be satisfied.
(7) But the tribunal may, when so ordering, direct that such other notices are given, or such other steps are taken, as it thinks fit.
(8) If the tribunal makes an order under subsection (6), an application for an appointment order may be made only if any notices required to be given, and any other steps required to be taken, by virtue of the order have been given or taken.
(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for determining when a notice under this section is given.
(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC11, would set out conditions for an application to be made under NC11.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 13
Criteria for determining whether to make appointment order
“(1) The appropriate tribunal may not make an appointment order in relation to an estate manager if the estate manager is specified, or is of a description specified, in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2) The appropriate tribunal may make an appointment order only if the tribunal is satisfied that—
(a) it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case, and
(b) either—
(i) those circumstances include those set out in subsection (3), or
(ii) there are other circumstances that make it just and convenient for the order to be made.
(3) The circumstances are—
(a) that the estate manager is—
(i) in breach of an obligation in relation to a dwelling, or
(ii) in the case of an obligation dependent on notice, would be in breach of the obligation but for the fact that it has not been reasonably practicable to give the estate manager the appropriate notice;
(b) that an estate management charge payable, or proposed or likely to be payable, is unreasonable;
(c) that an administration charge payable, or proposed or likely to be payable, is unreasonable;
(d) that the estate manager has failed to comply with a relevant provision of a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 87 of the LRHUDA 1993 (codes of management practice);
(e) that the estate manager has breached regulations under section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(1) of this Act (requirement to be member of redress scheme).
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b), an estate management charge is to be taken to be unreasonable if—
(a) the amount is unreasonable having regard to the items for which it is payable,
(b) the items for which it is payable are of an unnecessarily high standard, or
(c) the items for which it is payable are of an insufficient standard with the result that additional charges are or may be incurred.
(5) An appointment order may be made despite the fact that—
(a) a period specified in a final warning notice was not a reasonable period, or
(b) a final warning notice otherwise failed to comply with a requirement under section (Conditions for applying for appointment order)(4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC12, would set out criteria for the making of an order under NC11.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 14
Appointment orders: further provision
“(1) An appointment order may—
(a) make provision with respect to such matters relating to the exercise by the substitute manager of their functions under the order, and such incidental or ancillary matters, as the tribunal thinks fit, including—
(i) for rights and liabilities arising under contracts or other arrangements to which the substitute manager is not party to become rights and liabilities of the substitute manager;
(ii) for the substitute manager to be entitled to prosecute claims in respect of causes of action (whether contractual or tortious) accruing before or after the date of their appointment;
(iii) for remuneration to be paid to the substitute manager by the estate manager;
(iv) for the substitute manager’s functions to be exercisable during a specified period;
(b) be subject to such conditions as the tribunal thinks fit;
(c) be subject to suspension on terms set by the tribunal.
(2) The appropriate tribunal may, on the application of any interested person or of its own motion, vary or discharge (whether conditionally or unconditionally) an appointment order.
(3) The tribunal may not vary or discharge an appointment order unless the tribunal is satisfied that—
(a) the variation or discharge will not result in a recurrence of the circumstances which led to the appointment order being made, and
(b) it is just and convenient in all the circumstances of the case to vary or discharge the order.
(4) In deciding—
(a) the terms of an appointment order, or
(b) whether or how to vary or discharge an appointment order,
the appropriate tribunal must have regard to whether the estate manager in relation to which the order is made has breached regulations under section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(1) (requirement to be member of redress scheme).”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC13, would set out further provision about orders to appoint substitute estate managers under NC11.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 15
Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require a person that carries out estate management in respect of a dwelling in England in a relevant capacity to be a member of a redress scheme.
(2) A person carries out estate management in a ‘relevant capacity’ if they do so—
(a) as a relevant landlord of the dwelling, or
(b) as an estate manager.
(3) But a person may not be required to be a member of a redress scheme under this section if they carry out estate management only—
(a) as a tenant, or
(b) as an agent.
(4) A ‘redress scheme’ is a scheme—
(a) which provides for a complaint against a member of the scheme made by or on behalf of a current or former owner of a dwelling in relation to which estate management is carried out to be independently investigated and determined by an independent individual, and
(b) which is—
(i) approved by the lead enforcement authority for the purposes of regulations under subsection (1), or
(ii) administered by or on behalf of the lead enforcement authority and designated by the lead enforcement authority for those purposes.
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) may require a person to remain a member of a redress scheme after ceasing to be a person mentioned in that subsection, for a period specified in the regulations.
(6) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that all persons who are to be required to be a member of a redress scheme will be eligible to join such a scheme before being so required (subject to any provision in the scheme about expulsion, as to which see section (Approval and designation of redress schemes)(3)(k)).
(7) For potential consequences of breaching regulations under subsection (1), see—
(a) section 24(2)(ad) of the LTA 1987 and section (Criteria for determining whether to make appointment order)(3)(e) of this Act (appointment of manager by tribunal);
(b) section (Financial penalties) of this Act (financial penalties by enforcement authorities).
(8) In this Part—
‘estate management’ means—
(a) the provision of services,
(b) the carrying out of maintenance, repairs or improvements,
(c) the effecting of insurance, or
(d) the making of payments,
for the benefit of one or more dwellings;
‘estate manager’ means a body of persons (whether incorporated or not)—
(a) which carries out, or is required to carry out, estate management, and
(b) which recovers the costs of carrying out estate management by means of relevant obligations;
‘the lead enforcement authority’ means either—
(a) the Secretary of State, or
(b) another person designated by the Secretary of State as the lead enforcement authority,
and see section (Lead enforcement authority: further provision) for further provision about the lead enforcement authority;
‘relevant landlord’, in relation to a dwelling, means a landlord under a long lease of the dwelling;
“relevant obligation’, in relation to a dwelling, means each of the following—
(a) a rentcharge which—
(i) is charged on or issues out of the land which comprises the dwelling or a building of which the dwelling forms part, and
(ii) is an estate rentcharge by virtue of section 2(4)(b) and (5) of the RA 1977;
(b) an obligation under a long lease of the dwelling;
(c) any other obligation that—
(i) runs with the land which comprises the dwelling or a building of which the dwelling forms part, or
(ii) otherwise (whether in law or in equity) binds the owner for the time being of the land which comprises the dwelling;
(d) any other obligation—
(i) to which the owner of the dwelling is subject, and
(ii) to which any immediate successor in title of that owner will become subject, if an arrangement to which a relevant landlord or an estate manager and that owner are parties is performed.
(9) The arrangements that are within paragraph (d) of the definition of ‘relevant obligation’ include an arrangement under which the owner is required (in particular by a limitation on transfer of title to the dwelling or on registration of a transfer of title) to ensure that any immediate successor in title to the owner enters into an obligation.
(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision (including provision amending this Act) for the purpose of changing the meaning of ‘relevant capacity’, ‘relevant landlord’ or ‘relevant obligation’.
(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section (whether alone or with other provision) is subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted as the first clause of a new Part after Part 4, would enable the Secretary of State to make provision for redress schemes for property management work carried out other than by agents.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 16
Redress schemes: voluntary jurisdiction
“(1) Nothing in this Part prevents a redress scheme from providing (subject to regulations under section (Approval and designation of redress schemes))—
(a) for membership to be open to persons who wish to join as voluntary members;
(b) for the investigation or determination of any complaints under a voluntary jurisdiction (including complaints by persons who are not current or former owners of dwellings in relation to which estate management is carried out);
(c) for voluntary mediation services;
(d) for the exclusion from investigation and determination under the scheme of any complaint in such cases or circumstances as may be specified in or determined under the scheme.
(2) In this Part—
‘complaints under a voluntary jurisdiction’ means complaints in relation to which there is no duty to be a member of a redress scheme, where the members against which the complaints are made have voluntarily accepted the jurisdiction of the scheme over those complaints;
‘voluntary mediation services’ means mediation, conciliation or similar processes provided at the request of a member in relation to complaints made—
(a) against the member, or
(b) by the member against another person;
‘voluntary members’, in relation to a scheme, means members who are not subject to a duty to be a member of a redress scheme.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC15, would provide for redress schemes to have the possibility of voluntary jurisdiction.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 17
Financial assistance for establishment or maintenance of redress schemes
“The Secretary of State may give financial assistance (by way of grant, loan, or guarantee, or in any other form) or make other payments to a person for the establishment or maintenance of—
(a) a redress scheme, or
(b) a scheme that would be a redress scheme if it were approved or designated under section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(4)(b).”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC16, would allow the Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the establishment or maintenance of redress schemes.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 18
Approval and designation of redress schemes
“(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State makes regulations under section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(1).
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations set out conditions which are to be satisfied before a scheme is approved or designated under section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(4)(b).
(3) The conditions must include conditions requiring the scheme to include provision in accordance with the regulations—
(a) for an administrator of the scheme to appoint an individual, having obtained the lead enforcement authority’s approval of the individual and the terms of the appointment, who is to be responsible for overseeing and monitoring the investigation and determination of complaints under the scheme;
(b) about the complaints that may be made under the scheme, which must include provision enabling the making of complaints about non-compliance with any codes of practice that are issued or approved by the Secretary of State;
(c) about the time to be allowed for scheme members to resolve matters before a complaint is accepted under the scheme in relation to those matters;
(d) about the circumstances in which a complaint may be rejected;
(e) about co-operation (which may include the joint exercise of functions) of an individual who is investigating or determining a complaint with persons who have functions under other schemes for providing redress and with enforcement authorities;
(f) about the provision of information to the persons mentioned in paragraph (e);
(g) if members are required to pay fees in respect of compulsory aspects of the scheme, about the level of those fees;
(h) if there are voluntary aspects of the scheme—
(i) for fees to be payable in respect of those aspects of the scheme, and
(ii) for the fees to be set at a level that, taking one year with another, is sufficient to meet the costs incurred in the administration of those aspects of the scheme;
(i) for the individual determining a complaint to be able to require members to provide redress of the following types to the complainant—
(i) providing an apology or explanation,
(ii) paying compensation, and
(iii) taking such other actions in the interests of the complainant as the individual determining the complaint may specify;
(j) about the enforcement of the scheme and decisions made under the scheme;
(k) for a person to be expelled from the scheme only—
(i) in circumstances specified in the regulations,
(ii) once steps to secure compliance that are specified in the regulations have been taken, and
(iii) once the decision to expel the person has been reviewed by an independent person in accordance with the regulations;
(l) for an expulsion to be revoked in circumstances specified in the regulations;
(m) prohibiting a person from joining the scheme when the person has been expelled from another redress scheme and the expulsion has not been revoked;
(n) for circumstances in which the administration of the scheme is to be transferred to a different administrator;
(o) about the closure of the scheme by an administrator of the scheme.
(4) Conditions set out in regulations under subsection (3)—
(a) may include conditions requiring an administrator or proposed administrator of a scheme to undertake to do things—
(i) on an ongoing basis following approval or designation;
(ii) after ceasing to be an administrator of the scheme;
(b) in the case of conditions set out in regulations by virtue of subsection (3)(d), may require a scheme to reject complaints by a current or former owner of a dwelling where that owner is of a description specified in the regulations;
(c) in the case of conditions set out in regulations by virtue of subsection (3)(n), may—
(i) require an approved scheme to provide for the administration of that scheme to be transferred to the lead enforcement authority or a person acting on behalf of the lead enforcement authority in circumstances specified in the regulations, and
(ii) where they so require, provide for a scheme whose administration is transferred to be treated as a designated scheme instead of an approved one.
(5) Subsections (3) and (4) do not limit the conditions that may be set out in regulations under subsection (2).
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the approval or designation of redress schemes under section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(4)(b), including provision—
(a) about the number of redress schemes that may be approved or designated (which may be one or more);
(b) about the making of applications for approval;
(c) about the period for which an approval or designation is valid;
(d) about the withdrawal of approval or revocation of designation;
(e) authorising the approval or designation of a scheme which provides for fees payable by a compulsory member to be calculated by reference to the total of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, in the administration of the compulsory aspects of the scheme (including costs unconnected with the member in question).
(7) Regulations under this section may confer a discretion on the lead enforcement authority or require a scheme to do so.
(8) In this section—
‘compulsory aspects’, in relation to a scheme, means aspects of the scheme relating to complaints in relation to which there is a duty to be a member of a redress scheme;
‘compulsory member’, in relation to a scheme, means a member of the scheme who is subject to a duty to be a member of a redress scheme;
‘voluntary aspects’, in relation to a scheme, means aspects of the scheme that relate to—
(a) complaints under a voluntary jurisdiction,
(b) voluntary mediation services, or
(c) voluntary members.
(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section (whether alone or with other provision) is subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC17, would make provision for the approval and designation of redress schemes.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 19
Financial penalties
“(1) An enforcement authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has breached regulations under section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(1).
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the investigation by an enforcement authority of suspected breaches of regulations under section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(1) for the purpose of determining whether to impose a financial penalty.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may, among other things, make provision about—
(a) co-operation between enforcement authorities, and
(b) the sharing of information between enforcement authorities,
for the purposes of an investigation.
(4) The amount of a financial penalty imposed under this section is to be determined in accordance with section (Financial penalties: maximum amounts).
(5) More than one penalty may be imposed for the same conduct only if—
(a) the conduct continues after the end of 28 days beginning with the day after the day on which the final notice in respect of the previous penalty for the conduct was given to the person, unless the person appeals against that notice within that period, or
(b) if the person appeals against that notice within that period, the conduct continues after the end of 28 days beginning with the day after the day on which the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned.
(6) Subsection (5) does not enable a penalty to be imposed after the final notice in respect of the previous penalty has been withdrawn or quashed on appeal.
(7) Schedule (Redress schemes: financial penalties) makes provision about—
(a) the procedure for imposing a financial penalty under this section,
(b) appeals against financial penalties,
(c) enforcement of financial penalties, and
(d) how enforcement authorities are to deal with the proceeds of financial penalties.
(8) For the purposes of this section and section (Financial penalties: maximum amounts)—
(a) a financial penalty is imposed on the date specified in the final notice as the date on which the notice is given;
(b) ‘final notice’ has the meaning given by paragraph 3 of Schedule (Redress schemes: financial penalties).
(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section (whether alone or with other provision) is subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC18, would provide for an enforcement authority to impose a financial penalty for breach of regulations under NC15.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 20
Financial penalties: maximum amounts
“(1) The amount of a financial penalty imposed on a person under section (Financial penalties) is to be determined by the enforcement authority imposing it, but—
(a) if Case A, B or C applies, the penalty must not be more than £30,000;
(b) otherwise, the penalty must not be more than £5,000.
(2) Case A applies if—
(a) a relevant penalty has been imposed on the person and the final notice imposing the penalty has not been withdrawn, and
(b) the conduct for which the penalty was imposed continues after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with—
(i) the day after the day on which the penalty was imposed on the person, or
(ii) if the person appeals against the final notice in respect of the penalty within that period, the day after the day on which the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned.
(3) Case B applies if—
(a) a relevant penalty has been imposed on the person for a breach of regulations under section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(1) and the final notice imposing the penalty has not been withdrawn, and
(b) the person engages in conduct which constitutes a different breach of such regulations within the period of five years beginning with the day on which the penalty was imposed.
(4) Case C applies if—
(a) a relevant penalty has been imposed on the person for conduct in respect of which Case A, B or C applies and the final notice imposing the penalty has not been withdrawn, and
(b) the person breaches regulations under section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(1) within the period of five years beginning with the day on which the penalty was imposed.
(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘relevant penalty’ means a financial penalty imposed under section (Financial penalties) where—
(a) the period for bringing an appeal against the penalty under paragraph 5 of Schedule (Redress schemes: financial penalties) has expired without an appeal being brought,
(b) an appeal against the financial penalty under that paragraph has been withdrawn or abandoned, or
(c) the final notice imposing the penalty has been confirmed or varied on appeal.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the amounts specified in subsection (1) to reflect changes in the value of money.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.’—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC19, would provide for the maximum penalties that may be imposed under NC19.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 21
Decision under a redress scheme may be made enforceable as if it were a court order
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for, or in connection with, authorising an administrator of a redress scheme to apply to a court or tribunal for an order that a determination made under the scheme and accepted by the complainant in question be enforced as if it were an order of a court.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC20, would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations making a decision under a redress scheme enforceable as if it were a court order.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 22
Lead enforcement authority: further provision
“(1) The lead enforcement authority must oversee the operation of a redress scheme under this Part.
(2) The lead enforcement authority must provide—
(a) other enforcement authorities, and
(b) the public in England,
with information and advice about the operation of redress schemes, in such form and manner as the lead enforcement authority considers appropriate.
(3) The lead enforcement authority may disclose information to another enforcement authority for the purposes of enabling that authority to determine whether there has been a breach of regulations under section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(1).
(4) The lead enforcement authority may issue guidance to other enforcement authorities about the exercise of their functions under this Part.
(5) Enforcement authorities other than the lead enforcement authority must have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (4).
(6) If the Secretary of State designates a person as the lead enforcement authority for the purposes of this Part—
(a) the Secretary of State may make arrangements in connection with the person’s role as the lead enforcement authority, which may include arrangements—
(i) for payments by the Secretary of State;
(ii) about bringing the arrangements to an end;
(b) the Secretary of State may give the lead enforcement authority directions as to the exercise of any of its functions, which—
(i) may relate to all or particular kinds of enforcement authorities, and
(ii) may make different provision for different purposes;
(c) the lead enforcement authority must keep under review and from time to time advise the Secretary of State about—
(i) the operation of redress schemes;
(ii) social and commercial developments relating to estate management (including by relevant landlords) in England, so far as it considers those developments relevant to redress schemes.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make transitional or saving provision which applies when there is a change in the lead enforcement authority (which may relate to a specific change in the lead enforcement authority or to changes that might arise from time to time).
(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC21, would make further provision about lead enforcement authorities.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 23
Guidance for enforcement authorities and scheme administrators
“(1) The Secretary of State may from time to time issue or approve guidance for enforcement authorities in England and administrators of redress schemes about co-operation between such enforcement authorities and persons exercising functions under the schemes.
(2) An enforcement authority in England other than the Secretary of State must have regard to any guidance issued or approved under this section.
(3) The Secretary of State must exercise the powers in section (Approval and designation of redress schemes) for the purpose of ensuring that every administrator of a redress scheme has regard to any guidance issued or approved under this section.”— (Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC22, would enable the Secretary of State to issue guidance to enforcement authorities and scheme administrators.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 24
Interpretation of Part 4A
“In this Part—
‘complaints under a voluntary jurisdiction” has the meaning given in section (Redress schemes: voluntary jurisdiction)(2);
‘dwelling’ means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it;
‘enforcement authority’ means—
(a) the lead enforcement authority,
(b) the Secretary of State,
(c) a local housing authority, or
(d) another person designated by the Secretary of State as an enforcement authority;
‘estate management’ has the meaning given in section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(8);
‘estate manager’ has the meaning given in section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(8);
‘the lead enforcement authority’ has the meaning given in section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(8);
‘local housing authority’ means—
(a) a district council,
(b) a London borough council,
(c) the Common Council of the City of London (in its capacity as a local authority), or
(d) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
‘long lease’ has the meaning given in section 77(2) of the LRHUDA 1993;
‘owner’, in relation to a dwelling, means—
(a) the owner of freehold land which comprises the dwelling;
(b) a tenant under a long lease of the dwelling;
‘redress scheme’ has the meaning given in section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(4);
‘relevant capacity’ has the meaning given in section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(2);
‘relevant landlord’ has the meaning given in section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(8);
“relevant obligation’ has the meaning given in section (Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes)(8);
‘rentcharge” has the same meaning as in the RA 1977 (see section 1 of that Act);
‘voluntary mediation services’ has the meaning given in section (Redress schemes: voluntary jurisdiction)(2);
‘voluntary members’ has the meaning given in section (Redress schemes: voluntary jurisdiction)(2).”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC22, would make interpretation provision for the purposes of the new Part to be inserted after Part 4.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 42
Leasehold sales information requests
“(1) In the LTA 1985, after section 30J (as inserted by section 35) insert—
‘Sales information requests
30K Sales information requests
(1) A tenant of a dwelling under a long lease may give a sales information request to the landlord.
(2) A “sales information request” is a document in a specified form, and given in a specified manner, setting out—
(a) that the tenant is contemplating selling a long lease of the dwelling,
(b) information that the tenant requests from the landlord for the purpose of the contemplated sale, and
(c) any other specified information.
(3) A tenant may request information in a sales information request only if the information is specified in regulations made by the appropriate authority.
(4)The appropriate authority may specify information for the purposes of subsection (3) only if the information could reasonably be expected to assist a prospective purchaser in deciding whether to purchase a long lease of a dwelling.
(5) The appropriate authority may by regulations provide that a sales information request may not be given until the end of a particular period, or until another condition is met.
(6) Regulations under this section—
(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;
(b) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases;
(c) may make different provision for different purposes;
(d) may include supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.
30L Effect of sales information request
(1) A landlord who has been given a sales information request must provide the tenant with any of the information requested that is within the landlord’s possession.
(2) The landlord must request information from another person if—
(a) the information has been requested from the landlord in a sales information request,
(b) the landlord does not possess the information when the request is made, and
(c) the landlord believes that the other person possesses the information.
(3) That person must provide the landlord with any of the information requested that is within that person’s possession.
(4) A person (“A”) must request information from another person (“B”) if—
(a) the information has been requested from A in a request under subsection (2) or this subsection (an “onward request”),
(b) A does not possess the information when the request is made, and(c)A believes that B possesses the information.
(5) B must provide A with any of the information requested that is within B’s possession.
(6) A person who is required to provide information under this section must do so before the end of a specified period beginning with the day on which the request for the information is made.
(7) A person who—
(a) has been given a sales information request or an onward request, and
(b) as a result of not possessing the information requested, does not provide the information before the end of a specified period beginning with the day on which the request is made, must give the person making the request a negative response confirmation.
(8) A “negative response confirmation” is a document in a specified form, and given in a specified manner, setting out—
(a) that the person is unable to provide the information requested because it is not in the person’s possession;
(b) a description of what action the person has taken to determine whether the information is in the person’s possession;
(c) any onward requests the person has made and the persons to whom they were made;
(d) an explanation of why the person was unable to obtain the information, including details of any negative response confirmation received by the person;
(e) any other specified information.
(9) A person who is required to give a negative response confirmation must do so before the end of a specified period beginning with the day after the day on which the period referred to in subsection (7)(b) ends.
(10) The appropriate authority may by regulations—
(a) provide that an onward request may not be made until the end of a particular period, or until another condition is met;
(b) provide for how an onward request is to be made;
(c) make provision as to the period within which an onward request must be made;
(d) provide for circumstances in which a duty to comply with a sales information request or an onward request does not apply;
(e) make provision as to how information requested in a sales information request or an onward request is to be provided;
(f) make provision for circumstances in which a period specified for the purposes of subsection (6), (7) or (9) is to be extended.
(11) Regulations under this section—
(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;
(b) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases;
(c) may make different provision for different purposes;
(d) may include supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.
(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.
30M Charges for provision of information
(1) Subject to any regulations under subsection (2), a person (“P”) may charge another person for—
(a) determining whether information requested in a sales information request or an onward request is in P’s possession;
(b) providing or obtaining information under section 30L.
(2) The appropriate authority may by regulations—
(a) limit the amount that may be charged under subsection (1);
(b) prohibit a charge under subsection (1) in specified circumstances or unless specified requirements are met.
(3) If a landlord charges a tenant under subsection (1), the charge—
(a) is an administration charge for the purposes of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (see paragraph 1(1)(b) of that Schedule), and
(b) is not to be treated as a service charge for the purposes of this Act.
(4) For the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to service charges, the costs of—
(a) determining whether information requested in a sales information request or an onward request is in a person’s possession, or
(b) providing or obtaining information under section 30L,are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any variable service charge payable by any tenant.
(5) Regulations under this section—
(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;
(b) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases;
(c) may make different provision for different purposes;
(d) may include supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.
30N Enforcement of sections 30L and 30M
(1) A person who makes a sales information request or an onward request (“C”) may make an application to the appropriate tribunal on the ground that another person (“D”) failed to comply with a requirement under section 30L or 30M in relation to the request.
(2) The tribunal may make one or more of the following orders—
(a) an order that D comply with the requirement before the end of a period specified by the tribunal;
(b) an order that D pay damages to C for the failure;
(c) if D charged C in excess of a limit specified in regulations under section 30M(2)(a), an order that D repay the amount charged in excess of the limit to C;
(d) if D charged C in breach of regulations under section 30M(2)(b), an order that D repay the amount charged to C.
(3) Damages under subsection (2)(b) may not exceed £5,000.
(4) The appropriate authority may by regulations amend the amount in subsection (3) if the appropriate authority considers it expedient to do so to reflect changes in the value of money.
(5) Regulations under this section—
(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;
(b) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases;
(c) may make different provision for different purposes;
(d) may include supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.
30P Interpretation of sections 30K to 30N
(1) In sections 30K to 30N—
“information” includes a document containing information, and a copy of such a document;
“landlord” includes—
(a) any person who has a right to enforce payment of a service charge;
(b) a RTM company within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (see section 73 of that Act);
“long lease” has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (see sections 76 and 77 of that Act);
“onward request” has the meaning given in section 30L(4)(a);
“sales information request” has the meaning given in section 30K(2);
“specified” means specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the appropriate authority.
(2)A reference in sections 30K to 30N to purchasing a long lease is a reference to becoming a tenant under the lease for consideration, whether by grant, assignment or otherwise, and references to selling a long lease are to be read accordingly.
(2) In section 172(1) of the CLRA 2002 (application to Crown of provisions of the LTA 1985), after paragraph (ac) (as inserted by section 35) insert—
“(ad) sections 30K to 30P of the 1985 Act (sales information requests),”.’”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC9, would require a landlord to provide specified information to a tenant, in anticipation of the tenant selling their property, within a specified time and at a specified cost, and request that information from other parties.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 43—Estate management: sales information requests.
Government new clause 44—Effect of sales information request.
Government new clause 45—Charges for provision of information.
Government new clause 46—Enforcement of sections (Effect of sales information request) and (Charges for provision of information).
Lee Rowley
New clause 42 will introduce a requirement for a landlord to provide specific information requested by a leaseholder. That information is vital for a leaseholder to enable the sale of their property; it also provides the detail that a prospective purchaser needs to make an informed decision. Regulations will set out what information is to be provided, as well as a maximum timeframe and a maximum cost for providing that information. Regulations will further specify how a request must be made, how the requested information must be provided, in what circumstances a request can be refused and when the time period for its provision may be extended. The clause also sets out enforcement mechanisms, including the various orders that a tribunal may make such as requiring compliance, awarding damages and requiring the repayment of excessive fees.
Under the current system, there is no consistency for leaseholders, some of whom are left paying thousands of pounds and waiting months for this information. Some of them never receive the information at all. The clause will reduce the time that leaseholders have to wait to receive the information that they need, which should reduce delays in selling their properties. It will also make the selling process cheaper and less uncertain. I commend new clause 42 to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I rise to say simply that the Opposition welcome this group of Government new clauses.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the new clauses, but I do so in the knowledge that they do not provide a perfect solution. My concern, and the question I put to the Minister, relates to situations such as the one that I outlined the other day. Where information is held by a series of Russian dolls, as it were, the ultimate one of which is located in the Cayman Islands—as is the case with Wembley Central Apartments in my constituency—what ultimate redress do the leaseholders have? Damages does not get to the nub of the problem.
Lee Rowley
As the hon. Member has outlined, we spoke about this issue on Thursday. I have a lot of sympathy for the point that he makes, and I think we agreed that we would explore it further; I was going to write to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee, if I recall correctly. He is right to raise and highlight that point. Where we can make further progress, we should try to do so. As I know he will appreciate, there is ultimately a challenge when entities move out of jurisdictions, but that should not mean that we should not have a look at whether we can make things better, if not perfect.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 42 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 43
Estate management: sales information requests
“(1) An owner of a managed dwelling may give a sales information request to the estate manager.
(2) A ‘sales information request’ is a document in a specified form, and given in a specified manner, setting out—
(a) that the owner is contemplating selling the dwelling,
(b) information that the owner requests from the estate manager for the purpose of the contemplated sale, and
(c) any other specified information.
(3) An owner of a managed dwelling may request information in a sales information request only if the information is specified in regulations made by the appropriate authority.
(4) The appropriate authority may specify information for the purposes of subsection (3) only if the information—
(a) relates to estate management, estate managers, estate management charges or relevant obligations, and
(b) could reasonably be expected to assist a prospective purchaser in deciding whether to purchase a dwelling.
(5) The appropriate authority may by regulations provide that a sales information request may not be given until the end of a particular period, or until another condition is met.
(6) In this section and sections (Effect of sales information request) to (Enforcement of sections (Effect of sales information request) and (Charges for provision of information))—
(a) a reference to purchasing a dwelling is a reference to becoming an owner of the dwelling, and references to selling a dwelling are to be read accordingly;
(b) ‘sales information request’ has the meaning given in subsection (2);
(c) ‘specified’ means specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the appropriate authority.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC14, would provide for the owner of a managed dwelling to give a sales information request to the estate manager in anticipation of selling the dwelling.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 44
Effect of sales information request
“(1) An estate manager who has been given a sales information request by the owner of a managed dwelling must provide the owner with any of the information requested that is within the estate manager’s possession.
(2) The estate manager must request information from another person if—
(a) the information has been requested from the estate manager in a sales information request,
(b) the estate manager does not possess the information when the request is made, and
(c) the estate manager believes that the other person possesses the information.
(3) That person must provide the estate manager with any of the information requested that is within that person’s possession.
(4) A person (‘A’) must request information from another person (‘B’) if—
(a) the information has been requested from A in a request under subsection (2) or this subsection (an ‘onward request’),
(b) A does not possess the information when the request is made, and
(c) A believes that B possesses the information.
(5) B must provide A with any of the information requested that is within B’s possession.
(6) A person who is required to provide information under this section must do so before the end of a specified period beginning with the day on which the request for the information is made.
(7) A person who—
(a) has been given a sales information request or an onward request, and
(b) as a result of not possessing the information requested, does not provide the information before the end of a specified period beginning with the day on which the request is made,
must give the person making the request a negative response confirmation.
(8) A ‘negative response confirmation’ is a document in a specified form, and given in a specified manner, setting out—
(a) that the person is unable to provide the information requested because it is not in the person’s possession;
(b) a description of what action the person has taken to determine whether the information is in the person’s possession;
(c) any onward requests the person has made and the persons to whom they were made;
(d) an explanation of why the person was unable to obtain the information, including details of any negative response confirmation received by the person;
(e) any other specified information.
(9) A person who is required to give a negative response confirmation must do so before the end of a specified period beginning with the day after the day on which the period referred to in subsection (7)(b) ends.
(10) The appropriate authority may by regulations—
(a) provide that an onward request may not be made until the end of a particular period, or until another condition is met;
(b) provide for how an onward request is to be made;
(c) make provision as to the period within which an onward request must be made;
(d) provide for circumstances in which a duty to comply with a sales information request or an onward request does not apply;
(e) make provision as to how information requested in a sales information request or an onward request is to be provided;
(f) make provision for circumstances in which a period specified for the purposes of subsection (6), (7) or (9) is to be extended.
(11) In this section and sections (Charges for provision of information) and (Enforcement of sections (Effect of sales information request) and (Charges for provision of information)), ‘onward request’ has the meaning given in subsection (4)(a).
(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC43, would require an estate manager who has been given a sales information request to provide the information requested, and request that information from other parties.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 45
Charges for provision of information
“(1) Subject to any regulations under subsection (2), a person (‘P’) may charge another person for—
(a) determining whether information requested in a sales information request or an onward request is in P’s possession;
(b) providing or obtaining information under section (Effect of sales information request).
(2) The appropriate authority may by regulations—
(a) limit the amount that may be charged under subsection (1);
(b) prohibit a charge under subsection (1) in specified circumstances or unless specified requirements are met.
(3) If an estate manager charges the owner of a managed dwelling under subsection (1), the charge—
(a) is an administration charge for the purposes of this Part, and
(b) is not to be treated as an estate management charge for the purposes of this Part.
(4) For the purposes of this Part, the costs of—
(a) determining whether information requested in a sales information request or an onward request is in a person’s possession, or
(b) providing or obtaining information under section (Estate management: sales information requests),
are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any estate management charge.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC44, would regulate charges for the provision of information under NC44.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 46
Enforcement of sections (Effect of sales information request) and (Charges for provision of information)
“(1) A person who makes a sales information request or an onward request (‘C’) may make an application to the appropriate tribunal on the ground that another person (‘D’) failed to comply with a requirement under section (Effect of sales information request) or (Charges for provision of information) in relation to the request.
(2) The tribunal may make one or more of the following orders—
(a) an order that D comply with the requirement before the end of a period specified by the tribunal;
(b) an order that D pay damages to C for the failure;
(c) if D charged C in excess of a limit specified in regulations under section (Charges for provision of information)(2)(a), an order that D repay the amount charged in excess of the limit to C;
(d) if D charged C in breach of regulations under section (Charges for provision of information)(2)(b), an order that D repay the amount charged to C.
(3) Damages under subsection (2)(b) may not exceed £5,000.
(4) The appropriate authority may by regulations amend the amount in subsection (3) if the appropriate authority considers it expedient to do so to reflect changes in the value of money.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new clause, to be inserted after NC45, would provide for the enforcement of obligations under NC44 and NC45.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Abolition of forfeiture of a long lease
“(1) This section applies to any right of forfeiture or re-entry in relation to a dwelling held on a long lease which arises either—
(a) under the terms of that lease; or
(b) under or in consequence of section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.
(2) The rights referred to in subsection (1) are abolished.
(3) In this section—
“dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, or outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it;
“lease” means a lease at law or in equity and includes a sub-lease, but does not include a mortgage term;
“long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.” —(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would abolish the right of forfeiture in relation to residential long leases in instances where the leaseholder is in breach of covenant.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to continue our line-by-line proceedings with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. For the sake of probity, simply because I will make reference to the organisation’s work, I once again declare that my wife is the joint chief executive of the Law Commission.
The reason for tabling the new clause is simple: forfeiture is a wholly disproportionate and horrifically draconian mechanism for ensuring compliance with a lease agreement, and it needs to be abolished through the Bill. To remind the Committee, the law of forfeiture gives the landlord the right, following a breach of a clause in the lease or an unpaid debt of £350, or a lesser sum if it has been outstanding for more than three years, to terminate the lease, regain possession of the property and pocket the unmerited windfall gain that would accrue from its sale.
Not all forfeiture actions relate to trivial breaches—some are made in response to serious transgressions of a covenant in a lease, such as instances of persistent and egregious antisocial behaviour—but many are initiated for entirely trivial breaches, such as nominal ground rent or service charge arrears. The current laws of forfeiture render it entirely possible, for example, for a tenant to lose possession of a £500,000 flat or house for a debt of as little as £351, or even £15 if unpaid for more than three years, with the landlord keeping the entire difference between the value of the property and the debt owed.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling speech. It seems crazy that in the 21st century somebody can lose possession of their property for such a small amount of money. I sincerely hope that he continues his compelling speech in such a way that he has a very positive effect on the Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I hope that I do have that effect, and that he can use his good offices to persuade the Minister of the merits of adopting new clause 1.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The shadow Minister is making a good point, but to play the cynic on this issue, there is a difference between things that could take place and things that are taking place. What is the evidence? We should probably get rid of this latent power in any case, but how often is the power being used in practice? Is this a real thing that is happening?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman. If he allows me to develop my case, I will address that very point, which was well made.
Not only is the potential penalty for a breach incredibly draconian in the circumstances in which it is used, but even in instances in which a lease is not terminated, with the landlord gaining the financial benefit of any capital loans attached to it, the laws of forfeiture can lead to a significant financial loss for leaseholders. Take the following scenario. For whatever reason, a leaseholder accumulates a small arrears—perhaps a demand has not been received—and the freeholder or managing agent issues reminders, which add to the initial debt. That debt is then handed over to a debt collector, whose means of remuneration incentivise them to pursue it aggressively. The leaseholder might then attempt to pay, but they also have to find the money to cover large legal costs. If there is a mortgage, the bank is often drawn in to secure its interest, so a compulsory loan is added to the leaseholder’s account. In our view, it is the lack of any proportionate relationship between a breach of a lease and its consequences that makes forfeiture so unjust.
Since 1925, this House has regularly taken steps to make it more difficult for a freeholder to successfully forfeit a lease. For example, the Housing Act 1996 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 introduced prohibitions on the serving of a section 146 notice under the Law of Property Act 1925 in relation to service charges and breach of a covenant, respectively, in instances in which the amount payable has not been determined. Those were not the first attempts to constrain the laws of forfeiture. History shows that Parliament has returned to the matter every few decades in an attempt to mitigate forfeiture’s manifest injustices. Despite the laws of forfeiture being made stricter, a great many freeholders and managing agents still routinely use forfeiture powers as a first resort when seeking to recover alleged arrears of payments from leaseholders, and they rely—this is in some ways the more important point—on the mere threat of forfeiture, and the financial risks it presents, to deter leaseholders from disputing any unreasonable costs and defending claims.
Those who advocate retaining forfeiture often argue that it is a minor issue that does not affect many leaseholders. However, although termination of a lease under forfeiture may be relatively rare—I deliberately use the word “may”, because His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service does not track the number of cases—evidence from across the country shows hundreds of cases and scores of outright forfeitures on average each year. As I said, the threat is as damaging as the use of the power, because it puts landlords in a nearly unassailable position of strength in disputes vis-à-vis leaseholders, which is why forfeiture is routinely threatened in money disputes.
Because the law of forfeiture remains so manifestly unjust, despite successive attempts to render it more palatable, there have been many calls over recent decades for more wholesale reform. For example, hon. Members may know that in 2006 the Law Commission proposed abolishing the current law of forfeiture and replacing it with a statutory scheme for the termination of tenancies. It even drafted legislation, the Termination of Tenancies Bill, to implement that proposal. Yet nothing has been done. Indeed, the relevant section of the Law Commission’s website states—this amused me—that, 18 years on,
“We are awaiting the Government’s response to our recommendations”—
eighteen years and counting.
There is, of course, a need to carefully balance the rights and responsibilities of landlords and leaseholders, and there must be effective means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement, but those means must be appropriate and proportionate to the breach in question. We can debate precisely what alternative arrangements are needed to deal with breaches of the covenant or unpaid arrears, whether orders of some kind are necessary to sell a property when a debt is not paid, and what kind of measured method is appropriate to removing problem tenants from a building—we heard about that in our oral evidence sessions. The starting point, however, must be that we finally grasp the nettle and abolish forfeiture, and the windfall it provides, once and for all. It operates to the prejudice of leaseholders and it cannot be justified.
The Secretary of State made clear on Second Reading that he was open to this Committee looking at how we end the abuse of forfeiture. I believe there is a broad consensus across the House—indeed across this Committee —that we should consign it to history, even if there is a debate about precisely what replace it with. Following the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall North, I sincerely hope that the Minister will not disappoint us and the many thousands of leaseholders who support the abolition of forfeiture by resisting this new clause out of hand. I very much look forward to his response.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I wish to place on the record my support for the eventual removal of this most feudal and abusive practice—one of the worst examples in this whole system—and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans to eventually do that.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, I just want to let him know that there is ample evidence that this abusive practice has had a deleterious impact on decent people who have bought their properties in good faith. Take, for example, the evidence from Free Leaseholders, which represents many people in this position. The organisation says,
“Forfeiture has no place in a modern housing market”
and that it gives
“the freeholder landlord complete whip hand over his ‘tenant’.”
It is a “draconian remedy” that really has very few comparators anywhere else. Unlike mortgage foreclosure, where there is a balancing payment at the end of it, someone loses all the equity in their own home. That means they could actually lose, for example, a flat worth half a million pounds because of non-payment of a £5,000 bill. The freeholder would seize that flat, take back the lease, and make a windfall irrespective of the size of the contested charge. It kicks in at just £350.
There are alternative ways of resolving these debts available in our system. For example, the freeholder could sue for an injunction. He does not need forfeiture and the windfall to enable him to carry out good management of the block. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee looked at this issue and also recommended its abolition, on the grounds that it puts the freeholders in an unassailable position of strength in disputes. Once again, it is about that power imbalance, which we have highlighted all the way through this Committee. We should absolutely take up the Law Commission’s proposals to remove forfeiture. It is true that it is relatively rare, with perhaps an estimated 80 to 90 cases every year, but it is the threat that hangs over people—people who are not legal experts, fighting a very uneven battle against these big boys with deep pockets and plenty of lawyers on speed dial.
As well as the evidence I have just referred to, I want to represent again the fantastic testimony from the National Leasehold Campaign, which I think has 29,000 members. It has described again and again the impact of this sword of Damocles hanging over its members who have bought these properties in good faith, doing their best to navigate this thicket of rules, with the debt completely stacked against them. I look forward to hearing about the pathway that I am sure the Minister will set out for us, where we can remove this element from our laws once and for all.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for this new clause and for the opportunity to debate it. The hon. Gentleman set me a challenge at the end of his speech. He said he hoped I would not resist the new clause out of hand—I will not resist it out of hand, but I may resist it. In all seriousness, this is an important part of the discussion and I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch said—I absolutely accept it. I am happy to confirm that the Government are aware of the strength of feeling on this issue and sympathetic to some of the objectives of the amendment. It is absolutely the case that forfeiture is an extreme measure. That is why we committed on Second Reading to look at this.
On the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, it is difficult to get numbers. As has been outlined by others, the principle is clearly a real problem. The disproportionate nature of the outcome completely outweighs the likely loss being pursued. The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, or one of the other witnesses, suggested in oral evidence that there were 80 to 90 forfeitures a year, but the Government do not have specific data to validate that at this stage. We understand that most of the threats are defused during the process—particularly if a mortgage company is involved, it tends to, in extremis, step in and offer to put the amount of money on to the mortgage or equivalent. The evidence base is and will always be challenging, but we absolutely accept that the principle is disproportionate and unreasonable.
However, as with so many of these clauses and elements of law, there is the question of how to make something in the system better while still ensuring the ability to balance all the things underneath. That is probably one of the reasons why this place has returned to this issue so often over the decades—it is not just because the Government may not respond in time, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich indicated. This new clause is definitely well intentioned. We are sympathetic, but we do not necessarily believe in the full abolition of forfeiture without some form of replacement for some elements of it that may still have validity—not the forfeiture itself, but a recognition that people cannot just not pay things without some form of process to address that. That is one of the reasons we cannot accept this amendment at the moment.
However, I do not condone the abuse of forfeiture. I want to be absolutely clear that we are listening very carefully to the arguments being made. We have already committed to look at this again, and we are currently looking at it. I hope we will be able to say more at future stages of the Bill. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will consider withdrawing his clause.
Matthew Pennycook
That was a slightly frustrating response from the Minister. I had hoped for a little more. I am glad that he thinks the new clause is well intentioned and sympathises with some of its objectives. From the Opposition’s point of view, as with rent charges, another example of draconian and wholly disproportionate Victorian-era property law, we need to cut the knot and get rid of these provisions entirely. As I said, we can have a debate on what we replace them with. We are very clear that there must be a replacement. There must be an effective means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement, but it must be appropriate and proportionate to the breach in question. We all agree that forfeiture is not proportionate or appropriate to the breach, so why retain it? What I did not get from the Minister, but had hoped for, was a clear indication that that is the Government’s intent, at whatever stage of the Bill.
I suspect this is one of those new clauses that the Minister has resisted—perhaps not out of hand, but resisted none the less—but that we may see back in a different form at a later stage with the Government’s seal of approval. However, I would like to make very clear our strength of feeling on the matter, and I will therefore press the clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As I made clear at the outset of our line-by-line consideration of the Bill, while we have no intention of trying to convince this Government to radically overhaul this limited piece of legislation to enact the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold in full, we do want to make the case for a limited number of new measures that would give future leaseholders greater control and strengthen the foundations on which bolder reform will be enacted. New clause 2 seeks to incorporate one of those measures into the Bill—namely, that all leases on new flats should include a requirement to establish and operate a residents’ management company responsible for all service charge matters, with each leaseholder given a share.
The new clause seeks to remedy two significant flaws in the current leasehold system. The first is that unless leaseholders in blocks of flats either take it upon themselves to acquire the right to manage, collectively enfranchise and then establish an RMC or buy a property on a development where an RMC has been set up, they find that despite being the people who pay all the costs associated with maintaining and managing their building, they have no control whatever over how their money is spent. The second is that the rights that this House has chosen to give leaseholders to empower them to exercise a degree of control over the management of their buildings—for example, the right to make an application to the first-tier tribunal, to appoint a manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 or to acquire the right to manage under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002—can be exercised only following what is often an arduous and costly legal process.
New clause 2 would go some way to remedying both of those problems. It would mean that, where a new residential block of flats was constructed and its units sold, the development would have to be a tripartite lease between the freeholder, leaseholder and a new residents’ management company. Each leaseholder in the block would own a share of the RMC and it would be under their exclusive control, giving them full responsibility for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance and the cost of managing their building, and thereby enabling them to control how their money was spent. Their share of the company and ability to influence the management of their building would be theirs by right and at no additional cost.
The importance of this proposed measure lies not only in the greater control it would give to leaseholders over the maintenance and management of their buildings, but in it being one of several ways by which we can lay the groundwork for a future in which leasehold has been rendered obsolete and commonhold is the norm. New clause 2, even if it is in operation for only a few years prior to commonhold being made the default tenure for new blocks of flats, as is our intention, would facilitate the reinvigoration of that tenure by creating a cohort of leaseholders who, of necessity, have experience in running their building as they would under a commonhold arrangement, even if that experience extends only to appointing and overseeing a managing agent—hopefully one properly regulated as a result of the Government’s accepting our new clause 25.
In facilitating leaseholder control of the operation of a site and giving them responsibility for everything covered by a service charge, new clause 2 would also further undermine freehold by depriving unscrupulous landlords of the ability to extract income from leaseholders using opaque and potentially unlawful practices such as appointing managing agents that are just related companies and using captive insurance brokers.
Lastly, if enacted in conjunction with leaseholders being given a mandatory share of freehold, as provided for by new clause 29, mandatory RMCs in new blocks of flats would ensure that we have a standardised management model and an agreed set of rules for those new blocks of flats where the freehold is collectively owned, making the process of converting buildings to commonhold at scale far easier.
Let me be clear with the Committee: we do not pretend that this is a perfect solution. It would obviously not help those leaseholders who have already purchased their flats and who do not currently have an RMC. We will need other solutions, building on the measures already in the Bill, to address the challenges that they will continue to face. However, if the Committee believes —as I think it does—that commonhold is the ideal form of tenure, and that reinvigorating it is the solution for blocks of flats, we should take practical steps to pave the way for that to happen. New clause 2 is one of the ways we can do so, and I urge the Minister to consider it.
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his new clause which, as he has indicated, seeks to require the establishment of leaseholder-owned management companies for all new leasehold flats. I understand that his intention is to ensure that, by default, all leaseholders of new flats would be responsible for the management of their buildings. I support the well-intentioned desire to give more homeowners control over the management of their buildings. The Bill as a whole is intended to do that, and I hope everybody accepts that it is moving in the right direction.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, existing leaseholders can already use the right to manage to take over management responsibility for their building. It is an established no-fault right that allows leaseholders to take over management responsibility when a majority of them wish to do so. The Bill accepts and implements key elements of the Law Commission recommendations that broaden access to the right to manage and reduce leaseholders’ costs when they make a claim. The Bill gives leaseholders the right to take control over their building, but it does not compel those who do not wish to. There is an important point there: I understand the intentions behind the new clause, but there is a question about compulsion and there may be a question about operation if some leaseholders do not wish to step up. For that reason, the requirement would not easily apply in some scenarios and a blanket requirement to establish such companies is probably not appropriate.
Although I accept, understand and sympathise with the intention of the new clause, I am afraid that we will resist it because there are times when it would not be appropriate for it to apply, and we should not change the law on that basis.
Matthew Pennycook
I am disappointed by that response from the Minister, as he would expect. We very much agree that the Bill is moving in the right direction, but we do not think it goes far enough for two reasons, which I will reiterate to help the Committee to understand why we feel strongly about this issue. Yes, the right to manage is an established right. The Bill makes provisions to enhance and expand access to RTM, but the RTM application process comes after an arduous and costly legal process. We are saying that, as a matter of right, residents in new build blocks of flats would have an RMC put in place and a share of it, without that cost. That is one point.
There is a more fundamental difference of principle, which is that if we are serious about reinvigorating commonhold, we need a number of steps. We need the legal changes that are recommended by the Law Commission, and we need to do those as one process, not in a partial way. However, there are other non-legislative policy changes that we need to make if we are to pave the way for commonhold. This new clause is one of them, and we feel quite strongly that it should be included in the Bill.
The Minister argued that there may be limited cases in which a mandatory RMC is not appropriate. If the Government want to bring forward their own amendment to provide for general RMCs across the board with limited exceptions, they are more than welcome to do so. However, we feel strongly, on a point of principle, that we should take this step alongside providing a share of the freehold, which I will argue for when I speak to new clause 29. Given our strength of feeling on this issue, as with the previous new clause, I will press this one to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a second time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will be relatively brief in speaking to the new clause, because I trust that it is self-explanatory, and we believe that the case for it is robust and well understood. Part 4 of the Bill, which we have already considered, will give residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates rights to challenge the reasonableness of estate management charges and to hold estate management companies to account that are equivalent to those of leaseholders, but it does not give those same residential freeholders the right to take over the management functions on their estate.
We appreciate the concern among some that the right to manage would be too complex and onerous in a freehold estate setting, but it is only a right; it is not a requirement that it be exercised. We believe that there is evidence of an appetite among residential freeholders not only to be able to change a poorly performing or exploitative estate manager, for which part 4 provides, but to have more direct control of the management of their estates. We also believe that it is right in principle that there is parity between residential leaseholders and freeholders when it comes to the right to manage. New clause 5 simply seeks to provide them with that right.
In their June 2019 response to the 2018 consultation on reforms to the leasehold system in England, the Government committed to considering the implications of introducing a right to manage for residential freeholders, as part of their wider commitment to ensuring that leaseholders and residential freeholders enjoy equivalent rights. The Secretary of State made it clear on Second Reading that this Committee should look at the issue, as well as the issue of the abuse of forfeiture. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Redditch went even further. She stated:
“I know that the Government intend to introduce a right to manage for freeholders”.—[Official Report, 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 677.]
We hope that she is right and that that remains the Government’s intent, but there are no Government amendments that would incorporate the power to establish a right to manage regime for freeholders on privately managed estates. New clause 5 would do so, and I hope the Minister will accept it.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause.
Let me separate my remarks into two parts. First, am I relatively sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s point? The answer is yes: there is a strong case for the measure. It has not been brought forward to date, and we will have to see whether it is possible to do so in the future. I cannot guarantee that, but we are looking at it and listening carefully. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and he made a strong case for it. We will not be able to do everything that we have said throughout this process, in the end, but I assure him that we are interested in this potential area.
However, we will resist the new clause, not because it is the convention to do so but because we genuinely think that it is not the right measure, even if we did agree with the principle. To go back to the Henry VIII powers discussion, this is probably an area in respect of which, if we were to do something—again, there are no guarantees—we would do it on the face of the Bill.
Richard Fuller
I am listening carefully to the Minister, as I did to the shadow Minister. The current Minister says he is sympathetic to the intentions, but I take his point that it is the wrong new clause, so I will oppose it if it is pressed to a vote. However, the shadow Minister said that the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch, said on the Floor of the House that she was sympathetic to the measure. That is two up. Will the Minister outline what the impediments might be? Will he give some reassurance that by the time we get to Report the Government may have turned sympathy into action? By the way, I think it is empathy, not sympathy.
Lee Rowley
Indeed—so let me see how to get out of this one. Out of principle, from a Conservative perspective, we would want people to have choice about how they approach such things. It is also the case that there is an additional operator, which is the person who owns the capital or the asset. We need to consider that carefully. Having started conversations with officials in the Department, I think there is a challenge around complexity. There is always a challenge with complexity; that is not an argument in itself but a recognition of the reality. I recognise that there are people in this room with much more experience than me on this issue, and hope colleagues will take what I say in the spirit in which it is meant. There will be a point at the end of this process when the sheer number of additional things that have been requested mean that there will need to be prioritisation.
This is a good Bill, and we should not take away from that fact—I think everybody present acknowledges that—but as the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, where we can improve it, we will seek to do so. I confirm that we are looking at this issue in more detail and hope we will be able to say more in the Bill’s following stages, if that is possible—I emphasise the “if”, with no guarantees. I urge the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, if he is willing, to withdraw his new clause, solely on the basis that if something happens in the future, the provisions should be in primary legislation, not introduced under Henry VIII powers.
Matthew Pennycook
I think I quote the Minister accurately when I say that he said, “Let me see how to get out of this one.” He is developing a reputation not just for reasonableness but for undue honesty. This is one of those features of the parliamentary process that I think anyone watching our proceedings will struggle to understand: there is clearly agreement here, and there is clearly a high chance that the Government are going to introduce a right to manage on privately managed estates, yet the Minister cannot accept the new clause.
I take the point about the particular drafting of the new clause. It was done to put the onus on the Government, who have the resources to bring forward the necessary amendments, given that it is a complex area. I did not hear a clear commitment from the Minister to bring forward those provisions. If he had given one, I would have withdrawn the new clause, but he has not. All he has said is, “We’re looking and listening but won’t be able to do everything”—despite the fact that the Government are dumping hundreds of amendments into the Bill at the last minute and no doubt will dump hundreds more. If we want to put these important measures in the Bill, we can, and we think we should. We feel strongly about this issue and I am going to press the new clause to the vote.
The Chair
We look forward to a Labour Government always accepting Opposition amendments. [Laughter.]
Question put, That the clause be read a second time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I hope that on this occasion the Minister will give me enough reason to withdraw the new clause. I always prefer to withdraw a new clause with a commitment that the Government will introduce what we seek to incorporate into the Bill. New clause 25 raises the important issue of the regulation of property agents, particularly managing agents.
For all that the various measures in the Bill seek to give leaseholders greater control over the buildings in which they live, and to give residential freeholders greater control over their estates, managing agents will remain responsible for day-to-day management in almost all circumstances. In the case of newly empowered leaseholders involved in either an RMC or an RTM company, there will be managing agents they have to take advice from and instruct. The ultimate success of many of the provisions in the Bill, and the extent to which leaseholders experience a tangible improvement in the quality of the services they receive, is dependent on the performance of those managing agents.
Lee Rowley
I will not detain the Committee particularly long on this provision. I regret that we will not be able to accept new clause 25, for two reasons. First, I accept that people come down in different places on the use of broad Henry VIII-type powers, but we are not sure that those would be proportionate here. This measure concerns a considerable framework that would require a significant level of scrutiny to make it work. We are not convinced that it would be agreeable or acceptable to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, either.
Secondly, the new clause relates to an area that has been under debate for a number of years, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has outlined, and we think that it is without the scope of the Bill. It is a significant area on which further consideration is needed, and we do not think that there is space for that among all the other discussions. That will ultimately be a matter for the House to determine, but the Government do not think that this is the place to do it, given its significance and given the significance of the other things that we are trying to bring forward in the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I expected a little more from the Minister, because the Government have accepted in principle that property agents need to be regulated. We think it important that this matter be discussed in connection with this Bill, and that some form of regulation be introduced. As I say, the effective functioning of many of the provisions in this Bill will rely on the standard of managing agents being driven up, and on substandard agents being driven out of the market.
At the moment, all the Minister is saying is that the lack of an overarching regulatory framework in this area is fine. The Government have had four and a half years and are comfortable with taking many more years to come to consider this matter. From our point of view, that is not good enough. The Government have had the working group’s report for some time. They should have made better progress in implementing at least some of its recommendations, if not the vast majority of them. I will press new clause 25 to a vote.
Lee Rowley
I should put it on record—just in case, although it was many years ago—that I used to be an estate agent. I should probably make that clear.
The Chair
Well, that’s an admission.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I do not intend to press new clause 26 to a vote, because it is very much a probing amendment. My remarks on it will be brief because it is extremely simple and straightforward.
Leasehold enfranchisement and the right to manage are extremely complex areas of law. There are at least eight Acts relevant to the rights of residential leaseholders, namely the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the Landlord and Tenant Acts 1985 and 1987, the Housing Act 1988, the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the Building Safety Act 2022. There are also two Acts relevant to residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates, namely the Rentcharges Act 1977 and the Law of Property Act 1925, both of which we have debated extensively.
This limited Bill has made significant changes to almost all of those Acts. If and when it receives Royal Assent, it will add a further layer of complexity and interpretation to a legislative landscape that is perplexing even to those with legal training. The law as it relates to residential and freehold leaseholders is crying out for consolidation. The statute law must be made clearer, shorter and more accessible so that those who work with the law, are concerned with making it or need to access or use it can do so more easily.
This is not a consolidation Bill, but the Opposition believe that it would be useful to give the Secretary of State the power to amend a number of the Acts to which I referred, so as to facilitate their consolidation. I trust that the Minister will see the benefit of incorporating such a power into the Bill, and I hope that he will accept it.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for moving new clause 26. He is right that this is an extremely complicated area of law and that there is a significant amount of interaction and overlap between the relevant legislation, which has built up over many decades. He is also right that there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether consolidation or spring cleaning of the relevant Acts is reasonable and proportionate. I am grateful to him and his party for seeking to provide the Government with additional powers to do so. The challenge is in whether that would be proportionate and whether the broad powers are necessary, even given the points that he made.
While I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman highlighted, the Government are taking a self-denying ordinance. We believe that such broad powers should be used only when absolutely necessary and that the test is not met in the case, so we will resist the new clause if the hon. Gentleman chooses to press it, although I hope that, as he indicated, he will not do so.
Matthew Pennycook
I commend the Minister for continuing to deny himself additional powers to do very sensible things. Notwithstanding that self-denying ordinance, I hope that he will at least take on board the point and give some further consideration to how we might tidy up the statute law in this area. It has been complex for all members of the Committee to understand. As I said, it is complex even for those with legal training, let alone those who need to access or use the law, whether or not it is through one of the means of redress we have been debating.
I hope that the Government will give some further thought to what might be done on the issue, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 27
Qualifying leases for the purposes of the remediation of building defects
“Section 119 of the Building Safety Act 2022 is amended by the insertion after subsection (4) of the following —
‘(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend subsection (2) so as to bring additional descriptions of lease within the definition of “qualifying lease”.’” —(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to bring “non qualifying” leaseholders within the scope of the protections of the Building Safety Act 2022.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 28—Meaning of “relevant building” for the purposes of the remediation of building defects—
“Section 117 of the Building Safety Act 2022 is amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of the following—
‘(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend subsection (2) so as to bring additional descriptions of building within the definition of “relevant building”.’”
This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to bring buildings which are under 11m in height or have fewer than four storeys within the scope of the protections of the Building Safety Act 2022.
Matthew Pennycook
New clauses 27 and 28 concern building safety. The building safety crisis exists within the context of leasehold property and has been rendered more acute by the iniquities on which the leasehold system rests, yet the solutions to the specific problems faced by leaseholders in unsafe buildings are different from the general failings of the leasehold tenure that the Bill has sought to address in a limited number of areas. However, while the provisions in parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill are not answers to the problems of dangerous cladding and non-cladding defects, the relationship between the building safety crisis and residential leasehold properties makes the Bill the ideal vehicle for implementing a number of those solutions.
As the Committee will know, the building safety crisis is far from over. It has been almost seven years since the horrific fire at Grenfell Tower that claimed the lives of 72 innocent men, women and children, yet the Minister will know that there remain many thousands of unsafe buildings across the country that still require remediation.
Barry Gardiner
The Minister may also know that last night in my constituency the London fire brigade had to attend with 125 firefighters and 25 fire engines—three with the tall turntables—to put out a fire at King Edward Court. More than 100 people were evacuated from the building—safely, I am pleased to add—but the cladding on that building was similar to that at Grenfell. Here we are, seven years on from Grenfell, and three and a half years since the survey of that building took place in which it was reported that the cladding was of that combustible type, and still the Building Safety Act 2022 has not been able to ensure that, between the manager and the developer, those residents remain safe.
Matthew Pennycook
I am very glad that the residents were evacuated safely, but my hon. Friend highlights a problem that will apply to many other buildings across the country. The pace of remediation is far too slow. We often talk about remediation works as if they were just a practical issue—“When will it start and when will I be updated?”—but for so many residents there remains a very real risk to their health, their safety and in many cases their life. That is why we need to grip the crisis and ensure that it is addressed. No one disputes the fact that some progress has been made over recent years in addressing the building safety crisis, or the fact that the Minister has personally devoted considerable time and attention to the issue, but it really is a damning indictment of the Government’s record that nearly seven years on, the crisis remains unresolved for the vast majority of blameless leaseholders whose lives remain blighted by it.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich and for Brent North for the new clause and the contributions to the debate. I put on record how sorry I was to hear about Petworth Court, on which I was briefed overnight. It must have been a real challenge, and very scary for the residents of the property. I hope that we can move that on as quickly as we can. I am grateful for the efforts of London Fire Brigade and others, which ensured that no one came to any harm. It is a salutary reminder of the importance of the work that has been outlined by the hon. Members, which we all support.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich asked me a number of detailed questions. We have had many exchanges on these issues in the past, so he will appreciate that this is a sensitive and detailed area, and one that we need to get right. The Building Safety Act 2022 made huge steps forward, and there have been many steps forward in the practical reality of building remediation. I want to ensure that we deal with those questions in turn and in the depth that they deserve. We will have different views on some of those questions. Take, for example, the perpetuity issue. Without going into detail, my answer is that all the buildings have pathways to remediation, so long as they choose one or, in extremis, an actor in the system forces them to take one, and that once the remediation has happened the perpetuity point should become moot and fall away. However, it is better that I write to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee on all those points in due course.
Putting those important matters aside, we come to the question of whether the Secretary of State should have specific powers to amend the definition of “qualifying”. This gets to the point of where the Secretary of State’s powers should lie, which is obviously a contested matter. It is one on which the Government have a clear view, which we have articulated, notwithstanding the challenges that that brings to some people who are impacted by it. That is better dealt with in primary legislation, rather than through the Secretary of State making changes or having the ability to make regular changes. On that basis, we will resist the new clause.
Let me turn to new clause 28 on buildings under 11 metres, in the name of the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich and for Weaver Vale. I have taken a particular interest in buildings that are under 11 metres, and I and the hon. Gentlemen have had interactions on the issue in the past. There are specific issues about a small set of buildings that are under 11 metres. The previous Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and I have made repeated commitments from the Dispatch Box, from as far back as 2022, to look into each and every one of those buildings, and we have done so. A number of them have been raised with us, and we are working through them and getting to the end of the processes.
I encourage any hon. Members with examples—and I see occasional repetitions in parliamentary questions—to raise them with the Department, as I know members of the Committee have, and we will see what we can do to move those cases on or get clarity that no works are required. With almost all under-11 metre buildings, when we get to the end of the discussion there are no works required under the PAS 9980 assessment. That is positive. There is a clear reality that buildings under 11 metres are less likely to be impacted by this issue, and we will resist the new clause on that basis.
As a result of the fire, as I said to the hon. Member for Brent North, it is important that we make progress. Significant progress has been made, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his recognition of that. Every month, we see more buildings complete and more buildings starting the process. Where freeholders are willing to make their buildings safe, we have mechanisms and processes in place, both centrally and locally, to make sure that is happening; and I continue to see lots of progress. It will take time, but we are cognisant of the importance of moving fast, and we have certainly sped up over recent months.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for his response. I will pass over his criticisms of the technical flaws of the new clauses. Their intent is very clear; we can debate whether primary or secondary legislation is the best means of achieving it. I think there is a point of disagreement on qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. On a point of principle, we think that the distinction is arbitrary and we should get rid of it. From the evidence I have seen across the country, we should also undoubtedly get rid of it on a practical basis. I do not have responsibility for building safety directly any more—my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale does—but I continue to hear of cases where buildings with a significant proportion of non-qualifying leaseholders see remediation works stalled or held up entirely.
I have always conceded that buildings under 11 metres are small in number and that there is not a systemic issue, but because of the drafting of the Building Safety Act, there remains a problem about liability. In those cases where the Government certify that the buildings are unsafe and require remediation—as the Minister knows, I have a case in my constituency—the stage that we have got to, after many years, is that the Government ask the original developer to put them right. We do not know what lies behind that request or whether there is any enforcement of it, so we are at the same point that we were at many years ago.
We come back to the question, “What is the need for the distinction?” I would argue that if under-11 metre buildings are that small in number, that is all the more reason for opening them up to access for Government grants should they require that—where the developer will not remediate them voluntarily. But that is beside the point.
I thank the Minister for his willingness to provide me detailed answers to all five of the non-specific questions—that is very welcome—but on the point of principle raised by new clauses 27 and 28, there is a clear difference of opinion. I think it is worth us putting on record, again, our strong feelings about that, so I will push both new clauses to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
When making the case for new clause 2, which sought to ensure that all leases on new flats should include a requirement to establish and operate an RMC with each leaseholder given a share, I stressed that it was one of several ways by which we could lay the groundwork for a future where commonhold is the norm. New clause 29 seeks to press the Government to bring forward legislative options to enact another—namely, mandating that leaseholders in all new blocks of flats should automatically be granted a share of the freehold.
I want to be clear about what such a proposition entails. It is not an alternative to leasehold. If such a measure were brought into force, any leaseholder resident in a new block of flats would own both a lease and a share of the freehold. It would, in effect, ensure that all new blocks of flats were collectively enfranchised by default, without the need for leaseholders in them to go through the process of acquiring their freehold. The advantages of having a default share in the freehold is that it would give the leaseholder a direct say in what happens in their building, as is the case with those that have been collectively enfranchised. It would also provide for additional valuable rights, such as the right to a long lease extension on the basis of a peppercorn rent—or, in other words, the rights that will be accorded to existing leaseholders under clauses 7 and 8 but without the cost of paying a premium to the freeholder that is still required to exercise that modified right.
As we know, having flat owners with a share of freehold can cause tensions—for example, in agreeing how to proceed on crucial decisions such as whether to cover the costs of major works through service charges. That is why it is essential that proper management arrangements are in place as a matter of course, to reduce the likelihood of damaging disputes between neighbours, and why we proposed mandatory RMCs on new blocks of flats as a corollary to the new clause. Much like new clause 2, new clause 29 would also help give leaseholders greater control over their buildings and pave the way for commonhold as the default tenure.
Labour is unequivocal about the fact that commonhold is a preferable tenure to leasehold, in that it gives the benefits of freehold ownership to owners of flats without the burdensome shortcomings of leasehold ownership. As we have heard, the Law Commission made 121 recommendations on commonhold, designed to provide a legal scheme that would enable commonhold to work more flexibly and in all contexts. We share the concern expressed by Professor Nick Hopkins in our evidence sessions:
“With commonhold having failed once, there is a risk of partial implementation”—[Official Report, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2024, c. 39, Q84.]
of those recommendations and “a second false start” that could be “fatal” to the tenure. That is why we have not sought to persuade the Government to incorporate any subset of Law Commission commonhold recommendations into the Bill. We need to reform the legal regime for commonhold in one go, and Labour is committed to doing so if the British people give us the opportunity to serve after the next general election. Given your indication earlier, you are confident of that outcome too, Sir Edward.
We have also expressed a clear preference for commonhold to be the default tenure. That would be a policy decision distinct from the implementation of the Law Commission’s recommendations and would necessarily have to follow the legal scheme those recommendations would introduce. However, there will inevitably be a transitional period after the reformed legal regime for commonhold has been introduced, during which Government would need to consult thoroughly on the practicalities of making commonhold the default tenure for flats. The introduction of a mandatory share of freehold in all new blocks of flats, as proposed by the new clause, alongside the requirement to establish and operate an RMC with each leaseholder given a share, would be a sensible staging post on the path towards a commonhold future by making conversion to commonhold at a later date a far simpler process. We urge the Government to accept the new clause.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his new clause. As he has outlined, in share-of-freehold arrangements leaseholders will own the freehold in larger blocks; they are usually the shareholders of a resident management company from which directors are elected to manage the property. As such, there is no third-party landlord, but instead the leaseholders are themselves joint landlords. We appreciate that there are benefits to share-of-freehold arrangements, and obviously there is the opportunity for people, should they wish, to look at that when making decisions about the properties they live in.
Without seeking to detain the Committee, the reality is that although the new clause is well intentioned and understandable, it would be a significant building out of the Bill; it would be a significant additional framework. Again, it goes back to the point about the size of the Bill and exactly what it is able to do. I realise that we return to that often, and some colleagues in this room will wish us to go as far as we possibly can. That is understandable, but given the scale of the new clause—I realise that the hon. Gentleman probably will push it to a vote as a result of my comments—a pretty large and complicated legal framework would need to be put in place. I am afraid that at the current time it is challenging to have the space to do that, as much as I share the hon. Gentleman’s overall objective of trying to give people greater choice, and as a consequence we will resist the new clause.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the Minister’s response to the extent that he recognised the benefits of share of freehold. I am not surprised that he resists the new clause; there is no doubt that it would be a significant build-out of the Bill, as he put it. We hope that we will see other significant build-outs of the Bill and finally see a ban on new leasehold houses, as the Government have committed to, at some point. Maybe we will even get a couple of hours to debate that—who knows?
We think that this is an important provision that should be incorporated in the Bill for the reasons I have give, but mainly because—perhaps this is a point of disagreement between us and the Government—we think that we must be serious about paving the way for commonhold with the Bill and cannot leave everything to a future Government to enact. As I said, we should take some practical and specific steps to lay the groundwork for that future, which I think we all want to see. As we felt with mandatory RMCs, we feel that these two specific measures would enable us to go some way on that journey. For that reason, I will push the new clause to a vote—it will probably be the final one.
Rachel Maclean
I want to make a brief remark in sympathy with the shadow Minister’s policy objectives. I will not be supporting his new clause, but I have had extensive discussions with the Minister, who knows that I feel strongly that we should have a pathway to commonhold in the future.
Commonhold is a system that works well. Commonhold, or a version of it, works extremely well in almost every other major developed country in the world. We are quite unique in the UK—for some bizarre reason—in having this leasehold system, which is to the great regret of me and the leaseholders who live in such houses and flats. Unfortunately, something like 1.5 million people live in leasehold houses and something like 5 million people overall live in leasehold dwellings. It does not need to be that way.
In 2002, the former Labour Government did try to legislate in this regard, but a number of those measures were not enacted—we are going back into ancient history. Nobody really seems to know why it did not happen, but we now need to seize the opportunity. This Bill has been a long time in gestation; it has benefited from the contributions of many Ministers to get it to this point. I know that the Minister is listening to me, and I think it is important that we do not miss the opportunity, even at this late stage, to introduce some of the commonhold framework measures that the Department has been looking at in great detail. I hope that the Minister has listened, and he and his officials will take that point away.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to go back to the 2002 Act. In fact, I think in a speech on its Second Reading, I said that we would have to return to that Act in six or seven years’ time to amend the deficiencies in it. I am sad to say that here we are, 22 years later, still not having amended those deficiencies, and the Minister’s response, I am afraid, has indicated that we will not amend them again under this Bill. This is urgent, and leaseholders have been waiting for far too long for the remedy that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has proposed. That is why I feel that it is vital that I support his new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 31—Review of the percentage of qualifying tenants required to participate in a claim to acquire the Right to Manage—
“The Secretary of State must before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) review the effect of the participation limit contained in section 79(5) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, with particular consideration given to whether it represents an unjustified barrier to leaseholders exercising their rights under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of that Act, and
(b) report to Parliament, in whatever manner the Secretary of State thinks fit, with proposals for reform.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consider, within two years of the Act coming into force, whether the current requirement that 50% of leaseholders must support an application for the Right to Manage should be lowered.
New clause 33—Proportion of qualifying tenants required for a notice of claim to acquire right to manage—
“Section 79 of the CLRA 2002 is amended, in subsection (5), by leaving out ‘one-half’ and inserting ‘one-third’.”
This new clause would reduce the proportion of qualifying tenants who must be members of a proposed right to manage company for an RTM claim to be made.
Matthew Pennycook
These are the last new clauses that I will speak to on behalf of the Opposition. In our fifth sitting, we considered eligibility for leasehold enfranchisement and extension, including the welcome changes that the Bill makes to the non-residential limit on collective enfranchisement claims. However, increasing access to collective enfranchisement by rendering more leaseholders eligible does not necessarily mean that take-up will significantly increase. That is because there are other barriers to exercising the statutory right to freehold acquisition. Some relate to the complexity of the process, but perhaps the most notable is the requirement under section 13 of the 1993 Act that at least half of qualifying tenants in a building must participate in the claim.
While there is no escaping the need to organise collectively to initiate a claim, in some buildings, particularly large blocks of flats, securing the participation of the minimum numbers of tenants required to take part in the service of the initial notice can be next to impossible, given the number of units that are occupied by tenants renting privately from the leaseholder. We therefore believe that there is a strong case for considering whether the minimum participation rate for collective enfranchisement should be reduced.
Precisely what the revised minimum participation rate might be is a matter for debate. We have not sought to be prescriptive in order to allow the Government the freedom to consider what threshold best strikes the right balance between encouraging enfranchisement and ensuring that there is sufficient participation to sustain the proper ongoing management of the building.
New clause 30 would simply require the Secretary of State to consider, within two years of the Act coming into force, whether the current 50% participation threshold should be lowered. New clause 31 would have the same effect in relation to the right to manage, where, in many ways, the argument for lowering the participation threshold is even stronger, owing to the fact that there is really no need for half of all qualifying tenants to remain involved in an RTM company once it has been established.
Again, determining the revised minimum participation rate is a matter for debate, and we have left that question for another day. If I am right in remembering, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North is proposing, by way of his new clause 33, that that threshold should be a third of qualifying tenants, which strikes us as a reasonable proportion. However, what new clause 31 seeks to secure is the Government’s agreement in principle that the 50% threshold for an RTM acquisition should be reconsidered. These, quite consciously, are probing amendments, but I very much look forward to the Government’s thoughts on the principle of whether that 50% threshold is right, and whether there should be scope in the future to look at it again.
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has introduced his new clause 30. We heard from witnesses the difficulty faced by leaseholders on larger developments in attaining that 50% participation threshold for the right to manage. It can be a more permissive regime than collective enfranchisement, wherein someone else’s property interests are being compulsorily purchased. Right to manage is just regulating the management of the building and ensuring democratic resident control of the managing agent and service charges.
We heard from Philip Rainey KC in the oral evidence, who said, almost 10 years ago, that the right to manage should be a no-fault right and it should not be caveated with the need to solicit half of the entire building. He suggested the 50% threshold should be reduced to 35%. We have heard leaseholders say that this is not enough, because the threshold is even harder to meet nowadays with high levels of buy to let and overseas leaseholder populations, as suggested by Harry Scoffin of Free Leaseholders, when he gave oral evidence to the Committee. This proposal could help leaseholders to bring their service charges under resident control and scrutiny.
That is the position for flat owners almost everywhere else in the world, including north of the border in Scotland. I believe that the Government should support the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. If I were to hear any indication that the Government might be so inclined or that they would introduce a measure that would achieve the same effect, I would happily withdraw new clause 33.
Lee Rowley
After a number of days of often great agreement across the Committee, it is my job, unfortunately, to point out where we cannot agree, so I apologise for doing that again. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has indicated that he is probing the Government with new clauses 30 and 31—at least, I hope he is. We understand the point that he is making, but we are seeking to apply the Law Commission’s recommendation that the participation level should remain at 50%. On that basis, we are not proposing to change that at this time. I do not think it is necessary to create the report, because we have taken a view within this legislation that—
Matthew Pennycook
This may not be the case in the Minister’s constituency, but I have very large blocks of flats in my constituency that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North has just made clear, consist of hundreds of buy-to-let flats and flats owned by overseas investors. Are the Government really content to say that in those cases—in large urban centres, these blocks are springing up all over the place—the barrier to collective enfranchisement and RTM acquisition is higher? Effectively, many of these leaseholders will be locked out of the rights in this Bill purely by the design and ownership arrangements in their building. Surely the Minister must recognise that there is a subset of buildings that will not enjoy the rights that the Bill provides for, and that the Government should look again at what can be done in those circumstances.
Lee Rowley
There is no doubt that there are challenges. There are always challenges with individual buildings, but there is a specific challenge here, which the hon. Gentleman has outlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who is not serving on this Committee, has outlined that to me, and I have had the privilege of talking to a number of her constituents who are impacted by the understandable challenges that the hon. Gentleman raised.
The question is not about the Government being unwilling to look at this in the future or unwilling to discuss this further in relation to the Bill. I know this is a probing amendment, but the narrow sense of the question is: should we be legislating to create reports? I am always reluctant to legislate in that way. I understand why the Opposition would do it and why the other place do it, all too often, in my view, but I am not sure I am keen on this happening, so the Government are keen to resist it on that basis. But on the broad point about whether we would return to this if it was not working, either in this discussion or more broadly, the answer is: of course—that would be a reasonable thing for the Government to do in the future.
I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Brent North about new clause 33, and I know that the measure is potentially in operation elsewhere. I hope that he will agree that, when a minority can make decisions, a whole heap of additional considerations and questions are opened up. At this stage, we remain of the view that the proportion should be 50%, and for those reasons we will oppose the new clause, should it be pressed to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I will end on an optimistic note, because I got enough from the Minister to suggest that he is conscious of the issue and is open to looking at it again, either in the context of the Bill or at a later date. Setting aside the precise drafting of the new clauses, which have allowed us to debate the issues, the Minister recognised that we may need to look at the substantive point again. We may well come back to this at a later stage of the Bill.
Barry Gardiner
Thank you, Sir Edward. It has long been recognised that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is a much more reasonable gentleman than I am. I would be inclined to press the new clause to a vote, but I do not want to try the patience of the Committee. My hon. Friend and I will discuss these matters further and, if the Government do not act, we will see what we might do on Report. I will therefore not press the new clause.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 32
Premises to which leasehold right to manage applies
“Section 72 of the CLRA 2002 is amended in subsection (1)(a), by the addition at the end of the words ‘or of any other building or part of a building which is reasonably capable of being managed independently.’”—(Barry Gardiner.)
This new clause which is an amendment to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 adopts the Law Commission’s Recommendation 5 in its Right to Manage report which would allow leaseholders in mixed-use buildings with shared services or underground car park to exercise the Right to Manage.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Barry Gardiner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am very happy to move the new clause, which would amend the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to adopt recommendation 5 of the Law Commission’s right to manage report. That would allow leaseholders in mixed-use buildings with shared services or an underground car park to exercise the right to manage.
We had some debate on this issue last week. I recall, from the time of the 2002 Act, that flatted developments—especially mixed-use blocks—had not taken off yet in England in the same way as they have over the past 22 years. Given the proliferation of mixed-use buildings, the paradigms of the 2002 Act are therefore now outdated and unfair. Developers have sought to use the Act to secure the exclusion of leaseholders on the basis of shared services. If the Government do not move on the issue of shared services, many of the leaseholders in mixed-used buildings who would otherwise have benefited from the uplift in the non-residential limit from 25% to 50%—which, as I said last week, I welcome—will still not qualify for the right to manage or for enfranchisement.
We heard from the founders of the National Leasehold Campaign and from Free Leaseholders on this point. It was clear from the evidence that the presence of a plant room or underground car park alone can disqualify leaseholders from appointing their own managing agent and controlling the service charges, which they already have to pay but do not have any influence over.
The Law Commission did a great deal of work on the right to manage. It stated:
“We recommend that premises should be eligible for the RTM if they are a building or part which is reasonably capable of being managed independently. This means that if leaseholders cannot demonstrate that their premises are either a self-contained building or self-contained part of a building, the RTM will still be available if the premises are nevertheless a building or part which is reasonably capable of being managed independently. This might be straightforwardly demonstrated where parts of a building are already subject to separate management arrangements.”
That is the Law Commission’s case, and it looked into this with great care. It said:
“We think this will lead to fewer Tribunal cases and where there are still disputes the focus will instead switch to whether the premises can properly be managed autonomously, rather than their physical attributes.”
So I plead the backing of the Law Commission; I plead the common sense of some of the foremost jurors of our age. I am sure that the Minister will take on board their wisdom, if not mine.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent North for moving the new clause. The Government support the aim of the amendment to improve leaseholders’ rights. As he indicates, we are taking forward key recommendations of the Law Commission to do that. The Bill takes forward the most significant measures to increase access to the right to manage and makes it simpler and cheaper for leaseholders to make a claim.
To implement the wider recommendations, the Government need to proceed carefully and undertake further work to ensure that the regime will operate satisfactorily. The Government will keep the remaining recommendations from the Law Commission’s right to manage report under consideration following the implementation of the Bill’s provisions. I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward the amendment, but I hope that because the most significant measures have already been introduced, he may be convinced enough not to push the new clause to a vote.
Barry Gardiner
With that very reasonable response, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 34
Commencement of section 156 of the CLRA 2002
“(1) Section 181 of the CLRA 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after ‘104’ insert ‘, section 156’.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Section 156 comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 is passed.’”—(Barry Gardiner.)
This new clause would bring into force a requirement of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 that service charge contributions be held in designated accounts.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Barry Gardiner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 34 would bring into force the requirement that service charge contributions be held in designated accounts. The new clause seems like a quick win for the Government: it would boost the security of leaseholder funds and would implement a policy that was in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 which, unusually—22 years later—has still not been brought into force.
We have heard from witnesses such as Martin Boyd at the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and Andrew Bulmer at the Property Institute, who have signalled support for such a policy. I understand that the British Property Federation has been actively lobbying for section 156 of the CLRA 2002 to be enacted since at least October 2012, so I hope that the Minister will see the new clause as eminently reasonable and will be prepared to comply.
Lee Rowley
Landlords and managing agents hold significant sums of leaseholder money, and it is right that they should be held to account for ensuring that such money must be managed effectively, as the hon. Member for Brent North indicates. Those who hold service charge moneys must hold them in trust, and the moneys must be deposited at a bank, building society or financial institution that is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. This ensures that those moneys can be used only for their intended purpose and that they are treated separately from the landlord’s other assets. This approach seeks to provide protection.
As the hon. Gentleman indicated, the effect of his new clause would be to commence section 156 of the CLRA 2002. The Government are not convinced that it is necessary. Procedurally, primary legislation is not required. I know that the hon. Gentleman will say, “Well, you’ve had the primary legislation for a significant time, so I’m giving you help to get it through,” but it can be done through secondary legislation, and I am afraid that we would seek to move it back into that domain. There is a perfectly reasonable discussion to be had about whether this provision is enacted, but I do not think that we need this primary challenge in order to continue that debate.
Barry Gardiner
Once bitten, twice shy. We were promised this measure in 2002. I am not convinced that I should accept the same blandishments once again, so I am afraid that I really do want to push this one to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
It was close, Barry.
New Clause 35
Duty to notify purchasers of liability for estate management charges
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to ensure that any purchaser of a property which is subject to estate management charges—
(a) is notified about their liability for estate management charges at the point at which an offer is accepted by the seller on the property; and
(b) is provided with the most recent set of accounts of the property management company.
(2) Regulations under this section—
(a) must be laid within 24 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act,
(b) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(c) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Richard Fuller.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that purchasers of properties subject to estate management charges are notified of those charges.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Richard Fuller
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 35 seeks further to improve the rights of those who will be liable for estate management charges. We know from written and oral evidence that people do not know what they are getting into right at the start of the purchase of a property. My clause asks the Government to make it clear by regulations that purchasers of properties who will get management charges are notified about them. It would ensure that people have access to the latest set of accounts, enabling them not only to understand what charges may be due, but to see what liabilities there were in the past.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for moving new clause 35. I share his concern that purchasers should know about estate management charges; we talked a little about that issue in our sitting this morning.
There is nothing worse than facing a bill that we know nothing about at a time when we can do nothing about it. That is why the Government have been working with the national trading standards estate and letting agency team to develop guidance for property agents on what constitutes material information. The information must be included in property listings to meet the obligations under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Estate management charges are considered material if they will have an impact on a decision to purchase. That should mean that purchasers get information on the expected level of estate management charges when they see the property particulars before they even view the property, let alone make an offer.
In addition to the measures that we discussed this morning, we are seeking to include in the Bill a requirement that freehold estate management information be provided to potential sellers, meaning that conveyancers acting on behalf of those sellers can quickly get the detailed information that they need to provide to potential purchasers. That could include accounts, if the estate manager is a resident-owned company, as well as any previous or future charges. With that reassurance in mind, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing his new clause.
Richard Fuller
I think that that reassurance has been provided. The particular issue is that when people buy these homes, the solicitors are usually appointed by the people selling them. It is important that the Minister thinks carefully about that, and it sounds very much as if he is doing so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 36
Asbestos remediation
“(1) The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 37B, insert—
‘37C Asbestos remediation
(1) This section applies where a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement in respect of any premises is made by tenants of flats contained in the premises and the claim is effective.
(2) The landlord must cause a survey of the premises to be undertaken by an accredited professional to ascertain whether asbestos is, or is liable to be, present in those parts of the premises which the landlord is responsible for maintaining.
(3) Where the survey required by subsection (2) reveals the presence of asbestos, the landlord must, at the landlord’s cost, arrange for its safe removal.
(4) If the removal of asbestos required by subsection (3) is not carried out before the responsibility for maintaining the affected parts transfers to another person under the claim to exercise the right of collective enfranchisement, the landlord is liable for the costs of its removal.’”—(Barry Gardiner.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Barry Gardiner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Minister will be relieved to know that this is genuinely a probing new clause, which I am pleased to move on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). He is not a member of the Committee, but he certainly wishes to raise the issue on Report.
New clause 36 would address the problems relating to enfranchisement when asbestos has been found, or is liable to be found, in the structure of a building. It requires that a survey be done prior to any enfranchisement process, and sets out that the landlord would be responsible for the remediation if asbestos should need to be cleared from the building. I am laying out the new clause before the Committee so that the Minister can set out his thinking about such problems in buildings, in the full knowledge that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham will speak to it on Report.
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Member for Brent North for moving the new clause. I heard the right hon. Member for East Ham make his case clearly on Second Reading, and I asked officials at the Department to go and look at it. I will read this into the record for their benefit and that of the right hon. Gentleman.
The Government recognise the devastating impact that asbestos-related disease has on those who are exposed and on their families, and we are committed to ensuring that the risk of asbestos exposure is properly managed. New clause 36 would either duplicate existing UK law or change the well-established evidence-based policy in this area.
Specifically, proposed new subsection (3) would mostly duplicate the existing duty in regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 for landlords to survey the common areas of their property, where they are responsible for maintenance. It is true that there is no current requirement for the survey to be done by an accredited professional. That is partly because currently only organisations, not individuals, can be accredited to carry out surveys. The Health and Safety Executive is carrying out research to see whether changes to the accreditation of surveyors would be beneficial. That is in response to a recommendation from the recent inquiry into asbestos by the Work and Pensions Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for East Ham.
Proposed new subsection (3) would be a significant departure from current health and safety policy regarding asbestos. It could increase the risk of exposure to asbestos: it could create a situation in which asbestos was removed, irrespective of whether it was in good condition. Evidence shows that any removal of asbestos is difficult and inevitably involves disturbing asbestos fibres and making them airborne. In some cases, asbestos can be removed only if there is significant and highly invasive work to the fabric of the building. For that reason, the HSE’s long-held view is that asbestos that is unlikely to be disturbed or is in good condition gives rise to less risk if it is left in situ and monitored until a suitable opportunity to remove it arises, such as refurbishment or demolition. That part of the new clause goes against HSE policy. Such a policy shift in this case would have significant implications for the legal framework for the management of asbestos across the built environment. Understandably for such a hazardous substance as asbestos, any proposed changes to how it is managed in the UK must be considered carefully.
While I appreciate the points that the hon. Member for Brent North has made on behalf of the right hon. Member for East Ham, I hope that that explains why the Government are not supporting new clause 36. I look forward to comments from them, should we have missed anything. I hope that the hon. Member for Brent North will consider withdrawing the new clause.
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to the Minister for reading that into the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 37
Eligibility for enfranchisement
“(1) The LHRUDA 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3—
(a) in subsection (2)(a), after third ‘building’, insert ‘, or could be separated out by way of the granting of a mandatory leaseback on the non-residential premises to the outgoing freeholder’;
(b) after sub-paragraph (2)(b)(ii), insert ‘or
(iii) are reasonably capable of being managed independently or are already subject to separate management arrangements;’
(3) In section 4(1)(a)(ii), after ‘premises;’, insert ‘nor
(iii) reasonably capable of being separated out by way of the granting of a mandatory leaseback and reasonably capable of being managed independently from the residential premises;’”—(Barry Gardiner.)
This new clause would ensure that leaseholders in mixed-use blocks with shared services with commercial occupiers would qualify to buy their freehold.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Barry Gardiner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 37 would ensure that leaseholders in mixed-use blocks with shared services with commercial occupiers would qualify to buy their freehold. We have covered this ground to a certain extent, and I do not wish to detain the Committee unduly.
I commend the Government for bringing forward the reforms that promised to liberate leaseholders in mixed-use buildings and developments, including the lifting of the 25% non-residential premises limit to 50%. However, with the advent of compulsory leasebacks on commercial space to the departing freeholder, there is now a workable mechanism to split out the commercial units and their management from the ownership and management of residential leasehold homes and the common parts for the other side of the building.
It is imperative to remove any other outdated impediments to freehold purchase faced by leaseholders of flats in mixed-use buildings, if the reforms to enfranchisement are to be successful on the ground. Without moving on shared services and the structural dependency rules that bedevilled the 1993 Act, many leaseholders in mixed-use blocks, who would otherwise stand to benefit from the proposed changes that the Government have put forward, could be instantly disqualified from exercising their enfranchisement rights to gain control of their building and their service charges because of a shared plant room or a car park that connects them to the commercial occupiers and that they had no hand in constructing. That seems unfair, especially given that developers are increasingly building flatted developments in which the flats have shared services with commercial units for matters of efficiency and cost.
Mixed-use schemes are proliferating in our constituencies. The issue of shared services, structural dependency and structural detachment will continue to be a major one for leaseholders seeking self-rule, so long as the Government do not cut the red tape in the 1993 Act and, relatedly, in the 2002 Act in relation to the right to manage. I look forward to the Minister’s considered response.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent North for moving new clause 37. As he says, we have talked about the issue before, including on new clause 33, so I will not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. However, the brevity of my remarks does not in any way seek to diminish the importance of this discussion.
We agree with the overall ambition behind new clause 37; as the hon. Gentleman has graciously accepted, we are seeking to increase the non-residential limit. This is a discussion about whether the improvements that are already in the Bill should go any further. I hope that I have already articulated, in our debates on previous amendments and previous clauses, the reasons why we are not seeking to agree to that at this time. I hope that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Barry Gardiner
We have indeed been over this ground. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 38
Right to manage: procedure following an application to the appropriate tribunal
“(1) The CLRA 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 84, insert—
‘84A Procedure following an application to the appropriate tribunal
(1) Where an application is made to the appropriate tribunal under section 84(3) for a determination that an RTM company was on the relevant date entitled to acquire the right to manage the premises, the Tribunal may, if satisfied that it is reasonable to do so, dispense with—
(a) service of any notice inviting participation;
(b) service of any notice of claim;
(c) any of the requirements in the provisions set out in subsection (2); or
(d) any requirement of any regulations made under this part of this Act.
(2) Subsection (1)(c) applies to the following provisions of this Act—
(a) section 73;
(b) section 74;
(c) section 78;
(d) section 79;
(e) section 80;
(f) section 81.’”—(Barry Gardiner.)
This new clause would provide the appropriate tribunal with the discretion to dispense with certain procedural requirements where it is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. It is designed to deal with cases where a landlord attempts to frustrate an RTM claim by procedural means.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Barry Gardiner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 38 would provide the appropriate tribunal with the discretion to dispense with certain procedural requirements where it is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. It is designed to deal with cases in which a landlord attempts to frustrate a right to manage claim by procedural means.
Let me enlighten the Committee. This morning I received the following email: “Your amendment NC38 to the Bill—right to manage—is the single best thing to happen to the right to manage since it was introduced in 2002. It will put an end to the litigation over detailed procedural objections which has frustrated this important statutory right.” The gentleman went on to say that he believes this “despite me (1) earning a good living from right to management disputes and (2) being chair of the local Tory association.”
The Law Commission report from four years ago highlighted “the tactical, game-playing approach” of some freeholders and how the current law is acting to incentivise unnecessary litigation between the parties. Mark Loveday’s proposal, which I have adopted, seems eminently sensible to provide the tribunal with the discretion to waive a right to manage application of leaseholders where the breaches are deemed to be non-material. That is a necessary guard against vexatious litigation by freeholders to thwart legitimate right to manage bids. Sadly, as a barrister, Mr Loveday has seen all too many cases in which landlords have used irrelevant technicalities in the existing legislation to try to scupper leaseholders trying to exercise their right to manage. I want to put on the record my thanks for Mr Loveday’s defence of leaseholders’ rights in the Settlers Court case and the Canary Gateway case.
I hope the Committee will understand that Mr Loveday gave evidence in writing to this Committee. The new clause draws on his proposals, which are contained within his written submission. Mr Loveday is not just a barrister, but the editor of the standard work, the fifth edition of “Service Charges and Management”. He is not just somebody who has a passing knowledge; he is recognised as an authority in these matters.
For the sake of full disclosure, I should add that the gentleman who wrote to me so effusively about my new clause was in fact Mr Loveday, so it was really about his own amendment.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent North for tabling new clause 38. I understand that he seeks to reduce landlords’ ability to frustrate right to manage claims. We all share his view, and we also do not want leaseholders to fail on minor technicalities, but at the risk of disappointing his Conservative friend, we believe that there are good reasons for the procedural requirements in a right to manage claim. For example, standard requirements provide legal certainty for all parties. I recognise that there is a valid discussion to be had around the issue, but that is the position that the Government come down on. We are concerned about giving a broad, sweeping power in respect of disapplication.
There are also potential unintended consequences. All qualifying leaseholders are entitled to become members of the right to manage company, and no one person can be excluded for any reason. The legislation opens membership to all qualifying leaseholders. The procedural requirement to serve the notice inviting participation informs leaseholders of their rights to join the claim and become directors of the right to manage company. Providing discretion to the tribunal to disapply this could result in some leaseholders failing to receive adequate information about the claim and being denied such an opportunity. I am not saying that that is likely to happen; I am simply taking it to its logical extent. There are other potential areas where it would go. I am not saying that it is likely, but it is possible.
It is accepted that some landlords have sought to defend right to manage claims on the basis of minor, technical flaws in compliance with the procedural requirements. The tribunal, however, generally takes a common-sense, pragmatic approach to errors that are not critical or of primary importance. That should limit the scenarios in which there is a problem. Landlords will also have an added disincentive to raise vexatious disputes, as they will now pay their own litigation costs.
On the basis of both those points, I hope that the hon. Member for Brent North might be willing to withdraw his new clause and convince his new Conservative friend that it is not necessary at this time.
Barry Gardiner
I will press the new clause to a vote and leave it to the Minister to persuade his Conservative friends.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Barry Gardiner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause would set matters for the tribunal to consider when deciding whether to dispense with all or any of the requirements for landlords to consult tenants in relation to any major works. That is something that I am particularly concerned about, because in 2002 I sought to bolster transparency over the nature and costs of major works that leaseholders were paying for, and the troubles that they were experiencing in their blocks. I am also concerned because the freeholder that successfully neutered key provisions on major works is the same Daejan—then Daejan Holdings, part of the Freshwater Group—which over the years has caused absolute misery for many leaseholders in my constituency and in many other right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies. It was one of the landlords whose behaviour saw me begin my campaign against the iniquities of leasehold back in the 1990s.
Since the Daejan v. Benson Supreme Court case of 2013, the factual burden on freeholders has been transferred to leaseholders. It was ruled that the conduct of the landlord is irrelevant, no matter how flagrantly it might have behaved in failing to adhere to the consultation requirements, unless it can be shown that the conduct caused actual prejudice. As a result of that decision, in many first-tier tribunal cases, it is now freeholders who are seeking dispensation from consultation requirements on major works. Hapless leaseholders are left trying to prove prejudice in the face of clear breaches of the legal requirements, and landlords, who of course are much better resourced, are able to game the system accordingly.
In Daejan, Lord Wilson issued a strong dissenting judgment, as did Lord Hope. Both thought, correctly, that what is reasonable should be left to the tribunal. They mentioned transparency and accountability, both ignored by the Supreme Court. In fact, Lord Wilson described the conclusion of the majority as subverting the intention of Parliament. I urge the Government to revisit their position on major works in the Bill and ensure that leaseholders have, at the very least, the same transparency and accountability that they were assured under the 2002 Act, before the Supreme Court interfered in 2013 with Daejan, fettered the tribunal’s discretion in this vital area and accordingly undermined leaseholders’ rights.
Lee Rowley
I am being tempted again to comment on the Supreme Court and the veracity of its decisions, but I will stick to the new clause. As the hon. Gentleman indicated, it seeks to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. We agree that there should be protections for leaseholders when their landlord is seeking to dispense with the requirements to consult on major works. Where a landlord has failed to comply with the statutory requirements, they must apply to the appropriate tribunal to dispense with the requirements to consult. Should they fail to consult and fail in any application for dispensation, the costs that they may pass on to the tenant are limited to a £250 threshold.
We believe that the appropriate tribunal is best placed to consider the circumstances of each application for dispensation. We would not wish to fetter the tribunal’s ability to consider a wide range of matters when deciding whether it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements.
Barry Gardiner
What has happened here is that the whole weight of proof has been shifted by the Court’s decision. It has been shifted precisely against what was the legislative intent, which is why I think it is appropriate that the Minister seeks to reinstate what Parliament originally said it had decided and wanted to be the case, and ensure that the tribunal has the ability to exercise its judgment in that way.
Lee Rowley
Let me ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is willing to allow me to go away and look at this issue without any promises or guarantees. I am not across the level of detail that he obviously is, and I need to be in order to discharge the very legitimate questions that he has asked. If he is prepared to withdraw the new clause, I am happy to write to him, and if there is something that we need to take forward, I would be happy to look at it in future phases of the Bill.
Barry Gardiner
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 40
Meaning of “accountable person” for the purposes of the Building Safety Act 2022
“(1) Section 72 of the Building Safety Act 2022 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After subsection (2)(b), insert—
‘(c) all repairing obligations relating to the relevant common parts which would otherwise be obligations of the estate owner are functions of a manager appointed under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 in relation to the building or any part of the building.’
(3) In subsection (6), in the definition of ‘relevant repairing obligation’, after ‘enactment’, insert
‘or by virtue of an order appointing a manager made under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987’.
(4) Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is amended in accordance with subsection (5).
(5) Omit subsection (2E).”—(Barry Gardiner.)
This new clause would provide for a manager appointed under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to be the “accountable person” for a higher-risk building.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Barry Gardiner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.
New clause 40 would provide for a manager appointed under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to be the accountable person for a higher-risk building. A number of stakeholders raised in the evidence sessions that there is a major problem with the way in which the Building Safety Act 2022 is interacting with the 1987 Act, with the practical effect of depriving leaseholders of redress and the ability to replace a failed or failing freeholder from controlling their homes and service charges.
The accountable person regime of the 2022 Act has critically undermined the section 24 court-appointed manager scheme, which has been a lifeline for leaseholders who cannot afford to buy the freehold or mobilise 50% of their neighbours to participate in an enfranchisement claim but who face a predatory—or very often absentee—freeholder, have high and opaque service charges or suffer block deterioration and badly require independent and professional management. That was the whole point of having the accountable person in the court-appointed manager scheme.
The section 24 regime also gives leaseholders who do not qualify for the right to management the ability to replace freeholder management of their building and moneys by applying to tribunal to consider whether it is just and convenient to install an officer of the court—a section 24 manager—to steward the development with tribunal backing and a special management order that provides them with a bespoke scheme of management and effectively replaces the leases. The section 24 manager essentially steps into the shoes of the landlord. But the Building Safety Act has expressly disallowed a section 24 manager from double-hatting as the accountable person and the principal accountable person through its definition of accountable persons and its amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
That must be an oversight by Government or an unintended consequence of the Building Safety Act, because fettering a section 24 manager in this way will encourage tribunals not to grant new section 24 orders on the basis that while such an order may be just because of freeholder failure, it would not be convenient, since there would now be two squabbling managers for functions under the BSA versus a court appointee installed under the 1987 Act. Even with the reforms to enfranchisement and right to manage in this Bill, many leaseholders will still be unable to meet the qualifying criteria to remove freeholder management. We need to keep that pathway for a court-appointed manager open and accessible to leaseholders seeking relief. With the BSA, Parliament quite rightly sought to give leaseholders new statutory protections. Surely the intention of the BSA was not to take away leaseholders’ existing rights.
At Christmas, a tribunal heard about this issue as part of the long-running litigation at Canary Riverside, an estate in east London where leaseholders have enjoyed court protection via the section 24 scheme since 2016. Regrettably, it determined that section 72 of the Building Safety Act and the amendments made to section 24 by section 110 of the 2022 Act prohibit a section 24 manager from being an appointed person, and a tribunal cannot order a section 24 manager to carry out building safety responsibilities that Parliament has decided should fall outside the section 24 regime and which should be the responsibility of an AP.
The tribunal said,
“We accept that this conclusion is likely to have significant practical consequences”
for the manager. It also said,
“We accept too that there is a risk of disagreement between him and the PAP as to how the cladding-removal works should be progressed.”
The 22 December 2023 tribunal decision in the Canary Riverside case has effectively given the freeholder licence to take back control of leaseholders’ homes and moneys, despite being stripped of management rights by the court in 2016 because of its poor financial transparency and non-existent accountability to leaseholders. It now runs the risk of allowing the freeholder to take up to £20 million in public money from the building safety fund. The same freeholder’s related company, Westminster Management Services, wrongly demanded £1.6 million in insurance commission and fee—a kick-back from the leaseholders, as determined by a tribunal in December 2022.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for outlining that in such detail. I will be brief and to the point. We are reviewing this, and I think that an important point has been raised. In the meantime, we have asked the Building Safety Regulator to review all higher-risk buildings that currently have a section 24 manager in place, with a view to considering whether an application for a special measures order should be made for any of the buildings impacted. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member may withdraw the new clause until we have concluded the review.
Barry Gardiner
I want to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Barry Gardiner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause would implement recommendation 41 of the Law Commission’s report on enfranchisement, that the prohibition on leaseholders of three or more flats in a building being qualifying tenants for the purposes of a collective enfranchisement claim should be abolished. The Law Commission could not be clearer on this issue. It said:
“We remain firmly of the view that this rule–that a leaseholder of three or more flats in a building is not a qualifying tenant in respect of any–is ineffective in excluding investors from collective enfranchisement rights. It is easily avoided by sophisticated investors, and thus only penalises less well-informed leaseholders of multiple units. We do not think that there is any good justification for retaining the exclusion in its current form… Crucially, we think that removing the restriction will provide the opportunity to enfranchise to a number of leaseholders who should benefit from enfranchisement rights, but who currently do not do so. Take the building which we gave as an example in the Consultation Paper: one containing seven flats let on long leases, of which three are owned by the same person. This building is ineligible for collective enfranchisement, as there are only four qualifying tenants (and therefore the two-thirds requirement is not fulfilled). However, it may well be in the interests of the four qualifying tenants to carry out a collective freehold acquisition: indeed, the investor who owns the three other leasehold flats may also wish to participate. It may be asked why, from the point of view of the five owners in the building, it is desirable that they be prevented from acquiring the freehold jointly. In this case, the four owners of their individual flats would still have the largest say in the control of the building following the claim (assuming every owner participated).”
Removing the bar on leaseholders with three or more properties from qualifying for a collective enfranchisement is a Law Commission recommendation. It could be done easily and have the practical effect of ensuring that more leaseholders can acquire the freehold and gain control of their homes and service charges, meeting a key Government goal for this Bill.
I am aware that some freeholders buy up leases in a block using separate special purpose vehicle companies in order to make it harder for leaseholders to hit the 50% participation threshold and thwart enfranchisement bids. Meanwhile, innocent leaseholders who have three flats in their name as part of their retirement plan are instantly disqualified from participating in the freehold purchase. That is unfair, but it could be easily remedied by this amendment or another amendment were it to come from the Government.
Lee Rowley
The Government recognise that the Law Commission did not think that there was a justification for keeping the exclusion in its current form and recommended its removal, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated. However, there might be unexpected consequences if the exclusion is removed, and the Government need to proceed carefully. For example, removal of the restriction may spur investors and speculators to buy up blocks, which may not be in the interests of the remaining leaseholders and take properties out of the market that could otherwise be acquired by owner- occupiers. Investors would be able to buy multiple flats in a building in order to take control of the building following a collective acquisition claim.
Furthermore, the exclusion as it applies currently has the effect of limiting the circumstances that could result in one leasehold owner monopolising the freehold once it has been acquired. Leaseholders of a single flat may find that they escape the control of one freeholder to find that they are now subject to the control of a single owner of multiple flats, creating the same issues.
I recognise that the restriction has the effect of denying some leaseholders the right to collective enfranchisement, and there is no equivalent requirement when claiming the right to manage. However, the nature of the interest being acquired is different and the difference in approach is appropriate. I hope I can assure the hon. Member that the Government understand his concern. I hope he agrees, although I hear he might not, that the current restriction provides a level of protection for leaseholders. I ask him to consider withdrawing his new clause.
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the problem here. I urge him to consider coming back on Report with his own amendment to try to circumvent the other issues that he has rightly raised, which might counterbalance on the other side. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 48
Right to participate in enfranchisement
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to enable qualifying leaseholders to buy a share of the freehold at a development where a collective enfranchisement has already taken place.
(2) Provision made under subsection (1) is to be known as a ‘right to participate’.”—(Barry Gardiner.)
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing those residential leaseholders whose unit qualified for a collective enfranchisement, but whose leaseholders were unable or unwilling to do so at the time, to exercise the right to participate in the enfranchisement upon payment of a proportionate sum.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Barry Gardiner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing those residential leaseholders whose unit qualified for a collective enfranchisement, but whose leaseholders were unable or perhaps unwilling to do so at the time, to exercise the right to participate in the enfranchisement subsequently upon payment of a proportionate sum.
Through its work the Law Commission emphasised the inequity of leaseholders who did not have the money to participate in the freehold purchase or were not even holding a lease on the qualifying flat at the time of the enfranchisement, having no right under the current law to buy a share in the freehold to make their home more saleable and to be part of the decision-making process of those enfranchisement leaseholders with management control.
The Law Commission stated that
“in the Consultation Paper, we proposed that a leaseholder who did not participate in a collective freehold acquisition should, at a later date, be able to purchase a share of the freehold interest held by those who did participate. We maintain our view that the policy has merit. Indeed, a clear majority of consultees were supportive of our provisional proposal.”
Barry Gardiner
We were discussing the right to participate, and I was quoting the Law Commission, which stated that
“in the Consultation Paper, we proposed that a leaseholder who did not participate in a collective freehold acquisition should, at a later date, be able to purchase a share of the freehold interest held by those who did participate. We maintain our view that the policy has merit. Indeed, a clear majority of consultees were supportive of our provisional proposal.”
Additionally, the Law Commission believes that
“the existence of the right to participate”—
attaching to an individual leasehold unit—
“might even encourage leaseholders making a collective freehold acquisition claim to invite others to join in the first place, and might also be a partial solution to the ping-pong problem”,
as the Law Commission describes it; I will not go into detail about that. The Law Commission states that, unlike with the right to manage and the notice inviting participation, leaseholders
“proposing to make a collective enfranchisement claim are not obliged to invite all other leaseholders in the building to participate in the proposed claim, nor even to inform them of their intentions. This means that leaseholders can be excluded from the opportunity to exercise their enfranchisement rights, either inadvertently or deliberately.”
The Law Commission received various suggestions as to how leaseholders could be made aware that a collective freehold acquisition has taken place and therefore that the right to participate is available to them. The new clause seeks to give the Government the flexibility to bring forward—through either regulations or, preferably, their own amendments—some provision to remedy the situation. I look to the Minister for his advice.
Lee Rowley
The principle of a right to participate is sound, and I think we all agree on that across both sides of the Committee. However, as with many of the new clauses, there are practical issues with such a right, and we struggle to see a way that it is addressed through the Bill.
I will not detain the Committee for too long, but currently leaseholders who did not participate in a previous collective acquisition claim have no means to require the previous participants to allow them to join, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. There is an existing route around that for the non-participant leaseholders if they can agree with the participating enfranchised leaseholders to allow them to obtain a share in the ownership of the building through negotiation; however, enabling that through a statutory right is complicated. The Law Commission gave considerable thought to the issues and how they may be resolved, and, although it too agreed with the principle of such a right, it was not able to make a recommendation for the creation of the right to participate without separate and detailed work on the measure. Its report analysing the difficulties that arise is publicly available.
As set out by the Law Commission, a number of highly complex questions need to be resolved, including when and to whom the right should apply; whether to include former landlords in possession of a leaseback; the terms of participation; the premium payable; the cost of the claim; and any remedies available if damages are appropriate. Bluntly, they go to the core of an individual’s rights, so the whole framework for the regime needs to be in place in order to ensure certainty on who has those rights and how they can best be exercised in practice. As a result, while I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause, it is a broad power to set out a regime that is extremely complicated, and the Government are unable to accept it at this time, while accepting the principle and hoping that in the future we can make progress on it.
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the need to do something in this area and accepting that there is a problem here that it would be best to resolve. I simply point out that leasehold reform Bills tend to come infrequently before Parliament, and I urge him to come back at a later stage with his best endeavours to resolve the problem. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 50
Control of boards of estate managers
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for—
(a) every estate manager (see section 39(3)) to be constituted such that a controlling majority on its board is held by an owner or lessor of a managed dwelling (see section 39(5));
(b) the requirement stipulated in paragraph (a) to be in place within two years of the sale or lease of the first managed dwelling.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend primary legislation.”—(Richard Fuller.)
This new clause would provide for the Secretary of State by regulations to oblige every estate management company to have a majority of residents on its board within two years of the sale or let of the first house or flat on the managed estate.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Richard Fuller
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am receiving some interesting guidance from the Government Whip that I should seek to speak at length on the new clause, which is contrary to all his earlier exhortations, which were rather of the flavour that I should shut up entirely. I am not getting any further guidance from the Whip, so I will go at my own pace.
New clause 50 is a suggestion to the Minister. We have discussed the general hope that people subject to estate management charges should have much greater control over their estate management companies. They potentially should have the right to self-manage and it should be much easier for them to change from one estate manager to another. At the moment it can take a considerable time for estate management companies essentially to be set up and/or for them to go through what is essentially a transfer to resident control. I think all members of the Committee know this, but I will just inform them that we have had a number of representations from people who have talked about how long they have had to wait, including someone who said that a family had to wait up to 13 years for the right to manage their own estate management company and endured poor service over that entire period.
As the Minister thinks about his options to bring forward on Report or in further deliberations improvements to the rights of people, the new clause suggests that, by law, within two years of the sale or lease of the first building a majority of the directors of the estate management companies should be residents of their community.
Lee Rowley
This is an interesting new clause that bears a few moments’ consideration, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling it. Obviously, the first challenge is the matter of Henry VIII powers. I will put that aside for the moment, but we have genuine concerns about whether the new clause would get past the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the basis of whether it is proportionate.
Richard Fuller
That was a very helpful and thoughtful response from the Minister, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Ability to change estate management company
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must consider and report to Parliament on the situation of homeowners who have been told that they cannot change their estate management company because they are named on a TP1.
(2) The report required by subsection (1) must include proposals for legislative change to enable such homeowners to change their estate management company where appropriate.”—(Richard Fuller.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Richard Fuller
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Again, this new clause originates from some of the inbound traffic that we have received as we have considered the Bill. I seek clarification from the Minister about the extent of these changes. The Committee was advised by a number of citizens about the status of estate management companies that are written into the deeds or other legal documents that are signed upon purchase. One such citizen wrote:
“Our management company…is named in the TP1, so we have no rights to do this”—
that is, to essentially appoint their own managers.
This is a probing new clause: I just want the Minister to be clear about the impact of the Bill on individuals such as the person whom I just quoted. As a consequence of the Bill’s provisions, will they be able to change their estate management company, or is there some legal trick about the original documents that were signed on purchase that would mean they are not brought into the ambit of those new rights?
Lee Rowley
As my hon. Friend outlined, the new clause would introduce a requirement for the Government to assess the situation of homeowners with estate management companies explicitly named on their deeds within a three-month timeframe.
I am sympathetic to the concerns that my hon. Friend raised. I know that he recognises that this is a complex area and that there are detailed issues to be worked through. As well as being clear about the nature of the problem, there could be issues about defining the scope of estate management functions and what criteria need to be met. The Law Commission carried out a review of the right to manage for flats, but that is not always directly transferable to freehold estates. It will take some time to carry out a review, and we need to engage with people across the sector. Then, the CMA report is coming. None the less, I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns that the comprehensive measures in the Bill do not go far enough, and I acknowledge his desire for the Government to go further. I am listening carefully to his concerns on this matter. On that basis, I hope that he might withdraw his new clause.
Richard Fuller
It is not actually clear that the Minister was addressing new clause 51 as I was expecting; that may be the fault of my hearing. I was seeking clarification about the TP1—transfer of part of registered title—form, which is used by developers when selling a house to explicitly name an estate management company that will be in situ. That may be the norm; I do not know. However, can the Minister clarify, if the way that it is originally set up is not the norm and it is a legal device, whether it has greater legal standing, and whether the rights of people for whom the estate management company is defined in form TP1 will be included in the rights that we are trying to establish with the rest of the Bill? If we introduce changes that increase the right to manage and so on, will they be covered? I may well have missed it, because the Minister is much more knowledgeable about the Bill than I am, even after all our deliberations. However, just to the specific point about the legal forms, will he consider bringing that in as part of this?
Lee Rowley
I want to double-check the valid points made by my hon. Friend. I will commit to writing to him on that specific point to make sure that we are covering in the way that he expects.
Richard Fuller
That is very kind of the Minister. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 1
Redress schemes: financial penalties
“Notice of intent
(1) Before imposing a financial penalty on a person under section (Financial penalties), an enforcement authority must give the person notice of its proposal to do so (a ‘notice of intent’).
(2) The notice of intent must be given before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the first day on which the enforcement authority has sufficient evidence of the conduct to which the financial penalty relates.
(3) But if the person is continuing to engage in the conduct on that day, and the conduct continues beyond the end of that day, the notice of intent may be given—
(a) at any time when the conduct is continuing, or
(b) within the period of 6 months beginning with the last day on which the conduct occurs.
(4) The notice of intent must set out—
(a) the date on which the notice of intent is given,
(b) the amount of the proposed financial penalty,
(c) the reasons for proposing to impose the penalty, and
(d) information about the right to make representations under paragraph 2.
Right to make representations
2 (1) A person who is given a notice of intent may make written representations to the enforcement authority about the proposal to impose a financial penalty.
(2) Any representations must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the day on which the notice of intent was given to the person (‘the period for representations’).
Final notice
3 (1) After the end of the period for representations the enforcement authority must—
(a) decide whether to impose a financial penalty on the person, and
(b) if it decides to do so, decide the amount of the penalty.
(2) If the enforcement authority decides to impose a financial penalty on the person, it must give a notice to the person (a ‘final notice’) imposing that penalty.
(3) The final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the day on which the notice was given.
(4) The final notice must set out—
(a) the date on which the final notice is given,
(b) the amount of the financial penalty,
(c) the reasons for imposing the penalty,
(d) information about how to pay the penalty,
(e) the period for payment of the penalty,
(f) information about rights of appeal, and
(g) the consequences of failure to comply with the notice.
Withdrawal or amendment of notice
4 (1) An enforcement authority that gives a notice of intent or final notice may at any time—
(a) withdraw the notice of intent or final notice, or
(b) reduce an amount specified in the notice of intent or final notice.
(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1) is to be exercised by giving notice in writing to the person to whom the notice was given.
Appeals
5 (1) A person to whom a final notice is given may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against—
(a) the decision to impose the penalty, or
(b) the amount of the penalty.
(2) An appeal under this paragraph must be brought within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the day on which the final notice is given to the person.
(3) If a person appeals under this paragraph, the final notice is suspended until the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned.
(4) An appeal under this paragraph—
(a) is to be a re-hearing of the enforcement authority’s decision, but
(b) may be determined having regard to matters of which the enforcement authority was unaware.
(5) On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal may quash, confirm or vary the final notice.
(6) The final notice may not be varied under sub-paragraph (5) so as to impose a financial penalty of more than the enforcement authority could have imposed.
Recovery of financial penalty
6 (1) This paragraph applies if a person fails to pay the whole or any part of a financial penalty which, in accordance with this Schedule, the person is liable to pay.
(2) The enforcement authority which imposed the financial penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of the county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
Proceeds of financial penalties
(1) Where an enforcement authority imposes a financial penalty under section (Financial penalties), it may apply the proceeds towards meeting the costs and expenses (whether administrative or legal) incurred in, or associated with, carrying out any of its functions under this Part of this Act.
(2) Any proceeds of a financial penalty imposed under section (Financial penalties) by an enforcement authority other than the Secretary of State which are not applied in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) must be paid to the Secretary of State.”—(Lee Rowley.)
This new Schedule, to be inserted after Schedule 8, would make further provision about the imposition of financial penalties under NC19.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Title
Lee Rowley
I beg to move amendment 28, in title, line 5, leave out “charges and costs payable by residential”
and insert
“the relationship between residential landlords and”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments to Part 3.
This is a consequential amendment to remove the reference to part 3 in the long title of the Bill. It ensures that it provides an accurate description of the Bill’s contents to reflect the impact of the measures the Committee has brought forward. That includes the amendments to enable the first-tier tribunal to vary or discharge an order to appoint a manager of a premises without an application.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Matthew Pennycook
On a point of order, Sir Edward, may I take the opportunity to put on record our sincere thanks to you and your colleagues in the Chair for overseeing our proceedings over recent weeks; our hard-working Clerks for their assistance; the Doorkeepers and Hansard reporters for facilitating the Committee’s work; and officials in the Department and our own staff for their support? I also briefly thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the Committee’s deliberations and debates. It is not entirely unexpected, given the uncontentious nature of the Bill; nevertheless, we very much appreciate the generally constructive and good-humoured nature of our proceedings.
Finally, I thank the Minister for his thoughtful engagement with the arguments the Opposition have made in an attempt to improve this limited Bill. He has dutifully held the line in attempting to justify the decision to resist a large number of sensible and reasonable amendments. Nevertheless, I suspect we can look forward to seeing a number of them return with the Government’s seal of approval in the Bill’s remaining stages.
Lee Rowley
Further to that point of order, Sir Edward, I wish to put on record my thanks. I echo the thanks of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to everybody who has been involved in the Bill, and I thank him and all colleagues here who have helped us get through this. I am grateful for colleagues’ time and also—even though I may not be in order in making this acknowledgment—I thank those in the Gallery who have taken the time to come here and listen. I am grateful to everyone for getting the Bill through this stage and I look forward to seeing everyone on Report.
The Chair
I thank both of you for those gracious words. The Opposition spokesperson warned me at the beginning that the Bill was as dry as dust. It is certainly very complicated and you have all done extremely well in a very complex part of the law. We should all be proud of ourselves. Order.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Westminster Hall
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Victims of Road Traffic Offences: Criminal Justice System
(9 months, 3 weeks 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
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
Before I call the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) to move the motion, can I ask for the co-operation of all Members taking part in this debate in ensuring that they abide by the House’s sub judice resolution? That means that there must be no reference in debate to cases that are active in the UK courts, including inquests and any cases that have not reached the sentencing stage. I ask Members to take all reasonable steps to assure themselves before mentioning specific incidents that there are no active court proceedings at this time, and to avoid saying anything that appears to prejudge the outcome of a future case. I will intervene if it appears that a case being discussed is indeed active.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered victims of road traffic offences and the criminal justice system.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Nokes.
I am speaking not just as a representative of my North Devon constituency, but primarily as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cycling and walking. I am also here as a voice for the countless people across our country whose lives have been or could be tragically impacted by road crashes. I am careful to use the word “crashes” or “collisions” rather than “accidents” because RoadPeace, the charity supporting those who are bereaved or seriously injured after road traffic collisions, highlights that accidents are seen as “just one of those things”. In many cases, as we will hear today, there are a series of actions leading up to avoidable tragedies.
This debate has been secured following the APPG’s report on “Road Justice”, published late last year, which is a profound testament to the urgent need for reform. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is a matter not just of policy, but of life and death. This inquiry was a follow-up to the first in 2017, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who is now the Justice Secretary, held my position on the APPG. I spoke to him yesterday evening, and he is taking a keen interest in today’s debate; he will be facilitating a meeting for me with the relevant Minister following it.
The Government’s vision, as articulated in “Gear Change”, is ambitious and commendable. It is to see half of all journeys in towns and cities made accessible by walking or cycling by 2030. However, this vision is currently jeopardised by a prevailing climate of fear among vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. It also does not consider the complexities of active travel on rural roads, the encouragement of which requires a vastly different approach compared to the encouragement of active travel in more urban environments. The Department for Transport has made fantastic efforts to include rurality in its funding, but I ask that it extends rural thinking across the whole portfolio, so we can have a joined-up approach to road safety.
As many of us will know from the volume of correspondence from constituents, road safety is an issue that affects pretty much all of us, and pedestrians and cyclists are most at risk. To tackle road safety and improve the experience in the justice system, everybody needs to work together, and that includes Government Departments. Many of the responsibilities in this area fall between the Department for Transport, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and I am sure that collaboration can be improved.
The inquiry conducted by the APPG included 10 recommendations categorised into two groups: group A, requiring ambitious reform; and group B, rapid and more uncontroversial proposals that could be implemented quickly. They would all require support from the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Transport and the Home Office.
The first recommendation in group A—aiming for ambitious reforms—is that the Government introduce escalating penalties for repeat road traffic offences. Analysis of police data from 2014 to 2017 has revealed that 47% of those convicted for driving while disqualified had at least one previous conviction for the offence. However, there is not currently a means for penalties to increase in steps. Instead, the magistrate or judge is limited to the same maximum penalty that applies to a first offence. I raised this point in the Chamber with the Minister for prisons, parole and probation—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar)—last year, and asked about his Department’s plans to escalate traffic offences, especially as repeat offenders are given the same penalty as a first-time offender. This would be an important step towards making road justice a reality for those walking, wheeling and cycling.
The APPG also asked for compulsory retesting of offenders. Any driver who has been disqualified should be required to undergo retesting. This currently happens only for the most serious of offences, such as causing death by dangerous driving. This is not punitive, but a necessary measure to ensure that drivers possess the skills and awareness needed for safe driving. The report proposed increasing the maximum sentence for dangerous driving to four years, reflecting the severity of such offences and their potential for causing harm. We need to deter and tackle dangerous drivers before they kill, so dangerous driving needs to be treated more seriously.
The concept of exceptional hardship in the totting-up process for driving disqualifications must also be revisited. We advocate a stricter interpretation to ensure that it is not misused as a loophole. Approximately 23% of those who amass 12 penalty points successfully argue against disqualification on the grounds of exceptional hardship. We should prioritise the hardship felt by families and victims of road crashes rather than prioritising the convenience of offenders.
The second part of the report calls for
“thorough investigation of serious collisions”.
Standardised best practice-based guidelines for investigating serious road traffic collisions must be adopted across all police forces. This uniformity will ensure justice and proper accountability. There is also a need to implement a standardisation system for third-party reporting of traffic incidents via dashcams. Currently, this can be a postcode lottery, and the change would facilitate a more consistent and efficient handling of such reports.
The report recommends establishing a UK commissioner for road danger reduction. The role would involve measuring road danger, setting reduction targets and ensuring effective collaboration among various stakeholders. This campaign is championed by crash victim Sarah Hope, who I know hoped to be in the Public Gallery today. We need to recognise that crash victims should be treated as victims of crime, barring clear evidence to the contrary. This recognition is vital in addressing their trauma and loss.
As we look at extending understanding of the highway code, we need a better communication campaign to enhance that understanding and compliance with the revised highway code, which would also contribute significantly to improving road safety.
In addition to the report, I feel it important to mention some of the additional issues that road safety campaigners have highlighted to us. One is the lengthy delay in the publishing of various calls for evidence by the Department for Transport, and the delay in publishing its road safety strategy. The call for evidence for the Department for Transport’s roads policing review began on 13 July 2020, with recommendations due in spring 2021. To date, no update has been published. In May 2014, the coalition Government at the time committed to undertake a full review of offences and penalties. Although this is no longer the same Government, for 10 years various Ministers in both the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice have promised that this is coming in “due course”. I hope that today the Minister will be able to provide a significant update on that timeline.
The Department for Transport has said that it intends to publish a new road safety strategy. There is currently a document in place for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not England. It is essential that we know when such an important document will be published and put into practice. I again ask the Minister whether he can give any indication of a timeframe for the publication of that road safety strategy.
Unfortunately, most Members will have seen awful cases of road violence in their constituencies and struggle to understand the reasoning behind the charge and sentencing. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), asked me to represent the case of Harry Webb on behalf of Harry’s parents in Powys. Harry was cycling in Hackney when he was killed by a driver. Harry was killed in a 20 mph limit area; if the driver had been driving at the speed limit, Harry would probably have got away with broken limbs at worst. However, that was not the case and if someone is charged—and there is no indication that they have been—it is regrettable that the case will not come to court until 2025. If someone is charged and found guilty, a criminally reckless driver will have been allowed behind the wheel until then. Harry’s parents have emphasised that perpetrators of road violence who have caused death or life-changing injuries often receive shockingly low sentences; their case is not the only one.
Not far from North Devon, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) has worked for some time on an upsetting case from his constituency—one in which the Saltern family were deprived of a much-loved son, and a wife was robbed of a life together with him. The family have since campaigned for a change in the law—Ryan’s law—to try to widen the definition of death by dangerous driving. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall was unable to attend today’s debate as he is in a Bill Committee, but I know that he, too, has met Ministers to discuss whether it is possible to introduce a new offence or new sentencing guidelines relating to failing to stop. In my constituency of North Devon, 451 residents have signed the Ryan’s law petition calling for the Government to widen the definition of death by dangerous driving to include:
“failure to stop, call 999 and render aid on scene until further help arrives.”
The distinction between careless and dangerous driving is blurred, leading to inconsistency in charging and prosecution. In my local policing area of Devon and Cornwall, the ratio of careless driving prosecutions to dangerous driving prosecutions is 21:1. Across England, the ratio differs greatly between 1.8:1 in Cleveland and 41:1 in Essex. That inconsistency cannot be attributed solely to variations in local driving behaviours or to different environments; it points to a systemic issue in our enforcement and understanding of these offences.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this important debate. Sentences do not reflect the impact and nature of the crime in all circumstances. Family and friends should be able to have faith in the criminal justice system. Does the hon. Member agree that family and friends should be able to have faith that the punishment will fit the crime and that justice will be done?
Selaine Saxby
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and highly recommend that she digest a copy of the “Road Justice” report, which covers that point. I entirely agree that there is a real need to ensure that families feel that confidence.
I want to highlight an important campaign, by RoadPeace West Midlands and Action Vision Zero, on the inadequacy of the law around hit-and-run collisions. Also unable to join us today is my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who wanted to highlight the work of local councillor Lucy Harrison, who unfortunately lost her brother in a road crash and is running the Remain and Report campaign with RoadPeace.
The rise in hit-and-run collisions, particularly involving pedestrians and cyclists, is alarming. The current laws, which allow up to 24 hours to report a collision, might be appropriate for a supermarket prang, but are woefully inadequate for serious or fatal collisions, especially as offenders potentially wait for alcohol or drugs to leave their system. The existing summary charge of “fail to stop”, which carries a maximum custodial sentence of six months, currently applies to all collision severities, including damage only; it is not appropriate for serious collisions. Two new criminal charges—failing to remain at the scene of a fatal collision and failing to remain at the scene of a serious injury collision—should be considered.
I want to draw attention to the Vision Zero South West scheme. Vision Zero’s ambition is to cut road deaths and serious injuries to zero by 2040 and to reduce current numbers by 50% by 2030. In 2022, however, there were 47 fatal injuries and 743 serious injuries in Devon and Cornwall, according to the road casualties summary. That number must come down. Although it is one of the safest regions when it comes to road safety, any death or serious injury is one too many.
Throughout the evidence gathering for the report, it became clear to me that the system has an issue with driving disqualifications. It is important to state and remind us all that driving is a privilege and not a right. When done correctly, driving can be an enormous tool for good, but we should remember that it is a dangerous activity—dangerous enough to need to be licensed.
Another flaw in the system that needs to be looked at is the fact that killer drivers can continue to drive while they await trial; sometimes that can be years, because of the delays in the courts. RoadPeace advocates for immediate licence suspensions for offenders. Of course we need to ensure that people are innocent until proven guilty but, as I have mentioned, driving is a privilege. A fork-lift truck operator involved in a fatal accident in the workplace would not be invited to carry on operating that machinery while they were under investigation. This change would not require new legislation, as guidance could encourage bail conditions to more regularly include restrictions on driving after being charged.
Finally, on the subject of disqualification, if a person kills someone through careless or dangerous driving, why should they ever be able to drive again? The mandatory driving ban for causing death by dangerous driving is five years. Why is it not a lifetime disqualification? Again, lifetime bans would not necessarily require new legislation. They happen now, although are exceptionally rare; guidance could change that.
The APPG’s recommendations are essential calls to action. We must act decisively and without further delay to reform our road justice system, protect the vulnerable and ensure that our streets are safe for all. We must foster an environment wherein every road user, regardless of their mode of transport, feels safe and is protected by a just and effective legal system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
As you can all see, many Members wish to contribute. I will not impose a formal time limit yet, but I ask Members to consider limiting their comments to five minutes or so.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I thank my co-chair of the APPG for cycling and walking, the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who gave a tremendous speech outlining the content of the “Road Justice” report that the group published in September 2023. I will add a little to what she said, but she was pretty comprehensive, and I am grateful to her. I took over from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) as co-chair late last year; I thank her for her years of dedication and the huge contribution she made to the APPG in the years that she chaired it with the hon. Member for North Devon.
On 21 December 2017, just over six years ago, I secured an Adjournment debate in the Commons Chamber on the case of my constituent Ian Winterburn, a cyclist who was killed at the junction of Whitkirk Lane and the A6120 ring road in Leeds on the morning of 12 December 2016. He was wearing a cyclist’s high-visibility jacket and his helmet, and his lights were on. In spite of that, a car turning right in front of Ian drove straight into him, the driver claiming that she did not see him on the road. He died in a coma 10 days later as a result of his injuries. On 4 October 2017, the driver of the Skoda that killed Mr Winterburn was convicted by Leeds magistrates court of causing death by careless driving. She was handed down a four-month prison sentence suspended for two years, a £200 fine, 200 hours of community service and a two-year driving ban—not even the five-year ban that is now mandatory. As I described to the House at the time, the way in which the West Yorkshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service dealt with the case and treated the family was utterly appalling, as was the family’s treatment by the court service and the coroner. I detailed the case then, so I will not repeat what I said, but I sincerely hope that the treatment of victims of cycling fatalities and their families has improved over the past seven years.
In summer 2022, I received a distressing email from the daughter of a constituent who had been killed by a taxi driver on his way to work, early in the morning. My constituent was an experienced cyclist who had been travelling by bike regularly for over 40 years. He was hit and killed instantly by a car that had seemingly gone through a red light at a junction. As the case is still sub judice, I cannot give further details except to express my anger and that of the family that West Yorkshire police told the victim’s wife and daughter that the case could take up to two years to bring evidence or a prosecution for what appeared to them to be a clear-cut case. The anguish that they suffered and still suffer is unimaginable. It truly is a case of justice delayed, as the saying goes, being justice denied.
In 2023, as the hon. Member for North Devon said, the APPG for cycling and walking launched an inquiry into road justice that reported in September and made 10 recommendations. I will briefly repeat them at the end of my speech. However, a few years ago, while on my routine ride from Parliament to King’s Cross station on my way back to Leeds, I was stopping at the traffic lights at the junction of Holborn and Kingsway, a notoriously dangerous area for cyclists, when another cyclist cut across my path, causing me to brake so sharply that I fell off my bike on to a stationary taxi. The other cyclist, realising what he had done, stopped and returned to help me—the lights were red and the traffic was at a halt. At the same time, however, the cab driver wound down his window and started shouting abuse at me—while I was lying injured on the ground—for possibly damaging his vehicle. The other cyclist made it plain that the accident was his fault, not mine, but the cab driver would not have it and demanded that I pay for the damage to his taxi cab. When he finally got out of the cab he realised, after inspecting it, that no damage had been done, but instead of helping me up off the road, he simply told both of us that we were a menace to all cars on the road and should not be allowed to cycle on any main road. Thankfully, cycling infrastructure in London has improved so much since then that I do not have to use the Aldwych/Kingsway route any more, which is a big relief. I am sure there have been far fewer casualties at that junction since London’s cycle routes were created, but the same cannot be said for the rest of the country.
It is my experience as a cyclist, and I am sure that of many other Members, that drivers—most of us are drivers too—do not recognise the right of cyclists to be on the road with them. As the hon. Member for North Devon said, they do not want to share the road with road users who are not in motorised vehicles. Driving a motorised vehicle is a privilege, as it is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands if not used properly. We cyclists have every right to use the road and should not be treated with the contempt that most motorists show us. How many of us have suffered abuse from people winding down the windows as they overtake us because we are slowing them down to tell us that we should pay tax as a cyclist—which we do anyway—or should not be on the road at all? Sometimes, in rare cases, they take action they think is appropriate and try to run us off the road. Many of us have experienced that horror.
Justice for cyclists involved in these collisions is really important, especially when a motor vehicle is involved. We want the points we made in our report to be implemented as quickly as possible to help more people cycle on roads, walk and get involved in active travel.
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
I repeat my request for Members not to sail too close to the wind when it comes to the sub judice regulations.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this important debate on victims of road traffic offences and the criminal justice system. According to Brake, someone is killed or seriously injured on UK roads every 16 minutes or so. Although my hon. Friend focused on the work and recommendations of the APPG for cycling and walking, which she and others work hard to passionately support, we all recognise that victims of road traffic offences extend beyond that group. They include pedestrians, passers-by and other vehicle users right across the country. I therefore believe that the improvements that should be made in line with the report’s recommendations have the potential to have a much broader impact.
Like other right hon. Member and hon. Members, I have had tragic incidents of road violence in my constituency, and constituents who have been victims of road traffic offences outside the constituency. That is one of the reasons I am here today. Sadly, the victim’s family is too often left seeking the justice that has not been provided and campaigning to improve the system.
My constituent Lola Chapman’s beloved brother, Harry, was tragically killed by a speeding drink-driver on Aldridge Road. She is campaigning determinedly for changes to improve road safety, and has launched a petition seeking measures to reduce driver speed.
In a tragic case in 2021, an uninsured car mounted the pavement in Brownhills in broad daylight, killing an 18-day-old baby in his pram; the community was left in shock and the family was absolutely devastated. Some 18 months later, following a successful campaign, the Court of Appeal increased the driver’s sentence, but why must victims and families go through that?
Many other victims join support groups such as RoadPeace West Midlands, which my hon. Friend mentioned. It is an incredible volunteer group that provides support to others to raise awareness of the impact of road death and campaign for change. Whether it is Aldridge Road, Brownhills High Street, Pelsall Lane, Bosty Lane or other areas of my constituency, I come back to the fact that behind every number is a victim, a family and loved ones. That is why we must continue to improve the system. Sentencing should be tough, and crash victims should be treated as victims of crime. There is so much that the APPG seeks to change. We should create a UK commissioner for road danger reduction and revise the 2020 guidance and the totting-up disqualification. However, I believe that education and awareness matter too in ensuring that there is increasing knowledge of the highway code and driver awareness— I will touch on that briefly, because I am conscious of the time and the fact that many others want to contribute. Last week was Neighbourhood Policing Week, as I am sure you will be aware, Ms Nokes. I was fortunate to spend Saturday afternoon out with my excellent local Brownhills team, which conducted a speed awareness operation encouraging better driver behaviour to comply with speed limits as an important part of the work going ahead. There is so much to do. The issue and the work continue, and I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say to update us on actions and the timeline.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I first thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this important and timely debate. I also pay tribute to Better Streets for Birmingham, which campaigns tirelessly in my community to improve the safety of our roads.
Road traffic collisions, certainly fatal ones, are some of the most tragic incidents that we see across the UK, especially as many of them are preventable. In reported road collisions in the year ending June 2023, there were more than 1,500 fatalities and more than 130,000 casualties in Britain. In 2022 in my constituency, there were 338 road collisions, with casualties rising by more than 100 since 2021. On 29 May last year, a four-year-old boy was tragically killed after being hit by a car in my constituency. Two days before, on 27 May, a 13-year-old girl was reported to be fighting for her life after she was struck by a hit-and-run driver. Just 15 minutes’ drive away, on 31 May a cyclist was killed in a hit and run. In the space of five days, three families in my constituency had their world turned upside down.
In October last year, I backed Birmingham City Council’s campaign to reduce the speed limit on one of the roads in my constituency from 40 mph to 30 mph, and the council is doing some important work throughout this year to make our streets safer, such as average speed enforcement, giving priority to pedestrians and refreshing its road harm reduction strategy. However, we can and should do more. There have already been two serious incidents on Birmingham Road this year. One of the biggest barriers to active travel as a replacement for driving is safety, and in the three weeks when the three cyclists were killed on Birmingham Road in June last year, the impact was felt right across our city.
It is also vital that people feel safe and secure when walking at night, so we must tackle the issues of crime and antisocial behaviour, which are soaring under this Government. We need to rebuild neighbourhood policing to increase the number of police and police community support officers in community teams so that people can be confident that someone will always be there to help them to remain safe. Government, both local and national, must do what they can to improve routes and roads so that people can feel safe walking and cycling, instead of driving. They must also ensure that penalties for breaking the law when driving are strong deterrents. Failure to stop after an accident and give details and failure to report an accident are an offence, which carries a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or six months’ imprisonment.
It is clear that we are not doing enough to prevent that kind of driving. A maximum of six months in prison for a hit and run is absolutely not enough, and clearly it does not deter as it should. Sentencing outcomes for summary motoring offences generally have not changed over the past 10 years, and most offenders each year are only fined. For some offences, a fine is adequate; for others, it is absolutely not—I am sure that those families in my constituency would say the same. We should feel safe walking to school, cycling to work and strolling to the shops, but the reality is that in my city, between 2019 and 2021, more than 200 collisions were caused by careless and reckless driving. More than 120 were caused by drivers speeding; more than 100 were caused by aggressive driving; more than 70 were caused by drivers impaired by alcohol. Currently, deterrents are not working. We need to see a dedicated road safety strategy from the Government, with a plan to fund active travel, deter dangerous drivers, and make our streets safer for everyone. We can do more to ensure we all feel a little safer on our streets—and we should.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate, which is of great importance to my North West Norfolk constituents and to Members across the House. I want to focus particularly on the sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. In the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, Parliament legislated to increase the maximum sentence for this crime from 14 years to life imprisonment, which we did to reflect the devastation that such crimes inflict. The sentencing guidelines issued for that change have a range for the category A offence—the most serious offence —from eight to 18 years.
Are those guidelines effective, and are judges following them? In the case of my constituent, Summer Mace, I do not think so. I confirm that it is not an active case. Three members of Summer’s family—her mother, sister and stepfather—were killed by a dangerous driver. Having had an Adjournment debate on this case, I return to it to highlight the devastating impact on Summer, her family and her friends, and the inadequate sentence imposed. The judge rightly classed this as a category A offence, owing to a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving. There were six aggravating factors in the case: three people were killed; greatly excessive speed was used; the driver knew he was deprived of sufficient sleep; he had consumed drugs above the legal limit; he had previous convictions for motoring offences; and he was on police bail for a driving offence at the time, breaking the curfew to commit the crime. The only mitigating factor was a letter he sent to the court—not even to the family.
It is unacceptable that after a guilty plea was taken into account, he was sentenced to only 10 and a half years for three separate counts of causing death by dangerous driving. He could be out in seven years. The question that the family and I want to ask is what is required for a large sentence to be imposed? Those sentencing guidelines took effect in June last year. When more data is available, I hope the Minister and the Lord Chancellor will consider very carefully the impact on sentencing that those guidelines have had, and whether judges are actually imposing the sentences that this House and the House of Lords legislated for. I hope that the Lord Chancellor uses his power to formally request that the sentencing guidelines are reviewed.
The other point I want to raise is around disqualification, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. In my constituent’s case, a ban for a period of only eight years was considered appropriate, extended to 15 years to take account of the time the offender will be in prison. Again, that strikes me as far too lenient. Courts can impose lifetime bans, and RoadPeace is campaigning for them to be applied. The House of Commons Library reports that disqualification for life only happened in four cases in the year ending June 2023, out of more than 116,000 who were disqualified. The Government should consider whether it should become a mandatory element in some cases because, as my hon. Friend said, driving is a privilege and not a right. The Sentencing Council will shortly consult on new overarching guidelines for driving disqualification, and I encourage everyone with an interest in this topic to respond to that consultation.
I end by noting the frequency of driving offence cases. I was struck by the statistics that, in the case of driving under the influence of drink or drugs, 79% of cases result in a fine, with only 1% resulting in a custodial sentence, and 99% of people disqualified for a year to less than two years for that offence. Does that reflect the seriousness of the crime? Does it create a deterrent effect? I do not think so. We need to apply a robust approach, including prison sentences and lengthy bans, to send a message that these are serious crimes with serious consequences.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms Nokes. I too would like to congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing the debate and opening it powerfully. I would like to raise a specific case I have been working on for some time. In August 2017, 22-month-old Pearl Melody Black from Merthyr Tydfil was tragically killed while walking with her father and brother. Pearl was killed when an occupied vehicle rolled from a private drive in Merthyr Tydfil on to the highway, down a hill, crashing into a wall that subsequently crushed her and injured her father and brother.
In the months after the incident, officers from the serious collision unit of South Wales police worked tirelessly to put a case together to provide justice for the family. In short, all tests concluded that the car was mechanically sound, and that it had rolled because the handbrake was not fully engaged, and the automatic transmission was not fully placed into park mode.
The case was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service locally and in London, and an independent QC was hired by the CPS to consult. Everyone was hopeful of a conviction under the death by dangerous driving category. The CPS looked into other possible options. After a number of months, however, it stated that it was unable to send the case to court, as a glitch in the law states that the vehicle must have started its journey on a public road for a prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Even though Pearl was killed on a public road, the fact that the vehicle started its descent from a private drive meant that the prosecution was not possible. The coroner stated that the vehicle was well maintained. It seemed the issue was very much driver operation. The inquest heard that the handbrake had not been fully applied in the park mode. The inquest in October 2018 resulted in an outcome of accident.
With the support of South Wales police and the CPS, Pearl’s parents seek a change in the law to prevent other families from finding themselves in a similar situation, unable to secure justice due to a legal loophole, following such a tragic and completely preventable incident. As Gemma and Paul acknowledge, it will not help to bring justice for Pearl, as legislation is not retrospective, but if the law can be changed to prevent anyone else from suffering such injustice again, that might provide some comfort.
I have had meetings with Government Ministers in the past few years. Although they were helpful and sympathetic, there has been no major transport Bill to provide a way of introducing this change. I pursued a ten-minute rule Bill, but it failed as it ran out of time. I am hoping that an amendment to another related Bill may be a way forward, in the absence of a wider overhaul of the road traffic offences legal framework.
There are a huge number of incidences where private land adjoining public land is regularly used, and is potentially dangerous, including residential driveways, as I mentioned, as well as verges and land for schools and nurseries, to mention some of the most common. When we consider those examples, we can see that driving on that specific category of land can present a high risk to people in everyday situations, especially children, the elderly and the more vulnerable among us.
Many hon. Members would agree that nobody who has suffered the loss of a loved one, or who has had an accident or been injured as a result of a driving offence, should have to endure the injustice of seeing those responsible go free, simply because of a loophole in the law. Prosecutions for driving offences, and any illegal action, should be based on what happened, not where something happened.
The campaign to amend, update and overhaul current legislation would give people such as Gemma and Paul Black, as well as many others, the peace of mind that there are consequences for dangerous driving, no matter where it occurs. It would send a powerful message to help prevent such needless and avoidable tragedies happening in future. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon and wish her success. I congratulate her and the all-party parliamentary group on their work. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on introducing such an important debate, on an issue many colleagues are concerned about.
Urban speeding in Wolverhampton is, to my mind, getting worse. That could be just my personal experience driving round local roads, but I am regularly overtaken by other drivers on residential roads with a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. I have taken taxi journeys from the station to my home, but I cannot remember an occasion when I did not have to say to the driver that it was a 30 mph zone.
I strongly feel that we need to do more than intervene to prevent urban speeding only when there is a fatality. In many cases, people will slow down only if they fear they may be caught and fined. StreetWatch teams have been going out with speed guns, and I have urged West Midlands police to look at having more mobile speed cameras in vans. We need measures that create the perception that drivers may be caught and fined, because that can reduce urban speeding. Taxi drivers have trackers in their cars, and licensing committees could clearly be doing spot checks on taxi drivers to ensure that their journey time correlates with the speed limit. All those measures could help reduce urban speeding, which is a huge issue.
Moving on to serious accidents, City of Wolverhampton Council will look at traffic calming and speed reduction measures only where there has been a serious injury or fatality. Because time is brief, I will focus my remarks on one tragic case we had in Wolverhampton. In 2018, Mandy Gayle’s father, Hopton Gayle, was run over and killed on the Stafford Road, which is one of the main arterial routes into Wolverhampton. It has a 40 mph limit, but it is estimated that the man who hit Hopton was travelling at well over 60 mph. He had slowed down to avoid getting caught by a traffic camera, and he was speeding up again when he hit Mandy’s father and killed him. The case is made more horrific by several factors, including the fact that the driver only stopped to push the bonnet of his car back down before driving away, leaving Hopton Gale lying on the Stafford Road.
Mandy lives on that road, and when she left her home, she saw her father under a blanket on the road. These accidents have effects. Mandy has now moved house, and she is campaigning with RoadPeace West Midlands. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, because what happened to Mandy’s father is a case study in the report from the APPG for cycling and walking. In the report, Mandy comments that she does not go a day without thinking of her father, and the consequence for her is a lifelong sentence. The driver, who left the scene, did hand himself in many hours later, and he was sentenced to three years and nine months and banned from driving for only four years. When someone has driven so recklessly and killed a much loved great-grandfather, that does not seem a sufficient sentence.
Most constituents send us to this place to try to pass laws and to ensure that common sense shines through when people receive sentences. When life goes wrong, constituents want our support and they want justice for their families and loved ones. The work of RoadPeace and its “Remain & Report” campaign are therefore important, and I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments on making leaving the scene of an accident a significant factor in the length of sentences—sorry, collisions, not accidents; I will remember to use the new terminology. For the sake of all our constituents, we need to reduce urban speeding, and it would be appreciated if we could hear what the Government’s plan is to help with that and to punish those drivers who endanger us all every day.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing today’s debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for the incredible work he does on the APPG for cycling and walking. We have heard so powerfully today about why we need greater justice for vulnerable road users—for cyclists and pedestrians and for those who wheel and scoot.
The APPG report articulates where those changes need to be focused, and I trust that, in his response, the Minister will refer to the report’s 10 recommendations and to the opportunity to put in place a system of justice that addresses the huge inequality that vulnerable road users experience. In particular, the right to continue to drive needs to be examined in greater detail, because we know that disqualification is a major intervention that will change behaviours. That, together with sentencing, re-testing and an escalation of penalty, is long overdue.
I want to focus on speed limits, which other hon. Members have talked about today. I thank the York Cycle Campaign for its work on abiding by speed limits. In the entry and exit points of York, in particular, people accelerate beyond the speed limit. It cannot be beyond the mind of technology today to better audit, monitor and provide penalty for those who exceed the speed limit. However, across all urban areas, we need to consider whether 30 mph and 40 mph are appropriate speed limits. The Minister will be very familiar with the 20’s Plenty for Us campaign, and we do need to look at this issue, particularly where there are blind corners and steep hills, which can occlude a driver’s vision.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very important point about speed limits. In my constituency, on Swinston Hill Road in Dinnington, we have an issue with speeding. The council conducted a speed watch to work out how fast drivers were going. Drivers were speeding, but the council’s response was that maybe the speed limit was too low and that it should be raised because there were no accidents. Does the hon. Lady understand the concerns of residents who report speeding, when the council says that, if there are no accidents, there is no problem? Speeding is always a problem.
Rachael Maskell
I agree, and we must ensure that we put safety first at every juncture.
I want to address the issue of creating zones around schools, nurseries and other areas where young people play, as well as around heavily pedestrianised areas, to ensure that there is a safety strategy in such locations. There are many schools across York where young people have to navigate dangerous roads, and 30 mph is not a safe speed for children. I urge the Minister to consider an integrated schools strategy, so we can deploy proper measures to keep children and young people safe when they walk, wheel, scoot or cycle to school. The work done in Manchester, which states that the infrastructure should be there for a 12-year-old to navigate, is really important, but we need to ensure that it is applied across the country, because it is clear that there is inequality at the moment.
Where we see repetition in a locality, or indeed even a single incident, there should be a duty on local authorities to ensure that proper signage and speed mitigation are put in place to highlight areas of risk and to ensure that junctions and other areas are safe for walkers and cyclists. I urge the Minister to look at that.
I draw Members’ attention to the work of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety on speed limits and the opportunities for technology in this area. Its recommendations, too, are important, and I thank it for its work.
I also want to raise with the Minister the work undertaken by the Institute for Safe Autonomy at the University of York, in the light of the on-board technology that is available for vehicles, which can act as evidence in court cases. That could secure more convictions and ensure a chilling effect on poor driving.
The licensing of taxis is long overdue, and the Government have had a long time to implement the Law Commission’s report on it. We often see some of the worst driving behaviours in our city when licences have been granted in authorities other than our own. I really urge movement on that issue to ensure that licensing relates to the authority in which somebody is licensed to drive, and to bring greater safety for road users.
Finally, I want to draw attention to the work City of York Council is doing with its transport consultation. If we are serious about seeing an escalation of active travel and proper safety measures put in place, it is really important that every local authority has a proper integrated transport plan. That would benefit not only the environment and the economy, with all that that brings, but cyclists, walkers, wheelers and scooters, ensuring that their safety in the road space is acknowledged and made a priority.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important debate.
I concur with a lot of what my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) said about sentencing guidelines in relation to the case he mentioned. He and I have exchanged messages on that issue, due to tragic cases that have occurred in both our constituencies. That is why I would like to focus specifically on the case of Sharlotte-Sky Naglis, which has now been dealt with, and the individual involved has been sentenced.
The case relates specifically to section 7A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. John Owen had put himself behind the wheel of a vehicle, having been drinking and taking class A drugs all day, and was using his mobile phone when he hit and killed six-year-old Sharlotte-Sky Naglis, who was walking along the pavement in Norton Green to buy some sweets from a local shop with her father. The impact that that had on the local community still scars me to this day. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was at my Adjournment debate on this issue, and he kindly intervened to allow me to gather myself, because Claire—Sharlotte’s mother—was in the Public Gallery listening to what was being said.
Claire had to spend weeks—actually, months—not knowing what had caused the death of her six-year-old daughter. That was because John Owen was in a coma, and even though his blood had been taken without his consent, as is allowed under the provisions in legislation, the blood itself could not be tested unless he awoke from his coma and gave his consent. What seems bizarre is that we can forcibly take blood from someone, which is the most intrusive thing we can do, but we cannot then immediately allow it to be tested to give answers as quickly as possible to the police and, more importantly, to the victims of the offence.
For me, this is also a perversion in the law. If someone chooses to withhold their blood sample to stop it being tested, they may receive a maximum of two years added on to their sentence. But if it came out that they had taken class A drugs, their fear would be that they would receive an even greater sentence. So where is the incentive for them to be honest and to admit to what they have done, when they know that two years is far better than the four, five, six or whatever it is that they will receive because drug abuse, particularly involving class A drugs, is such an aggravating factor?
I have been campaigning with Claire since that awful event in 2021 to get Sharlotte’s law introduced. I am looking to secure a ten-minute rule Bill opportunity to bring this issue to the Floor of the House so that we can tidy up this area of law and say that, when blood has been taken, it will be tested, regardless of whether consent has been given, so that victims get answers to their questions. Why should we allow the police to store blood when, God forbid—by accident, I am sure—it could be contaminated and that evidence could be lost, or when it might not be stored correctly, meaning that that sample would no longer be fit for use? Why even risk allowing the perpetrator of a crime the opportunity to escape the justice he should face?
Sadly, in John Owen’s case, because the incident took place before the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, he was sentenced under the old guidance. He received only a pathetic six years of prison, and within two years he has already had the opportunity to be considered for transfer to an open prison. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, who has intervened to ensure that John Owen remains in a full custodial prison—I believe it is a category B—to make sure that, at the very least, he understands, albeit very briefly, the consequences of his heinous crimes.
The campaign I mentioned has the backing of 5,500 petitioners, many of whom are Claire’s colleagues, and I thank them and her boss for sharing it with other employees and with clients to get them to sign up. I have also secured the backing of charities such as Brake, SCARD and the Campaign Against Drink Driving and of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, which in September 2023 voted unanimously across the political divide to fully endorse and support the campaign. When this issue comes to the Floor of the House, I hope the Government can, as they have with other legislation I have worked on, put their full weight behind it and ensure that we get it on to the statute book, so that we can tidy up this perversion in the law and ensure that victims get answers to questions and people get sentenced for the crimes they commit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on highlighting this issue and giving us all the chance to be part of this debate. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis)—he knows he is a dear friend, and I am looking forward to him coming to my constituency in the first week of March and renewing that friendship on the ground.
Although the UK legislation does not extend to Northern Ireland, we have a very similar legislative system in place. Consequently, issues faced by people here on the mainland are replicated in Northern Ireland, and so, too, must the solutions be replicated. My contribution to this debate will be from a Northern Ireland perspective. The Minister will not be able to automatically respond, and nor does he have any duty to, but I just want to add to the debate and to support all those who have contributed.
In Northern Ireland, we have had an awful year for road deaths, with 71 people losing their lives on the roads in 2023—that is the highest number for eight years, and the annual death toll had not risen above 70 since 2015. In addition to those families losing their loved ones, figures from the Police Service of Northern Ireland show that some 679 people were seriously injured on the roads between 1 January and 31 October 2023. The data also shows that there were 13 motorcyclists and 19 pedestrians among the deaths in 2023. Provisional figures also show that single-vehicle collisions accounted for almost one fifth of all road deaths in the first months of 2023. That clearly shows that there is a need to enhance safety. So the question for me, and probably for others as well, is: with all the new safety features in cars, including anti-lock braking systems and greater non-slide technology improvements, should those numbers not be declining rather than increasing? The facts, of course, disprove that, and that is why this debate is so important.
While I have seen indicators that as many as nine in 10 accidents are avoidable, I also believe that road infrastructure has a major role to play in these statistics. We see people crossing dividing lines to avoid potholes or being pulled into the verges and ending up—as we would call it—in the sheugh in the dark, due to no fault of their own. I am sure the hon. Member for North Devon would agree that part of improving safety has to be the improvement of road structures and surfaces, and the Minister must take that aspect back to Cabinet colleagues and bid for enhanced funding. I think it was two weeks ago that I met one of the companies from the mainland, and it had a brand-new idea for solving pothole problems that looks really good. It is financially viable, quicker and more efficient, and maybe there is an onus on the Government to try to put these things in place.
In my time as an elected representative, I have seen too many deaths on our roads and the impact that that has on families. I have also seen the impact of seeing the perpetrator receive what seems to be an unfair sentence, which is nothing short of devastating. One case that springs to mind is drink-driving case where the driver was substantially over the limit, and the accident resulted in death, yet the judge handed out a suspended sentence. I was heartened by a recent case, in November last year, which resulted in a nine-and-a-half year sentence for the drunk driver. I believe that the message is starting to make its way through: driving over the limit will not be treated as a mistake but as a decision, and that decision has consequences.
I support the hon. Member for North Devon in her view that sentences should not simply reflect the damage of the crime but send a message to others. I was shocked to read that PSNI officers conducted 7,250 preliminary breath tests during the Christmas drink-driving campaign between 1 December 2023 and 1 January 2024. Of those 7,250 tests, 4.9%, or 355, resulted in a fail or fail to provide. Males accounted for the majority of those arrested for drink or drug-driving offences in the 2023-24 campaign, and half of those arrested were between 30 and 49 years of age.
However, the most shocking statistic is that the youngest person arrested for drink-driving offences during the 2023-24 campaign was 14. My goodness—how on earth could that happen? The oldest person, and they are not guiltless either, was 82. It is clear that the message is still not getting to the people who need to hear it. I believe that a means of lowering the prevalence of drink-driving would be to enhance the penalties and to remove the ability for mitigating circumstances to affect any form of punishment or rehabilitation.
I will conclude now, Ms Nokes, so as to adhere to your five-minute rule. The issue should be considered UK-wide. I support the hon. Member for North Devon and all the hon. Members who have called for action, and I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister will respond positively and give us some of the assurances that we wish to hear.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Ms Nokes, to have you here in the Chair today.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing the debate as well as everyone who has taken part in it. The strength of feeling from everyone who has spoken has come across extremely well, including in the personal stories and those told on behalf of constituents who have been victims of road accidents. I completely agree that referring to “road accidents” is exactly right, considering what happens on our roads. There has been a sense that driving offences are not viewed as as serious as they are in reality; that has come across loud and clear. I also congratulate the APPG on its work, as well as Roadpeace and the other charities mentioned today.
I want to mention some personal stories of my own. A friend of mine decided to return to cycling recently. On his first outing on his bike, he hit a pothole and was badly injured, and he has not been able to go back to work. I mention that incident because one of the issues that has not come up today is the need for decently repaired roads. Before I move on to what others have said, let me briefly say that road safety, in its widest sense of ensuring that we can all travel safely on our roads, means investing in proper repairs. I am glad that we are going to see some more money for repairs after the cuts—indeed, the halving of the budget.
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
May I gently remind the shadow Minister that the title of the debate is “Victims of Road Traffic Offences: Criminal Justice System”?
Bill Esterson
Indeed, and I will say why road repairs are relevant. In October 2023, the AA had the highest level of call-outs in any October ever, and accidents are sometimes caused by or related to poor road conditions. We still need justice, whatever the cause of an accident is.
I hope that we will see a proper level of investment in our road repairs, including—I say this gently to the Minister —the specification of a higher quality of sustainable repair. The technology exists, although it is not always applied. That is all I have to say on the matter of road repairs, but I wanted to refer to it because I think it is relevant to the debate.
The other personal story I have is about a motorcyclist, who is the friend of a friend. A driver pulled in front of him and he crashed, and is now in a coma. The prognosis is that he will never recover, because he is paralysed. I was reminded of his story while I listened to some of the others. I have no idea whether there will be a prosecution in that case. I will make no further reference to it, to where it happened or to who was involved, but it is a reminder that accidents cause life-changing injuries and even deaths.
In her excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) mentioned the very high level of deaths on our roads—1,500 fatal injuries, as well as 130,000 casualties in Britain. We all have a duty to reduce that level of accidents, and I have mentioned repairs.
Selaine Saxby
Just to clarify, given that every person in the Chamber today has asked for these events not to be referred to as “accidents”—we are talking about “crashes” or “collisions”—is it the Opposition’s policy to persist in calling them “accidents”?
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but she heard me say at the start of my remarks that it was entirely appropriate that we spoke about “collisions”—
Selaine Saxby
If the hon. Member refers back to Hansard, I think he will see that that is not what he actually said at the start of his remarks.
Bill Esterson
Well, I was referring to what the hon. Lady said in her speech, but I think we are talking at cross purposes. I completely accept that it is correct to talk about “collisions”, and all I would say in response to her intervention is that this shows just how easy it is to slip back into calling them “accidents”. I accept her point, and I am happy to correct the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington told us how many deaths and how many casualties there are from collisions, and we all have a duty to reduce the number and to prevent them from happening. What we have so often heard today is that that is not happening. The way that drivers are allowed to continue is a real problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) spoke in a previous debate about a driver who had been banned something like nine times, and went on to be involved in a collision in which somebody died. This is about the short nature of such bans, and that point has been well made. I welcome the Government increasing the length of bans, and we supported the amendment to do that in legislation that went through a few years ago. The question is: what more can be done? I very much welcome the recommendations made by the all-party group, and I am very keen to hear what the Minister has to say in response to them.
I will say a few things about what Labour wants to see. We have published our approach to government, with our mission to raise confidence in the police and the criminal justice system to their highest levels. We want to see 13,000 extra police on our streets, and to address the cuts in the police and in support staff. I know that the Minister will say that police numbers, having declined first, have increased again, but there has not been a return to the previous numbers of support staff.
As Her Majesty’s—now His Majesty’s—inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services said in 2020:
“The number of dedicated roads policing officers has declined”.
It also said that they have been moved to addressing
“responsibilities for supporting general policing”.
That has to change if we are to support victims, investigate the incidents—collisions—that happen on our roads and deliver justice in a timely fashion. We heard about how long it is taking to bring one case to court; I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) who made that point about a constituent. The challenge for us is to support victims and to ensure that justice is seen to be delivered, and that it is not delayed. There were 83,581 cases in a nine-year period where drivers were not disqualified due to mitigating circumstances. I think we should address the recommendation in the all-party group’s excellent report on mitigating circumstances.
I will quickly reiterate those questions for the Minister, because I am keen to learn whether he accepts the recommendations. Whoever is in government has a duty to seriously consider the requests.
Bill Esterson
Indeed. We have 20 minutes left, but I do not intend to use many more of them.
Does the Minister support the all-party group’s 10 recommendations? Does he want escalating penalties? Does he agree that we should require retesting for those wanting to drive again following disqualification? What is his view on increasing the maximum sentence for dangerous driving to four years? What is his view on issuing guidance to police officers and increasing their use of bail powers so they can remove the right to drive from people arrested for dangerous driving? Does he agree that we should revisit sentencing guidelines so that exceptional hardship should be granted only in truly exceptional circumstances? What is his view on removing tolerances in speed enforcement, creating consistent guidelines for forces to investigate serious collisions, implementing a standardised system for third parties to report actual or suspected road offences, creating a UK commissioner for road danger reduction, and implementing guidelines so that victims of crashes are considered victims of crime unless there is clear evidence to the contrary?
The debate is about justice for victims. I am very keen to hear whether the Minister agrees that we really need to consider victims of road traffic collisions as victims, and that they should be covered by the victims code and other aspects of criminal law. Far too often, drivers who commit serious offences are not regarded by society as guilty of a serious crime. Everybody in this debate is calling for that to change, and I am very interested to hear whether the Minister agrees.
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
I am sure the Minister will want to leave a couple of minutes for the hon. Member for North Devon at the end.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
Thank you very much indeed for your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this very important debate. Sometimes Parliament is knocked or decried for its lack of impact, but nobody could have listened to the debate and not realised that what is being raised is of real importance to individual Members of Parliament, on a cross-party basis, and the families who have been so affected.
Road safety matters to all of us. As we are all aware, the solutions are complex, but that does not mean that we should not try to grasp them or engage with them, or that we do not take debates of this nature very seriously indeed.
We are on a journey. I am a veteran of a 20-year legal career, having prosecuted many of these types of cases and defended some, and there was no victim impact statement when I started out. It just did not exist; the victim was never consulted in any way whatever. I have been a cyclist for the past 40 years, and there were no such thing as cycle lanes in days gone by. The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) is entirely right that things are getting better, albeit we have a way to go.
Having just been with the fantastic people who work at Active Travel England, which is based in the constituency of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and having cycled around the Roman and medieval streets of York with all their complexities, I fully understand that putting cycle infrastructure in such a town is very difficult. Active travel did not exist before, and it clearly has a way to go before it is as good as all Members would like it to be. We are all on this journey, and solutions will not be ticked by this Government or the next one straightaway, but there is an acknowledgement that we are all, on a cross-party basis, trying to improve the situation, and that is something we should get behind.
Before I get into the nuts and bolts of the debate, I put on record that colleagues are entirely right to state the impact that this issue has had on individual families, including that of Harry Webb, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones); the Saltern family, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann); the Winterburn family, represented by the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton); and the Chapman family, represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). There is also the tragic case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild); the case specifically raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones)—I will come to new clause 49 of the Criminal Justice Bill in a second—as well as the case of Sharlotte, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis); and the Gayle family case, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson). Those families all have tragic and terrible stories to tell, and it is right that their representatives make the case for a better system. I take all the points on board. There is much being worked on by various Departments, which I will try to address in the limited time I have.
I represent the Department for Transport and have supported the all-party group; in fact, many years ago, I sat in this room while our colleague Lord Austin led a debate on these issues in this Chamber. This is clearly a cross-departmental matter, and we need to stress that the solution is cross-departmental. I give apologies from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), and the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who are debating the Criminal Justice Bill as we speak and addressing, for example, new clause 49, tabled by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, on the use of private roads and the impact of particular cases that arise. That is something to be discussed in the House, in the Public Bill Committee.
I should also point out that I bear scars myself. On 23 June 2019, I was the victim of a pretty serious road traffic accident. I broke my ankle and ruptured my knee ligaments when I was knocked off my bicycle by a car on a London street, also not in a designated lane. I still bear the scars, and my running days are definitely over as a result.
We want to foster an environment of safety. Great work is being done to pursue that. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon that the word “accident” should no longer be used; indeed, the Department for Transport no longer uses it. The appropriate terms are “crashes” or “collisions”, and we encourage others to use them. My hon. Friend will understand that “accident” is the correct word in certain pieces of legislation, but the prevailing approach of various Departments is a difference and a change in words. I hope it is of benefit that my brief includes not just roads but road safety and active travel, as we try to bring those things together. I have certainly been fighting to address them.
In the time allowed, I will try to address the particular points raised. I will start with the issue of escalating penalties. Section 65 of the Sentencing Act 2020 provides a statutory aggravating factor, stating that:
“The court must treat as an aggravating factor each relevant previous conviction that it considers can be reasonably be so treated”.
Judges must therefore consider the appropriate level of any sentence uplift justified by that factor as part of considering the full circumstances of the case. I will come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk, but the point is fairly made that these are relatively young pieces of legislation. The changes that the Government brought in to make sentencing take account of aggravating factors are still being worked through the criminal justice system.
Although I cannot speak specifically for the Lord Chancellor and the MOJ, it is unquestionable that, as cases take place, one can review guidance, take a second look at each situation, and see to what extent and how sufficiently the aggravating factors are being taken into account. That is not something that one can do straight away, but one can step back, take a proper review and look at that in a bit more detail. I will come to the increases in sentencing in a second, but first let me turn to the issue of compulsory retesting. I take the point that has been raised. Clearly, it is a cross-departmental issue, but there is, none the less, a mandatory retesting requirement on causing death by dangerous driving, dangerous driving and causing serious injury by dangerous driving. I accept, however, that the last update in the guidance was 2015, so it is something that the Department for Transport is considering. That is an ongoing process and, as Members will see when I come on to mention particular cases, there are many factors at play, ranging from insurance to consequential impacts on sentencing.
Let me turn now to increasing the maximum sentence for dangerous driving. As was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk, the sentence has been increased: the maximum penalty for dangerous driving while under the influence of drink or drugs went from 14 years to life. I accept that that was of little comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and his constituents, but, at the very least, the Government have listened and taken action. I take on board the criticisms of the sentences. It is a dangerous thing for Ministers to start criticising individual judges for the way in which they reach their decisions, so I will not get into that without being fully party to all the circumstances. None the less, as I think the Ministry of Justice will do, there is a legitimate case for reviewing the sentences and the totality that followed those particular cases and establishing proper guidance. That is what is done with other offences. That is what will be done in this case and I hope the affected families will feel assured to know that that process is in hand.
In respect of the exceptional hardship point, having prosecuted and defended a similar case, I know that it is up to the individual defendant to raise exceptional hardship; the presumption is not that one can bring that forward. The Sentencing Council’s explanatory guidance makes it absolutely clear that it is for the offender to prove that these circumstances exist and that they are, and must be, exceptional. If it is genuinely the case that the argument has been made that the exceptionality is not being implemented in the appropriate way, that is something for us to review. I take the assertions on board, but it is ultimately up to the sentencing court to genuinely take that into account. I stress very strongly that it cannot be that it is an inconvenience; it cannot be anything other than truly exceptional hardship. The loss of one’s driving licence does not constitute exceptional hardship in any way.
Let me turn now to the extraordinarily vexed issue of speeding. Any Welsh MP will know of the issues relating to the 20 mph situation and the complexities that that has brought, but at the same time, as I said in this Chamber barely a month ago, there is, in my respectful view, a consensus that 20 mph zones outside school are utterly accepted. There is no question of any of us going back on that—in fact there is massive encouragement. Frankly, those schools that do not have 20 mph zones need to take a long hard look at that, which might involve local councils and parish councils as well. Exceptional circumstances may apply in relation to the location, but, as a broad presumptive, this House is utterly committed to that in those circumstances. The blanket application of that, in my respectful opinion, is much more difficult to achieve, but, at the same time, just because a policy may be difficult to achieve does not mean that we cannot attempt to address it. The point is fairly made in the report and it needs to be made again here: the impact evaluation of the national speed awareness course, which was published in 2018, found that participation in that course was more effective at preventing speed reoffending than fines and penalty points. That is proper evidential data that we should take on board. I think that there is a widespread and strongly held view across the House that greater use of such courses is the way ahead and a much better approach than the simple approach that has been put forward.
I will briefly touch on new clause 49, proposed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). I met him yesterday, having met him previously when he raised his constituent’s case at PMQs.
Guy Opperman
No, I will not. Sorry, I have only three minutes, and I have loads of points to address.
New clause 49 is a cross-departmental matter. Clearly, it will be debated, but complexities are involved in doing what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney proposes for private land. Those range from military vehicles and the extent, to issues with insurance and the like, but I very much take on board the point that the hon. Member raised.
I entirely accept that police forces have differing approaches when it comes to the thorough investigation of serious collisions. Effort is being made by the chief constables to change that, and I would urge the Home Office to drive that forward. Without a shadow of a doubt, some police forces are better than others in relation to the issue of recognising crash victims as crime victims. It is clear that the victims code permits and, frankly, encourages victims of road traffic offences to seek the support that they require. The Ministry of Justice, which provides police and crime commissioners with annual grant funding to commission local, practical and therapeutic support for victims of all types, should apply that to individual crime victims who have suffered crashes or collisions.
I respectfully suggest that the Department for Transport is very keen on the expansion and understanding of the highway code. It has spent millions of pounds on that, whether through its Think! campaign, social media campaigns, factual awareness campaigns or other particular ongoing campaigns on radio, digital, video-on-demand and social media. We genuinely wish to push those campaigns.
I totally accept that this is a work in progress, and on a cross-departmental basis. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon and this House that we will meet the three key Departments to try to drive forward an integrated Government policy on all these matters. It is not for one Department to fix this; it should be done on a cross-departmental basis. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and all my colleagues for bringing this matter forward.
Selaine Saxby
It has been a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I thank the Minister for his response and all right hon. and hon. Members for participating in the debate. I pass on my thanks and heartfelt sympathy to the families that we are representing today.
I fully accept that this is a journey, and while it has been great to reiterate some of the legal points and things that we have done to move these things forward, we all might like to see this journey speeded up a little—without wishing to break any speed limits—to enable us to get better justice for the victims that we have come to speak about today.
I put on the record my commitment to continue this journey with the APPG, through meeting with the Departments. We all recognise that when things fall between Departments they are often harder to keep on the road, but we really need to progress this.
I will take one more opportunity to thank everyone for who has taken the time to join this debate and to thank the APPG and all those who helped contribute to the report who are with us in the Gallery.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered victims of road traffic offences and the criminal justice system.
Future of UK Capital Markets
(9 months, 3 weeks 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
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
I will call Alun Cairns to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for Mr Cairns to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of UK capital markets.
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. It is also a pleasure to propose this debate on the future of UK capital markets. I have raised this debate following engagement from stakeholders across the sector. Like many other European markets, we have seen de-equitisation, as well as a slowdown in initial public offerings, with the US strengthening its position against other markets around the world. Arm’s flotation in New York over London last year attracted much attention, and we need to look at why that happened. We should also consider what is happening to the small cap and fledgling indexes, which the UK Equity Markets Association understandably highlights.
There are certainly examples where companies that may well have listed in the UK in the past are now floating in New York. We need to be conscious of that, and if the trend continues, we need to be concerned by it. I am not yet alarmed, but I look to the Government, regulators, fund managers, the London stock exchange and others to consider what can be done to ensure that London maintains its prominence in world financial markets.
The success of the Square Mile is hugely important to the whole of the UK—to its economy, tax revenues and status—and it is equally important to the UK financial infrastructure that is available to companies and individuals all over the UK, whether that is companies seeking capital, or individuals, including pensioners, looking for investment opportunities and potential enhanced financial returns.
The point I am making is that capital markets matter to us all and extend well beyond the world of finance. We need to recognise that domestic investors have moved away from UK equities in recent years. Asset managers’ investment in equities has dropped significantly, from 30% in 2017 to around 20% now. Although the London stock exchange remains the largest in Europe, its capitalisation has declined and the contribution of new international IPOs is down significantly. The number of companies listed in the UK is down by a third over the past 15 years, and UK retail investors have moved away from equities. Around 10% of assets are held in equities in the UK, compared with more than 30% in the United States. That is in spite of technology enabling more and more platforms. It is a far cry from the famous “If you see Sid, tell him” ad of the 1990s.
Some outlets, such as the BBC, sensationalise the reports of London losing its listings. An excellent report written by EY on UK finance last year provided a more balanced perspective, highlighting how London dominates in Europe in every aspect, even after the aggressive marketing by some cities in the EU following Brexit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan on securing this debate, and I am pretty sure he will agree with what I am going to ask. Does he not agree that we cannot live up to the potential in the City market without implementing the necessary changes to promote safeguarding and safety? Those are critical. Does he believe that the Government and the Minister must be more proactive in that matter?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Member makes an extremely important point, and I will come on to it as I progress. He is right about the importance of standards. London’s reputation on standards is essential not only to London, but to every part of the United Kingdom and well beyond.
I was highlighting the challenges we have had in the UK. If there are challenges here in London, there are even greater challenges elsewhere. London still dominates the European market. However, the market is always evolving and we need to react. That being the case, I am pleased that the Government are already alive to change and, along with others, have launched a series of initiatives to analyse and act on what the UK needs to do to secure London’s important international role. We have seen the wholesale markets review, the UK listings review, the Kalifa review, the UK secondary capital raising review and the London stock exchange UK capital markets industry taskforce. Those are just some examples of what has been going on in recent times.
The influence of some of the reviews led to the Edinburgh reforms and the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech last year. Those are positive steps but, 12 months on from the Edinburgh reforms and six months on from the Mansion House compact, this is a good time to take stock. There is a need for co-ordination and assessment of developments. I am concerned that there has been a series of reviews, including those I mentioned earlier, but securing outcomes for the benefit of companies and investors must be our focus.
There is clearly a balance to be struck between evolution and revolution. The Chancellor is on record as saying that he favours evolution, which is fair enough, but we do need to see progression, too. We also need to consider the freedom that Brexit provides, against the diversion from standards in our closest markets. I am not saying that is easy, but regular review of progress is a positive step. There are wins available for the United Kingdom, and I look to the Government to respond.
The central piece of the Mansion House speech was an agreement with the largest UK defined contribution fund managers to invest at least 5% in private equities by 2030. There are also clear ambitions for defined benefits schemes, and I hope the Minister can provide a further update on that in his response. After all, when we consider that just 1% of the UK’s near £5 trillion assets are in private companies, the 5% target is a major step. I press the Minister by saying it is a good start but we need to go even further, and monitor progress towards that 2030 target. I also look to the Minister to provide further details on the defined benefits reforms and ambitions.
I recognise that the Chancellor announced plans to consolidate the local government scheme. As he said, when it comes to pension pots, big is beautiful. I get that, and the wider benefits that consolidation will bring. I would, however, add a note of caution. Large funds need large investments, which in general is a good thing, but we could end up squeezing small and mid-sized companies out of the equation. Guidance to secure the role of smaller private equity funds, which usually focus on smaller firms, would be helpful. I am concerned that large pension funds will have few places to go, other than to large private equity firms in the US, defeating much of the Government’s objectives.
The London stock exchange plans for an intermittent trading venue also offer new opportunities to bridge the gap, but it would be helpful to gain feedback on the timing of the regulatory approval. I also welcome the Treasury’s commitment to the replacement of the EU prospectus regulation with the Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations 2023 that stem from Lord Hill’s listings review. That is welcome and will streamline the process significantly.
We obviously await detailed Financial Conduct Authority rules, and look to it to act swiftly in that respect. To credit the FCA, it has streamlined the listings process and loosened the rules for related party transactions. These reforms and others are very welcome, and I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleague for the part they have played. The scale of the reforms should be recognised and will have effect. However, the speed of change and the scale of reform need to increase. The capacity of the regulator will be a challenge, but we need to do whatever possible to support it to make the necessary changes we are asking of it, at pace.
In this technical debate, however, we need to remember why we are doing it, and what else can be done. We need to make it easier to raise capital in London, and the process of listing less clunky, while also focusing on attracting capital from domestic and foreign investors to provide the liquidity and funds for growth. London’s reputation for high standards is a good thing, and something we need to work with. We should continue the momentum to review the access for early stage business finance, to expand the scope and remove the potential cliff edge.
Tax incentives and greater digitalisation of capital markets processes can help too. Enterprise management incentives could play a part in widening the opportunity for staff to take a stake. Stamp duty changes are also relevant. We need a new approach to investing at both fund manager and retail level. Current regulations force fund managers towards bonds and Government debt to de-risk, which almost came back to bite us just a little over 12 months ago. Savers have also been encouraged to remove risk. The classification of investments needs to be reviewed, and better research needs to be available, akin to Rachel Kent’s report.
We need to re-engage the retail market in the opportunities of equities. I can recall—as I am sure you can, Ms Nokes—the privatisation of public services in the 1980s and 1990s, and the opportunities that provided for the public to invest. I have already mentioned, “If you see Sid tell him.” Regulations aimed at protecting the public from risk have removed legitimate opportunities like those. It is almost impossible for an adviser to facilitate investments directly into equities, in spite of today’s reduced costs and swifter processes. Proportionate regulations are required, along with further ISA reform. I can well recall the personal equity plans of the ’90s, which had a specific allowance for a single company PEP. That made capital investment accessible and relevant to the masses.
In closing, I want to recognise the changes and reforms that have taken place but to suggest that we need regular—at least annual—reviews of progress and of the impact of change, with all stakeholders involved. That would show the world that we are determined to get it right and to continue to evolve to ever-changing needs. We must always remember that gaining and accessing new capital is essential to growing business and the economy. By getting this right, we can offer greater returns for the public through better pension and investment returns, while maintaining the UK’s prominence in this vital industry.
I started off by talking about Arm, and I want to highlight a quote from Craig Coben, a prominent journalist in the field. He wrote that
“Arm should float in the US not because London has any particular flaws as a listing location, but rather because the scale, scope and depth of American capital markets make it a more compelling venue… Nasdaq-only flotation offers the broadest access to investors without the complications of two primary listings.”
That is just one example of the sort of change that can be brought about. I look to the Minister to continue his positive agenda.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) on securing the debate, and I thank him for his remarks about our capital market system, which I will address in some detail.
I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the key role that capital markets play not just in our UK economy, but in wider society, which I have long spoken about not just in this House, but in my career in financial services before coming into politics. No matter the size of the company or how many countries it operates in, behind every major listed company are thousands or even millions of investors who own a stake in that company, and own a stake in a country. A FTSE 100 or S&P 500 stock will be owned by teachers, nurses, firefighters and lots of other regular people who, by owning stocks through their pensions, have a stake in the success of the company and the wider economy, and a means to benefit when both those things do well. It is an extension of what Noel Skelton, a former Member of Parliament for Perth, said in the 1920s when he talked about a property-owning democracy. It is the idea that if people have a stake in our economy, they become more engaged with the economic outcomes of the country, which in turn become more equitable, because they engage and affect normal people in more prescient ways. In that way, strong capital markets that people can easily access, interpret and utilise can be an incredible tool for broad-based engagement with our economic systems.
As my right hon. Friend alluded to, capital markets also have a more immediate impact through the allocation of capital, facilitating investment, which drives growth and jobs, and creating investor returns. That helps to build a market that is buzzing with opportunity and optimism and attracts the best and the brightest, bringing new energy and ideas to our economy, all of which drives economic activity in every part of the country. It is worth pointing out that of the about 1 million people employed in the financial services industry, two thirds are outside our capital city. That is not always appreciated.
However, London is an international powerhouse in its own right, with a foreign exchange market three times the size and a derivatives market about 50% bigger than those of the United States, making the UK a genuine global hub for investment. In 2021, more than £17 billion of capital was raised for firms in the UK—a 15-year high. Over 120 deals were completed in that year alone. Of course, we have not been immune to the limited IPO activity caused by market turbulence across 2022 and 2023, yet in 2023 the London Stock Exchange raised more capital than Frankfurt and Amsterdam—the two largest exchanges in the European Union—combined.
More importantly, this Government recognise that there is always more we can do to improve our markets and make them even more open and competitive. My right hon. Friend mentioned that the first step on our reform journey was, as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury stated in a speech last week at Bloomberg, to diagnose the problem—to acknowledge that there was a problem and then seek a way to fix it. That started with Lord Hill’s 2020 UK listings review, alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan, which builds consensus on how to boost IPOs and capital raising on UK capital markets. He will be aware that in 2021, at Mansion House, we launched the wholesale markets review to consider how we could use our new-found regulatory freedoms to make UK markets more competitive.
Next came our solutions to the problems that we had diagnosed. I am happy to say that reform has progressed across all those areas, not only in our legislation and our regulatory regimes, but in the culture and mindset of the Government and of regulators, which is not to be underestimated. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 delivered the wholesale market review’s most urgent changes. As a result, firms can now trade in the most liquid market and get the best price for investors. We have also set statutory growth and competitiveness objectives for our regulators and introduced new accountability mechanisms to ensure delivery against those objectives. Following the passage of FSMA 2023, we are taking forward a host of new initiatives, such as the digital securities sandbox, which will test the use of distributed ledger technology in trading and settlement. That is just one of a huge range of reforms coming in the near future.
The result of those reforms is that after three and a half years, we are now within sight of making the UK’s public markets match fit again, which my right hon. Friend and I both seek. But he is right that we must go further and use this as an inflection point to ensure that we are delivering on the promise and opportunity presented by our capital markets. That is why we are taking further steps now and supporting companies through every stage of their investment lifecycle.
First, we will ensure that companies can scale up effectively so that they are primed and ready for listing. To do that, as my right hon. Friend alluded to, we are establishing a world first—a new class of exchange. The private intermittent securities and capital exchange system—catchily named Pisces for short, thankfully—will be established by the end of this year. He asked for assurance, and I can assure him on that timing. The Pisces platform will give private companies better access to capital markets and break down the artificial regulatory cliff edge between public and private markets. This development will allow investors to take advantage of the structural shift to private markets, rather than suffer from it.
Secondly, we want to ensure that, when companies choose to list, the process is as easy and frictionless as possible. A fortnight ago, the Economic Secretary took the UK’s new prospectus legislation through Parliament, paving the way for the FCA to complete its entire rewrite of the prospectus regime’s rulebook to deliver on the recommendations of the Hill and Mark Austin reviews, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan referred to. That will boost the operating environment for our capital markets in two important ways: it will increase the pool of investors participating in capital raises, and it will enable firms to raise larger sums of capital more quickly.
Finally, we want to ensure that, once listed, companies are matched with the best investors for their offering. We welcome the FCA’s commitment to consult on the changes to the unbundling rules this spring. That was a recommendation of Rachel Kent’s investment research review. Subject to the outcomes of that consultation, the FCA will make relevant rules in the first half of this year. We aim to revive the research market by delivering more efficient and accurate pricing, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises.
In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced his plans to explore options for a NatWest retail share offer this year, and a wider ambition to get the public buying more shares. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan rightly said that we should get Sid investing again. For those who do not know, that is a reference to an advertising campaign that only Members of a certain vintage will appreciate—it is entirely lost on my private office.
I will move on quickly to some of the wider issues. My right hon. Friend talked about Charlie Geffen’s accelerated settlement taskforce, which will upgrade our back-office operations for the 21st century.
This year will mark substantial progress in all three of the investment cycle stages that I have set out. Alongside the regulatory reforms, the Government are looking to reverse the trend of British investors—both institutional and individual—shifting away from investing in UK equities. As my right hon. Friend points out, the statistics are pretty stark. They have been on a downward trend for many years, and that is particularly evident in our pension funds. As he rightly said, at Mansion House the Chancellor began the process of announcing the Mansion House compact, which will see 11 major defined-contribution pension schemes allocate at least 5% of their default funds to unlisted equities, unlocking capital investment in high-growth companies. With the pension reforms now in train, we expect the pension pot of a typical DC saver to increase by as much as £16,000 over the course of an average career.
This agenda is underpinned by a commitment to openness, competitiveness, growth, dynamism and innovation in financial services, as first set out by the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, in 2021. When those principles are properly applied, they have an impact far beyond financial markets. They can be a way to open the doors of our boardrooms to a far wider range of people, democratising our capital markets and inspiring individuals throughout the country to take an active interest in our markets, while making sure that more people have experience and an understanding of the risks and rewards that are such a vital component of our capital markets.
Our capital markets in this country are a source of great pride, including to me, having worked in them. It is right that we all feel pride in the UK capital market structure, but I want more people to speak with pride about our stocks—the stocks that they own today or may own in the future. Our capital markets have helped shape the country that we live in. They have helped us make this country more prosperous, they have created more jobs and they have made us more competitive overseas. The Government are working to ensure that that remains the case for many years to come by making our markets more attractive, competitive and, crucially, accessible. I am proud to be taking forward that important work with colleagues from across the House, and to have been able to speak about it today under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes.
Question put and agreed to.
Children’s Mental Health Week 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks 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
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
May I apologise to colleagues for being a minute late? I was informed about two minutes ago, so that was the best workout I have had in a while.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Children’s Mental Health Week 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Pritchard—a breathless Mr Pritchard.
The challenges facing the mental health of our young people have never been greater. One in five children have a mental illness, and half of all mental illnesses develop by the age of 14. In the coming years, as many as 1.5 million children will need support for their mental health needs. Amid this escalating crisis, we need bold action to support our young people, but the Government too often lack the ambition, funding and attention that are needed. Meanwhile, the human cost of their inaction only grows.
In A&E, I see children coming in younger and younger. I will never forget their emaciated faces when attending having self-harmed, living with eating disorders or having attempted to take their own lives. I will never forget the faces of parents agonised by their children’s suffering, exhausted from being on suicide watch and fighting tooth and nail for their child, or pushing to access vital services that their child needs, and frequently finding their children being turned away and left to languish for months or even years on waiting lists while their condition deteriorates exponentially.
Pretty much every year we have a debate like this in Westminster Hall and we have many debates in the main Chamber. Every year, we all agree that this has to end, that we must do better and that our children deserve better, but year on year there is simply inaction. Parents are having to give up work to stay at home to be on suicide watch, because they fear what their child will do if they go to work. This affects families in a way that no one can ever possibly understand. A lack of investment in that one young person goes on to affect their parents, their siblings and their future, as well as their and their family’s ability to contribute to the economy and, most importantly, their ability to have a quality, healthy and happy life.
In calling for this debate I am labouring under the hope that we can actually move forward and do something. It is simple: poor mental health is carried through childhood into adulthood. The failures to address the mental health crisis in our young people will leave them ill-equipped as they grow older. We know all too well that prevention is better than cure, yet we ignore that wisdom when it comes to children’s mental health. That is something I simply do not understand. We have the ability collectively within the House positively to impact the lives of millions of children yet, somehow, remarkably, we fail to do so. The Government should invest in early intervention, working to improve child and adolescent mental health services and ensuring prompt access to vital support. Instead, children are being let down and left behind.
Despite young people making up a quarter of all contacts with mental health services, only 8% of funding goes towards children’s mental health services. There are almost half a million children on CAMHS waiting lists. That is a record figure that should be a badge of shame for this Government. Let me remind everybody that, when we talk about half a million children, we are talking about wider families who are affected, people who will never see their children again because those children felt they had no choice but to take their own lives. There are families begging their children to eat that one extra morsel of food because they have not been able to get the services they need for eating disorders.
We are talking about pain and anguish of epic proportions, and on a scale that we have to take seriously. Forgive my passion, but I care deeply about this. We must all care deeply, because this crosses the socioeconomic divide. Regardless of the size of house someone lives in or the amount of money their parents earn, if this pain is known to a family, it does not matter who they are or where they live—it is crippling. A parent loves their child just as much if they live in a £5-million house or a one-bedroom flat.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The hon. Member is making a powerful and passionate speech. As an expert specialist clinician, she has touched on the concept of prevention, and the fact that the key is preventive medicine and signposting. I have had applied suicide intervention skills training and mental health first aid training. I have been privileged to work with 3 Dads Walking, who tragically lost their daughters to suicide. A key part of their campaign is to get suicide prevention on to the school curriculum. Does the hon. Member agree that prevention is a key part of this that we should invest in, and that we should support efforts to get suicide prevention and mechanisms for helping young people into schools and education colleges?
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank the hon. Member for his passionate intervention. He is right that prevention is better than cure. Anybody who knows anyone who has lost someone through suicide will know that it is not a pain someone ever gets over. They simply hope to God that they can learn to live with it in some way, so that they may get through their own lives with a semblance of existence. If there is any way in which we could prevent even one needless loss of life, that would go a long way.
The 3 Dads Walking are incredible—I have had the honour of following their marvellous work—but there are many people who are not in the public light, and many who are too embarrassed to admit how they lost their loved ones, for fear of blame and shame and what that means. We know that many people who have lost people in that way feel they want to take their own lives, and often do.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate and her passionate advocacy. Many of us across the House share a deep understanding of the need for it. Does she agree that, if we are to tackle the causes, we need better data? We need to understand what is driving this epidemic. I particularly want to draw attention to the children of alcoholics and the great work done by the National Association for Children of Alcoholics; the children of divorce and conflict; and those children badly affected during the pandemic. Does the hon. Member agree that we need better data to understand the causes, then we can start to prevent it, as well as, importantly, treating it when it occurs. We could prevent a lot more of this.
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that there is definitely space for more research. Adverse childhood experiences are the single biggest driver of mental ill health in children and, later on, in adults. I will touch on that later.
I want to know today when the Government will finally get their act together to end the wait for children’s mental health services. We are sick and tired of the same old meaningless platitudes from the Government. I know the Minister: I had the pleasure of working with her in my role as a shadow Minister. I know she is decent, good and kind, and she absolutely wants the best for children. I believe that. I also understand that her hands, regardless of what she might want to do, will be tied. However, in my role as shadow Cabinet Minister for mental health over three and a half years, the number of times the Minister and her predecessors have harped on, quite frankly, about the £2.3 billion they have put into mental health services! They have used that figure no fewer than 90 times in five years for many different things, depending on the focus of the debate. Whenever we have a debate about eating disorders, the £2.3 billion comes out. Whenever we have a debate about access to IAPT—improving access to psychological therapies—the £2.3 billion comes out. Whenever we have a children’s mental health debate, it is again rolled out. I understand that, but we really need tangible answers because the waiting lists grow, children are let down and families suffer.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing a debate on this important issue. She is absolutely right to highlight the fact that we have known there are challenges in CAMHS for many years: we know there are problems with commissioning CAMHS and we know there are workforce challenges. We know there has been a failure to properly recruit mental health doctors and nurses to posts across CAMHS. Does she agree that we need to hear proper answers from the Minister today? We have known about these challenges for a long time. It is time we got on and did something about it.
May I apologise, Mr Pritchard? I should, at the beginning, have drawn the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising NHS psychiatrist.
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank the hon. Member, whom I would like to call my hon. Friend, because we have worked very closely on this issue for a number of years. He speaks not just as a politician, but as a practising NHS psychiatrist and I take my hat off to him. He speaks from a position of authority. We also sat together on a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee for a number of months, where we heard how black people and those with autism and learning disabilities are affected by current policy. We made cross-party, cross-House recommendations, but all of that has been scrapped. The Bill has not been introduced to the House and we are wondering how, with such cross-party agreement, that can be.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this very important issue to Westminster Hall. She just spoke about black children. Does she think that this crisis is impacting disproportionately on black children and young people? Does the profession need to look at racism as a trauma, and does more work need to be done to consider those issues and deal with this crisis?
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Absolutely yes, black people are significantly more adversely affected. The work has been done. We sat together and saw the evidence, and the Government have chosen to ignore the recommendations. Experts have been working for years on understanding the drivers and coming up with solutions. Young black men are four times more likely than white men to be diagnosed with mental ill health when they have entered the judicial system, when their life is over and they have already had their cards marked, as it were. What beggars belief is the fact that we had consensus. We had the experts who did the research. They came and presented, yet we have got nowhere. I am fed up, as are many people here, with the same old soundbites and no meaningful action.
Tonight, many children will be going to bed cold and hungry. More than 120,000 children will be without a home. Let us think about that for a moment: 120,000 children without a home. Millions more are living in poverty in damp and mouldy houses. Parents simply wanting the best for their families are suffering under the sharp pinch of the cost of living crisis. That is the damning reality of 14 long years of Tory rule.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, in keeping with the expertise that she has in this area. I agree that one of the great driving causes of the epidemic of mental ill health among young people is the unnecessary poverty and lack of opportunity in this country, following the political choice that was made to pursue 14 years of austerity. That means that, in one of the richest countries on earth, we need not only a solution to the root causes of unnecessary child poverty, but extra Government investment in children who are already on a waiting list for mental health support. People may be shocked to discover that, in West Yorkshire, 24,560 children were on a waiting list for mental health support as of November last year—a nearly 30% increase from the same time the year before. Does that not go to show that urgent action and urgent extra funding are needed from this Government?
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is absolutely right. This is about understanding. As I alluded to earlier, adverse childhood experiences are the single biggest driver of poor mental health in children and then later on in adults. Of course, there are other causes—most definitely—but adverse childhood experiences are huge. That is why, as my hon. Friend articulated so well, it is important to understand that, yes, there has to be money going directly into the mental health pot, but there must also be a wider ambition for our children. There must be an understanding of how we tackle these root drivers that are causing so many children to have poor mental health.
Inequality and poverty drive mental illness. We know that children from the very poorest households are four times more likely to develop a mental illness. Some 43% of children who are receiving mental health support from Place2Be, a fantastic organisation, are on free school meals. Addressing the mental health crisis in children must go hand in hand with addressing the cost of living crisis and child poverty. Yet, as many families continue to struggle to afford food and bills, the Government have offered little to tackle childhood poverty.
It will come as no surprise to Members here that I believe we need a set of policies that bring essential change to young people’s mental health. That means having specialists in schools; fixing the chronic staffing shortages and recruiting more staff; ensuring that patients are getting timely access to treatment and not languishing on long waiting lists, desperately waiting for that letter to come through the door telling them that they have an appointment; and enabling young people to access support in the community. As a country, we have a duty to be bold in our offer and uncompromising in our aims, with mental health interwoven into every decision the Government take.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The hon. Lady is being very generous with allowing interventions. I agree with much of what she has said, particularly in regard to early intervention. I was the Children’s Minister when we set up the early intervention fund, which recognised that having money invested early and attention on children as young as possible would bear dividends later on. The hon. Lady has made a number of criticisms of the Government, saying that they have done nothing, but she has not mentioned the Best Start for Life project set up by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), which is all about that early intervention, from conception to age two. Does she acknowledge the good that that is beginning to do, because in addition to adverse childhood experiences, the other biggest impact on a child’s mental health is the lack of attachment, or attachment dysfunction? There is a 99% correlation between a mother suffering from depression or low-level mental illness during pregnancy and the likelihood of her children going through similar mental health and depression episodes as teenagers. Therefore, working with parents, and particularly the mother, before conception is absolutely where we can have the biggest impact in making sure that children are well-balanced, ready to join society, join school and join nursery, and able to avoid many of the problems that happen later on.
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for highlighting something that we so often forget. When we talk about mental illness and children’s mental health, we often do not talk about the early years—the early attachment-forming part of life that is so important for positive mental health. He is right that healthy mental health in a mother is essential for positive mental health in a child. I would pick him up slightly on some of his points, because if we look at health inequalities, the groups that I have been talking about, who are most adversely affected with their mental health, are the ones who struggle to access any of the support available. The numbers speak for themselves.
Of course, all projects, interventions and ambitions for our children and their parents are important, but right now we have a children’s mental health epidemic. That is why it is important that we talk about these things during Children’s Mental Health Week next week, and beforehand in this debate. As a country, we have to be bold in our offer and have mental health interwoven in every decision the Government make. That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), having been early years Minister, about the importance of having mental health not in a health silo but across Departments, from local planning applications to Bills taken through this House. However, our children are being failed by a lack of prevention and early intervention, by long waiting lists, by a lack of funding, by an overstretched system and by a Government who are simply not concerned with children’s mental wellbeing.
We simply cannot allow our children’s future to continue to be squandered as a result of more inaction. The Minister may challenge me on this point, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is no longer time for warm words; they have to be backed up with resources and ambition for our children. I hope we will hear something new from the Minister today, and I thank everybody for attending the debate.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is an honour to serve while you are in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) on introducing the subject in such a wide-ranging and compassionate way. I prepared only a few notes because I thought the debate would be over-subscribed, but I hope we will still fill the time. I might add a few things that I have not prepared.
I want to focus particularly on adverse childhood experiences. I have been the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of adverse childhood experiences, which we now call the APPG for childhood trauma, for some years. Listening to and understanding the science of adverse childhood experiences has given me a real insight. I commend the WAVE Trust, which has also done a lot of work on attachment disorder and the importance of a child’s early attachment to their mother. The trust has been a fabulous supporter of the APPG for childhood trauma.
Our children are falling through the cracks. It is clear that our approach to childhood mental health is not working—I agree with the hon. Member for Tooting on that. As the chair of the APPG for childhood trauma, I will focus my attention on trauma in mental health.
Adverse childhood experiences, also known as ACEs, are the biggest drivers of poor mental health in children. They can be anything that threatens to overwhelm the child, including abuse and neglect. Being unable to process prolonged stress can alter a child’s normal brain function, which often stays with that person all their life. That is what we call trauma. A child’s brain helps them to survive in the moment, but it assumes that persistent stress or danger is normal and it therefore adapts to constant adrenalin. Because of that, those who experience childhood trauma are twice as likely to develop depression and three times as likely to develop anxiety disorders.
Very often, children’s behaviour at school is also affected. I asked a question in Education questions earlier this week about the Government’s behaviour policy, because ACEs are not even mentioned in it. If we do not talk about ACEs more—I use every opportunity to talk about them—gaps appear in the behaviour policy or guidelines to schools. The Department for Education does not even mention ACEs and childhood trauma; that needs to be corrected.
Many children carry their traumatic experience into later life. Someone’s chances of dropping out of school, being obese or even developing diseases such as strokes are higher the more ACEs they have experienced. The life expectancy of those with six or more ACEs is 20 years lower than that of peers with none. There is no limit for the reach of ACEs. That does not mean that people who suffer adverse childhood experiences are invariably condemned to a life of disadvantage, but it is so much more likely. We therefore have to focus on it.
Poverty is also an adverse childhood experience. That is why the connection between mental ill health and poverty is so important. We need to focus and see it for what it is.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a fascinating speech, and I look forward to hearing more from her on a future occasion. She draws attention to how young people can get support and be recognised. In my constituency, we had a series of tragic events. Out of that, the NHS has provided i-Rock Horsham District, which is an opportunity for young people without a referral—without being told by a teacher, parent or doctor that this is the appropriate path—to present themselves for professional support. It will not be fully-fledged psychiatric support but it will have that triaging process, sometimes helping them with more basic issues or reassuring them, but often helping to pick up where they really need the kind of support my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) and others have referred to. That is proving extremely effective in my constituency.
Wera Hobhouse
I could not agree more. I hope my speech will make everybody here realise that we need much more understanding about ACEs. Some countries have that understanding and roll out trauma-informed services across the board, including police, education, welfare and health. A better understanding of ACEs will lead to more specialism and more people understanding this area. Trauma-informed schools, for instance, would also mean that teachers pick things up and go deeper into the issues of childhood trauma. I was a secondary school teacher before I became a Member of Parliament, and I sometimes wish I had known about ACEs, given some of the behavioural challenges I faced, which would make someone think, “That is just a very difficult child.” If I had known more, I would probably have picked up the behaviour as that of a traumatised child, rather than that of somebody who was consistently causing trouble. We would therefore deal with children differently.
George Freeman
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case, and I am keen to hear as much of it as I can. To the point I was trying to make earlier, extreme poverty is one cause of childhood trauma, but there are many others. Like many people in this House—I put my own hand up—I experienced childhood trauma, but I was in a materially privileged family. Poverty can provide a lot of those drivers that the hon. Lady has talked about, but I was taken out of the arms of my father by the police at 11 months, and I was a child carer of an alcoholic parent. Poverty has a part to play, but does the hon. Lady agree that we need to make sure we frame this in the context of the real causes, some of which are not related to poverty but to other chronic problems, such as alcohol, addiction or domestic violence? If we view the matter simply through the prism of a poverty attack, we are in danger of missing out some of the causes that are really embedded in repeated patterns of trauma within families.
Wera Hobhouse
First of all, it is brave that the hon. Gentleman is sharing his experiences of trauma. I think we need more people to do that. He is also absolutely right that not all of this is directly linked to poverty. Poverty or extreme poverty is one ACE among many others, and these things can happen in any family. Those who are doing research into ACEs would always recognise that trauma is not just suffered in a particular type of household but across socioeconomic backgrounds. The hon. Gentleman will know how difficult it is to overcome the traumas of early childhood and deal with them.
I want to make some progress. I am sorry that I cannot expand on ACEs now, but I encourage everybody who is here to inform themselves about them and the research that the WAVE Trust has done into the subject, which is fascinating and ongoing. That research suggests that the adverse childhood experiences of abuse and neglect alone, which can happen in any family, cost the UK more than £15 billion a year. Clearly, the cost of preventing adverse childhood experiences is less than that of inaction.
Unnoticed and unaddressed, adverse childhood experiences can be a lifelong sentence. Childhood trauma does not end with the child and it gets transferred to the next generation—that is also something that the APPG for childhood trauma has researched further. Then, there is a spiral or a vicious circle of repeat trauma. If childhood trauma is not addressed, those who become parents will carry their adverse childhood experiences into the next generation, and their children may suffer trauma, too. We must end this cycle, and that starts with early intervention. One factor that can help to prevent childhood trauma is whether the child feels capable and deserving. A supportive and reliable adult presence is key, and we often hear about how teachers, for example, have helped a great deal because they, as an adult, have been in the room when home life has been very difficult.
As I have said, trauma-informed services across the board—in schools, the NHS, the police and our prisons—would have a transformative impact on the whole of our society. Social workers must be supported to recognise the effect of ACEs early in children’s lives. Early years practitioners can spot signs of trauma at the age at which it is most likely to be resolved. I hope to hear commitments from the Minister on implementing trauma-informed services. Examining how trauma affects minds allows us to gain an enriched understanding of behaviour, and I have mentioned how that would support teachers. Rounded insights and changes in approach lead to better care for children, and better care for children now will be felt for generations to come.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I had not intended to speak, but there appears to be an opportunity to do so, and I am not one to pass it up, so I will make just a few comments. I declare my interests as per the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Until recently, I was also for six years the chair of the trustees of the Parent-Infant Foundation, which did and continues to do very important work on infant mental health awareness, attachment and the provision of services.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) on securing this debate. It is a subject about which she knows much, and her passion shows through. I disagree with little of what she said, although her speech became a little partisan at some stages. This issue has besieged Governments over many years, but if one looks at the figures, most alarmingly, the incidence of mental illness among children has got particularly bad since the beginning of covid, and there are reasons for that that we should continue to be worried about. This is not a gradual progression; there has been a very serious downturn in recent years, which I will come back to.
I agree with all the comments that have been made about the disproportionate impact on children in the care system, children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and those in poverty. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) said, the issue is not exclusive to people from deprived backgrounds. In some projects run by the Parent-Infant Foundation around the country, we see parents from well-to-do city backgrounds who have serious attachment problems with their children. At times, we forget that mental illness spreads across the whole of society in different ways, and we need to be open to all of them.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Member not recognise that those from a less deprived background have better access to help than those from a poorer background?
Tim Loughton
There is something in that, and people from better-off backgrounds may have recourse to the private sector as well, but the point is that the illness impacts on everybody, although I certainly agree that the capacity to get early help for that illness is differentiated across families.
The impact of covid should not be underestimated. During covid, we saw the impact on new parents, particularly new single parents. One of the biggest impacts was the absence of health visitors able to go across the threshold of new parents’ homes, particularly on single parents having a child for the first time. There were the other horrors of covid going on, and people were detached from the normal family networks they might have, such as grandparents coming along to share their experience and give support. On top of that, they did not have a health visitor coming to visit them physically, because about three quarters of health visitors were diverted to the frontline of dealing with covid. It was only in the most deprived cases, where there were concerns, that health visitors physically got to go and visit.
On top of that, we had a decline in the numbers of health visitors, which reversed the position that the coalition Government produced, where we had an additional 4,200; quite rightly, that was a pledge by the Government, and it was actually delivered in the lifetime of one Government. Since then, numbers have declined again. I think there is absolutely a false economy.
Dr Poulter
I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said about health visitors. I think I was actually the Minister who oversaw that increase in the number of health visitors. The change to commissioning by local authorities has been a very big mistake in the provision of health visitor services. I wonder more generally—after reflecting on the link between poverty and poor mental health—whether he would also reflect on family nurses, who provide significant support to deprived families and families with challenges. That workforce also struggled to do its good work during the pandemic, which has had a consequential effect on those families and indeed the mental health of young people.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Family nurse partnerships were another great success story, for which he can take part of the credit. There are various ways of providing that support, in particular to new families, but a lot of it was not available during covid.
I have a real concern about babies born during covid. We are only starting to see the consequences. I remember well one of our own colleagues in a debate in this Chamber during covid saying that she gave birth during that time and it was five months before her own baby got to meet another baby, and the baby did not react well—“What on earth is this? Another baby?” There were no mum and toddler classes available then, and there were no support networks of grandparents and others coming in. If there were no health visitors or other professionals there as well, it was difficult to spot signs of attachment disorder or safeguarding issues within a household—and we are only starting to see the consequences now. It has compounded the issues for these children. Now at last, they are at least being diagnosed with a mental illness, but it might have been prevented earlier if all that support was there. That really needs to be on the radar of the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education.
Then there is the impact of school lockdowns, which should also not be underestimated. There is a strong correlation when it comes to children, particularly younger children, not being able to go to school and socialise with their friends, or go through all the normal disciplines of what school brings. There are also safeguarding concerns that teachers and early warning exercises can pick up. We are seeing the impact of children being cooped up at home and not able to get on with the ordinary day-to-day business of growing up and being a child, and there were many safeguarding problems as a result of the schools lockdowns.
I will not apportion blame here, but it was a big mistake that the schools were closed down, and the unions forced those closures in the early days. We are seeing the consequences now. I agree with many of the solutions. Of course we need more investment. The Government have been investing, but they need to invest more, and we need more professionals to come into the system, because they do not grow on trees. It is absolutely right that awareness is needed of mental health first aiders and the mental health support available in schools—and we need more of that.
The trouble is that when somebody’s mental health problem is spotted in school, the thresholds for getting the treatment, therapy or whatever they require are so high that it takes too long, and in too many cases the condition worsens over that time. It really is a false economy. We need far quicker referrals, and without having to go through so many hoops. As the hon. Member for Tooting said, parents are waiting weeks or months on end to get a referral—in many cases, just to get the diagnosis before they can actually get the appropriate treatment.
I also have big concerns about eating disorders. The Government have put a lot of investment into increasing eating disorder specialist placements, but they are full up. I had a particularly tragic case in my constituency. The father rang every hospital in the country, including all the private hospitals because he could afford to fund treatment for his daughter, but everywhere was full. Eventually he secured a bed on, I think, Christmas eve. This was a teenage girl who was suicidal and had been through various episodes before. Eventually she got good treatment in hospital.
But there is a problem when people come out of hospital; often it is a case of falling off a precipice because the support services are no longer there. We need a much better system where people who need residential intensive support can be supported when they come out of that residential environment, which is a particularly tricky time because too often they end up having to go back into that intensive residential environment.
Tim Loughton
I will give way one more time. I have one more point to make and then I will finish.
Dr Poulter
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is making an excellent contribution to this debate. His points about eating disorders are absolutely right. On the arrangements that are in place for discharge from in-patient units and also on preventive care such as community services for eating disorders, does he agree with me that one of the challenges is that there has been a failure to develop the workforce in that area? There are many unfilled posts in community eating disorder services. Unless we get that right, we will not address the challenges of eating disorders that he has outlined.
Tim Loughton
Again, my hon. Friend reinforces my point. I think we have done better on the provision of beds for that intensive care, although there are still not enough of them, but we have not done nearly enough on picking up afterwards and on preventing people from getting to that stage in the first place. The issue disproportionately affects young girls, who have all the pressures of social media. The Media Bill is being discussed in the main Chamber at the moment, and we are clamping down on sites that pretend to be there to offer support but that actually encourage vulnerable teenagers into obscene eating disorders as though they are a badge of honour. So much more needs to be done. It is so expensive—financially, as well as socially—when we do not act at the appropriate time.
My final point comes back to early intervention and prevention. The Best Start for Life project, pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), really is a game changer. It has had the buy-in of all the political parties. I was a part of the various advisory research groups that we had in this place working with Members across the Floor, and we now have the roll-out of family hubs. This is all about supporting families, particularly mums, but not exclusively mums because fathers have a role; too often they are neglected and yet they are a part of the support mechanism. There are mental illness problems affecting new fathers, which are quite severe, as well as the perinatal mental illness around women. We need to do much more to make sure we have happy mothers and that we attack domestic violence problems, a third of which happen during pregnancy. If we have a happy mum, we have a happy baby, who is likely to grow up well attached, happier, well balanced, and more resilient against all the pressures and problems of mental illness in society that are manifested in schools and beyond.
It is not true to say that the Government have done nothing and have not invested in this issue. We need them to do more and invest more. The Best Start for Life project is one of the most exciting and fundamentally important projects for attacking a problem right at the beginning, before it becomes a much bigger problem for children, families and society as a whole.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid I will have to impose a time limit of five minutes for each speech—we have about three left. We will move on to the Front-Bench speakers just before half-past, so that will be 10 minutes each. I call Yasmin Qureshi.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) on securing this really important debate. I thank her for all the work that she has done over the years on mental health issues. She works as a doctor while still working as a Member of Parliament, so I thank her so much for everything that she has done.
I will speak for about two minutes, so hopefully colleagues will have a chance to get in. The problem is that mental health has always been a bit of a Cinderella service; there has never been proper investment in, for example, the training of professionals, or in sufficient spaces—for example, in schools—to help children with mental health issues. As a constituency MP, parents come to see me when they are trying to get their children into a special school, and I am sure other colleagues will have heard about the same issues: there are not enough spaces available and, if there are spaces, they are often far away. It is heartbreaking to see parents crying about how much their children are suffering. In Bolton, the wait just to get a first appointment with CAMHS is at least 12 weeks, and the NHS Greater Manchester integrated care board recently reported that, as of November 2023, there were 29,690 children on the waiting list for mental health support—a 25% increase on the figures in November 2022.
Mental health issues have affected almost 1.6 million young people—double the number 10 years ago—who are effectively being reported as “disabled”, and 650,000 children receive disability living allowance. There are many reasons why children experience mental health issues. We have discussed the cost of living crisis; being unable to access proper food, a warm home and clothes will have an impact. I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that the covid lockdown, school closures and other reasons have also contributed to the situation. There are also existing recognisable mental health issues, like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, eating disorders and self-harm—and we often forget about factors such as the sexual and physical abuse of children in the home. These are real crises that we are facing.
The country cannot afford to have 1.6 million children who will become adults with mental health issues. There is a moral argument for the situation to be resolved. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said about the Government; whether people like it or not, this Government have been in charge for the last 14 years, so if there are still problems now, they have to take responsibility and tackle the issue properly. I will say it again: while there is a moral case to address the situation immediately, there is an economic case as well, because we will have adults with a lot of emotional health issues, and that is not good for our society. The time for discussion is over.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) on securing the debate and on all the work that she has contributed in looking at mental health and, in particular today, children’s mental health.
I believe that no one has the monopoly of wisdom in this area—every day we are learning how to move forward—but key components need to be put in place. We know, and have heard in the debate, the role that trauma plays and its impact on children’s mental health. We also know that the environment to which a child is exposed can trigger and escalate the challenges they face.
We have heard about the shortfalls in the number of professionals required in the services. We need greater investment, not just through ringfenced and protected finance and funding, but to ensure that the NHS long-term workforce plan focuses on the mental health workforce that is needed now and into the future. As we have heard, whether workforce issues are due to the impact of covid or other factors, they will have a significant impact; and unless we make the right interventions early, there will clearly be consequences.
I particularly want to focus the Minister on the issue of leadership, because in an ever more complex health system—we have heard again today about the challenges of trying to navigate local authority and health systems—we need to have very clear leadership in this area. I urge the Minister to go back to the major conditions strategy and to pull out mental health, specifically looking at children and young people’s mental health, and to develop a 10-year strategy, not just for mental health in general as was originally planned, but for children and young people’s mental health, so that there can be not only a laser focus on the interventions that are needed but so the strategy can be held up to scrutiny, which is what this place needs to do.
I also urge the Minister to co-ordinate cross-departmental work to ensure that that strategy is robust and that the inter-relationships between different Departments work, because we recognise that the issues we are discussing today have impacts in so many different areas, whether we are talking about the environment, housing, poverty—as we have today—or indeed education. We need to ensure that we pull all that work together. I urge her to take that work forward and to respond to the debate.
In particular, I also want to focus on the intersections with children from the care sector—care-experienced young people—and the additional traumas that they have. Just last Thursday, we heard powerful evidence in this place when Adoption UK put forward its latest report, which discusses how the education system itself needs to change. I would be really interested to know what discussions the Minister is having with Education Ministers about creating a trauma-informed approach to schooling, particularly addressing some of the behaviour codes that are in place, and the processes of isolation and exclusions, which are bearing down on young people who, as we have already heard, have faced significant challenges since covid and before. It is incredibly important to ensure that such an approach is put in place, in particular for children with autism and children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD.
Those children are having an adverse experience in the education system, which will be costly in the long term. There are too many children in that situation. I met an Education Minister this morning and highlighted the number of children who are not in school. We cannot just say that children are refusing to attend school with no reason and we also need to ensure that the school environment is safe for children.
I welcome the presence of health professionals in schools. I have to say that relying on teachers to lead on mental health in schools is the wrong approach, because teachers have so much to do already that they need back-up. Teachers are scared that they will miss something because they have not had the training that mental health professionals have. However, the roll-out of those teams of health professionals in schools is far, far too slow. I appreciate that there is a workforce challenge, but we need to expedite that work.
I will close by drawing attention to the work of Healthwatch York, which has really dug deep into children’s mental health issues in our city, and to the work that I have been doing and a recent meeting that I have had with parents from across our city. Systems seem to be impossible to navigate, there are long waits and ultimately services are overstretched and under-resourced. It is not just the young people themselves but their parents who need support, so I trust that the Minister will ensure that there is a parents strategy in all the work she does.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Pritchard, which is on an issue that I have a very big interest in.
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for securing this debate on such an important subject and on setting the scene really well with her massive knowledge of this subject, which helps us all to develop a better understanding of it. This issue is experienced in all of our constituencies; it is not just a nationwide issue but a universal one. So, I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate today.
I know first-hand stories about this issue from my own constituency. I will not mention any names, but I know that a large number of children are genuinely struggling, so it is great to be here to represent them and discuss ways to combat mental health issues. It is the parents who I deal with; they speak on behalf of the children who have the problems.
I will give a Northern Ireland perspective. I am very pleased to see the Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield)—here in Westminster Hall today. She is a Minister who understands these issues and I have no doubt that she will reply very positively to our requests. In Northern Ireland, the system is operated by child and adolescent mental health services, or CAMHS, which goes above and beyond to support young children who are suffering from conditions such as depression, problems with food or eating, self-harm and abuse, violent tendencies, bi-polar disorders, schizophrenia or anxiety. More than 2,000 young children are waiting for an assessment by CAMHS and some of those children have to wait for up to nine weeks.
There is no greater worry than the worry that one has about a child or grandchild. I have six grandchildren and I really do worry about the six of them and the society that we live in now. It is different from when I was a teen growing up, which, by the way, was not yesterday. Support and openness is the main source of encouragement and I will go on briefly to that in terms of school and education. In my constituency of Strangford, I have heard of and taken many phone calls concerning eating disorders. I commend the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) because she has been at the forefront and done a grand job. She has highlighted the matter, not just here but in the main Chamber, and I congratulate her on that.
I have spoken about having good and efficient eating disorder services available. For example, in my constituency there is no access to a clinic to allow people to weigh in with their GP or to receive specialised treatment. Each year in Northern Ireland, 50 to 120 people develop anorexia, while 170 develop bulimia. Way back when I first came here, the Minister in Northern Ireland at that time helped one of my constituents, who was a young girl of 15. She went to St Thomas’ hospital across the road here. My Minister, along with the then Minister of Health here, saved that girl’s life.
That is a story of how our NHS works. We do not always hear the good stories. I know as a fact that that young girl is now married with two children. I remember meeting her with her parents in the Lobby here, who were worried sick about her. Yet our health service, our Minister back home and the Minister here saved her life at St Thomas’, just across the water.
There are 100 admissions to acute hospitals for eating disorders every year. It is important to remember with these figures that that they record only people who have been admitted to hospital, so there will be more. What is this about? Young boys and girls who suffer with eating disorders struggle with their looks and self-confidence. Children and teens spend so much time in school, that often their parents will be completely unaware of what is taking place. We must also make discreet pastoral care accessible for young children. It is really important to have that, and I hope the Minister will provide a response on pastoral care and where we are here.
I can speak for the schools of Strangford, as I am in frequent contact with them regarding multiple issues. The care our teachers have for young people is unwavering. It is a fact of life that so many young people are struggling. I have never seen anything like the struggles of the past two years. The hon. Member for Tooting mentioned that in her introduction, and I see that replicated, unfortunately, in my constituency.
Other features are struggling at school, personal appearance, heartbreak and grief. We must always remind them of the importance of speaking up and sharing feelings, so that we can help them. In conclusion, I urge the Minister, the Department and the Government to engage with devolved institutions. I always say that because it is important that we work better together, to ensure we have the necessary means to support our young people with their mental health.
This issue is incredibly important, as I have witnessed in my own constituency, from what parents and children have brought to me. To reiterate the point I made at the beginning, this is an issue we must all understand and must resolve as a nation. I have said often that we can do these things better together, and I think the Minister grasps that.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) on securing this debate and the passion and professional experience she brought to her contribution.
The contributions we have heard so far highlight how important it is to take action to improve children’s mental health and address the root causes and aggravating factors leading to poor mental health in children. As the MP for East Dunbartonshire and the SNP health spokesperson, I am fully committed to tackling the underlying causes of mental health issues. The key themes I want to reiterate are improving support for children who are struggling with their mental health, and poverty as a key driver of poor mental health. Addressing that is key, to ensure children are not taking on the burden of this Tory Government’s financial mismanagement.
I will start with support. The theme of this year’s children’s mental health week is “My Voice Matters”. It is important that we acknowledge in this place that we are here to represent our constituents and give a voice to those not feeling heard. It is our responsibility to advocate for those families and ensure that, when children are struggling with their mental health, they are met with support and a listening ear.
It is also important to note that LGBT young people are more likely to struggle with their mental health. It is no wonder, really, when the rhetoric in this place and from the Government constantly undermines and questions young people who may already be struggling with their identity. Instead of questioning and doubting these young people, we all have a duty to understand and support our young LGBT constituents. That is why the Scottish Government recently announced additional funding for a new project to support LGBT children and young people’s mental health. LGBT Youth Scotland will receive £50,000 to establish a new mental health LGBT youth commission. The commission will explore barriers and the challenges young LGBT people face when accessing mental health support and services. That will involve listening to young people and their lived experience to help inform future work, designing targeted and tangible solutions formulated by the LGBT Youth Scotland mental health ambassadors.
The SNP believes that supporting children’s wellbeing should be rights-based, strength-based, holistic and adaptable. That is why, in 2021, the Scottish Government published the whole school approach framework to assist schools in supporting children and young people’s mental health. The Scottish Government’s mental health transition and recovery plan also emphasises a health-promoting and preventative approach to mental health and wellbeing. The preventative approach is something we have heard about from across the Chamber today, so I am delighted to represent the SNP in that regard.
Education and the time children spend in schools have a large part to play in that approach, through raising awareness and understanding, and supporting the positive mental health of children and young people. Included in the framework are considerations for local authorities and guidance for schools to develop and embed policy in practice within schools and the wider community, and to support them in evaluating their mental health practices and identify areas for improvement. It is essential that schools, where children spend so much of their time, are equipped with the proper tools and knowledge to support children and ensure their mental health is prioritised and understood. That is why the Scottish Government also continue to support local authority partners with £60 million of funding to ensure that every secondary school has access to counselling services. The Scottish Government have also published a mental health and wellbeing strategy built around the three pillars of promote, prevent, provide: promoting positive mental health and wellbeing; preventing mental health issues occurring or escalating, while tackling underlying causes; and, of course, providing mental health and wellbeing support and care.
That leads me to the other major theme I want to highlight, which is tackling the underlying and aggravating causes of poor mental health, the most prominent being financial pressures and the impact of the Tory Government’s cost of living crisis. Childhood should be a time of happiness and freedom. Children should not need to worry about their family’s finances or whether they will be warm and well fed, a point explored by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is no longer in his place.
Amy Callaghan
Oh, sorry, you’ve just moved.
Low-income families with children continue to be disproportionately hit during the crisis. It is no surprise that that has had an horrendous impact on mental health. When families are in fuel and food poverty, struggling to keep warm and fed, the stress is certainly not limited to parents, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Tooting. It can aggravate specific mental health conditions, including, but not limited to, eating disorders.
The cost of living payments from the British Government have been one-off flat-rate payments. That means that a single person receives the same as a family of five. Research has shown that single-person households saw their income rise by 6% thanks to those payments, which is of course welcome, whereas for families with two or three children, the increase was only 3.3%. The Work and Pensions Committee’s cost of living payment report states that the failure to provide extra support for families is notable and should be examined further by the UK Government. Unfortunately, the response from the British Government rejects the idea that cost of living support payments should take account of family size, despite that being a common sense recommendation based on data and fairness.
We in the SNP are deeply concerned about the UK Government’s welfare policies. Instead of heaping additional pressure on low-income families, the British Government need urgently to address the fundamental issues with universal credit. One particular example is ending the two-child limit and the rape clause, a policy that I am afraid would be kept by any future Labour Government. The End Child Poverty Coalition analysis estimates that almost 90,000 children in Scotland are impacted by the two-child limit, and ending it could lift 250,000 children—15,000 of whom are in Scotland—out of poverty. This British Government’s political choice to keep and force kids into poverty is simply to the detriment of children’s mental health across these isles.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government have lifted 90,000 children out of poverty with ground-breaking, game-changing policies such as the Scottish child payment. We in the SNP are not the only ones who are concerned and calling on the British Government to end the two-child limit. The chief executive of the UK Committee for UNICEF, Jon Sparkes, said:
“We urge the UK government to take steps to protect all children from poverty, starting by making child poverty reduction a government priority, scrapping the two-child limit policy and benefits cap, and improving services and support, especially for the youngest children”.
I ask the Minister this: why is reducing child poverty not an ambition of this Government? We in the SNP call on the British Government to scrap the benefit cap and to introduce an essentials guarantee to ensure that universal credit is set at a level that allows households to cover essential costs such as food and utilities. As much as the Scottish Government progressively mitigates the policies of this place, 85% of welfare expenditure and income replacement benefits remain reserved to Westminster. That is why social security policy should be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
Adverse childhood experiences are of course a significant factor in a child experiencing poor mental health, as outlined by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who chairs the childhood trauma all-party parliamentary group. ACEs and the trauma associated with them are, by and large, linked to poverty. I sat on and chaired children’s panels in the central belt of Scotland before being elected to this place. I saw at first hand the trauma that ACEs and poverty can cause to children and families. The SNP Scottish Government’s strategy of investing in people, investing in children, would work much more significantly if our hands were not tied by this place.
It is clear that the Scottish Government have the willingness and the ideas to help children’s mental health. We just need the powers. It is abundantly clear that, no matter which party forms a British Government after the next election, ending child poverty will not be a priority. Only with the full powers of independence will we be able to tackle the root causes of child poverty and improve the mental health of children in Scotland, continuing the Scottish Government’s current ambitions as an independent nation.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard.
Let me start my remarks by praising my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). She is a true champion for the nation’s health. She works tirelessly to highlight mental health issues, especially those among children. In my unbiased way, I have seen how she has operated as an MP and as an NHS emergency doctor, as echoed by some of my colleagues, and she commands huge respect on these issues, so I wish to congratulate her, as others have, both on securing the debate and on her excellent speech.
I also wish to thank hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) said that this was not just a moral case, but an economic case, especially as children grow into adults and continue to be negatively affected. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the impact on the mental health workforce and the fact that there needs to be clear leadership in this area. She called for a 10-year mental health strategy along with a parent strategy.
I am delighted to be marking Children’s Mental Health Week, which starts on 5 February. This is its 10th year. It is organised by Place2Be, which deserves great thanks for all the work that it does to support children’s mental health. I also congratulate its chief executive, Catherine Roche, and its president and founder, Dame Benny Refson. These are strong women leading the way. This year’s theme, “My Voice Matters”, goes to the heart of the issue. Every child matters. Each child counts no matter who they are, what their parents do, what their race or religion are, or where they live. Every child must know that their voice matters. We need a system that listens to every child. We know that our child and adolescent mental health services are in a severe state of crisis—they are at breaking point.
Last May, we read reports in The Guardian that the number of children in mental health crisis in England was at a record high. NHS data collected by the excellent YoungMinds charity revealed more than 3,500 urgent referrals for under-18s in May, three times higher than the same month in 2019. The number of children and young people undergoing treatment or waiting to start care also reached new highs, with record open referrals to children and young people’s mental health services. This month, The Independent newspaper revealed that NHS figures show that a record 496,897 under-18s—nearly half a million—were referred by GPs to child and adolescent mental health services at the end of November last year, up from 493,434 the month before.
More children than ever with anxiety, depression and other serious mental illnesses are waiting, for longer than ever, in anguish. We know that the causes are complex: social disintegration, harmful social media, bullying, worries about the climate and anxiety about the future. As has been mentioned, covid was a real game changer. Secondary school pupils across the UK experienced significantly higher rates of depression and social, emotional and behavioural difficulties—overall, the worst mental wellbeing—during the pandemic. An Oxford University department reported that cases of depression among secondary school pupils aged 11 to 13 rose by 8.5% during the pandemic compared with a 0.3% increase among the same cohort before covid, that girls’ mental health deteriorated more than that of boys during the pandemic and that girls were also more likely to find the return to full-time schooling difficult. This is a generation in pain, so when we use the word “crisis”, we mean it.
The Oxford University research highlighted something else that is really important: the students who were most resilient during the pandemic were those with plenty of social interaction and support, including a supportive school environment, along with good relationships at home and a friend to turn to for support during lockdown. That is why the centrepiece of Labour’s plan for children’s mental health is the introduction of specialist mental health support for children and young people in every school. That will mean that every child in the school will have someone to talk to, someone to listen to, someone to offer support and someone to prove that “My Voice Matters”. It will go alongside recruiting thousands more mental health staff to cut waiting lists and ensure that more people can access treatment. Labour will create an open-access mental health hub for children and young people in every community. We will focus on prevention, early diagnosis, early intervention and timely treatment near where people live. It simply cannot be right that young people travel miles and wait for months to see a specialist. We know that mental illness is best tackled early and that it seldom gets better as the wait goes on longer. Prevention is not just socially just but, as has been mentioned, economically efficient. It saves young lives and it saves money. The next Labour Government will pay for this move by abolishing tax loopholes for private equity fund managers and tax breaks for private schools. That is social justice.
That promise sits alongside the many other measures in Labour’s child health action plan—a plan that adds up to a comprehensive mission to create the healthiest generation of children ever. That is why, when we meet again for Children’s Mental Health Week in early 2025, after the ballot papers have been filled in at the general election, we hope that we will have a new Government and a fresh start for children’s mental health.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting for securing this important debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for securing this debate ahead of Children’s Mental Health Week. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions, and I will try to answer as many points as I can in the time that I have.
It is absolutely clear that we face a challenge in ensuring timely support is available for children and young people’s mental health. Two factors are proving the greatest challenges. The first, as was pointed out by a number of speakers today, is the historic underinvestment in mental health services in this country. No other Government before us had tackled this, trying to introduce a parity in esteem between mental and physical health. The Government are investing £2.3 billion extra a year—I know the hon. Member for Tooting is tired of this figure —in mental health services. That is making a difference.
I just want to correct one figure that the hon. Member raised, about only 8% of funding going to children and young people’s mental health services. Actually, 1.63 million people were in contact with mental health services in November last year, and 31% of those were children aged between nought and 18. That shows that children are making up a large proportion of those benefiting from the funding. The extra £2.3 billion a year is going into projects such as our capital investment programme to eradicate mental health dormitories, and is being invested in our crisis centres, our crisis cafés, and 27,000 additional staff. We are seeing evidence that that is making a difference already. Our crisis cafés are associated with an 8% lower admission rate and our crisis telephone services with a 12% lower admission rate, and detentions under the Mental Health Act 1983 are 15% lower.
Our second challenge is the sheer scale of demand for services in the past few years. Even though we are investing more than ever before in children and young people’s mental health services, as the hon. Member for Tooting pointed out, one in five children now suffers with a mental health problem, compared with one in nine in 2017. There were 743,000 new referrals to children and young people’s mental health services in 2022, up 41% from just the year before. We recognise that we have to put in more funding. We are doing that, but it is difficult to meet the sheer demand for the support that children and young people need.
This is true across all four nations of the United Kingdom and not just here in England, where the Government are responsible for health. In Cardiff, for example, where Labour runs the health service, 83% of CAMHS are not on target for seeing children and young people. The Welsh Labour Government target of 80% of children and young people being assessed within 28 days had not been met for the five years up to 2021, the dates covered by the latest figures. I was quite surprised by the contribution from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), as Scotland have been missing their national targets. Under some health boards, children and young people have been waiting for more than 1,000 days for services. In Northern Ireland, 60% of those targets have not been met, either. All four nations of the United Kingdom are facing exactly the same pressures.
In England, however, we have a plan, and I can assure hon. Members that it is far from just warm words. While our spending on children and young people’s mental health services has increased from £841 million in 2020 to just over £1 billion in 2022-23, it is not just about how much we spend, but about how we spend it. An additional 345,000 children and young people are getting the mental health support they need. As of August last year, 703,000 children and young people aged under 18 were being supported through NHS-funded mental health services. That is a 13.1% increase on the year before.
Amy Callaghan
I recognise what the Minister is saying. Things are not perfect, but we in Scotland are investing more in the NHS and mental health services than they are in England. We recognise the problem, but we are doing something about it. That is more than can be said for down here.
Maria Caulfield
Let me point out what we are doing with our funding. We have introduced two waiting time standards for children and young people. The first is for 95% of children up to 19 with an eating disorder to receive treatment within one week for urgent cases and four weeks for more routine cases. I can showcase for the hon. Member for Tooting figures from her local integrated care board for eating disorders: 82% of children and young people under 19 are seen within four weeks. That is not 95%, so we are not where we want to be, but a significant proportion are being seen according to our new target. Our extra funding to children and young people’s services for eating disorders will rise to £54 million in the coming financial year, creating more capacity, but we absolutely acknowledge that there is more to do.
The second waiting time standard we have introduced is for 50% of patients of all ages, including children and young people, experiencing a first episode of psychosis to receive treatment within two weeks of being referred. That target is being met across the country.
Our plan for children and young people is cross-Government, because this is not just a health and social care problem. Mental health is everyone’s business. That is why we are working with the Department for Education to implement proposals from the children and young people’s mental health Green Paper.
Dr Allin-Khan
If the Government are interested in implementing cross-party proposals, why on earth have they scrapped the Mental Health Bill?
Maria Caulfield
I will touch on what we are doing and come back to the hon. Lady on that point.
Last week we met the Education Secretary and the chief executive of the NHS to discuss how we can better support school attendance, because we know that children with mental health problems are the most likely not to attend school. I do not think there was a single proposal from any of the Labour MPs, apart from on mental health support teams in schools, which we are already rolling out. We have rolled out 400 mental health support teams, covering 3.4 million pupils in England—something that Labour has not started to do in Wales, where it runs the health service. Our original ambition was to cover 25% of pupils, but we have done that a year earlier than expected; we are now on track in March this year to cover just under 50% of pupils with a mental health support team. We will also have 13,800 schools and colleges with a trained senior mental health lead, including seven in 10 state-funded schools in England.
We are already doing what Labour says it plans to do if it ever gets into government, and our evidence shows that that is making a difference across the country. In addition, in October we announced £4.92 million of new funding to develop new mental health and wellbeing support hubs for young people across all of England. We will be announcing in the next few weeks the successful hubs and where they will be based. That clearly shows that the work we are doing is on track and amounts to far more than just the warm words we have been accused of.
Dr Allin-Khan
Let me point out two things. First, 12,140 children are on waiting lists at my ICB, an increase of 18.15% on last year. Secondly, the Minister spoke about 1.63 million people accessing mental health services and said that 38% of them were children, but that is actually up on the 25% that I cited. She used that figure in her argument about the amount of money that has been spent on children’s mental health services. She was incorrect, and all she did was highlight that the situation is getting worse, rather than arguing against my point that only 8% is being spent on children. She did not address that point.
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Lady is making my argument for me. We are seeing a significant increase in demand, and that is why we are spending more on rolling out these services. She did not welcome the progress we are making on mental health support teams across our schools, or the fact that we are set to announce new mental health support hubs across England.
Last year we published our new suicide prevention strategy; my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) talked about 3 Dads Walking, who I was pleased to meet. We are also rolling out mental health and wellbeing support in our school curriculum, teaching young people what good mental health looks like and about support mechanisms. Our strategy sets out over 100 actions to help reduce suicide and to ensure that young people in particular, who are identified as a high-risk group in the strategy, are getting the support they need. That includes making mental health and wellbeing part of the school curriculum.
Jim Shannon
Has the Minister had the opportunity to look at how to ensure that young people have some church activity and pastoral care, which is very important?
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Part of that can be done in our schools. With the increase in mental health support teams, which will now cover 4.2 million pupils, there will be different levels of support, from pastoral support right through to acute help for those with more acute mental health needs. It is really important that we ensure that those teams are rolled out as we are planning. Our hubs in local areas will also be able to provide more bespoke services for the communities they represent, which is crucial. I would like to thank Dr Alex George, the Government’s youth mental health ambassador, who has been leading much of this work, particularly on the suicide prevention strategy and making children and young people a priority group.
I reiterate my thanks to everyone who has contributed to the debate. The Government have a plan to improve mental health services for children and young people by investing in services, with capital projects to improve infrastructure in order to provide the care that is needed, from crisis centres right through to the 27,000 extra mental health workers; rolling out mental health support teams in schools and our new children and young people’s mental health hubs, which will be announced shortly; and dealing with the sheer tsunami of demand, whether it is due to the fallout of covid or the fact that people are coming forward because we are encouraging them to talk about their mental health and ask for support.
Our plan is making a difference. I am hopeful that, with the investment we are putting in to tackle the lack of investment for decades under many Governments, we are providing the building blocks to improve the mental health of our young people in this country.
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank all Members, including the Minister and my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, for their contributions. Disappointingly, I have not heard anything about the scrapping of the Mental Health Bill, which the Minister conveniently avoided.
Dr Allin-Khan
No, I will continue. The Minister had ample opportunity to respond to a direct intervention, and she chose not to. That Bill was a great piece of cross-party work that would have improved the lives and outcomes of so many people in our country, particularly minority groups. The Minister did not address the fact that only 8% of funding is spent on children’s mental health services, but she highlighted that the need is greater than ever.
The £2.3 billion was promised before covid. We have heard multiple arguments today that the situation has got worse post covid. There has been no money to make up for the increased need related to covid, and no assessment of how we are going to deal with the fact that adverse childhood experiences and poverty are contributing so greatly to our nation’s mental ill health.
The Minister talked about the fact that there are many new referrals. There are many new referrals, but she did not mention that in so many parts of this country, and even in parts of this city, it is a postcode lottery. In some places, up to 50% of referrals are closed before the person has even been seen. While I welcome the fact that efforts are being made—it would be churlish of me to suggest that they are not—the fact remains that they are not good enough, they do not reach far enough and they are not ambitious enough. Even on the £2.3 billion, I know for a fact that the head of mental health services in the NHS asked for more, and that was before covid.
I thank everyone for being here and for their contributions. Although we are all on the same page in the sense that this is an issue we all care about, regardless of how we vote, where we live or what our socioeconomic background is, this Government still lack ambition for children in this country and for their mental health. Let me again, on the record, thank all the organisations that work so tirelessly in this space.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Children’s Mental Health Week 2024.
Type 2 Diabetes: Availability of Drugs
(9 months, 3 weeks 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
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the availability of drugs to treat type 2 diabetes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about what is a vital and, I think, under-recognised issue. I wish I did not have to, and that all the necessary medicines were available for all of the serious, life-changing conditions we face, but the reality at the moment is that they are not. Specifically, I would like to talk about type 2 diabetes, which is more common than type 1 and can go undiagnosed for years.
To be clear about what we are talking about, if someone’s body does not make enough insulin or what it makes does not work properly, the result is high blood sugar levels—type 2 diabetes. If untreated, that increases the risks of serious problems with their eyes, feet, heart and nervous system. High blood sugar levels can cause serious complications, potentially at great cost to individuals, but also to the national health service. The reality is that any of us can develop type 2 diabetes, but it mostly affects people over 25, and often those who have a family history of it.
What about treatment and medication? We know there is currently no cure, but we also know that type 2 diabetes can be put into remission by losing weight. We all know that eating well and exercising are the key to a healthy lifestyle, and that is never truer than with preventing and reversing the onset of type 2 diabetes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing the debate forward. I am a type 2 diabetic—I declare an interest as such—and when I was diagnosed some 13 or 14 years ago, I went on a weight loss course right away. The doctor told me, “You lose weight!” I lost about 4 stone, and I have kept it off, but that did not stop the diabetes in its entirety. I still have it, and I still have to be very careful about what I eat.
The point I want to make is that there are recent indications that certain diabetes treatments can also be successful for weight loss, but weight loss is really important at least for the first stage of diabetes, and priority for such treatments must be given to those with type 2 diabetes before, with respect, those who are finding success with them for weight loss. How can the Minister and our Government encourage such guidelines to be firmly set in place?
Christine Jardine
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, because that point is at the heart of the matter. We have to ensure that the supply of drugs, which is short at the moment, is prioritised for those who need them for important health reasons.
A healthy weight, as the hon. Member said, and keeping active make it easier for someone’s body to manage their blood sugar levels and help prevent insulin resistance, which can lead to type 2 diabetes. Research has shown that, for some people, a combination of lifestyle changes can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes by about 50%, but sufferers may also need to take diabetes medication such as metformin and insulin, as well as making changes to their lifestyle.
In the UK, 4.6 million people have type 2 diabetes and around 13.6 million are at risk of developing it. People often need help, such as intervention and medicines. Last year, I called on the UK Government to take action on the shortage of medicines for type 2 diabetes patients, after a constituent came to me concerned that her treatment and her health would be impacted by a shortage of the diabetes drugs she needed. They are known as GLP-1 RAs—glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists—and include one of the most common drugs, semaglutide.
As for many other manufactured drugs, there is currently a supply problem with semaglutide. In this case, the problem has been made worse, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, by the fact that the same drugs are effective for weight loss. The very thing that semaglutide does to help diabetes patients is making it difficult for them to access it.
I wrote to the Scottish Government, who told me they did not expect the supply to return to normal until mid-way through this year. I appreciate that that is not the most helpful response, but in some ways it is understandable, because medicine supply and licensing is a reserved matter. That is why I am raising it with the UK Government. We have seen issues with drug shortages beyond diabetes, and that is why I am so concerned at the slow response to the lack of medication.
Patients find themselves stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. In Scotland, they have the Scottish Government unable to act, and they perceive the UK Government to be very slow to act. It seems that neither Government have realised how potentially serious this situation could be for patients who use these drugs daily. For a patient to be in a position where they do not know whether they can get what they need to help them get well and keep them healthy is simply not acceptable. I have heard from people in my constituency and beyond about the impact that the situation is having on their lives.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that this is not just about access to drugs for type 2 diabetics, but about access to medical equipment, such as the LibreView glucose monitoring sensors that have changed people’s lives? Does she agree that, because the incidence of type 2 diabetes is closely related to areas of social deprivation, where the finance is not available, the NHS should look to give those sensors to as many people living with type 2 diabetes as possible? That would save a fortune in the future, and it would reduce harm to lots of people who are currently suffering greatly because of diabetes.
Christine Jardine
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I completely agree.
Type 2 diabetes is a problem in itself, with the lack of medication, but it is also an illustration of a major problem that our health services are facing with growing costs. We should be looking at how we prevent the problem in the first place, both in areas of social deprivation and in society generally. We should be looking at how we help people to avoid the problems that come with conditions such as type 2 diabetes. If we fail in that, people will fall into the situation where they are living with diabetes—a condition that requires 24/7 self-management to stay healthy. I invite Members to imagine living with a condition that they have to manage every day—a condition that has the power to affect them at any moment, disrupting what they are doing and altering their day to day life—when they have done all they can to stop that happening. Now consider how the lack of a medication that we have organisations and administrations responsible for providing makes that situation worse.
A couple of years ago, as part of a campaign by Diabetes UK, I tried to live life as if I had diabetes, and I have to say that I failed dismally. I realised just how difficult it is, and I realised that people living with diabetes —type 1 or type 2—deserve much better than they are getting at the moment. To be turned away at the GP surgery or pharmacy through no fault of the practitioner and to be told, “You might have to wait 18 months for what has been helping you get on top of the condition”, is simply unacceptable.
I know some people who have been left waiting since 2023. Shortages have been linked to those without diabetes using the drugs, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, simply for weight-loss purposes. Drugs such as Ozempic are being sold online for nearly £200—a 1,765% increase on the cost of what they would be on an NHS prescription.
The Association of Independent Multiple Pharmacies has talked of the shortage of medication to treat the likes of epilepsy and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as well as diabetes, all of them potentially life-changing and life-ending conditions. That is true also of some cancer drugs and hormone replacement therapy. The consequences do not lie just at the door of patients but, as we have heard, at that of the NHS and community pharmacy teams, which are under increased strain.
A national patient safety alert has been issued by NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to address supply, but I ask those with the power to consider standing in the shoes of those going through this. People who should have been started on GLP-1s are facing delay or are being put on to less effective options. Let us imagine being told that we had to take less effective medicine for a life-changing condition. If the supply is interrupted, a person potentially has to go through the side effects again and again when being restarted. People have been contacting Diabetes UK regularly since the start of the shortage in early 2023. This is not just about equality or ease of access. For all those affected, it is about quality of life.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for raising such an important issue. I want to begin by emphasising that I understand that medicine supply issues are a significant cause of frustration for many of our constituents across the United Kingdom. I also recognise that there have been particular challenges recently with certain medicines. Without diminishing those challenges, it is important that we set them in context.
There are around 1,400 medicines licensed in the UK, most of which are in good supply. The Department is regularly notified of supply issues; thankfully, the vast majority of those can be managed with minimal impact on patients. The medicine supply chain is highly regulated, complex and global, meaning that there can sometimes be supply issues that affect the UK, along with other countries around the world.
There are a number of reasons why a limited number of medicines might be subject to a disruption in supply, such as manufacturing difficulties, regulatory non-compliance, access to raw materials or distribution problems. We cannot always prevent supply issues occurring, but where they do the Department has a range of well-established processes to manage them and help mitigate the risk to patients.
Where there are concerns about supply, they largely, although not exclusively, concern medication to treat the most common conditions. That is exactly the case with what we are talking about today—diabetes—a condition experienced by more than 4.9 million people across the UK. Action on diabetes will be included in the major conditions strategy, as it is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease. If someone has diabetes, they are twice as likely to have heart disease or a stroke than someone who does not have diabetes, which goes to the heart of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said about the importance of ensuring diabetics get their medication.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and helpful response. Some years ago, when I first came to Parliament there was a diabetes strategy for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If the Minister could look at it, I think a renewal of that particular strategy would help. It was agreed here at Westminster, but took in all the regions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It was a marvellous objective to address diabetes and it seemed to work. I would like to see it happen again.
Andrew Stephenson
The hon. Member makes an important and powerful point, as usual. As he knows, I am a proud Unionist and am keen for us to do as much as we can in collaboration. I recognise that health is a largely devolved matter. However, since I joined the Department of Health and Social Care in October, I have visited Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, I have talked about how we can collaborate more closely on things such as research and innovation, and I am sure that we can do more together where the devolved Governments agree. Last night we had encouraging news. Hopefully we will have power-sharing arrangements back in place in Northern Ireland so that we can work together collaboratively to deliver those benefits for patients.
I will finish the point I was making about the major conditions strategy. That strategy aims primarily to improve care and health outcomes for those living with multiple conditions, and it will be centred on prevention. We have heard from a wide range of stakeholders, whose views are informing the development of the strategy. I will meet Diabetes UK this week to continue that engagement.
With regards to the availability of drugs to treat type 2 diabetes, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West set out, there has been a significant global supply issue affecting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists—GLP-1RAs—with the shortages driven by an increase in demand for such products for licensed and off-label indications, meaning that the medicine is being used for a different use from that stated on its licence.
I will set out the steps we have taken to manage those issues. We have continued to work with suppliers to take action to resolve the issues as quickly as possible, including expediting deliveries and boosting supplies. In July last year, we issued guidance for healthcare professionals, which took the form of a national patient safety alert on how to manage patients during the supply disruption. Clinicians and prescribers were directed not to initiate new patients on these medicines, which were to be used only to treat their licensed indication, protecting supplies for diabetic patients. Guidance was supported and echoed in a statement issued by the professional regulators.
One of the particular shortages affecting the market at the moment is Ozempic, which is the brand name for semaglutide, which is licensed to treat type 2 diabetes. Wegovy is the same medicine—semaglutide—but licensed specifically for weight management and is generally used at a higher dose than Ozempic. Obesity-related conditions can be serious, so it is right that we support people living with obesity to lose weight, and Wegovy is one option for those with severe obesity and comorbidities. However, it became available for prescription in the UK only on 4 September 2023, having received approval for use on the NHS for weight management in March 2023.
We believe that supply issues with Ozempic have in part been contributed to by off-label prescribing of that medicine for weight loss ahead of Wegovy’s launch. However, the strong and clear guidance that we provided on the use of those treatments only for their licensed indications and our ongoing work with the industry has helped to protect supplies for diabetic patients.
As a result of our continued intensive work with the supply chain, I am pleased to inform hon. Members that the supply position of that particular drug has improved. Supplies of Rybelsus have been boosted to support demand from new patients with type 2 diabetes, patients switching from Byetta injections and patients switching from Victoza injections. The national patient safety alert was amended on 3 January to reflect that positive development. The professional regulators have issued a second statement to highlight that update.
I am also delighted to highlight the fact that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency gave regulatory approval in the last few days to Mounjaro, an injectable medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes. That will bring an additional treatment option and will mean that more diabetic patients will have access to the medicines that they need.
Sadly, supply is not expected to return to normal due to the issues with certain products, but we will continue to work with the manufacturers, the NHS, the MHRA and others working in the supply chain, to help ensure that, overall, supplies of GLP-1 RAs are available for patients.
Jim Shannon
I think the hon. Members for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and I would be interested know about the other option—if I caught you right, Minister—that you mentioned, which is in the form of an injection but is not insulin. Just so we know, is it a different system?
Andrew Stephenson
Sorry, was the hon. Gentleman asking about the approval of the new drug, Mounjaro, which I just mentioned?
Jim Shannon
Yes, I am trying to understand, because I am not aware of it, and neither are the hon. Lady or the hon. Gentleman. It is not insulin for type 2, is it? The Minister mentioned an injection system.
Andrew Stephenson
It is an injectable medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes. It was recently approved by the MHRA. To put a little bit of extra information out there, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended Mounjaro, the same drug, for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes who meet specific criteria. The NHS in England is therefore now legally required, in line with NICE recommendations, to fund its use for eligible patients. The availability of that new medicine in Scotland is, however, a matter for the devolved Administration. The Scottish Medicines Consortium, which makes decisions on the use of medicines in Scotland, has not yet published guidance on Mounjaro. It will be a matter for the SMC as to whether that becomes an option in Scotland.
As I was saying, Mr Pritchard, unfortunately we expect supply chain issues to continue for the rest of the year. Throughout the management of this issue, our guidance has been supported by additional advice issued in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which has, critically, reinforced the messaging provided by the national patient safety alerts.
Ian Lavery
Does the Minister understand and recognise the benefits of glucose monitoring centres? It is not a supply chain issue, but an access issue. They can and do change people’s lives, but they are not widely accessible. People are very much unaware that they actually exist. If they did and understood that the centres were available from the NHS, it would save the NHS millions if not billions of pounds. It would change the lives of many people, mainly in deprived areas. Can the Minister give a commitment to look at that and see how we can allow more people to access glucose monitoring systems?
Andrew Stephenson
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am more than happy to look at the issue. However, I believe—I may be mistaken—that he is suggesting something that we would routinely advise for type 1 diabetics to be provided to type 2 diabetics. As far as I am aware, the clinical advice does not suggest that we do that, but I am more than happy to look at the issue, because I want to ensure that we support people living with diabetes as much as we can.
Finally, I emphasise that our guidance remains clear that medicines licensed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes should be used only for that purpose. All prescribers, whether employed privately or by the NHS, are expected to take into account the appropriate national guidance. Unfortunately, the supply disruption is a common issue for the UK and other countries around the world, which is both frustrating and distressing for patients. We cannot always prevent supply issues from occurring, but where they do arise, the Department has a range of well-established processes and tools to manage them and to help mitigate the risk to patients. Addressing issues with GLP-1 RAs continues to be a priority for the Department. We will continue to work hard with industry to resolve the issues as quickly as possible. Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West for raising such an important issue.
Question put and agree to.
Somerset Council: Funding and Governance
(9 months, 3 weeks 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
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the funding and governance of Somerset Council.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
When I became a councillor—some years ago; probably 10 or more years ago now—one of the things that I took most seriously was my duty to those in our community who are more vulnerable than others, in particular looked-after children within the authority of Somerset, as it then was. I passionately believe, as do all of my Conservative colleagues here in Parliament, in trying to ensure that we have the best possible quality services for both our young people and all those in the rest of society who are vulnerable. That really goes to the quick with me and indeed with all of us. I am therefore passionate about trying to make sure that our local services have the funding that they need, and the inspiration that they need, to be able to do the best possible job in the best possible way. I want to make that a reality for those who depend on us for their care.
When I became a councillor, I also became aware that under previous Liberal Democrat administrations—there are various arguments about the genesis of the current situation, but the fact of the matter is that a large debt had been run up by the council to some of the public sector financing organisations and others, which needed to be serviced. The debt was of some £350 million or more. What we needed to spend on the interest on that debt was really detracting from what we needed to spend on for our constituents. The need to get that debt under control, to begin to repay it, was a big deal for the council in Somerset at that time.
Of course, at that time—under the coalition and after a massive debt had been run up nationally—there was a big need for councils across the country to make savings. The coalition made the decision—indeed, my predecessor as the Member for Yeovil, David Laws, was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who decided, at that time, that he would champion the idea of being “the axeman in chief”, according to his autobiography, in trying to get spending by the Government generally under control. One of his decisions was to make savings in local authority budgets.
At that time, that was a necessity. What we also saw under the coalition, as things evolved, was that in order to try to protect some of the county spending budgets—the local authority budgets—money was provided to councils, so that they were able to restrict the increases in council tax that would otherwise have been required to pay for some services. The national Government made more money available, which meant we could limit council tax rises to 3%, 4% or 5% a year, rather than what otherwise might be required.
That is the context for the financing of Somerset Council and for the wider council environment. However, it also has to be said that part of managing the budgets for local authorities is that there needs to be creative thinking about how to get more growth, more investment and more housing into an area, with more council tax being delivered through that development, to be able to finance some council services.
In recent years, I have been quite disappointed that the new administration in Somerset, which is Liberal Democrat, has not taken some of those opportunities to think more holistically about how we might grow such economies to help pay for services. At the end of the day, it is only by getting the top line—the revenue—growing that we can get the tax revenue coming through to support the good-quality services that we all want to see for our residents.
For example, getting the town centre in Yeovil going again has been really important. As an MP, I got the Government to commit to very substantial town centre regeneration funding of £9.75 million through the towns fund to make that happen. The idea was to have a transformative change in Yeovil’s value proposition. It involved regeneration to enable the town centre and surrounding areas to be seen as places on the up, and to engender a virtuous circle that could increase property prices and get people excited about investing in their property, making sacrifices and a life for themselves and being able to make money from that. That kind of vision is essential for making places in the UK inspiring, where people think there is a future for them and an opportunity to make something of themselves for their families and their retirement.
Such things are really important, so it has been disappointing to see the local Lib Dem administration—thus far, at least—not capitalise on that investment. The projects have stalled. I have been working constructively with the local authority to make sure that the opportunities come forward properly in the time available, to transform those areas rather than just spending, or wasting, money on projects that do not quite work out or on public realm improvements that are not well thought through or well contracted. It is essential to focus on those basic issues of competence in the administration of how the funds are spent.
Another reason why Somerset is in a troublesome situation more generally is that the business case at the heart of the plan to move to a unitary authority, which was based on a very good decision by the previous Conservative administration to save money by amalgamating all the councils, has not been pursued by the new Liberal Democrat administration. Those savings have therefore not come through, some of the personnel and management rearrangements have not occurred, and many tens of millions of pounds that would otherwise have been saved have not been saved since the savings were to have started, a year or two ago. That means that the council is in a difficult position and needs more funding.
I am supportive, as my parliamentary colleagues in Somerset are, of the Government helping with more funding for social care and for thinking more carefully about how we manage some of the inflationary aspects that, in part, have put the council in the position that it is in. However, we cannot get away from the fact that the current Liberal Democrat administration has not taken the decisions and done things according to the business plan that was set out to save the money required to make the changes necessary to keep the council’s finances on an even keel.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the challenges for local authority budgets, particularly for upper-tier local authorities, from rising social care costs, with the potential for productivity and other savings from a move to unitary. However, I am sure he will be aware that the Office for Local Government has published a report, with a dashboard to help councils identify how efficiently they are running their services and the general state of their finances. The conclusion of the Office for Local Government is that this was not just about money, but that where there have been failures in council finances—as, indeed, is the case in Somerset—it is down to a poor civil service and poor political leadership. It is incumbent on politicians and, indeed, council civil servants to take responsibility for that.
Mr Fysh
I agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that it is important that responsibility is taken and that some of these decisions—or lack of decisions, should I say—are held up for scrutiny. It is not acceptable for residents, because of the lack of money, to face the potential loss of services that are really important to them, such as the Yeovil recreation centre and the tourist information centres in Cartgate and Taunton. Such services are essential for our communities, and it is not right that those non-statutory services should now be threatened.
It is also right that we protect non-statutory services generally by making sure that the council does not go into special measures, or is subject to a section 114 notice, which is the council version of a bankruptcy. The Minister will know well how that works. These are potentially very threatening to things that are not core or statutory council operations, and we do not want to see bus services being cancelled because a council goes bust. Residents may not know or necessarily care who is in charge and what is happening, but this is a serious situation. The reality is that the current administration has caused this issue and has not taken the decisions necessary to avoid it. Nevertheless, none of us wants to see that happen and to see these services go, because they are really important.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making very powerful points. I have been trying to work out how long it is, but I have worked with Bill Revans, the leader of the council, for over 25 years, and I have a great deal of respect for him. My hon. Friend is quite right that none of us wants the council to go into special measures. The Minister has been very kind to all of us, and he has given us an enormous amount of time on this. I am also grateful to him for the money he has given so far—I thank him very much.
Would my hon. Friend agree that the big trick with this will be our working together, regardless of our personal views or our political views, to make sure that this does not happen? Once, many years ago, I had the commissioners in to West Somerset Council, and it was a complete disaster. We lost our cohesion, and that council disappeared soon after. This is not something we should take lightly, and I ask my hon. Friend to dwell a little bit more on how we can help the Minister and Somerset Council to get what they want, which is to maintain services—schooling, education and children’s services—so that we do not have a complete disaster on our hands.
Mr Fysh
I thank my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. We need to work together, including across the aisle. I am very fond of my Liberal Democrat ex-opponents on the council. I know them well, and in many cases they are very good people who want the best for their communities, as we all do. We need to work together, whatever we think about the decisions that should or should not have been made. I am willing to do that, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger). I know that my other colleagues in the parliamentary party and the Ministers are willing to work on that, too.
I want to make it clear that this is not some story of Government underfunding; that is absolutely not the case. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Government have listened and have given substantial new money, which Somerset Conservative MPs lobbied for. Their voices were heard loud and clear and we were given that money. None the less, we still face challenges and there are things that will be required, but we need to make sure that we keep these essential services that people rely on—the recycling centre in Crewkerne, the libraries and the various services that are not protected within statutory limits, which would be protected should there be a bankruptcy. My constituents rely on their bus services; they cannot see them cut. That would be a fundamentally difficult thing for them to deal with. We cannot allow that to happen. [Interruption.]
Mr Fysh
Yeovil is one of those places that is dripping with potential. It has an incredible defence manufacturing industry, people, skills and development organisations. In my opinion, as someone who has been around the world looking at development and business opportunities for many years, I have never seen an environment that is so conducive to partnership working between business and local institutions to make things happen as there is at Yeovil College. Yeovil and the wider area need that vision from the council to back that up, to be the glue to make permissions happen more easily or to put in infrastructure, whatever is needed.
We need that vision from our local council, and that is what we are not getting right now. It is incredibly frustrating, for someone who wants to do the best to make that difference, with opportunities for people in our town, to find that at all stages it has been underwhelming, shall we say, for everybody dealing with the local council. I urge Ministers to think structurally about change, so that local councils have more accountable responsibility for bringing those things forward.
It is extraordinary, when looking around the world, to see how welcoming some other places are to investment, new thinking and different ways of doing things. When I proposed the idea about six or seven years ago of a new town development on the A303, to capitalise on the advantages of investing so much money in the A303 dualling, which we in Somerset fought so hard to get from the Government, we were met with a brick wall when talking to the council about executing those opportunities, and thinking about whether such things should be in the local plan, to excite local entrepreneurs. It has been such a frustrating process. We need to make sure we have well-equipped, local economic development operations of one kind or another, and to make sure we have good access to local and national incentives that attracts business to set up in different places.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. I think what he is getting around to is levelling up. Somerset has not done very well out of levelling up, and my hon. Friend and I have talked about this. I would say to the Minister that levelling up would help immeasurably. What we need to look at is the learning of skills, rural deprivation, helping young people get on to the job ladder in rural areas—that covers the whole of Somerset—and we certainly need to look at the way people are leaving school. Although we have Bridgwater, Taunton and Yeovil, there is not much in between, and therefore young people have not got those opportunities. I therefore make a plea through my hon. Friend to the Minister that we start talking about getting a levelling up bid for Somerset, where we could work with the council to get money to help the most vulnerable.
Mr Fysh
My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point. This is all about thinking of a plan for how we join up those urban and rural development opportunities and our skills development opportunities to make the most of what is an incredible area.
Somerset is a rural area, but I have never seen anything like it in my travels of the whole world—there is so much energy and sophistication in what is a rural environment. Yeovilton is in the north of my constituency —it is the home of the Fleet Air Arm, and the site of one of its core operations. We have the manufacturing cluster around Yeovil, and indeed we have north Dorset, which is second to none in the world in its defence manufacturing abilities. We need to support that—it means people come from all over the world to work and raise their families there; it is not an average rural area by any stretch of the imagination. We need to build on that; it is a massive opportunity for the country in exports, high-value engineering jobs, and all the things that we as a nation are supposed to be trying to encourage.
We need to support our local authorities and ensure they are doing the right thing. We need to ensure they are making the right decisions, at the right time, to be able to save money where it is required, and that they are also thinking about ways of making money where it is required. That should not just be through some fly-by-night plan to invest in commercial real estate; local authorities have no ability to judge if such plans are a good idea, and that is something we need be careful they do not do. However, those core activities of working with private industry to make sure the incentives and skills are there for business is the way forward—that is the way to finance any local authority.
There can be endless arguments about who gave what money to who and so on, but unless that core business of getting growth going in an area is there, with proper support and incentives from local and national government, it will be very hard to compete with some other parts of the world that are doing a brilliant job of it. They are rolling out the red carpet to welcome people to those areas, and they are giving massive incentives: 40% or 50% capital incentives are being paid up front to people who want to start businesses and invest in renewable energy generation—or whatever it is.
There are very serious things going on out there, and we need to think about how we match that. This idea that we can just put our fingers in our ears and pretend it is not happening is for the birds. These are real-time decisions being made now that people are having to think about, and we need to make sure that we are on the same page and we are competitive. Somerset is an amazing place with amazing opportunities, and we need to focus on how we can capitalise on those. They could be an absolute driver of economic performance, and the realisation of the aspirations of people in all income brackets across our country. I hope the House will urgently consider this topic.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) for securing this really important debate. I agree with him on many of his observations about our wonderful county that is Somerset and, indeed, the opportunities that it offers.
Local authorities exist to provide crucial frontline services to their residents. Some 63% of Somerset Council’s budget is spent on children and adults who need council care, but the stark reality is that the funding model is broken. As a proudly active Somerset councillor, I have seen the situation at first hand. The Government have decimated council finances and local communities are paying the price. This is a national problem that requires a national solution; it is not specific to Somerset.
Somerset Council has declared a financial emergency. It did so late last year because of the significant pressures on its finances due to sky-high inflation, spiralling costs of providing services, especially in social care, and a broken system for the funding of local government.
The council has been completely transparent about the measures that it has taken to address the £100 million funding gap for next year and will do what is necessary to continue to provide those essential services to its residents. I know that most of Somerset’s MPs have met Councillor Bill Revans and the Somerset Council team to learn more about the financial emergency, but sadly the hon. Member for Yeovil has not yet been able to find time to do so. However, speaking to the council’s leader this morning, I found that the offer of a meeting still stands, and I would be happy to join him if he wishes to meet Councillor Revans.
The hon. Member will be aware that some of the issues facing the current administration are the legacy of the previous Conservative council. Vesting day for Somerset Council, the new unitary council, was on 1 April 2023. The previous administration’s One Somerset business case stated now that the seemingly meagre £18.4 million-worth of savings would be realised after three years, not within nine months of forming a new council. The previous administration was guilty of irresponsible fiscal decisions. Six years of council tax freezes from 2010 reduced income from council tax, a move that saw a minimum shortfall of £24 million per year and delivered a total cut to services of £150 million.
During this period, central Government reduced the council’s revenue support grant, leaving councils more dependent on council tax and business rates. In 2018, the council was close to bankruptcy, which is why Somerset turned to the Liberal Democrats to sort out the mess.
It is important to note that Somerset has historically low council tax rates, compared with its contiguous councils, such as Dorset and Wiltshire. Somerset lost many of the higher-banded homes in Bristol and Bath areas to Avon in the 1974 reorganisation, and council tax then was set low in 1993 against the national average, all while the council tax itself is still based on the 1991 house values. This funding model is clearly unfit for purpose, and I do not believe that anyone would design a system like that now. Let me just add that there are now 18,000 homes with planning permission in Somerset caught in a moratorium due to the phosphates issue, which obviously has an impact on income that we would possibly then be able to draw down in council tax.
Where council tax income is lower, the need in the population is generally higher. Somerset is a rural county with an ageing population. The 75-plus age group is expected to double over the next 25 years. The cost of care in Somerset rose by 47% between 2022 and 2023, and the number of people needing more care is rising. That equates to a £70 million increase in council costs. There is an elephant in the room almost identical in size to the cost of living crisis that people face right now: fair funding from the Government to allow councils to get the basics right and give local people a fair deal.
It costs more to deliver services in rural areas, and the Government recognised that by altering the funding formula in 2013-14. However, due to damping, only 25% of the new benefit has been received by rural councils. Support from the Government does not match the increased cost, and the cost of years of underinvestment is now being felt by councils across the country.
Every single council bar the Greater London Authority is expected to experience a real-terms cut of at least 6.4% in 2024-25. That means that there will be a real-terms shortfall of £5.75 billion in council finances compared with 2016-17. The Government failed to get a grip on the situation early and now they are scrambling at the last minute to try to avoid a situation in which more local authorities go bankrupt.
Hon. Members from across the political spectrum have demanded action from the Government. Recently, I was pleased to join colleagues from across the aisle, including the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), in signing a letter that called for urgent additional funding for local government.
The previous Conservative leader of Somerset County Council, as it was, also previously called out this Government for leaving needs in social care unmet, and advocated for immediate investment. I was glad to see that the Government had listened to those pleas, but the extra funding announced last week is simply inadequate to quell the oncoming costs. It is like a rugby team converting a penalty in the 81st minute when they needed to score a try to prevent a crushing defeat.
We are all seeing councils that are close to the cliff edge; unfortunately, some have tipped over that edge. The situation is hurting residents and communities. I urge the Government to provide more funding to support councils as a matter of urgency, while allowing them increased powers to deliver for their communities and to reform business rates to boost local economies. The Liberal Democrats would provide additional funding by reversing tax cuts for the big banks, which could raise £18 billion over five years. We would also look at implementing a proper windfall tax on the oil and gas giants, and we would collect more of the £36 billion of tax that goes uncollected every year.
I have experienced—indeed, I continue to experience—the privilege of working in local government. I have seen the impact that local government can have on our communities and I am determined to defend it, but we need a Government to listen and to help turn the tide against this crushing wave.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I always find—my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), the Minister and you, Mr Pritchard, all know this—that the best speeches in this place are the ones that you write yourself, and not the ones you deliver in parrot fashion after they have been written by someone else.
As my hon. Friend said, in the last few months we have worked together to try to solve this problem. Let us look back at the history of the situation. I will gently say that it was going on under the coalition Government. We made representations then and I do not remember being completely supported by David Laws, David Heath, Tessa Munt or—I have forgotten now, but I think that is about it. That is a problem.
It is easy to cast aspersions, but let us look at the reality. I am very grateful to the Minister; I must give credit where credit is due. He has worked very hard to make sure that he gives the time that is needed to all these councils to get this situation sorted. The point was made that £5 million is very little. Yes, of course it is, but it is a start.
I do not think it is any secret that tomorrow the Minister is meeting the leader of Somerset Council, Bill Revans, and his team to talk about the next phase. My conversations with the Minister—I do not know how many there have been, but there have been an awful lot—have always been constructive and helpful. We are in a crisis—we must be absolutely frank about that.
I absolutely abhor having in commissioners. Having suffered that, as I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, who was very noble about it, I know it is an absolute disaster. If they come in to Somerset, I can tell hon. Members exactly what will happen. They will shut the recycling centres, stop the buses and pull back on the funding for roads, for the most vulnerable and for many others, and the money we give to colleges such as Yeovil, Bridgwater & Taunton, and Strode just will not happen. No matter what we do—parliamentarians, councillors or anyone else; parishes, towns or whatever—it will make no difference at all.
The problem we have is that councils such as Taunton, I think Yeovil, Minehead and others are raising council taxes way out of proportion with what they need to do. I am worried that they will raise them so high to take on services that the county has been running up to now, and they will not be able to cope. In all my 23 years in this place, I have seen when councils have taken on assets, and after a while they just cannot cope. That is partly down to the people they have, partly down to the rises in costs that we all have, and partly down to the fact that these things are damned complicated, and that goes not just go for the loos, but for much more.
We really must talk with the Minister about how we make sure that when assets are given to other councils—mainly town councils, because it is more difficult to do for parishes—they are able to deal with those assets in the future. Taunton is to have a 200% increase in council tax, and that is huge, but it wants to take on a lot of things, and Taunton covers the whole of Taunton—not a bit of it, but the whole thing. I am not going to cast aspersions about whether this is right or wrong; I am just making the point that the assets that go over to such councils still have to be managed.
The other issue I have is about the superb colleges we have, and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and I have talked about Yeovil College, and Bridgwater & Taunton College. We have come an enormous way in Bridgwater, and these colleges are superb. When I first came in all those years ago—and let us be honest—they were not as good as they are now. There has been a huge amount of work by the teams in both those colleges, and we have created proper colleges for Somerset. The debate goes on, and the conversations between Bridgwater & Taunton, Strode and Yeovil are brilliant. They are really looking at how we move on in the future.
Another point, and the Minister must be aware of this, is that not only are we building the biggest infrastructure project in Europe, which is Hinkley Point, but we are about to start building the Gravity site. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil has been very helpful, with his wonderful workforce at Westland and so on. This is a 423 acre, 11 million square foot battery factory for Jaguar Land Rover under the Tata Group. It is a phenomenal investment in the west country, with 9,500 jobs, and it is crucial to the future of our beautiful county.
In the time I have left as an MP—God willing, and the electorate willing, I will still be an MP, but not for Bridgwater—I will be absolutely dedicated to getting this to the stage where we have the infrastructure, but we need a functioning council. We have to have that. It is going to be difficult for the council, because it has to put in some money, and we will have massive infrastructure costs. I do not want to have to come back to the Government in however long it is—in the next six months —and say, “Look, we haven’t got the money to put in the roads, the railway and the college campuses for Bridgwater & Taunton and for Yeovil.” We must get this sorted.
In the short time I have left, I say to the Minister that this is going to be a partnership. As I have said, I have worked with Bill Revans for a very long time, and I have enormous respect for him. He is trooping on, and not perhaps in the best circumstances, as we all know. He is still there fighting his corner, as he has long done—he stood against Tom King in 1992. He is a long-term, committed politician for whom I have a great deal of respect; as hon. Members know, that is not always the case.
We have to work together to get the funding we need to stabilise the situation, and this cannot wait until after the election. I have no idea about the policy of the Labour party—I genuinely do not know—but I know the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) will be sympathetic because I was in opposition when I came in and I will probably be in opposition when I go out. However, when I had issues when Tony Blair was Prime Minister, they were listened to, and I can only say that I am very grateful for everything, but we need to do this now, Prime Minister—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
I am not the Prime Minister.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
Yes, I know. I do apologise. Minister, we need to sort this now, and that conversation is crucial. We need to keep this going as much as we can. We need to take it forward in the constructive way in which it has been dealt with so far. I am one of the worst offenders in this place for taking it to the lowest common denominator and attacking everybody, but this is a time when we cannot do that. There are too many vulnerable people whose futures and wellbeing are at stake, so I say to the Minister: please, just keep talking to us.
Minister, you have been brilliant. I cannot fault you or the Secretary of State. I cannot fault the way in which you have dealt with Bill and his team, Duncan Sharkey and everybody in Somerset. At every meeting I have had, we have talked about how we have work to do, and we will do it. We have discussed what needs to be done. I am conveying that to Bill, the Minister will convey that tomorrow, and we will work on it. In the next few months we have to come up with a formula that safeguards those vulnerable people. My constituency covers Exmoor. The problems we face with things like social mobility and access in one of the most rural parts of England will be devastating if we cannot come to an agreement.
Minister, we are here to do the best for our constituents; we always have been. That is why you do it, why I do it, why my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil does it, and why everyone else does it. If you can come halfway, we can come the other half. That will be most important. You could use Somerset as a guinea pig in order to come up with a formula that will get this working, so that we can work with you and land what we need to do. I am meeting the Chancellor tomorrow. I am going to put the plea to him and ask him to be generous—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
No, I am not curtailing the hon. Gentleman’s speech, if he has anything more to contribute. I just gently remind him that he should address his remarks through the Chair rather than speaking directly to the Minister. I have let it go a bit, but he should speak through the Chair.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I am so sorry, Mr Pritchard. After all these years, I should know better. I do apologise.
That partnership will be crucial. It matters more than anything. I look forward to working with the Minister on this.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to respond to the debate secured by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh). Despite the clear localised political differences that have played out, we have heard quite a lot of commonalities in terms of the structure of local government finance and the issues that are driving demand pressures. That is important: we need at least a shared analysis of the issue before we try to find common ground on the potential solution. I welcome the exchanges today and congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. We perhaps need to talk about issues like this more than we do.
I hope very much that the offer of a meeting with the local council leader is taken up, because this matters to all our constituents. That is why we bring such debates to the House, but in the end, the solution lies in local partnerships and in Members of Parliament working in partnership with their local authorities, regardless of political affiliation, for the best outcome for their constituents. That is the only way to work, in the end, so I hope that is taken up and that the council enters into the spirit of partnership in return.
Let me be clear: we are here to talk about funding and governance in Somerset Council, and we have heard many of the arguments, but this issue affects councils of all political colours. I have met many council leaders up and down the country. The one thing they have in common, and the one thing they continually raise, is that they often feel that they are standing alone in dealing with the pressures of rocketing demand while trying their hardest to prioritise services for their local communities. We have heard about some of those issues today: the number of children who need child protection; older people living longer but needing care in older age; the homelessness crisis and people staying in temporary accommodation—all those things have a significant impact on council budgets at a time when central Government funding has been reduced in real terms. Those were political choices made over 13 years of a Conservative Government. They have fundamentally changed the structure of council funding, and Somerset will feel that too.
We should not forget that in 2010 the coalition Government announced the closure of the Audit Commission. It is not just that money has been taken away; the infrastructure required to raise a red flag when there are concerns was taken away as well. What does that mean, 14 years later? The audit market is still dominated, by and large, by six firms, with very few new market entrants. The market size has not grown in comparison. As a result, there is real tension in the system. As one could predict, the closure of the Audit Commission and the limitations placed on the National Audit Office mean that there is a gap in local as well as national reporting. Councils are often left alone to inspect their own financial risk, rather than looking for value for money, or to use a broken audit market.
How does that manifest itself here today in 2024? There has been a sharp increase in the number of local authorities that have not had their accounts audited by the statutory deadline. In 2022-24, just five of the 467 councils delivered their audits on time. That means just 1% of English councils published their audited accounts by the deadline. When a council is in financial difficulty, the warning system which should escalate the matter is just not there. The Minister needs to consider how that might be improved.
We have talked a lot about the grant funding and, as such and in the interests of time, I will not go over old ground. However, it is a matter of fact that Somerset Council has £100 million less than it needs to provide services in its area, when compared with demand. Labour understands that councils like Somerset are funding the impossible balance between demand rocketing and budgets not keeping pace. When the austerity programme started, cuts were targeted at local government far more than at any other part of Government. We know that local government was always the prevention arm of Government. When we take away the prevention arm, all we have left is the reactive. We see that in the NHS and right across the board, but in the end it always comes right back to local government to pick up the pieces. That is what we have seen in social care, children’s services and homelessness. It is important that councils are given the tools to take the long-term decisions that are needed. Labour would commit to single pot, multi-year settlements to give the financial certainty that is needed, as well as funding that follows the need where it exists.
We often hear debates in this place about the difference between the north and the south, between our towns and our cities, and between counties and villages, but in the end, for a funding formula to be fair, surely it must follow need, wherever it is? It is not right that an older person in any part of England is denied the care they need, or a young person is placed at risk because they do not receive the care they need, or someone is not given the home they need. For a funding formula to be truly fair, it has to follow the need where it exists. That also requires a resetting of the partnership to be a partnership of equals. That is why Labour would introduce a take back control Act to reset the balance of power between central Government and local government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mr Pritchard, and to reply to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh). We have covered a lot of ground. The danger of covering a lot of ground is that it leaves the Minister with precious little time to respond to that ground, so I shall canter through as quickly as I can, with some barely connected bullet points.
I am grateful for the comments made by those who participated in this afternoon’s debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil said that we all want to see top-quality services for our communities. My take, and I say this as a party politician, is that the public out there do not really care what type of council is delivering the service. When push comes to shove, they are not that motivated by which party, if any, is doing it either. They just want to know that the services are there when they need them and that the council can deliver those services with resilience and robustness.
In response to the point made by my friend the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), I would gently remind him that in broad terms the funding of local government formula today is that which we inherited, authored and written by his party when in government. I think we all recognise that the formula needs change. Certainly, as late as last week, the Government committed to a fundamental review in the next Parliament. I am tempted to say that it would have been done had it not been for covid, which took up significant bandwidth within local government, but it is a job that needs to be done.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) and for Yeovil, and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke), are right to point out that there is a clear role for local government, not just in delivering statutory service, but in making place and effecting beneficial change. My hon. Friends were right to point to the excellent Yeovil College. About 40% of the students of Yeovil College come from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). The principal, Mark Bolton, provides exemplary leadership. My hon. Friends spoke of Bridgwater & Taunton College, about which I am afraid I do not know, but if it is half as good as Yeovil College, it is excellent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil talked about the role of trying to attract business and he is absolutely right, because business rates help to grow the services. If he thinks of Leonardo and Yeovil College in his own constituency, the giga-factory investment not far from Bridgwater that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset spoke about, and the massive investment in Hinkley Point C, I would suggest that Somerset as a rural county is very much punching above its weight in economic activity. That is to be applauded, and the role of Somerset Council in helping to foster that environment is to be noted and the council congratulated.
What is the basic problem that Somerset faces? The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome talked about money. She said that the Government were not listening. I take issue with her; I do not like taking issue in normal circumstances with the hon. Lady, but I am going to in this case. She said that we need a Government who will listen. I can give the hon. Lady half a billion pounds of listening, which we announced last week. The rural services delivery grant will now stand at its highest-ever level. We are raising the funding floor from 3% to 4%—an ask of the district councils. We have listened.
Part of the underpinning of Somerset going unitary was to deliver efficiencies and savings. For reasons that my officials and I continue to explore and doubtless will touch on in conversations tomorrow, those savings have not manifested themselves. The steam has fallen out of the engine of change. I appreciate any new party coming into an administration will want at least to cast a casual eye over a plan, but to have delayed and prevaricated for as long as it has is, in my judgment, inexcusable because the basic premise of going unitary will have been submitted. The programme of savings and efficiencies will have been looked at by officials in my Department and have been a key part in determining whether Somerset was to go unitary. A very clear and compelling case was put forward.
I know from my experience of when I did it with our colleagues in Dorset, including my right hon. Friend, the former Member for West Dorset, Sir Oliver Letwin, the numbers that we put in were gone over with a fine-tooth comb because there is no point delivering change if there is no tangible and obvious benefit. I urge Somerset Council to build up that head of steam, to put some wind in the sails—I am mixing my metaphors; not unusual for me—and to drive forward the efficiency, innovation and modernisation that underpins the unitary process.
I am not going to comment—I know colleagues have invited me to do so—on the minutiae of the conversations that officials and I are having with Somerset Council. I know that the House would not expect me to do so, but the points I am making in this debate are ones that I have and will continue to make. Somerset’s budget is up 6%—£565.3 million in ’24-’25. There are no cuts anywhere in local government budgets for this coming financial year. We are a Government who have listened. We asked, we heard.
A section 114 notice is often referred to as bankruptcy. It is not bankruptcy in the commercial sense of the term. That is the key message from me. This is not bankruptcy. No Government would ever allow any council to fall over, not because of politics or politicking, but because the vulnerable who need services need to have the comfort and security that those services will be provided. I do not want to scare the most vulnerable in our society and have them suddenly think that at the stroke of a pen and the issuing of a section 114 notice, everything they rely on for their quality of life will suddenly be removed. That would not be the case.
Mention has been made of the levelling-up agenda, which falls within the portfolio of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young). My hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil and for Bridgwater and West Somerset are right to make the point that the levelling-up agenda is not reserved solely to our northern and industrial towns, as important as they are to the levelling-up agenda. There is an element of coastal levelling up. There is an element of rural levelling up.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made a point that I have made in every speech in this place since my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and I were first elected way back in 2015—with all we have gone through, it feels a lot longer, I am sure he will agree. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was right: the cost of delivery of services in a rural area, which is wider in geography and sparser in population, is by definition going to be higher than in denser urban populations. We do not then move forward and rob Peter to pay Paul and say that the deprivation in a rural area is more important than the deprivation in an urban area, or that need is greater in an urban area compared with a rural area.
Need is need. Deprivation is deprivation. We must meet the two where they manifest themselves in order to make the lives of our fellow citizens better and more comfortable. I am not a Minister who believes in robbing the rurals to pay the urbans or vice versa. I believe in trying to get equity in the system and having a more sophisticated way of recognising and addressing need. I have every confidence that in a review of the formula that would be an absolute kernel of all that we do.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton referenced the audit issue, and he was right to do so. It is a serious issue. There are some announcements on that in the not-too-distant future, which I will, of course, share with him in due course through the usual channels. In conclusion, let me say this to the three representatives of the great county of Somerset—not as great as Dorset, I hasten to add. From the Blackmore hills, nothing gives me greater pleasure than to look down on Somerset, but it is a great county. It is full of innovation and good people working hard and paying their taxes. I do not believe that they should be overburdened with taxation to mask deficiencies in the public sector. I think that is something that resonates across this Chamber—indeed, I see the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome nodding in agreement.
A number of Members spoke about the importance of partnership. The central theme since I was appointed in November has been the pivotal, positive partnership between central and local government to achieve for our people, wherever they are and whatever their needs. My door stands open to work with colleagues across the House representing Somerset to ensure that their residents secure the services that they need at a good value-for-money rate. I expect Somerset Council to rise to that challenge, and I look forward to furthering my discussions with it in due course.
Mr Fysh
The Minister has set out exactly his case, and he is right to say that we need to work together on this. Councils are integral, and they have been for hundreds of years, to our local people and their experience of life. They are vital. We in this House support the Minister in trying to make sure that the process works well and efficiently, that savings are made and that the vision we can try to set out as Members of Parliament and councillors can be translated into real change for people on the ground. I am extremely grateful for his attention on this issue, and I look forward to working with him over the months and years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the funding and governance of Somerset Council.
Written Statements
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Overseas Funds Regime: EEA Equivalence Assessment
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
Today I am notifying the House about the Government’s decision regarding the equivalence assessment for states in the European economic area, including European Union member states, under the UK’s overseas funds regime.
Asset management makes an invaluable contribution to the health of both the UK economy and individuals’ savings. The UK sector is the second largest globally and manages the savings and pensions of millions of UK citizens. Asset managers often set up their investment funds internationally, marketing their funds to investors in the UK and around the world.
In the Financial Services Act 2021, the Government legislated for a new overseas funds regime, to create a more streamlined process for overseas investment funds to be sold to UK investors. Given the importance of funds domiciled in the EEA to the UK market, it was determined that an equivalence assessment of the EEA would be the first to be conducted under this regime.
Today I can confirm that, following a detailed assessment, the Government have found the EEA states, including the EU member states, equivalent under the OFR. To enact this decision, secondary legislation will be required, when parliamentary time allows. The Government do not intend to require the funds assessed to comply with any additional UK requirements as part of this equivalence determination at this time.
This decision will apply to undertakings for the collective investment in transferable securities except those which are also money market funds, as there is ongoing regulatory development in this area.
In accordance with the principles set out in the guidance document for the UK’s equivalence framework for financial services, the UK will monitor this equivalence decision on an ongoing basis, in light of UK and EEA regulatory developments.
Separate to the assessment of the EEA, the Government recognise that there are ongoing regulatory developments in relation to sustainable disclosure requirements. The Government intend to consult on whether to broaden the scope of SDR to include funds recognised under the OFR. The Government will ensure that there is adequate time for industry to adapt to any future requirements.
Currently, EEA funds which were marketing in the UK prior to EU exit are able to continue doing so under temporary arrangements. This arrangement was due to expire at the end of 2025.
Today, I can also confirm the Government’s intention to extend this arrangement until the end of 2026, to ensure funds are able to smoothly transition to the OFR.
Today’s announcements demonstrate the Government’s commitment to maintaining a safe, open and globally integrated financial system, enabling international financial services business by reducing barriers and frictions, where safe and practicable.
[HCWS220]
T-Levels: Wave 4
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
As part of our delivery of wave 4 T-levels and our assessment of overlap between T-levels and technical qualifications we have been consulting with employers and representatives from many sectors.
After discussions with representatives of the hair and beauty sector, we have decided to separate our plans for a combined T-level in hair and beauty. The beauty sector has fed back that a good-quality level 3 classroom-based progression route is desirable. Therefore, this Government will explore introducing a T-level which focuses on the beauty sector, with the expectation that this could be introduced after 2025.
This differs from feedback we have had from representatives in the hair sector which has led us to conclude that the best route is for learners to progress into their industry through completion of an existing level 2 or level 3 apprenticeship or a level 2 classroom-based qualification. As such, we will no longer be introducing a combined T-level.
To support apprenticeships in the hair sector, we have increased funding for apprenticeships in these industries with funding uplifts of 57% for the level 2 hairdressing professional standard and 28% for the level 2 barbering apprenticeship.
T-levels remain our flagship technical qualification for 16 to 19-year-olds, with tens of thousands of students studying or having studied T-levels, and they will form the backbone of the advanced British standard. The Secretary of State made a statement on 9 March 2023 (HCWS619) on the future T-level roll out. I am pleased to announce that we are on track to deliver the T-levels in media, broadcast and production and craft and design for September 2024, alongside the animal care and management T-level, as well as the marketing T-level from September 2025. This will bring our portfolio of T-levels to 21 from September 2024, and 22 from September 2025.
With today’s announcement we are also publishing the provisional list of 71 technical qualifications that have been assessed to overlap with wave 4 T-levels rolled out in or before 2024, which can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wave-4-t-levels-overlapping-qualifications. These are agriculture, land management and production; animal care and management; craft and design; legal services; and media, broadcast and production. Subject to the outcomes of an appeal process which gives awarding organisations the opportunity to contest a qualification’s placement on the list, we will withdraw 16 to 19 public funding for new starts on these qualifications from 1 August 2025. 16 to 19-year-olds enrolled on these 71 qualifications accounted for around 1% of all total enrolments for 16 to 19-year-olds. Eleven of the qualifications had no enrolments and a further 23 had fewer than 100 enrolments in the 2021-22 academic year, highlighting the need to streamline the qualifications system. Removing funding from technical qualifications which overlap with T-levels will ensure young people can feel confident that they are studying technical qualifications which will prepare them for jobs in their chosen occupation.
This is the final part of phase 2 of our reforms removing qualifications that overlap with waves 1 to 4 T-levels.
[HCWS221]
CQC Review: Nottingham Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins)
I have requested that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) conduct a special review of mental health services in Nottinghamshire under section 48 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
Like many of my Parliamentary colleagues, I was appalled by the horrendous and tragic killings of Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Ian Coates in Nottingham in June 2023. I would like to place on record my deepest sympathies and condolences to the families of Barnaby, Grace and Ian.
The CQC special review will focus on reviewing the care provided by Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and identifying where things may have gone wrong. This will give the families much-needed answers and will help identify how to improve the standard of mental health care in Nottinghamshire.
Any concerns regarding patient safety, quality of care, or public safety will be reported by the CQC, who will consider carefully the available relevant evidence, including witness and other oral evidence made public during the criminal trial of Valdo Calocane.
It is essential we move quickly to get the answers we need. This is why I am asking the CQC to conclude their investigation by the end of March at the very latest.
This special review will proceed alongside the Trust’s own internal investigation and NHS England’s Independent Mental Health Homicide Review, which is standard practice in these cases. I expect all parties to share information to avoid duplication and make sure that we receive as full a picture as possible. The CQC review will focus on this case and on wider issues in mental health care provision in Nottinghamshire, including at Highbury Hospital and Rampton Hospital.
I would also like to take this opportunity to update the House on the next steps of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) investigation into mental health inpatient settings, which my predecessor announced in June 2023, in response to a number of tragic incidents that had taken place across the country.
Since June, the HSSIB, and its predecessor, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch (HSIB), has undertaken significant preparatory work, including holding over 30 meetings as part of the process of determining the scope of the investigation, and have reviewed the research evidence on safety.
The terms of reference for the investigation have today been published on the HSSIB website at https://www.hssib.org.uk/patient-safety-investigations/. There will be four investigations, which will focus on the themes of:
Learning from inpatient mental health deaths, and near misses, to improve patient safety.
The provision of safe care during transition from children and young person to adult inpatient mental health services.
Impact of out of area placements on the safety of mental health patients.
Creating the conditions for staff to deliver safe and therapeutic care (the workforce, relationships, and environments).
The investigations will identify risks to the safety of patients, and the HSSIB will seek to address those risks by making recommendations to facilitate the improvement of systems and practices in the provision of mental health care in England. This will include consideration of patient and staff safety with regard to allegations of sexual assault and rape. The investigations will conclude by the end of 2024.
Patient voice will be integral to the HSSIB’s investigation and report. They have been in touch with patients and families who have experienced poor care, as well as their parliamentary representatives, and are working with patient advocates and the charitable sector to arrange focus groups to support these investigations.
The HSSIB can also be contacted directly by any patient, carer or family member who wants to share their experiences of the mental healthcare they or their loved ones have received by emailing enquiries@ hssib.org.uk. I would strongly encourage all Members to highlight this opportunity to their constituents who may feel they would like to engage with this process and have their voices heard.
[HCWS226]
Measles
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Following my written statement of 22 January 2024, I wish to provide a further update to the House on the actions that the Government and health system are taking in response to an increase in measles cases in England, particularly in the west midlands.
The current measles outbreak
Between 1 October 2023 and 23 January 2024 there have been 347 laboratory confirmed measles cases reported in England, with 127 of these cases confirmed in January 2024. From 30 January, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) will publish national laboratory confirmed measles case numbers on www.gov.uk weekly, rather than on the previous monthly cycle. This will provide more frequent and up-to-date information to support preparedness and response activity while measles cases remain raised.
Actions under way to protect the public
Measles is a vaccine preventable disease, with long-lasting immunity provided through the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. To support increasing the uptake of the MMR vaccine, NHS England has rapidly implemented a catch-up campaign for missed MMR vaccines as part of a major drive to protect children from becoming seriously unwell as measles continues to rise in parts of the country. From 6 February, parents and carers of unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children aged six to 11 will receive a first reminder letter, text or email inviting them to make an appointment with their child’s GP practice for their missed MMR vaccine. From 12 March, second reminders will begin to be sent.
This national campaign supplements existing measures under way to work with specific communities to boost uptake in priority areas, for example, by offering MMR pop-ups and whole-school vaccination campaigns. Extensive local engagement and communications have also been undertaken with community and faith leaders to encourage groups less likely to get their jab to come forward.
Additionally, in London and the west midlands, the first reminder invitation letters, texts or emails will be sent in February to the parents and carers of unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children aged 11 to 16 and, following that, to young people aged 16 to 25 to invite them to catch up on their missed MMR vaccinations. This will be followed by a second reminder to these age groups in March. Reminders will also be accessible for those over 16 who utilise the NHS app.
In the west midlands, strategic partnership groups are in place in three of six NHSE integrated care board areas to oversee planning, delivery and response across the health system. The other three integrated care boards also work on a multi-agency basis to assess preparedness and response activities.
UKHSA West Midlands and regional Department for Education colleagues hosted a webinar for education and early years settings last week with over 650 attendees. This focused on describing the signs and symptoms of measles, what schools need to know and how they can access more support. In addition, UKHSA West Midlands and NHS Midlands hosted a webinar for clinicians and frontline staff in maternity services with over 280 attendees, and significant work across the region to promote MMR vaccination continues through a range of mechanisms, including social media and community engagement at a local level.
I will also be chairing a regular measles ministerial co-ordination board, bringing together local and national actors to bring the current outbreak under control.
Work also continues at pace across England’s regions, particularly in London, to prepare for the possibility of further cases and outbreaks, learning from the west midlands experience. This preparation includes a multi-agency planning exercise led by UKHSA that was focused on a potential outbreak in London and exercising the response to that.
Correction to written statement UIN HCWS200
I would like to amend the written statement I gave the House on 22 January 2024 and an answer I gave to the House on the same day in response to an urgent question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill).
In the written statement and at the urgent question, I stated that an existing MMR vaccination campaign by NHS England had resulted in a 10% increase in vaccine uptake compared to the previous year. I would like to clarify that this 10% increase is not an overall figure but rather refers to the proportion of children aged one to five who came forward for their MMR jab as a result of having been identified as eligible for and or missing one or both doses and contacted proactively by the NHS between 22 September and 23 February last year to get the jab. The figure I quoted was from a published NHS England press release, which was corrected on 23 January 2024.
[HCWS224]
Independent Office for Police Conduct: 2022-23 Annual Report
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
I am today, along with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston), publishing the annual report and accounts of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The report has been laid before the House and copies will be available in the Vote Office.
[HCWS223]
Legal Migration Implementation
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
Our points-based immigration system allows us to control who comes to the UK to work, study and visit. It enables the Government to prioritise the skills and talent we need to help our economy grow and support our NHS, while encouraging investment in, and protecting, our resident workforce. On 4 December 2023, the Government announced a major package of measures to curb immigration abuse and further reduce net migration.
Since the pandemic, the UK has experienced unprecedented levels of immigration. This is in large part due to growth in humanitarian routes like Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan, as well as growth in health and social care visas, and students. The latest official estimates show that net migration in the year to June 2023 was 672,000—up significantly on pre-pandemic volumes, but lower than the estimated 745,000 who came in the year to December 2022. The Government are clear that this level of net migration is too high and must come down swiftly to avoid unsustainable pressure on public services and housing.
In May 2023, the Government took decisive action to prevent students from using the student route to access work prior to completion of their studies and arrest the substantial rise in the number of students bringing dependants to the UK. These reforms have been implemented. The ability for students to switch out of the student route early ended on 17 July 2023 and from 1 January 2024, student visa holders can only bring dependants if they are studying for a multi-year postgraduate research degree.
The measures announced in May and December 2023 mean that around 300,000 people who were eligible to come to the UK last year would not be able to do so in future.
Good progress has been made on implementing the package announced on 4 December:
On 19 February, we intend to lay immigration rules which will remove the right for care workers and senior care workers to bring dependants, which will come into force on 11 March 2024. The rules will ensure that care providers in England will only be able to sponsor migrant workers if they are undertaking activities regulated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). This will help tackle the abuse of the health and care visa route that we have seen and ensure that those coming through this route genuinely support the social care system.
On 14 March, we intend to lay immigration rules to increase the earnings thresholds for those arriving on the skilled worker route, with the minimum threshold rising by 48% from £26,200 to £38,700. These changes will come into force from 4 April and will ensure that our immigration system is focused on attracting skilled, highly paid talent from around the world. Those coming on the health and care visa route will be exempted from this specific threshold so we can continue to bring the healthcare workers that our care sector and NHS need. We are also exempting workers on national pay-scale occupations.
On 17 January we commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to carry out a rapid review of the shortage occupation list to inform which occupations should be temporarily added to an immigration salary list from early April. The immigration rules we intend to lay on 14 March will remove the 20% going rate discount for occupations on the shortage occupation list, as well as temporarily adding any occupations as recommended by the MAC to the new immigration salary list.
On family visas, we will bring this in line with the new minimum general salary threshold for a skilled worker of £38,700. We will raise the minimum income for family visas incrementally, in stages, to give predictability to families. The immigration rules we intend to lay on 14 March will set out that from 11 April we will raise the threshold to £29,000—that is the 25th percentile of earnings for jobs which are eligible for Skilled Worker Visas. We will incrementally increase the threshold to the 40th percentile—currently £34,500—and finally to the 50th percentile, currently £38,700, and the level at which the general skilled worker threshold is set, by early 2025.
This major package of measures sits alongside our major transformation of the border and immigration system to deliver a simple, quick, digital end-to end customer journey, while strengthening border security.
A key part of this transformation is the introduction of the UK’s electronic travel authorisation (ETA) scheme. ETAs are a new requirement for passengers visiting or transiting through the UK who do not currently need a visa for short stays or who do not already have any other UK immigration status before travelling. The scheme will increase our knowledge about people in advance of travel, which will not only make the UK safer, but help deliver our ambition to increase automation of passenger clearance at the border.
The scheme is being introduced in a phased manner, on a nationality-by-nationality basis. As of November 2023, it is now a requirement for nationals of Qatar to obtain an ETA prior to travel to the UK. On 1 February 2024 the scheme will be extended to the remaining Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) countries—Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE—and Jordan. Other nationalities will be added to the scheme later this year.
All of the above changes show that we welcome those who are here to contribute their skills and talents to the UK, but it is not a right to come here. Those who come must be willing to contribute to our country. In keeping with this, those who use and benefit from our public services, such as the NHS, should make a sufficient financial contribution towards the cost of those services. Legislation has been passed this month to enable the immigration health surcharge to be raised by 66% to £1,035, in respect of applications made on or after 6 February 2024. The new rate reflects the increases in healthcare expenditure and better reflects NHS service use by payers, remembering that payment of the charge provides near comprehensive access to our health service. The level of IHS will be kept under regular review to ensure it covers the cost of treating IHS payers.
We continue to keep all aspects of our immigration and border system under review to ensure it works for the British people and our economy.
[HCWS222]
Social Housing
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
Social housing is a finite resource and in any compassionate society it is incumbent upon the Government of the day to ensure it is utilised in the most effective way to support those who truly need it and those who play by the rules. This is not least because those fortunate enough to get a social home benefit from paying below market rents and almost all will have the security of that social home for life.
Over 1 million households are on the social housing waiting list and around a quarter-of-million new tenancies are agreed each year. It is therefore important that social housing is fairly allocated. The British public want to know that decent and hard-working people who have contributed to this country can secure a home in their local community. People already living in social homes want to know that anyone moving near them will be respectful of their neighbours. That is why the Government are going to make sure that all applicants and tenants benefit from a system that rewards responsible behaviour and protects local households, while supporting the most vulnerable and those in priority need.
Today we are launching a consultation on our proposed reforms regarding who is eligible and who qualifies for social housing, and how local housing authorities decide to allocate social housing stock where demand exceeds supply. The changes seek to prevent people who abuse the system from benefiting at the expense of those who have played by the rules.
The reforms would apply both to new applicants in England and those who are already on a social housing waiting list. The introduction of a UK connection test and new qualification tests—local connection test, terrorism and antisocial behaviour tests, false statement test and income test—will apply to new social housing applicants and those on a waiting list, meaning those currently living in social housing would not be subject to these new tests. The new ground for eviction for unspent terrorism convictions, as well as the “three strikes and you’re out” policy for antisocial behaviour, would apply to those currently living in social housing as well as future tenants.
When drawing up qualification tests, local housing authorities decide on matters including when to prioritise those newly arrived in the country or a local area over local families; and under which circumstances they should allocate a social home to a high-income household over a lower income one, or to grant social housing to those who commit antisocial behaviour. Our proposals seek to set a national minimum standard for qualification tests while still allowing for local flexibility.
Social housing waiting lists have stabilised at around 1.2 million after rising from 1 million in 1997 to 1.7 million in 2010 under the last Labour Government. The waiting list remains too high, but it is also essential that local housing authorities do not disproportionately allocate social housing to those newly arrived in the country or local area while local families are left on waiting lists. In Labour-run Brent, 40% of new social lets in 2021-22 were to non-British citizens. In Labour-run Oxford the figure was 25% and in Labour-run Haringey the figure was 24%.
The Government believe that everyone has the right to a safe, decent and warm home that meets their needs. We have made significant progress both to increase the quality and quantity of social housing, and at the same time to hold negligent landlords to account.
Under the affordable homes programme, the Government are spending over £11.5 billion of taxpayers’ money to deliver more than 100,000 affordable homes, among them tens of thousands specifically for social rent. This will unlock a further £38 billion in public and private spending in affordable housing. It builds on the Government’s record since 2010—with over 696,000 new affordable homes delivered, including over 172,000 for social rent. Through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, we have strengthened the powers of the Regulator of Social Housing, and improved residents’ ability to seek redress by granting new powers to the Housing Ombudsman.
Overview of proposals
The new set of tests on which we are seeking views are as follows:
UK connection test—requiring people to be a British citizen, Irish citizen, Commonwealth citizen with a right of abode, or EEA or Swiss citizen with equal treatment rights in matters of housing under the withdrawal agreement, the EEA-EFTA separation agreement or the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement, or otherwise to have been lawfully resident in the UK for 10 years, in order to be eligible for social housing. We are consulting on an exemption for those arriving via safe and legal resettlement routes and the Ukrainian temporary visa schemes. This will allow for the allocation of more social homes to those with the strongest connection to the UK, while enabling the Government to continue to deliver their commitments to provide urgent humanitarian support.
Local connection test—preventing individuals from being allocated social housing if they have not had links to the local authority area for two years—for example, through residence or work. This will ensure greater consistency across the country and ensure more local people can access social housing in the area they call home where they need it, supporting people to put down roots and maintain links to family and community.
Income test—households earning above a maximum threshold —to be defined following responses to the consultation—would not qualify for social housing. This would only apply to new tenants and existing tenants would be unaffected.
Antisocial behaviour test—disqualifying people who have unspent convictions for certain criminal antisocial behaviour offences, as well as certain civil orders, from social housing for a defined period.
Terrorism test—we propose that people who have unspent terrorism convictions should be disqualified from social housing unless excluding them would increase the risk to public safety.
False statement test—mandating a period of disqualification for those who knowingly or recklessly make false statements when applying for social housing.
The Government do not believe that those who repeatedly commit acts of antisocial behaviour or have unspent terrorism offences should continue to access social homes while law-abiding individuals remain on waiting lists. We are keen that all social landlords should be able to evict those who have unspent convictions for terrorist offences; we are also committed to a “three strikes and you’re out” expectation of social housing landlords, as set out in the “Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan” published last year. This means that they will be expected to evict tenants whose behaviour is disruptive to neighbours and jeopardises community cohesion.
To ensure that the reforms are informed by the expertise of local housing authorities, social landlords, tenants and the wider public, the full consultation launched today will run for eight weeks. Reforms based on the consultation responses will ensure that waiting lists are managed effectively and that more social housing is allocated to those with the closest connection to the UK and their local area. Changes will be delivered by secondary legislation at the earliest opportunity.
The proposals will help to fulfil the Government’s pledge to tackle antisocial behaviour, and ensure we preserve and protect the country’s social housing.
A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS225]
Grand Committee
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, as your Lordships know, 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.
General Aviation (Persons on Board, Flight Information and Civil Penalties) Regulations 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Gascoigne
That the Grand Committee do consider the General Aviation (Persons on Board, Flight Information and Civil Penalties) Regulations 2024.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of these regulations, laid under paragraphs 27BA and 27BB(6) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 and Section 32B(6)(b) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, is to require owners, agents or captains of international general aviation flights to submit information about the flight and the persons on board online and in advance of the flight. General aviation flights are those that do not operate to schedule. They include large commercially operated business jets, air taxis and private pilots in light aircraft. The regulations also amend the Passenger, Crew and Service Information (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015 and make a failure to comply with the requirements of the new regulations liable to a civil penalty of up to £10,000.
The safety and security of our citizens is the Government’s top priority. We are committed to implementing resilient border security processes for all modes of international transport for counterterrorism, policing and immigration purposes. A key part of our border strategy is the ability to know who is travelling or intending to travel to and from the UK’s border before they arrive or depart. Through the provision of advance passenger information, known as API, our border officers can quickly determine who does and does not pose a threat to the UK or to UK interests and, importantly, can prevent travel in accordance with the authority to carry scheme 2023.
All airlines making scheduled commercial international flights to and from the UK, other than for some flights within the common travel area, are required to provide API for all individuals on board their aircraft. Additionally, all passengers arriving on scheduled international flights are subject to full passport control checks at the border. Individuals arriving in the UK or leaving the UK on international general aviation flights are not all subject to the same checks. Many international general aviation flights operate out of private airfields and landing strips where there is no permanent border control or police presence. This means that a requirement to provide API forms a key part of our approach to managing international general aviation flights and individuals on board.
Those operating international general aviation flights are currently required to provide data in advance of departure for customs purposes, and on some routes for security purposes, but they are not currently required to provide the information electronically in a way that enables law enforcement to process it efficiently. In order to effectively assess the risk posed by individuals on board international general aviation flights, our border control authorities need not only to know who is intending to travel in advance of their journey to or from the UK commencing but to receive the information in a way that supports effective processing to clear individuals posing no concerns and to focus on subjects of interest.
Submission of flight information, online and in advance, will allow Border Force and other law enforcement authorities to analyse and quantify the extent of the potential threat and level of risk. It will enhance automated checking and intelligence-led decision-making to improve the effectiveness with which resources are deployed to meet flights.
Last April, the Home Office undertook an eight-week consultation, targeted at the general aviation sector, on regulations to require information about general aviation flights and persons on board to be submitted electronically in a manner that enables automated watchlisting. Respondents to the consultation understood the reasons for doing this, and most were supportive of the introduction of the regulations.
To be clear, these regulations will not require the provision of new information over and above what is already required. They simply specify the manner in which the information must be supplied: it must be provided online. More than 50% of submissions are already made electronically and the regulations will have no impact on them. There will be a small impact for pilots and operators who submit their flight information via email or even fax. Border Force has a free-to-use web service, known as “Submit a GAR”, hosted on GOV.UK, which general aviation owners, agents or captains can use to comply with these regulations. For individuals arriving and departing in private aircraft, these requirements reflect and support the Government’s intention for a fully digitised border system providing greater ability to know and have control over who is travelling to, entering and leaving the UK.
We recognise the significant economic benefit the general aviation sector provides to the country and that the majority of owners, agents and captains are making information available to the border authorities and the police about their international flights and the persons on board. The Government believe that these changes are sufficiently balanced with the needs of border security and law enforcement. It is of paramount importance that information about persons on board is received in a way that enables automated border checks and pre-departure action to be taken. Therefore, I commend the regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a private pilot and an aircraft owner and operator. I welcome the regulations that the Minister has outlined. Looking at the consultation response document that was published, it seems that very few issues caused any sort of concern, and that this comes under “common sense”. I emphasise that the general aviation sector is acutely aware of the privileges that it enjoys and hence is a highly law-abiding section of the community that is keen to play its role in the policing of our borders.
There is broad support for the regulations, which are not hugely different from those currently in force, as far as I can see. Pilots are used to completing a general aviation declaration, which has not caused any problems. The systems that are used are so much better than they were previously. Technology has really helped. Commercially available applications have a strong interface with flight planning systems. I trust that the Minister can reassure the Committee that this will be the case for the new general aviation declaration format—that commercially available apps will be able to interact successfully and seamlessly.
I have only one substantive question for the Minister and I am sure I know the answer, but none the less it would be reassuring to have it from him. The regulations are cast, as they should be, around the expected arrival location. As we know, aviation, particularly general aviation, can be affected by weather, and we do not want to put in place any regulations that create a perverse incentive to carry on—not to turn back or divert to alternative fields. There can also be technical problems with the aircraft. I would like my noble friend the Minister’s reassurance that nothing in these regulations will affect the ability of the pilot or captain of the aircraft to divert for genuine safety-related reasons, and that we are not baking in any perverse incentive. I know that the Government have consulted widely, and I am quite sure that it will not be the case. None the less, this is a good opportunity for the Minister to make that point.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, these are sensible regulations, but they raise a significant number of questions, including one that the Minister talked about at the outset: moving online from fax. I wonder, do we still have people doing this on the telephone or even by post? Moving into the modern age seems critical to me.
My first question is about the form, which I have just printed out. It is substantially more information than I would give as a passport holder on a regular airline when I go outside the United Kingdom. I presume, but perhaps the Minister can clarify, that that is because of the ability of major airlines to get instant information back from the system. I wonder whether the level of information now available to anybody online is still available to people in this sector, in which case it would shorten the whole form-filling regime.
I will come back to form-filling in just a moment, but the real question that struck me in reading the regulations and information provided to the general aviation sector was the relationship between Border Force’s work and that of the CAA. It is clear to me that flights can be detected and are being tracked by those who control our airspace. I am not certain whether that is because every major airline has transponders, which then indicate exactly where those aircraft are. I do not think that is the case with the general aviation sector but, where it is, that will enable the Civil Aviation Authority to know where these aeroplanes are in the sky and will help detection of flights not designed to land in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Minister can tell us a little about the relationship between the two.
The second issue is about awareness raising in the sector. I went online to see whether I could join an event, simply to find out whether and how it was taking place. It said on the Home Office website that 20,000 people had been hosted for an awareness event. That sounds to me an extremely high number. If that is the case, that is really quite substantial, but there may perhaps be a fault in the way this information is recorded. So how many people have engaged in the events that have taken place to raise awareness of this change, where presumably they are advised not to use post, fax, telephone or emails but to use the online system?
Paragraph 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum talks about 10% of non-compliant people. Can the Minister give a figure for that? That would help me with the first figure about awareness raising and give a sense of the size of the sector we are talking about.
Clearly, these regulations are simply changing the method by which this information is provided, but you have to provide it when you leave and when you come back. Presumably, for the other way around, people in this sector in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and so on are having to do exactly the same thing for us. Are we matching their requirements? In other words, it would seem sensible that, if I were required to provide this information to the UK, I would need to provide that information to France as well. Sharing the data, which I am coming to, would make life a lot easier for people if there were simplification of those procedures.
Finally, I have two technical questions. I note that ICAO or IATA-designated airports or airstrips are permitted to use only the online version. If I have that wrong, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me, but why is that the case? If it is the case, as I read it in the information pack, it seems to me that we are not capturing all the small airstrips in this country.
My final question is about the requirement to record passport information if you fly to the Republic of Ireland. I have gone across to Ireland, our next-door neighbour, quite frequently, and I often use my parliamentary pass to get across the Irish Sea both ways. If I cannot use it to go to Ireland in the general aviation sector, I would like to know why. As I understand it, that applies to the whole of the common travel area.
I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those questions, but in general terms these regulations seem sensible.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Goschen about the importance of this SI. Unlike him, I am not a pilot but, like him, I am a former Transport Minister. I will raise two issues, both touched on tangentially by the noble Lord, Lord German.
The first is the general issue of penalties and enforcement. After yesterday’s long debate, there is increased emphasis on security of the borders and, with all parties agreed that we need to do something about the boats, I think there will be an incentive to look to general aviation to bring more illegal immigrants into the country. Some 400 airfields have no police, customs and excise or immigration presence, so there is a general issue about enforcement and penalties.
The civil penalty for non-compliance under paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum is £10,000. I assume that there are also other penalties available for someone who illegally brings in somebody, so on what basis has that figure been arrived at? Has the existing figure simply been carried forward, or does it line up with some other measurement?
Secondly, on Northern Ireland, Regulation 2 says:
“This regulation applies to an aircraft which … is expected to arrive in the United Kingdom, or … is expected to leave the United Kingdom”.
I assume that internal flights are excluded, as paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to “124,000 international GA flights”, so I assume that there is some other legislation that qualifies Regulation 2 and that the regulation applies only to an aircraft that is arriving in the UK from outside the UK.
Like the noble Lord, Lord German, I downloaded the latest guidance, General Aviation Guidance—January 2024, and came across this under paragraph 6 on customs requirements when travelling to the UK:
“Personal Allowances … If you’re travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, you do not need to declare your goods if both of the following apply … you’re a UK resident … you have already paid both VAT and excise duty … on the goods in Great Britain”.
However, it goes on:
“You may need to declare your goods if any of the following apply … you’re not a UK resident … you have alcohol or tobacco over your allowances … you have goods worth more than £390”.
As I understand it, someone who arrives in this country from America, for example, and then goes to Northern Ireland has to declare his goods because he is not a UK resident. However, the next paragraph says:
“If you’re travelling from Northern Ireland to Great Britain … you do not have to declare any goods”.
There seems to be a bit of a mismatch in the requirements of what you have to do if travelling from here to Northern Ireland or coming back the other way.
I do not expect my noble friend to have the answer at his fingertips, but it is worth posing the question. If I am a pilot taking an American citizen on general aviation to Northern Ireland, what is my obligation to cross-question him about what he has in his luggage, and what penalties will I be exposed to if, by any chance, I get it wrong?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, these are generally sensible regulations. There have been some very interesting points. The contribution from the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, about being sensible—he flies in and out of these sorts of airfields—is useful to our consideration. There were also some interesting points from the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord German, particularly on Northern Ireland, which is always a complicating factor with respect to regulations, not least because people could land in Dublin and because of the interaction with the common travel area, et cetera. There are some interesting questions for the Minister.
It is worth placing on record for people who read our deliberations quite how serious an issue this is and how welcome it is that the Government are seeking to tighten it up. The noble Lord, Lord Young, alluded to that. Some 400 airfields currently operate 124,000 general aviation flights. That is a huge number of flights. I appreciate that many will be individuals, but it is still a significant number. Although we hear that the majority conform with the Government’s current regulations, 10% do not. It is welcome that the Government say quite categorically that none of these various airfields can be policed routinely—I think that is the word the Government used—by Border Force officials or police officers. Again, you do not have to be an intelligence expert to realise that there is potentially a real problem here, so the Government’s attempt to tighten this up through the requirement for people to submit information online is a welcome step forward.
The Minister very helpfully answered a couple of questions for me prior to this debate. I know it is not the subject of the SI, but I wonder whether the Government are considering this issue with respect to seaports. I take the point about Dover or Holyhead, but international shipping must come in and out of numerous other ports. If we are talking about the necessity of borders, I wonder whether the Government are giving any consideration to whether any changes are needed with respect to that. I appreciate that is outside the scope of these regulations, but I wanted to ask the Minister that. Perhaps he could answer by letter.
There is clearly a major issue here that the Government need to deal with. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, is especially pertinent: how will all this new information be monitored and enforced? How can we be sure that the Government will be able to do this effectively? If this information is coming into Border Force, it is really important that it can be collected and utilised. If I have read the regulations right, the information has to be provided not 48 hours before the flight but up to two hours before. How were those figures arrived at? I ask because if, two hours before, something arrives into Border Force and it is a problem, is that sufficient time to respond? I do not know. It clearly has not been plucked out of thin air, so I wondered whether the Minister could say something about how the figures of 48 and two were arrived at.
On the territorial extent, if this is obvious then I apologise, but I think it is worth putting on record that the regulations talk about the United Kingdom. Are the Channel Islands are added on, or not? Are Jersey and Guernsey, and the Isle of Man, subject to these regulations, or not?
Lastly, without repeating the questions from the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Young, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, military flights are clearly excluded under Regulation 3. Military personnel are exempted; I understand that and obviously agree with it. Can the Minister say something about what that means for intelligence services and for diplomats flying in and out? If there is an exemption for military personnel, I wonder whether the Minister can say anything —he may be constrained on this—around intelligence and/or diplomatic flights coming in and out.
As I say, the integrity and policing of our borders is obviously a really important matter. This instrument will help in a proportionate way and, subject to the answers to a couple of those questions, which will help inform discussions when it goes to the other place, these regulations are generally to be welcomed.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, some interesting questions have certainly been thrown up. This has been a useful and helpful conversation and it has been interesting to hear not just the concerns and issues raised but some of the direct experience that your Lordships have in using this method of travel. I will briefly set out the overall position, further to what I said in my opening remarks, but also try to answer some of the many questions that I received.
As I set out, these regulations intend to provide Border Force and other law enforcement partners with greater visibility of who intends to travel to and from the UK on international general aviation flights, and enable them to better use that information. While we have considered the impact on the general aviation sector, this must be viewed against the wider border security benefits that these regulations will provide.
As I said, more than 50% of those in the general aviation sector already submit their information using online methods. For these, there will be no change or impact as they are already complying. Yes, for those who submit via email and other means there will be a change, but we consider it to be a small change in behaviour and have provided a free-to-use web service through which to do this. The impact will be felt most by those who do not comply, and it is these persistent offenders who will be subject to the civil penalty regime.
I understand that there may be concerns about the operation of Border Force and the underpinning civil penalty regime where general aviation owners, agents or captains who breach a requirement of the regulations may be subject to a penalty of up to £10,000. We recognise this, of course, and I assure your Lordships that the civil penalty regime, while being robust, will also be fair. Our approach is one of collaborative working but, where a serious breach of the regulations occurs or Border Force has to deal with persistent non-compliance, it is only right and proper that we should penalise the general aviation owner, agent or captain. The Home Office has drafted guidance for Border Force and the general aviation sector, which will be published in advance of these regulations entering into force. This will give the sector adequate time to understand its obligations and the penalties should some fail to comply.
I will try to address some of the points raised, particularly by my noble friend Lord Goschen. There obviously may be occasions when, due to a technical issue during a flight, the aircraft cannot land at its intended destination or has to be redirected to an alternative aerodrome. In such circumstances, I understand that there is guidance available on GOV.UK setting out the process that should be followed on arrival. I assure your Lordships that there is no suggestion that safety should be put at risk to comply with the information that has been submitted.
Where changes in weather mean that a flight has to divert at short notice, that change should be notified to Border Force where possible. In the event that it is not possible for the information to be supplied online, in accordance with the proposed regulations, it should be supplied to the relevant Border Force region by telephone at the earliest opportunity. I understand that the detail of this is also set out on GOV.UK.
I thought it would also be worth setting out some of our engagement with other government departments that have an interest in this sector. The Home Office works in close partnership with colleagues from other government departments and law enforcement bodies, in particular HMRC, the Department for Transport, counterterrorism border policing and the National Crime Agency. Home Office officials hold regular meetings with their HMRC and DfT counterparts. All government departments and law enforcement partners, as well as the devolved Administrations, were invited to respond to the consultation last summer; I believe that the Home Office responded to each response received in order to address their specific concerns.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Can I just emphasise that point so that people who read our proceedings are clear? Any diplomat, of whatever rank, leaving or coming into this country who seeks to come in outside of a scheduled flight has to notify Border Force that they are coming in or leaving. Is that right?
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
Yes, I confirm that. I sought that clarity for myself. You are correct; it is only military personnel on military flights who will be exempt.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Could my noble friend write to me on the issue I raised about the anomaly between travelling from England to Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland back to England?
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
Yes, I appreciate that. I absolutely will.
To conclude, adopting these regulations will deliver significant border security benefits to Border Force and other law enforcement partners, ensuring that we have a greater awareness of all individuals intending to travel to or from the UK and that we can prevent the travel of certain individuals where it is in the public interest to do so. Therefore, I commend the regulations to the Committee once more.
National Crime Agency (Directed Tasking) Order 2023
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Gascoigne
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Crime Agency (Directed Tasking) Order 2023.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, the impact of serious and organised crime on the United Kingdom is significant and growing. It poses a threat to our national security and prosperity. In partnership with law enforcement and industry, the Government are taking significant steps to tackle the increasingly complex threat posed by economic crime, fraud, bribery and corruption. These crimes severely harm the economy and cause significant suffering. We must do more to keep pace with the evolving threat. A whole-system response is critically important.
To this end, the Government announced, as part of the Serious and Organised Crime Strategy 2023, our intention to amend Section 5(5) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. This amendment would allow the director-general of the National Crime Agency to direct the director of the Serious Fraud Office on matters relating to the investigation of suspected incidents of serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption.
With the addition of the Serious Fraud Office to the list of agencies that can be subject to directed tasking, this measure will strengthen the ability of the National Crime Agency to co-ordinate a national effort against serious and organised crime. This will support strong ongoing collaboration between the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office, enabling the director-general of the National Crime Agency to direct the director of the Serious Fraud Office where the National Crime Agency requires the assistance, skills and expertise of the Serious Fraud Office, but where satisfactory arrangements cannot be made under the existing voluntary tasking arrangement.
It will also place the National Crime Agency’s relationship with the Serious Fraud Office on the same footing as that which the agency has with police forces in England and Wales and the British Transport Police.
The Government’s aim is to reduce serious and organised crime in the UK. We will do this by disrupting and dismantling organised crime groups operating in and against the UK. The social and economic cost of serious and organised crime to the UK is eyewatering, running to at least £47 billion a year. But, vast as that figure is, it does not begin to tell the whole story—a story of lives destroyed and of unimaginable suffering caused by heinous criminality such as sexual exploitation, drug abuse and human trafficking.
Beyond the enormous financial and human costs, serious and organised crime threatens the legitimacy of the state. It damages our national security and prosperity. That is why the Home Secretary recently published a new serious and organised crime strategy. Our mission is to reduce the impact of serious and organised crime on the country in all its forms. This includes reducing fraud.
The threat from fraud has increased in volume over recent years. The Government are implementing the fraud strategy, including launching a national fraud squad, blocking frauds at source and empowering the public to respond. This includes committing £100 million as part of a wider £400 million to tackle economic crime and improve the law enforcement response to fraud. We have also set ourselves the target to reduce fraud by 10% from December 2019 levels by the end of this Parliament.
The National Crime Agency is crucial to our response. The agency leads and co-ordinates the UK law enforcement response to serious and organised crime. We have strengthened the agency’s ability to combat organised criminals, increasing its budget by 21% to £860 million in 2023/24.
The Serious Fraud Office is a critical partner in the fraud system. In the last five years alone, it has recovered over £150 million in proceeds of crime, put 26 executives behind bars and forced big business to pay more than £1 billion in fines.
To summarise, this order gives effect to an element of the Government’s approach to tackling economic crime, an issue that causes significant direct and indirect harm to the country. Subject to proper safeguards, it brings the investigative capability of the Serious Fraud Office’s work within scope for direction by the director-general of the National Crime Agency, akin to what already exists in relation to police forces in England and Wales, as I said.
The addition of the directed tasking power is intended to enhance collaboration between the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office and assist in the sharing of tools and expertise to fight serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption. I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, we are happy to support this SI. We welcome any increase in the effort to combat economic crime, in particular serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption. The SI seems straightforward; it simply adds the SFO to the list of organisations that may be directly tasked by the NCA to investigate serious or complex economic crime that falls within the SFO’s remit.
However, one element of the SI would benefit from further explanation. Paragraph 4.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The territorial application of this instrument … is England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
It defines the territorial application as being
“where the instrument produces a practical effect”.
The police services of Northern Ireland and Scotland are not listed in Section 5(5) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 as organisations that the NCA may direct, unlike the police services of England and Wales. The NCA seems to have a kind of jurisdiction in Northern Ireland. The Explanatory Memorandum says that special provisions apply to Northern Ireland and that the memorandum of understanding between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the NCA
“will be reviewed and amended as necessary, to reflect the extension of the directed tasking powers in this Order”.
Can the Minister tell us when this review is likely to take place and when any amendments are likely to be published?
What happens in Scotland is less clear. The SFO does not have jurisdiction there, and Police Scotland does not feature in Section 5(5) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Scotland does not feature in this SI, except in the assertion of territorial application that I mentioned a moment ago. What difference does this SI make in Scotland? What practical effect does it bring about? In the absence of explicit power to direct, how does the NCA operate in Scotland? What is the formal relationship between the NCA and the procurator fiscal service? I would be grateful if the Minister could address those questions when he replies.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we also welcome the general direction that the Government are taking in this SI. It goes without saying that we all agree that financial and economic crime and fraud are very serious issues and that we must do all we can to tackle them. Obviously, there is no disagreement between us at all.
I start where the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, finished. There is a bit of confusion. It is necessary for the Minister to clarify some of the territorial applications between the various powers outlined in the order. I highlight paragraph 6.3 of the EM, which says:
“Section 5(5) of the 2013 Act makes provision for the Director General of the NCA to direct chief officers of an England and Wales police force or the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police”.
Clearly, that does not apply to direct tasking in Scotland and Northern Ireland, yet this order applies to the whole of the UK. How do the NCA’s powers, as directed under this SI, and the Serious Fraud Office’s powers relate to each other? It is about understanding that and having some clarity around the legislation with respect to that issue; this would also give clarity to the NCA, the Serious Fraud Office and the chief officers of the police of all four parts of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, is quite right to raise this; indeed, it is one of the issues that I was going to raise.
I want to ask the Minister about a couple of other things. Can he say why the change is needed? Presumably, the co-operation is good. If it is, why does it need to be legislated for? Have there been occasions when there has been a refusal by the SFO director to do something that the NCA’s director-general has asked them to do, leading the Government to think that we need some clarity there? What problems have emerged in the current arrangements to necessitate the Government deciding that they need to take this action?
Also, can the Minister explain what direct tasking actually is? Is it a compulsory demand that the SFO does this or that? Is there a level of seriousness that must be met, or is it a subjective judgment on the part of the NCA’s director-general—that is, this is what they would like the SFO to do and can require them to do? The other thing that emerges from this is the fact that, presumably, there is no way in which the SFO’s director can refuse? Otherwise, there would be no point to this legislation. Some clarity around direct tasking and the problems or difficulties that have come up, including what this SI seeks to overcome and in what circumstances it may be used, is needed.
Clearly, we all support this attempt to do more about economic and financial crime and fraud. The Government think that this order will help. I think that a little more explanation of how it will help, rather than an assertion that it will, would be helpful in our deliberations.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and their support for this order. I will begin with some brief remarks that should answer a number of the points raised and then try to tackle any specific outstanding ones.
As we have discussed, this order would amend the Crime and Courts Act 2013 to grant the National Crime Agency direct tasking power over the Serious Fraud Office in relation to combating fraud, bribery and corruption. The use of this power would be at the discretion of the director-general of the National Crime Agency. It will be used when it is deemed that such tasking would assist the agency in its role of investigating and reducing crime and, in particular, tackling serious and complex fraud, including bribery and corruption, as well as when satisfactory voluntary arrangements cannot be made, or cannot be made in time.
Through the extension of these tasking powers to the Serious Fraud Office, we align the arrangement between this office and the National Crime Agency, as I have said, with those for police forces in England and Wales and the British Transport Police. In doing so, we are strengthening the mechanisms for co-operation and a system-wide response. The agency has previously used its power to task to great effect: taking weapons off our streets; identifying and bringing to justice the highest-harm drug gangs we face; searching for and tackling prolific child sexual abusers; and combating fraudsters and seizing the proceeds of crime.
Further to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, ideally this mechanism would not need to be used because of the already very good co-operation and relationship between the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office. However, it is important to have it in place to ensure a joined-up response to serious or complex fraud, including bribery and corruption, when and if needed. This step is part of the response set out in the Government’s serious and organised crime strategy. As we have discussed, this new strategy, which the Home Secretary published last year, makes clear the challenges we face from serious and organised crime. Its mission is to reduce serious and organised crime in the UK by disrupting and dismantling the organised crime groups operating in and against the UK. The strategy has five lines of action for reducing serious and organised crime: in-country, at the border, international, technology and capabilities, and a multiagency response. The package of measures announced as part of the strategy also included new powers in the Criminal Justice Bill that will clamp down on organised criminal gangs. As I have said, there is also a further £5 million for the police to disrupt organised immigration crime and £24 million allocated to the modern slavery fund to address the serious root causes of modern slavery and human trafficking.
To be clear, this power is intended to strengthen the ability of the NCA to lead the system in tackling serious and organised crime. The Serious Fraud Office will remain a strong and independent body. The wider reform agenda being delivered by Director Ephgrave is strengthening its capacity to deliver more effective investigations into the most complex cases. It has had several notable successes over the past few years, including deferred prosecution agreements, which have contributed almost £1.3 billion to the public purse since 2017. This attests to its capacity and capability to investigate the most serious, complex and harmful fraud cases and prosecute those responsible.
I will now try to address the points raised—with the emphasis on “try”. The devolved Administrations have been consulted on this and, before any application, we will have further discussions with them. They have been consulted in advance, but we will continue to do so. The SFO may need to use its powers to investigate crime within its jurisdictions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked when there would be a review of the MoU. This is a consultative process, and we will check on requirements to update the MoU—but I reiterate that this is consultative and collaborative, and that is the crucial part.
I was also asked about examples. I think the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked whether there have been refusals. As it stands, there have not been any. A lot of it is just streamlining the process to ensure that it is there. I am informed that when different agencies talk it may not be possible for the NCA to raise a specific issue, so in effect it is a power that it has in its back pocket.
On how it might be used, decisions on voluntary and directed tasking are taken following discussions with the national strategic tasking and co-ordination group where it is assessed that improving the intelligence picture or operational delivery to tackle a threat is required as a priority. Obviously, there are discussions between a number of parties at official and senior level in advance of those discussions. Directing tasking will occur only where a voluntary arrangement cannot be made or made in time.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The territorial complexities of that may need to be teased out a little more between now and discussion in the other place. To be fair, there is still a little confusion in my mind about the inter- relationship between all that. I leave that on the table for the Minister to consider. That would be helpful; I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, agrees.
Before we move on, the main point I want to make on this direct tasking is that there clearly is an issue where the National Crime Agency wants to be able to direct the Serious Fraud Office to do certain things that the NCA is worried the SFO is not going to do. Is that a fair interpretation? In other words, the Home Office wants to strengthen the response to financial and economic crime, it is worried about whether the Serious Fraud Office will take the same priorities as the National Crime Agency, and this is a way of saying, “If you don’t, we’ll direct task you to do it”.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for those two points. I will certainly write to both noble Lords on the devolved nations and any other outstanding issues. I completely appreciate the points made.
Forgive me if I have not been clear. Given that this has not been used in other circumstances, my understanding is that this has always been the intent for some time. It is not in response to anything in particular but an important part of a broader strategy to tackle crime. I am assured, having spoken to officials in those bodies, that there is a very good working relationship at senior level. My understanding is that this is just a backstop, just in case, should that relationship not work. If I am not correct on that I will write to both noble Lords, but I will also reiterate the point if it is correct.
To conclude, this measure represents a positive step forward, in our view. It is part of a larger effort and a wider package of measures to strengthen our collective ability to identify and investigate the most harmful and complex criminal cases, and prosecute those responsible.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
I am no wiser, really, about Scotland. I do not know, from listening to the Minister or reading the material, how this SI has any effect in Scotland, if at all, and I do not know how the NCA will operate. I have asked the questions anyway—I will not repeat them in detail here—but I would like an assurance from the Minister that he will write to us to answer those questions and that he will do so before this instrument reaches the other place.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I am very sorry not to have answered that sufficiently. I assure the noble Lord that I will write, and I will do so as fast as I possibly can. Forgive me for not answering it in the first place.
Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel
That the Grand Committee do consider the Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 11 December 2023. They are being introduced using powers inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996 by the Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023. I was pleased to note that the latter, as a Private Member’s Bill, attracted support from all sides both here and in the other place. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and Dan Jarvis MP for bringing that important Act forward.
According to research published in 2016 by the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, one in nine mothers reported that they were dismissed or made compulsorily redundant where others in their workplaces were not, or treated so poorly that they felt they had to leave their job. If scaled up to the general population, that could mean as many as 54,000 mothers a year. Although that data is from some time ago, we know that the problem persists.
Under the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, which we call MAPLE for short, redundancy protections are already in place for a mother on maternity leave. These regulations put a mother on maternity leave in a preferential position in a redundancy situation. There are parallel negotiations that have the same effect for parents taking adoption leave or shared parental leave. Under MAPLE, before making an employee who is on maternity leave redundant, employers have an obligation to offer them a suitable alternative vacancy if one is available, not just to invite them to apply for one.
The regulations we are debating will extend that existing redundancy protection so that it is available during pregnancy and for a period after returning to work from relevant parental leave. That is maternity, adoption and shared parental leave. This will help to address the issues that the research identified. We hope it will alleviate some of the anxiety about job security that a pregnant woman or new parent may face.
The new regulations will amend the existing regulations covering relevant parental care. This means that MAPLE-type protections could be in place from the point when a woman tells her employer she is pregnant and continue for 18 months after the birth of the child, which will include the period of relevant parental leave.
The 18-month protection period has two main purposes. First, it ensures that a mother returning from 12 months of maternity leave will receive six months’ additional redundancy protection when she goes back to work. This meets the commitment that the Government made in the consultation response. Secondly, a single, consistent and clear period of protection is a simple way of accommodating the flexibility of shared parental leave, as well as the interaction between it and other types of parental leave. Creating a bespoke approach for these and other scenarios would have introduced considerable complexity into the regulations, which is why we have opted for the simplicity and clarity of a single period of protection.
The period of protection from redundancy on return to work is activated immediately when someone returns to the workplace following a period of maternity or adoption leave. However, the regulations introduce a minimum qualifying period for those taking shared parental leave alone; by “alone”, I mean that they would have previously not taken a period of maternity or adoption leave. This is to avoid the situation where a parent who has taken just a few weeks of shared parental leave receives 18 months’ additional protection in a redundancy situation.
When we spoke with the stakeholders, they considered that it would be disproportionate to extend this level of protection to someone who had taken only a short period of shared parental leave. For this reason, the regulations require a parent to have taken a minimum period of six continuous weeks of shared parental leave to activate the additional redundancy protection once they have returned to work.
These measures will provide valuable support and protection for pregnant women and parents after parental leave. The Government are pleased to have supported the Private Member’s Bill and have delivered these regulations.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly in an unusual situation. We Greens in your Lordships’ House are sometimes accused of not giving the Government credit where it is due, but I want to congratulate the Government on this statutory instrument and applaud the progress that is made in it.
We should also applaud the fact that behind this has been a huge amount of campaigning of public concern. I note that the charity and campaigning group, Pregnant Then Screwed, which took four awards at the Third Sector Awards last year, has been campaigning on these issues for a very long time and is making real progress. This is a real demonstration that campaigning works; we have seen something happen here, so I can only congratulate the campaigners and the Government on this.
I want to put a couple of questions to the Minister. What are the Government going to do to ensure that employers and employees know about this change in the law? What kind of publicity campaign will there be? The Minister referred in his introduction to the fact that the figures that the Government were relying on were quite old. Are there plans to update and take assessment both of the current situation and of what happens in the months and years after this statutory instrument comes into effect? What reporting back will there be to the House and the other place so that we can continue to monitor this important area, given that it is important to individuals and households, but also important to ensure that people are able to remain in the workplace?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, this is the second time that we are meeting across the Dispatch Box. If it continues, people will start talking. I thank the Minister for the overview and explanation of this statutory instrument, which builds on the Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023. I fondly remember the debate on this Bill last spring. It was the first time I had the honour of speaking from the Front Bench in the main Chamber. Not only did the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, praise the work of the TUC in the development of this legislation but we agreed to have a massive group hug.
Pleasingly, almost exactly nine months after this group hug, are now delivering additional legislation through this statutory instrument. It provides similar rights in a redundancy situation to pregnant women and new parents who have recently returned from a period of maternity, adoption or shared parental leave lasting six weeks or more. Additionally, the protection will now start when the employee tells the employer about the pregnancy.
This legislation is supported by my friends and colleagues in the trade union movement. In fact, some of these measures were discussed in the preparation of the Bill last year, which, at the risk of disrupting this very collegiate atmosphere, I remind noble Lords was a Private Member’s Bill from my friend, the honourable Member for Barnsley Central.
As supportive as we are of this change, it does not come without implications for employers, especially those who may be considering restructuring shortly after the instrument comes into effect on 6 April, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. What steps are the Government taking to make sure employees are prepared? Additionally, is there any additional monitoring for the implementation period where employees may not be abreast of the new law?
Among other possible difficulties with implementation, women may now feel under pressure to inform their employer of their pregnancy very early if there is an impending redundancy exercise. What consideration have the Government given to this likelihood and potential steps to help protect women from this? Another potential difficulty comes from the notification requirements and record keeping. The regulations are not clear as to the form of the notification required. Can the Minister shed any light, or would this be a matter for the courts? Would oral notification suffice, and what would then happen if accounts varied?
Since 2019, we have been promised more than 20 times an employment Bill that will
“protect and enhance workers’ rights as the UK leaves the EU, making Britain the best place in the world to work”.
Will the Minister finally accept that this long-promised Bill is a mirage and will not be delivered? I look forward to his responses to our various questions. Other than that, we are very supportive of these regulations.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions.
I come first to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I appreciate her support on this matter. I know that she is close to the campaigning charities; it is good to be able to report that their campaigning results in meaningful change in legislation. That should be noted. I agree that the big issue now is communication. On many of these matters, it is now all about how we work closely to get the message out. We will work closely with the Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination Advisory Board on the guidance and on basic ITJ promotion. We will also work with the board to work out how best to monitor and measure a more up-to-date labour workforce in this area. We expect to see great improvement in this area with the legislation passed, but it will be down to the communication.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Leong. I welcome his support for the regulations, which shows that we can work together when we have common interests. It shows that more unites us than divides us, especially when it comes to helping the more vulnerable members of our society. Clearly, there are philosophical differences between the two sides of this place when it comes to employment matters and the employment Bill, which was referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Leong.
We think that employment law in this country is in good shape, as proven by the fact that we now have 33 million people, out of a population of 65 million, in work—a record number—and by the protections that they have cascading down while they are employees. From the self-employed through to parallel workers, all now have legislation affecting and contributing to their safety and rights. We would therefore say that the focus for our Government should be to help the 5 million people who are economically inactive, have fallen out of the workplace and need a pathway back to work. We need to focus our efforts on helping that cohort back to work, because we know that there is a lot of talent in that cohort that is currently being wasted.
Putting those philosophical differences aside, I believe that we have consensus on this matter. The Government are pleased to be able to deliver these stronger redundancy protections for pregnant women and those returning from parental leave. We want to see these regulations succeed, because we have an opportunity here today to make a real difference to the lives of those who may rely on this protection in future. Supporting these measures is in line with our ongoing commitment to supporting workers and building a highly skilled, high-productivity and high-wage economy.
Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel
That the Grand Committee do consider the Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2024.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
My Lords, under Section 103 of the Postal Services Act 2000, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade has the power to make payments to support the provision of the Post Office network. This power is subject to conditions, one of which includes a cap on the total amount of funding that can be given to the Post Office in any given financial year. The current cap, set in 2011, is £500 million, and we are proposing to increase this to £750 million per annum.
Raising the legislative cap on funding that can be provided to the Post Office does not reflect a funding commitment but is simply an enabling power to allow the Government to provide appropriate funding to the Post Office when needed. The rationale for the increased cap is simple: we must avoid a situation where the Government cannot legally provide the funding that the Post Office needs for its essential activities.
As all noble Lords will be aware, the Government currently provide funding support to the Post Office in a number of important areas, enabling it to maintain its delivery of key services across the UK.
First, funding is provided for compensating victims of the Horizon scandal. The scandal was one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in living history, and the victims must get the justice that they deserve. As part of this, it is essential that impacted postmasters are compensated fairly and as quickly as possible. The Government are contributing funding for a number of compensation schemes, as well as funding associated with delivering the compensation schemes. It is essential that this process is not held up at any stage of the process.
Secondly, the Government provide significant and vital funding to support the Post Office network. Post offices are the beating heart of communities. Through its network of over 11,500 branches, the Post Office delivers essential services across the United Kingdom. There are currently over 6,000 rural branches, representing 54% of the total network. Over 3,000 of these are described as being the last shop in the village, providing vital retail, mail and banking services together in one space and helping to sustain thousands of rural economies. These services are highly valuable to both individuals and SMEs in urban and rural areas across the UK. It will come as no surprise that, in the Association of Convenience Stores’ recently published annual local shop report, Post Offices were identified as the type of service considered by the public to have the most positive impact on a local area.
The Government have provided significant financial support to sustain the nationwide network: over £2.5 billion in funding in the past decade alone. The Government remain steadfast in their support for the network and have committed to maintaining the annual £50 million subsidy to safeguard services in the uncommercial parts of the network until 2025. Without that funding, most of these Post Office branches would be unsustainable.
The Government provide targeted investment funding to the company. The retail sector is facing challenging conditions. It is still feeling the effects of changing consumer behaviours arising from Covid-19 and the impact of cost of living pressures on consumer confidence arising from a range of factors including inflation and high energy and supply chain costs. As such, the Post Office is experiencing pressures as the business attempts to operate within this challenging commercial environment, while meeting the costs to right the wrongs of the past.
Further pressures have also arisen through the work to replace the outdated Horizon IT system. Although this is a Post Office-led programme, it is essential for the future of the company and the network, and the Government have already committed to providing £103 million to support the development of the replacement system and to ensure that the Horizon system is maintained before the replacement is rolled out. We have provided funding to meet the company’s immediate needs for this programme, and we are working closely with the Post Office to understand what funding may be required beyond that.
These three areas are critical to the future of the Post Office, and the current legislative cap risks the Government not being able to provide the Post Office with the funding it needs for essential activities. Having taken into account the current forecasts and inflationary context since the previous cap was set in 2011, the Government consider a new cap of £750 million to be reasonable, sensible and proportionate. I beg to move.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining this SI. It is one of the shortest statutory instruments that I have had to deal with. I aim to give it a bit of colour. We on these Benches will not oppose it, but it raises a number of questions, which I will run through, giving the civil servants in the Box a bit of time to answer them and to help the Minister if needed.
A cap has been set at £500 million since 2011—so for quite some time now—and has not risen with inflation over the years. Pre the scandal and having to pay and settle some of the problems—let us deal with the scandal completely separately—has the money from the Government to the Post Office come close to that cap over the last four or five years?
The only question to the DBT from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in paragraph 54 of its eighth report, was not really answered. If this £750 million is not enough, will the DBT come back to Parliament with another SI to uplift it? That is purely in the context of the scandal, because in normal times £750 million should be adequate. It is an uplift of 50% from the previous cap limit, so my expectation is that the cap was never hit. However, the department did not answer the SLSC’s question about whether the Government would return to it. I think the department’s answer was that it was confident that £750 million would be enough. It is worth asking whether, if there is a need to come back for more, the Government would seek to do so.
In dealing with the scandal and the payments from it, is there a gross figure that the Government are expecting or looking to pay across all the compensation schemes? We have individual sums—there is the £600,000, and bits and pieces across different schemes—but is there an expected overall compensation figure on the back of the Horizon scandal?
Also, if I remember correctly, one of the senior executives at Fujitsu commented at Davos that, as a business, Fujitsu would be looking to make some recompense. Do we know what level of financial recompense it is looking to make towards the scandal? Would that money be paid to Post Office Ltd or to the Government, since they are basically underwriting any and all of the compensation payments?
A number of questions have arisen on the back of this very short SI. This will come back to the Floor of the House through Oral Questions and Statements or via Written Questions, so I am more than happy for the department to write to me or put a letter in the Library on some of the detail of my questions, if the Minister does not have them to hand.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for those questions, all of which are perfectly reasonable.
The first question was about the £500 million limit from 2011. Of course, up until 2022 we did not have inflation, so it has not been an inflationary environment. Part of the increase is recognising the inflationary hike that we have had and part of it is recognising that significant compensation has to be paid out. I do not know the precise amount of spend against that £500 million; it has not been above it.
To give some idea of this number, we know that, for example, in the last 10 years we have spent £2.5 billion just supporting the network. If you divide that by 10—although it has not been £250 million a year—you get the idea that that is over or under as a scale. Some £50 million has also been given to support the loss-making branches that we want to keep open, of which there are 3,000 in rural areas. There have also been the IT costs: another £100 million to build the new IT system to replace Horizon.
All of that has been within and is manageable within the £500 million, but now we move to the new world of compensation. So far, £153 million has been paid out. That has, therefore, been within the £500 million cap. On the question of how much will ultimately be paid out, guidance has been given that this could, shockingly, end up being £1 billion, but that would be over a number of years. We expect that to be accommodated within the increase to £750 million. That is how it has been budgeted.
Fujitsu has expressed that it has a “moral obligation”. That has not yet been tested as to amount and recipient. That will now be negotiated. I can see a situation where the Williams inquiry establishes the facts and a lot of repercussions come out of that, as we have said in the Chamber. One of those will be a discussion with Fujitsu about the right amount that it needs to contribute. My ministerial colleague in the other place has been very clear that it should not just be the taxpayer who has to foot this bill. Therefore, Fujitsu will need to off-set that. Quite how that will happen and where it will go is not yet decided, but that will be a significant part of that off-set.
I hope that answers in the main the noble Lord’s questions. Clearly, we all knew the Post Office to be a valuable asset in our own communities, but our awareness of this issue has been raised considerably following the TV series. Therefore, this is effectively a mechanism to ensure that the Post Office is in funds to allow the compensation to be made quickly, as we have indicated many times. We need to right the wrongs of the past in this Horizon scandal. This is an important part of that. This order therefore ensures that the Government can provide appropriate levels of funding to the company over the coming years. I urge noble Lords to support it.
Combined Authorities (Mayors) Filling of Vacancies Order 2017 (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the Grand Committee do consider the Combined Authorities (Mayors) Filling of Vacancies Order 2017 (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will also speak to the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
These draft regulations were laid before the House on 11 December 2023. If approved and made, they will amend the existing legislation to provide the rules for the conduct of elections for directly elected mayors of combined county authorities and the rules by which mayoral vacancies in such authorities are to be declared, as well as the procedure for filling them through by- elections. The mayoral elections regulations are essential to enable the first election of a combined county authority mayor—in the east Midlands—to take place as planned in May 2024. It is highly desirable that the filling of vacancies regulations are made before the possibility of a vacancy in the post of combined county authority mayor arises.
The two sets of regulations that we are considering, if approved and made, will mark a milestone in implementing the east Midlands devolution deal and pave the way for further mayoral combined county authorities. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government agreed an historic devolution deal with Derbyshire County Council, Derby City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council in August 2022. This deal, if the necessary secondary legislation is approved by Parliament, will see significant powers and budgets conferred on the East Midlands Combined County Authority.
This authority, if approved by Parliament, will be the first of its kind to be established under the new powers in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Its directly elected mayor, agreed and consented to by the four councils concerned, will provide an essential single point of accountability for such major powers. The draft mayoral elections regulations are necessary to conduct an election of the east Midlands mayor and, indeed, to conduct elections for any future combined county authority mayors. The draft filling of vacancies regulations provide the rules for filling any mid-term vacancies in the office of mayor for a combined county authority.
Turning to the specifics, the draft mayoral elections regulations make detailed provision about the conduct of the elections for mayors of combined county authorities. They do this by extending the application of the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 to elections for combined county authority mayors. They also apply the Voter Identification Regulations 2022 to combined county authority mayoral elections in order to maintain consistency with other local government elections, and ensure that transitional provisions for EU citizens standing as candidates in other local elections in May 2024 apply to combined county authority mayoral elections.
The Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 largely replicated the rules for elections for local authority mayors and police and crime commissioners. This procedural consistency is the hallmark of local government electoral law and ensures the smooth running of polls, particularly where they are held in combination. However, I will mention certain specific provisions that we are making for combined county authority mayors, reflecting the constitutional arrangements for these authorities.
We are creating a new role—the combined county authority returning officer—to oversee the whole of the election of a combined county authority mayor. This important role mirrors the role of the combined authority returning officer. The combined county authority returning officer, like the combined authority returning officer, will be personally responsible for publishing the notice of elections, administering the nomination process, ensuring that candidates comply with the requirements regarding the content of their election addresses, collating and calculating the number of votes given for each candidate, and calculating and declaring the result.
The draft regulations also clarify that the returning officer for the district council in a two-tier area of a combined county authority is to be responsible for running the mayoral election within that county’s area. This is because the procedural expertise and experience, as well as the responsibility for the electoral register, sits with these councils. This is the approach generally taken in polls run on different geographies to that of the district council including, for example, county council and police and crime commissioner elections.
In addition, the regulations also contain two provisions that apply to both combined authority and combined county authority mayoral elections. First, we have included provision enabling the appointment of a combined authority returning officer, or a combined county authority returning officer, before the respective authority is established. This will help ensure the smooth running of the first mayoral election where the statutory instrument establishing the new authority is made only relatively shortly before the date of the mayoral election provided for in that secondary legislation.
For combined authorities, commencement of this provision is delayed until 1 July 2024. This is because the order to establish the new north-east mayoral combined authority, which we expect to lay before Parliament shortly, includes an area-specific provision for the first mayoral election in May 2024, reflecting the unique circumstances of that authority. This delay in the commencement provision avoids the risk of two alternative sets of provision being in play at the election on 2 May 2024.
Secondly, we have set the figures in the formula for the calculation of candidate spending limits at combined county authority mayoral elections at £3,040 per constituent council and 8p per elector. We have consulted the Electoral Commission on this as statute requires and, on the basis that these figures align with the candidate spending limits for combined authority mayors, the commission recommended this approach. These regulations also establish new spending limits for combined authority mayors by uprating in line with inflation the limits that were set in 2017. To do this, we have used the powers given by Parliament to the Secretary of State to make such upratings in line with inflation, for which no further recommendation is required from the Electoral Commission. Parity is therefore maintained between combined county authority elections and combined authority elections.
Turning to the filling of vacancies regulations, these smaller regulations also extend the scope of existing provision for combined authorities to include combined county authorities. They are necessary to establish the rules by which vacancies are to be declared in the office of a combined county authority mayor and the procedures for filling these vacancies through by-elections. These provisions need to be in place in advance of any combined county authority mayor being elected to ensure that any subsequent vacancy can be appropriately and consistently dealt with.
On consultation, the Government undertook extensive consultation ahead of the 2017 electoral provisions for combined authorities. The regulations before us today replicate the 2017 provisions and apply them to combined county authorities, reflecting the parity between the two types of authority. We have undertaken statutory consultation with the Electoral Commission on the provision in the draft mayoral elections regulations about expense limits for candidates for combined county authority mayoral elections and combined authority elections. The regulations reflect the commission’s recommendation with regard to the setting of the new combined county authority mayoral spending limit.
In addition, we shared informally with the commission a draft of the filling of vacancies regulations. We also engaged with officers of the constituent councils of the East Midlands; I want to say at this time that we are grateful for their input as we have developed the drafts of this legislation.
In conclusion, these draft regulations set out a robust legal framework for the election of combined county authority mayors. They provide the necessary clarity to those tasked with running these elections and ensure that local electors can have confidence in the fair conduct of these elections. I commend both sets of draft regulations to the Committee.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction to these two SIs. I understand entirely the need for speed on them both. I should declare an interest as an elector in the North East Combined Authority. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the arrangements for the next few months regarding the processes being put in place. It is appropriate that combined county authorities and mayoral combined authorities have the same regulations as each other; that is the right thing to do. It is also right and appropriate to uprate expenditure limits in line with inflation.
The Minister mentioned voter ID. I suggest to her that more attention be paid to the concerns around that. There has been a consultation with the Electoral Commission, which made clear its concerns about some of the requirements on voter ID that certainly seem to make it more difficult for younger people to vote. More generally, it is our view that the voter ID requirements need urgent reform. The Minister mentioned that voter ID regulations are to be the same for both kinds of authorities. Perhaps the Government should be more proactive about addressing the need for change.
There are some issues behind both these statutory instruments, which result, in part, from the passing of the levelling-up Act. I have grave concerns about the electoral system being used in these elections, first past the post, because the mayoral combined authority model is highly centralist. It does not engage fully with the general public or, indeed, most elected councillors; only council leaders will be engaged. There is an issue of legitimacy for those elected on very low turnouts with a very low share of the poll. It is entirely possible that, in a first past the post system, the person being elected on a 30% to 35% turnout may have only 30% support on first preferences. That is not adequate when the powers of a mayor are so great. I repeat my concern about the legitimacy of the electoral system, given that difficult, complex and challenging decisions will have to be made by the mayoral combined authorities of whatever kind.
The second issue is the role of district councils, which the Minister mentioned when she talked about managing the electoral process. During the passage of the levelling-up Act, we raised the issue of their rights to full membership of combined county authorities. They are the planning authority, not just the manager of the electoral processes. Can the Minister give us any update about whether district councils are now satisfied with the roles the Government are planning? I should say, in passing, that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I also have a concern, which I raised during the passing of the levelling-up Act, about scrutiny, audit and risk. I take these issues extremely seriously, and I just hope that the Government have ensured that every mayoral combined authority and every combined county authority has adequate risk, audit and scrutiny systems in place, given the huge sums of public money that they will be spending through that very centralised, top-down system.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing these statutory instruments. I concur with many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in relation to district councils and their role in administrating elections, which I will come to shortly.
These regulations provide the rules for declaring a combined county mayoral vacancy, the procedure for by-elections and the rules governing a mayoral election. They do this simply by extending the existing rules for combined authority mayoral elections or by-elections to cover the new combined county authority mayors. We on these Benches supported the passage of the original orders in 2017, and we support these instruments today.
These regulations are required in advance of the first planned combined county authority mayoral election in May 2024 in the East Midlands, as the Minister mentioned, and we on these Benches want to focus on a particular point. While we are discussing the combined county authorities, I will take this opportunity to raise the importance of ensuring that all constituent councils get the opportunity to have their say. We hope that the mayors duly elected under the regulations we are discussing will take heed of the importance of that very local representation and expertise in parish, district and town councils.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned, the Minister talked about a two-tier system where there is a county and a district council. She referred to how the district council presiding officers will have the responsibility to administer the election process. My concern is that, as the noble Lord mentioned, there is a lot of confusion about the financial resources to support the administration of these elections. We all know that local councils are already so stretched, and there is a lot of discussion about certain councils not having enough funds to deliver statutory services. What extra financial support or resources are the Government giving to district councils in light of the new responsibilities created by these statutory instruments?
Can I press the Minister further in relation to consultation? She mentioned a number of organisations. I have seen this repeatedly in numerous statutory instruments. What is the consultation in relation to working with the Local Government Association, and what is the overall focus with regard to the district, parish and town councils? What discussions and deliberations are there with these councils in the light of these statutory instruments being introduced? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for taking an interest in this debate and for their contributions. Once again, these regulations are essential in providing the rules by which all county combined authority mayors will be elected, including in May, as well as the mayor of the East Midlands if Parliament approves this new authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about voter ID. Yes, that is understood. We have heard him loud and clear throughout many debates on voter ID. Obviously, we went through reviews on that, as did the Electoral Commission. I have been away, and have not been so close to it, but I will write to the noble Lord to say what the next moves are. I think we all have to agree that the first use of voter ID—I know it was in a smaller area—was successful, but we should never be complacent. We need to keep listening and learning from it.
On first past the post, which is another thing that the noble Lord often brings up, there is not going to be a change. The Government are very clear that the first past the post system is the most straightforward way of electing representatives. It is well understood by the electorate of this country. It makes it so much easier for the public to express a clear preference and reduces a lot of the complexity that we have seen recently in police and crime commissioner elections. There is no plan to change or relook at that; we had that discussion again on the recent Bill on elections, and we will not be looking back at it.
The patchwork of differences across the country is an interesting issue. The problem is that the whole of local government in this country is complex anyway, and reflects the different areas: cities, rural areas, and towns with rural areas around them. Government is trying to reflect that and give local people some choices about how they look in a bigger and more overall way at their area, rather than at small—down even to county —areas. As things change in this country, we are seeing bigger areas of economic development. We need to look at where the work patterns and travel-to-work patterns are. We need to look at all those things as well as at the traditional districts and counties that we have seen in the past.
I think it is up to local people. They have choice through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act—they now have choices on how to plan for the future—but we in government have no further plan to look at the overall structure across the whole country.
On district councils, I will come back to the noble Lord. As far as I know, there has been nothing further since the Act came into force, but I will go back and see what discussions have been had with the district councils. That links to something brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Khan: do we talk to the district councils? Yes, we do. We talk to the LGA, the District Councils’ Network and the County Councils Network. They are part of the team that looks at these things, and part of our top stakeholder group, but I do not know what the latest conversations with particularly the district councils are.
As far as audit, risk and scrutiny are concerned—all important parts of local government—as we get bigger and there is more money to spend, people expect that money to be accounted for and to be accounted for quite publicly. In the new combined county authorities, while it is the upper tier that is doing it, the same audit requirements will be there as for other councils as they exist now. There must be scrutiny committees and audit committees, and they must have a risk register. I do not think it is any different but, in my opinion, we need to continue to challenge local authorities and to make sure that they are accessible to local people to know what their money is being spent on.
Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, talked about consulting with local people about any changes. I have been through that consultation; it is tough at times, but it is important. It will always be part of our process that local people are consulted in those early stages of changing their council structures, if that is what local people want. It is up to local elected representatives, whether district, county, borough or wherever they come from, to listen to local people before any changes are made. We expect that to happen.
In conclusion, these regulations are essential— as I said—to progress the devolution powers and to enable the election of combined county authority mayors. I commend both sets of draft regulations to the Committee.
Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the Grand Committee do consider the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017 (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
House of Lords
Horizon Europe
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made since the United Kingdom re-joined Horizon Europe.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Stansgate, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
Our bespoke Horizon association deal means that UK researchers can now fully participate on the same terms as researchers from other associated countries. The Government want UK academics, researchers and businesses to seize the opportunities presented by participation in Horizon Europe. Yesterday, the Government continued our push to maximise UK participation with the launch of a campaign to encourage UK businesses, academics and researchers to apply to Horizon Europe.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very optimistic prospect, but as he knows, negotiations for the UK to rejoin Horizon were protracted and quite difficult. While there was great relief in the research community when they were eventually successful—he may have heard the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser Dame Angela McLean talking about this on the “Today” programme this morning—there is ground for the UK to make up. Now that we have rejoined, is the Minister confident that UK-led research bids in this new round will attract their fair share of available funding? Is he aware of any difficulties there might be with visa arrangements for EU researchers who might want or need to come work in the UK? Can he also tell the House whether the Government are formally represented in EU ministerial discussions about Horizon Europe?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions and will try to cover as much of the material as possible. First, I am pleased to say that we look forward to welcoming Commissioner Ivanova to the UK the week after next, when we will discuss many of these matters. In fact, I will be participating the following week at a ministerial meeting on Horizon in Brussels. It is historically exceptional for associate countries to attend at ministerial level, so I think it demonstrates good will on all sides. Meanwhile, we are pursuing a wide programme of activities to maximise participation. That includes supporting SMEs and others who would not traditionally have worked with Horizon, as well as a campaign launched yesterday and ministerial engagement. We remain optimistic, but, as I have said in this House, the damage has been done by protracted absence.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, there are seven years of uncertainty to recover from, but better late than never. I strongly welcome the Government’s pump-priming on behalf of applicants to Horizon Europe. In assessing the value for money of the programme, how important do the Government think it is that Switzerland also rejoins, and what efforts are they making to support Bern in that objective?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
A range of other countries, as the noble Lord said, are also joining on an associate basis; Horizon is the largest programme of its type anywhere in the world. The total value of the programme is £80 billion over two years, and we consider that rejoining represents a significant opportunity for us following the uncertainty of our period of non-association. As to engagement with Bern, I am afraid that I do not have an answer for the noble Lord, but I will look into it; it sounds like a valuable contribution we could make.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in his absence for persistently bringing the issue of Horizon Europe to your Lordships’ House. Today, obviously, we can be very glad that the UK has rejoined, and I declare my interest as a professor of European politics at Cambridge and as having previously received money from European Union research funding. Clearly, as an academic, I am delighted that we are back in, but how much is this blitz of information about rejoining Horizon Europe costing the Government and how far have we lost out by being an associate member and not a full member? As the Minister said, we are now treated like other associate members; what does that mean in practice?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I echo the noble Baroness’s remarks about the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. Being an associate member in practice allows us access to all Horizon calls from 2024 onwards, with the very small-in-volume exceptions of EIC funds or what the EU has determined to be strategically sensitive areas, including quantum. I should add that we and the EU have publicly committed to working towards opening even those small areas up, so we would have very full access to the Horizon programme.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept welcome for the campaign launched by the Government today to catch up with what was lost? Does he recognise that many of these programmes are multiannual, spanning quite a period, and that it would therefore be a great help if the Government could make it clear that their intention is that we should continue to be an associate member of Horizon beyond the duration of the present programme?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Yes, indeed. I very much recognise the value of the Horizon programme. Of course, any Horizon programme beyond the current one does not exist yet, except conceptually in the minds of all the current participants, but obviously we would look very favourably at participating as and when its terms were made clear.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, until Brexit, it was clear that the United Kingdom was second only to the United States in research in science, engineering and medicine. Can the Minister be kind enough to tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the loss of the Horizon programme in terms of citations and publications?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As I have said in this House before, there is no doubt that our period of non-association with the Horizon programme did lasting damage. We have to focus now on repairing that damage. It is very difficult to put a number in currency on the value of that and I am not sure I would know where to begin. I absolutely acknowledge that the damage was real and is going to take a very conscious effort to fix.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is good that from 1 January 2024 we are now associate members of Horizon, with the benefits it will bring, including the citation levels, but the Treasury withdrew £1.6 billion of funding that was earmarked for research during the time when we were negotiating joining Horizon Europe, and I understand from a further report published recently that a further £1 billion was removed. Can the Minister confirm that that is not the case?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
As is absolutely normal practice, money ring-fenced for a purpose to which it does not go is, in order to keep budgets taut and realistic, returned to the Treasury, but that in no way indicates an intention to diminish our spend on science and R&D. The Government remain committed to spending £20 billion a year on R&D by the 2024-25 spending review.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, what proportion of Horizon-funded projects are now led by UK research institutions compared to our previous well-known standing in the European research field?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
We have only very recently reassociated to Horizon, so we will not know who bid under the Horizon 2024 programme, or who the leader is or who has been successful, for, on average, six to nine months between making the proposal and receiving word, but at that time I will keep this House up to date on that important question.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, today is World Neglected Tropical Diseases Day. Historically, EU Horizon research funding has been hugely valuable in supporting British scientists at our world-class biomedical institutions to collaborate with Asian, African, South American and European scientists to tackle neglected tropical diseases and diseases such as malaria. Can the Minister reassure the House that with our associate membership there will still be the possibility of funding those collaborative arrangements with the global South, with scientists in Africa, Asia and South America, in order to tackle these terrible neglected tropical diseases which threaten the most disadvantaged populations in the world but also our public health?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Yes, absolutely. I thank the noble Lord for bringing up such an important and interesting area of science. I can confirm that our associate membership of Horizon would give us access to any and all Horizon calls alongside any other EU member or associate member, provided they are not designated as strategically significant, which those tropical diseases would not be.
Household Support Fund
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Household Support Fund; and what plans they have for (1) the future of the fund, and (2) the role of local crisis support generally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, an evaluation of the current household support fund scheme is under way to better understand the impact of the funding. The current household support fund runs until the end of March 2024, and the Government continue to keep all their existing programmes under review. Councils continue to have the flexibility to use funding from the local government finance settlement to provide local welfare assistance. As with all government policies, this remains under review.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the discretionary household support fund has acted as a vital lifeline come sticking plaster, filling some of the holes in our totally inadequate social security safety net. If, as is feared, the sticking plaster is torn off from April—just two months away—it will leave and deepen a gaping wound of dire hardship. Will the Minister therefore convey to the Chancellor the urgency of the calls from local authorities and civil society groups for the fund to continue for at least a year, followed by a proper long-term strategy for local crisis support in place of last-minute, ad hoc funding decisions?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will certainly convey the noble Baroness’s entreaties on that front. I am the first to be aware that the Government recognise that pressures remain on certain household budgets. The household support fund primarily includes help with food and energy bills but also support for other household essentials and bills, such as broadband or phone bills, clothing and essential transport-related costs. On average, households in the poorest income deciles are gaining the most in cash terms as a percentage of net income in 2023-2024 as a result of this Governments’ policies announced in the Autumn Statement of 2022.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister stated that an evaluation is under way to better understand the impact of the household support fund. Does he agree that the scheme is allocated fairly to local authorities, and, importantly, who decides where funds are targeted?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can reassure the House that allocations are targeted fairly and proportionally on the basis of population, weighted by the index of multiple deprivation. The distribution of funding is targeted at the areas of the country with the most vulnerable households. This ensures that funding proportionally reaches those areas in England with the most need. It is for each local council to decide, as my noble friend may know, where and when they distribute their funding, within the parameters of the fund’s terms and conditions.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the term “impact assessment” has been used by other speakers. I am sure that the Government have carried out impact assessments of what will happen if this fund is removed or reduced. Can the Minister tell the House how much funding will remain available to local authorities for discretionary local welfare assistance should the household support fund be reduced or discontinued? The idea is that it will come out in the wash, more or less, as the Minister says, but we want to know in advance what the situation will be. For instance, is there an estimate in the Minister’s file of the number of children in England who will no longer be eligible for free school meals during the school holidays once the household support fund is ended or reduced?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
To date, over £2 billion-worth of support has been allocated to local authorities in England via the household support fund to support those most in need. As I said, it is up to local councils to decide how it is disbursed. Local authorities in England are funded through the finance settlement to deliver local welfare provision.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, it would be deception of the worst order if the Government were to announce, as they have over the last few days, a £600 million uplift to upper-tier local authorities only then, a few days later, to pull the plug on £2 billion. The £10 million that goes to Sheffield has been crucial in maintaining the well-being of thousands of children. I appeal to the Minister to go back to his colleagues and ensure that there is no duplicity and that the most vulnerable can continue to get help from 1 April.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I hope I can provide some further reassurance to the House and to the noble Lord. He will know that the Government have announced initial measures for local authorities in England worth £600 million. This includes £500 million for new funding for councils with responsibility for adult and children’s social care, distributed through the social care grant.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, what discussion have the Government had with local authorities about sustaining a local crisis support service, given that the majority of the funding is about to vanish in March with the household support fund?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I alluded earlier to the fact that we were undertaking an evaluation of the household support fund; the HSF4 scheme is under way, which will seek to understand the delivery and impact of the HSF4 funding provided to local authorities. We expected this to be completed in the summer, so I hope that this answers the noble Baroness’s question.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, groups such as those with English as an additional language and disabled people face higher barriers to accessing local crisis support. Will the Government in their evaluation consider the strategies that are in place, or could be put in place, to ensure that those who face barriers can access local crisis support?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Absolutely. That is a very good point, because local authorities have the funding and the autonomy to decide how it is directed. The government guidance is that the most vulnerable must be targeted first. I think the categories the right reverend Prelate has raised would fit into that area.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to return to my noble friend’s original Question about the temporary sticking-plaster measures. Decisions made at the last minute are not a substitute for a proper social security system that offers families a safety net in difficult circumstances. I want to ask the Minister about the plan, beyond the decision about the household support fund, which will come very late for families and local authorities. How will the Government ensure proper stability and security for families during difficult circumstances?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I have outlined some of the measures. Perhaps the noble Baroness is alluding to the benefit cap, which we always keep an eye on. We believe that this provides a very strong work incentive and fairness for hard-working, tax-paying households and encourages people to move into work where possible. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are keeping that under review. The Secretary of State is not minded to review the levels, as there is no statutory obligation to do so. There was a significant increase, as the noble Baroness will know, following the review in November 2022.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the house- hold support fund has given a lot of help to vulnerable families, not least unpaid carers. I very much hope it will be possible to continue it. However, if the resources are not there, could my noble friend consider some sort of tapering, rather than a sharp cut-off at the end of March?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend is right that we should continue to recognise the important role that unpaid carers play around the country. Our guidance asks that local authorities consider the needs of various households, including unpaid carers. The Government have increased carer’s allowance by around £1,200 per year since 2010-11.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
Will this evaluation include full consultation and discussions with the charity and voluntary sector, which, after all, understands very well the impact that reducing or removing this fund would have? That sector will be at the front line of picking up the problems should it be removed.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will need to check, but I feel certain that that will be the case. I will write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong. It is a very good point.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Blunkett, the Minister mentioned the £600 million recently announced for local councils. My noble friend suggested that, even when Sheffield has its allocation of that money, it will still not be enough and will not provide the desperately needed assistance that clearly comes at the moment from the household support fund. How do the Government think that local councils will be able to provide the sort of support that the household support fund gives if it is not there?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Fairness should be at the heart of this. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are providing support to households, directly and indirectly, to help with the high cost of living, worth around £104 billion over 2022-23 and 2024-25. This includes raising working-age benefits by 6.7% and state pensions by 8.5% from April next year.
Children’s Care Homes: Private Equity
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wood of Anfield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what regulation they are planning in response to the findings of a recent investigation by the Observer that private equity firms’ investments in children’s care homes in England have doubled since 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the concerns that the noble Lord refers to, particularly around large providers with complex ownership structures. We agree that sometimes placement costs are too high. That is why we are providing £259 million of capital funding to support local authorities to increase care placements and ensure that they meet children’s needs. We will introduce a new market oversight regime that will increase transparency on debt structures and profitability.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The problem, however, is that the current mixed economy in the children’s care market is completely broken. Private equity providers are making high profits in the sector, increasing their margins and carrying large levels of debt, yet expanding their share of the care market at the same time. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of councils face crisis or even bankruptcy. Can the Minister tell us how the Government plan to eliminate specifically private equity profiteering in this sector? Can she also clarify whether it is government policy to substantially reduce the presence of private equity firms in the children’s care market?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am glad that the noble Lord used the word “profiteering”: he beat me to it. As he has heard me say before, the Government are not against profit-making but they are against profiteering. Having much greater financial transparency will go some way to addressing his concerns, but the fundamental thing that has to shift is having fewer children in children’s homes and more children in foster care. That is why the Government place such emphasis on supporting foster carers and, indeed, kinship carers.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, a recent DfE review found that a third of the just-over 6,500 youngsters in residential care homes could have gone to foster homes, which usually offer better outcomes and a better quality of life, and cost about a 10th of the price. The Minister has just referred to this. What precisely is going to happen to ensure that there is proper and meaningful investment in foster and kinship carers to reduce the councils’ dependence on some of these private equity residential care providers and stop this extreme and excessive profiteering?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that we are investing £36 million in foster care, starting with work with local authorities in the north-east to encourage recruitment of more foster carers. That programme has got off to a very good start. We have also launched the first ever national kinship care strategy, backed by £20 million of investment in the financial year 2024-25.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, private equity has already devoured care homes such as Southern Cross and Four Seasons, which actually had more subsidiaries than General Motors. Profiteering, asset stripping and tax avoidance are the basic business model in private equity. Studies have shown that private equity in care homes is making profits in the range of between 30% and 40% of the revenues. That is clearly unacceptable and is very poor value for public money. Can the Minister give an undertaking that there will be an investigation into the role of private equity in care homes and healthcare?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that the Competition and Markets Authority has already done a great deal of work in this area and has made recommendations which are behind our commitment to a much clearer market oversight regime. We will bring forward legislative changes to enact that when parliamentary time allows.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will follow on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, about value for money. The Minister said that the Government are against profiteering but not against profit. What actual value is added by having private sector companies involved in this sector, when we should see all the public money that is being spent going into the care of children, and not into profits?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The first thing—whether the noble Baroness agrees or not—is that it provides an enormous amount of capacity, and in her zeal to address the profitability of the sector we need to consider also the stability of those placements for children.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I think it was only two Prime Ministers ago who promised before the last general election that they would fix social care. The problems that we have talked about today apply to the whole of the social care sector. In effect, those who pay for care—whether for elderly parents or local authorities for children and others, who are very vulnerable people—are subsidising private equity companies’ profits. When are the Government going to get round to fixing it and have a whole new policy for social care that improves the conditions for everybody?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We have announced our new social care strategy. The noble Lord will be aware of the independent review of children’s social care, which we have acted on. We are now starting to implement the initial pathfinder sites to test our new family-led approach to social care. As he said, these are vulnerable children and families, so we need to do this judiciously.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
The Minister previously spoke of bringing in financial oversight to children’s social care. Figures from PoliticsHome show that the average placement now costs £281,000, which has risen by 25% over the last two years. Clearly, swift steps need to be taken to bring down those costs. She has previously alluded to the money going in, but can she be clear about the timeline for a new financial oversight regime and how it will help?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I said, bringing forward the legislative changes necessary to implement a new regime depends on parliamentary time. However, we are not wasting any time in trying to support the foster market, for all the reasons that noble Lords have already set out.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, there is a sense of urgency here, as this issue is not only about gross profiteering and loading up homes with debt but about respect for the human rights of children. What active consideration are the Government giving to price caps, which some local authorities have called for—or, better still, to moving towards a model of public ownership in the public interest?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We are looking at a number of different options in this area. Although I am not suggesting that these are absolutely comparable, in 2023-24 the average cost of a residential care placement provided by a local authority is just under £5,500, but the average placement provided by the private or voluntary sectors is just under £4,700. Costs may not be the main issue here.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, to give the House a clearer idea of the trends, can the Minister tell us how many children are currently in care homes and foster homes? What have been the trends over the last decade and what are the predictions for the next decade?
Baroness Barran (Con)
There are just under 8,000 children in children’s homes, about 57,000 children in foster care and just under 7,000 children in either secure placements or independent supported accommodation.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, this attack on the private sector is extraordinary, is it not? Local authorities are desperate for capital and the resources to provide for children, yet the private sector, which is providing that capital, is under attack. Surely the alternative is that there will not be the resources needed for children.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend pointed to a more fundamental question, namely: why have local authorities and charities, which used to provide these services, stepped back in a world where the private sector can make a decent return on them?
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, let me be clear: it seems from the Minister’s answers that the Government are quite happy for these companies to rip off the taxpayer. When will they do something about the taxpayer being ripped off by companies that are adding to debt and making huge profits?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware of the specific cases the noble Lord referred to, and it is dangerous to generalise in this area. We have seen disgraceful behaviour by some providers—noble Lords will remember the case of the Hesley homes where unforgivable child abuse went on—but that is not what we are seeing across the whole sector. What we need is to move those children who do not need to be in children’s homes out of them and into foster care or kinship care—and that is where we are focusing.
UK-Canada Trade Deal: Suspension of Negotiations
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the suspension of negotiations for a trade deal with Canada.
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 pause in negotiations does not impact our existing trade agreement with Canada, which underpins £26 billion- worth of trade per annum. The UK has decided to pause negotiations towards a new UK-Canada FTA in response to actions taken by Canada that reduce our current market access. Negotiations were launched with public commitments to increase and improve trade. Recent additions by Canada do the opposite. It is right, therefore, to pause the negotiations.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, post-Brexit trade negotiations are in total chaos. George Eustice, who was Environment Secretary in the Cabinet at the time, described the deal with Australia as a “failure”. Now we have pulled out unilaterally from the Canadian deal. Is that because the Secretary of State is too busy plotting, or perhaps because we do not have enough qualified people to negotiate with Canada? On what basis and terms do we crawl back in to ask Canada to restart negotiations?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I fundamentally disagree that we are in chaos; quite the opposite. We are making great progress. The first thing that we did when we left the EU was do a trade deal with Europe that involved rolling over trade deals with 65 countries. We have now improved that with a further seven deals. When I was in Canberra two months before Christmas, the Australia deal was held up as one of the best deals it had ever signed. As we move through, because our economy is 80% services and 20% goods, we have now got trade deals that encompass services, digital and innovation.
We wanted to do the same deal with Canada, but Canada crossed one of our red lines. The negotiations have not failed. The noble Lord and I have done many negotiations together—we sometimes have moments of pause. The Canadians have crossed a red line where they know we would never accept the hormone beef trade deal that they want to do with us. We have said no to that, which is why we have stopped.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the position they have taken by pausing the trade talks at this time, reflecting the high production standards that our farmers have to meet in this country. Could my noble friend explain what the position is specifically on exports of British cheese to Canada, including the excellent cheese produced in north Yorkshire? I understand it now suffers from a 245% tariff on export to Canada.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Cheese is now a pawn in the game, and that has now become the focus of attention. When we were in the EU, we had 2,000 out of 14,000 tonnes of cheese allocated to us. That has now been taken away and allocated to Europe—France and Germany, mostly. We are now allocated 6,000 for the rest of the world. Canada knew that we had a right to roll that over to 2,000 within the WTO trade agreement. We do not have that now. That is £18 million of trade. Out of £26 billion, one might say that is a small number, but we know that the farms in Somerset and Wales in particular, which produce incredible quality cheese, have built up a superior market share in Canada. The Canadian consumer wants this cheese and has been buying and stockpiling it for six months in advance of this happening. This has only happened because the Canadian farmers want to send hormone beef to the UK and we refuse to drop our standards, as some people said we would do when we left the EU.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, among the letters I received from Ministers after every trade negotiating round with Canada, saying everything was on track, the letter telling me that things had gone off the rails—sorry, “paused”—must have gone astray. That information that the Minister gave is not new information. I warned the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, last summer, after I led a CPA delegation on trade to Ottawa and Toronto, of the difficulties—but he ignored them. That is compounded by the fact that businesses are now paying £100,000 more per business for trade with Europe and new checks will be coming into place tomorrow. So when does the Minister forecast that we will have frictionless trade with Europe?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
With Europe, as the noble Lord knows, when we agreed to join what was then the European Common Market, Europe accounted for one-third of global trade. We all know that, when we left in 2019, that was 16% of global trade. In 2050, the OECD says it will be 9% of global trade. So the UK has tilted to where the market is. The market is in the Indo-Pacific, which is why we joined the CPTPP. The last time I looked at the map, Britain was not anywhere near the Pacific. We managed to get America’s place in the CPTPP, which is 40% of the world’s fastest-growing consumers. As we sign those trade deals and go around with Vietnam, Indonesia, Korea and Japan, we are building out a trade base for our farmers and manufacturers which is far greater than they had in Europe.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I recognise the importance of the safeguards on beef, which I am sure are of concern to everyone. However, does the Minister not accept the point made by the noble Baroness a moment ago about the impact on cheese manufacturers? It is not only the extent of the charges that will hit them but the speed with which they may come in, and there could be very serious cash flow implications for many manufacturers. Can the Government please look at some possible relief for such companies, which may be suffering as a direct consequence of these changes?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. We fundamentally agree with that. We have been talking with the cheese manufacturers all the way through this. We send £200 million-worth of food to Canada and it sends us the thick end of £600 million back, mostly wheat, maize and lobster. However, we do not want to take the hormone beef. That is where the beef is. The issue, therefore, is that we have £18 million of trade that we need to try to support, and we will do our best to support those impeccable farmers, especially in the West Country and in Wales.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, Canada is notorious for gearing its trade policy around its dairy sector, which is particularly strong in Quebec. However, is not the wider issue here whether Britain will always follow EU rules on sanitary and phytosanitary standards? According to the WTO, SPS measures must never be economic and can be justified only by science. The EU’s ban on these various kinds of beef has been condemned by its own scientific advisory agency and by the WTO. Is it the view of my noble friend the Minister that our SPS regime, as long as it is tied to the Brussels one, it is compatible with WTO regulations?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
This is the issue. Canada has been in a recent—2016—deal with the EU and understood the SPS rules of the EU. It understands fundamentally that we are not reducing our rules on SPS, but it has seen an opportunity, and you go for the gap when you see the opportunity, do you not? If you are a trade negotiator, you think to yourself, “Where can I get my point of advantage?” On our two outstanding issues, the cheese and the rules of origin—where, again, we are pretty much sorted with a rollover from the EU—Canada has seen an opportunity to cross that line. It is a pause in negotiations and we will get back round the table as soon as it comes back over the red line.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the Institute for Government has warned that the Government’s failure to set out red lines on key issues in trade talks is a “recipe for disaster” and could delay new trade agreements. They now need to move urgently to put them in place, otherwise they will find themselves losing control of trade negotiations to better-prepared partners. What assessments have the Government made of the size and experience of negotiating teams as part of the recent machinery of government changes?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that. That is one of the reasons why we split up BEIS and put it into different, independent departments. However, my department, the Department for Business and Trade, is now well equipped to lead these negotiations. As I say, we have done the 65 country rollovers; we are now up to 73 countries and we have another 12 in the pipeline. We have a chief negotiator, Crawford Faulkner, who came in from New Zealand— I declare an interest in that he was born in Greenock, around the corner from me—who is doing an excellent job. The issue here is that our economy is now 80% services and 20% goods, but our exports are 50:50, which is because our goods are good. They go around the world and everyone wants to buy them. However, the direction of travel will be two-thirds services, one- third goods, which is why we need new trade agreements that cover services—not just goods—digital and innovation. That is exactly what we have with Australia, and that is what we are trying to achieve with Canada. I am hopeful that we will be able to get the show back on the road with Canada.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, following the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will the Minister at least assure us that trade with our nearest and biggest market is still important to us? Will he perhaps also reflect on some of the problems of trading with countries very far away, both in terms of environmental impact and of course recently in terms of the very worrying security situation in the Red Sea?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. Indeed, the EU 27 still account for 40% or 41% of our exports. If you expand that to the euro 34, it is 49% of our exports. So 50% of our trade is still with Europe, 20% is with America and 30% is with the rest of the world. But the direction of travel is that the growth will come from the rest of the world, not just in Europe. Europe will remain important. In terms of our goods, the sticky part of our pie chart has been our manufactured goods to Europe, which is 24%. That has been difficult—but the other 76% is going gangbusters.
Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Baroness Henig; and that Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway be appointed Chair of the Select Committee.
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 30th January 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 View all Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 36-I Marshalled list for Report - (19 Jan 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, throughout the preparation and passage of the Bill, we have been working closely with each of the devolved Administrations. Most of the provisions are UK-wide and are reserved, as national security is a reserved matter. A small number of measures in Part 2 of the Bill, on oversight, engage the legislative consent process in the Scottish Parliament. Currently, the Scottish Parliament has not granted a legislative consent Motion, although I can confirm to noble Lords that the Scottish Government have lodged one. We are engaging constructively with officials, and I reassure noble Lords that the Government will continue with this engagement as the Bill is introduced into the House of Commons. I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I extend my gratitude to all noble Lords who have contributed to the Bill, both on the Floor of the House and outside. We all agree that this piece of legislation is both important and necessary. The targeted amendments that it will make to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 will ensure that the UK’s intelligence services and law enforcement will continue to have the tools at their disposal to keep this country safe, while ensuring that these are used in a proportionate way which places privacy at its heart. As the Bill passed through this House, the valuable debate has shaped it into what it is now. I am pleased that the House was able to reach agreement on several areas of potential divergence and that we send the Bill to the other place in exceptional shape and with cross-party support.
I first correct the record on one small point I made in my speech on the second group of amendments in last Tuesday’s debate on Report. His Majesty’s Treasury is not an example of a public authority that already has the power to acquire communications data using a Part 3 request. Examples of public authorities which do have these powers include His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and the Financial Conduct Authority, both of which perform a range of vital statutory functions using communications data.
Once more, I extend thanks particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who has been crucial in shaping the Bill through his independent review of the Investigatory Powers Act and his contributions during the Bill’s passage. My thanks go also to the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, and his colleagues on the Intelligence and Security Committee. The input from him and his fellow committee members has been valuable and intended to improve the Bill. He has been ably and knowledgeably supported by the erstwhile chair of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen.
Similarly, I have valued the collaborative and serious way in which the Opposition Front Benches have engaged on matters of such importance, so I offer my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Fox, for their desire to scrutinise the Bill carefully and constructively.
I am much obliged to the support of other noble Lords who have contributed with such eloquence and expertise as the Bill has passed through this House. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and the noble Lords, Lord Evans of Weardale and Lord Hogan-Howe, have all provided an invaluable perspective from their professional backgrounds. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, both made a number of important and insightful interventions to help shape the debates and work towards practical solutions, for which I am grateful. My thanks go also to my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and his team in the Whips’ Office for their support as the Bill passed through this House.
I ask noble Lords to join me as I thank the policy officials and lawyers in the Home Office teams led by Lucy, Phoebe, Lucy, Hugh, Rob, Daphne and Becca, whose significant efforts have made this Bill happen. It is their hard work that has brought the Bill to this point. My thanks go also to the Bill team—Tom, Megan, Sophie, Emer and James—as well as Dan in my private office. I am also very grateful to Pete and Lucy, the expert drafters in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, for preparing the Bill and amendments during its passage.
Finally, I thank the intelligence agencies and law enforcement for their expert contribution to the Bill and for the work they do to keep this country safe day after day. The Bill will ensure that they continue to have the tools they need to carry out this task. We will all be the safer for it. We remain hugely grateful for their work.
As we send the Bill to the other place, it needs very little amending, save for some tidying up here and there. It is the first job of government to keep this country safe. The Bill helps us do just that.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister and his team for the liaison and the work we did together to try to meet all our concerns about the Bill. I also thank him for giving me the excitement of my life in that I had an amendment accepted—for the first time in 14 years. That is a pretty good strike rate, is it not? I was pleased about that as well.
We on the ISC are very happy that the Bill is needed. However, as the Minister knows, we are still concerned that there is insufficient acceptance of the fact that parliamentary scrutiny is required by the ISC more broadly in this and a number of other areas. I am sure this will be brought up in the other place; otherwise, I am pleased that we have moved this Bill forward at pace.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I echo all the thanks that came from the Minister. I do not think I can add to his list, but I certainly endorse everything he said.
Bills of this nature can be controversial. We are seeing this in some other parts of the world at the moment. That was not the case in your Lordships’ House. That is testimony to the care with which the Bill was prepared, the civilised way in which it was debated and the openness of the Government to some of the important points made during our debates. I single out in particular the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee for the great scrutiny that it applied to it.
If I may, I will depart briefly from the studied impartiality associated with the Cross Benches. With the Government and Opposition so closely aligned on a Bill, it was particularly useful that we heard from the Liberal Democrats—with their sometimes annoying but rather necessary process of probing amendments. They caused everyone to think carefully about what we were doing. All in all, it was a happy experience for me. I hope that this is a good model for future Home Office Bills.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, having been cleared to annoy your Lordships’ House, I will do my best to do so.
This Bill started in your Lordships’ House and now heads to the Commons. Its primary purpose of enabling the intelligence services to better build their data models and teach their AI systems has been left completely unmolested by your Lordships. However, other parts of the Bill have attracted a fanfare of concern from certain external parties—particularly the large platforms. Whether the Government and Apple are at cross purposes or the Minister really is out to get it, we in your Lordships’ House were unable to muster sufficient traction to find out or clarify. It is now up to the MPs if they choose to pick up that particular baton.
There was also an unresolved issue around the triple lock and the Prime Minister’s role when they might be in conflict. Again, this has moved from our orbit. I hope the tenacity of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, might still be involved somehow between here and the other place. The Minister raised the important issue of legislative consent. I hope he is successful in these negotiations.
I echo what other noble Lords have said. This has been a well-mannered and constructive process of discussion, with everybody moving in the same direction, albeit at different speeds.
I thank the Minister and the team he named for their time, availability and openness in our discussions. I also thank all the many external organisations and individuals who took time either to meet and brief or to send information which helped inform our debate. The discussion was greatly enhanced by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, from the Front Bench, and by colleagues on their Benches, as well as the Cross Benchers. They played a pivotal role in our discussions.
Finally, I thank the home team: my colleague, my noble friend Lord Strasburger, and, most of all, Elizabeth Plummer in the Lib Dem Whips’ Office, without whom nothing is possible.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the Bill and see it as an important step forward for our country. I thank the Minister and his colleagues very much for their constructive engagement all the way through; we very much appreciate that. I join the Minister in thanking his officials, all of whom have been helpful in ensuring that we understand the Government’s proposals. I wish him well with the Scottish Government and sorting out the various legislative consents; I hope that happens as soon as possible.
I thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for his support and help, and Clare Scally of our Whips Office, who has done an amazing job. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the representative of the Liberal Democrats, who have engaged with us and others constructively on the Bill. I also single out the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, whose report gave us a hugely beneficial platform through which to move forward. When an expert puts a report together and the Government engage constructively with it, it helps enormously. Similarly, I thank my noble friends Lord West and Lord Murphy, the ISC for its work and the intelligence services, some of whose representatives are here, for their input. It would be remiss of us not to join the Minister in thanking them again, particularly when we read on the front pages of our newspapers the threat to so-called Iranian dissidents in this country from Iranian criminal gangs. It shows yet again the importance of the work they do.
The Bill is an important step forward because it maintains the powers that our police and other services need to stay ahead of the criminals and those who would organise against us. There are still one or two issues to be looked at, but the Bill leaves us in a good place. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, there will be continuing debate about the triple lock and whether the wording used is completely right, but it is a significant step forward. As my noble friend Lord West mentioned, it shows the Government in a good light when they listen to the arguments and accept amendments because they are the right thing to do. I hope that we can do that in other areas as well.
There are still issues with the oversight the ISC has more generally of government business, and how large companies’ security measures and the work they do will continue under the Bill. However, the Minister is to be congratulated on the open way he has led the legislation through the House. As others have said, it is a case study in how to do it, and we are very grateful for it.
Post Office Ltd
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I will follow up on the questions asked in the other place yesterday. When responding to a Post Office Question last week, the Minister said that this whole debacle and scandal had shown the Post Office in a good light—not Post Office Ltd but the postmasters and postmistresses. We agree with that. What changes was the Secretary of State looking to achieve in the removal of the chair, and what is the timeline for rebuilding trust in Post Office Ltd?
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 that question. To clarify, the question was whether the Post Office brand was damaged. Many people would say that it was a toxic brand. My argument was simply that if one believes that the real Post Office is actually the postmasters, they are the heroes of the day. If anything, their brand has been enhanced but there is no doubt that the management and oversight of the Post Office has been seriously compromised over many years.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves how this company operates, which is on an arm’s-length basis. It is owned by the Government—the taxpayer—and there is one shareholder: HMG. Yet, like many of our public bodies, it is now managed on an almost separate, arm’s-length basis. In doing so, a board is created that looks like a public company, but when is a public company not a public company? It is when there is a board that does not do the job it is meant to be doing.
There was an executive management team, and the role of non-executive directors is to challenge that team. The role of the chairman is, principally, to represent the shareholders and to call the executive management to account. Clearly, that has not happened here. Since 2015, a whole new set of executive managers has been put in place, as well as a new board. In 2023, there were three new independent directors. We have the chair, and through the increased scrutiny resulting from the Government perhaps being more interventionist, some disagreements within the board have come to light. The Secretary of State believes that the current arrangements are not working, so it was agreed by mutual consent to part company. We have taken decisive action to change course and improve, rather than to wait and hope that the situation improves.
Lord Fox (LD)
The Minister’s answer is really helpful, because the question is, when is arm’s-length not arm’s-length? It is clear that it has ceased to be an arm’s-length operation, rightly or wrongly. His Majesty’s Opposition asked for a timetable, and it would be helpful if the Minister gave it to us. How much leeway will the new chair have to do what he or she needs to do, in their mind, to achieve the objectives, and how much will that arm’s-length relationship be pulling the chair back?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
To clarify, the Post Office is constitutionally set up to be arm’s-length and will remain so. We are now talking to the Secretary of State about tightening the governance of that. The key position is the chair, who runs the board and is accountable to the shareholders. We will appoint an interim chair as soon as possible, with a view to getting a new person in post this year. That will coincide, I hope, with the inquiry coming through at the end of the year.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
On 22 January, I tabled a Written Question about possible conflicts of interest associated with the position of Henry Staunton, the former chairman of WH Smith, which operates Post Office franchises. I have yet to receive and Answer. Mr Staunton has now gone—nothing to do with me, I am sure. First, can the Minister publish the conflict-of-interest assessment made when Mr Staunton was first appointed as chair of the Post Office? Secondly, can the Minister explain how it is that Simon Jeffreys is a director of the Post Office and the Crown Prosecution Service? How did that happen?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for those questions. The removal—the resignation by mutual consent—of the chairman, Mr Staunton, is clearly an ongoing HR issue and we have been clear that we are not going to comment on that in public. That will now take place and no compensation will be paid, but that is still in process in terms of taking action. As far as the rest of the board is concerned, we are happy with the three new non-executive directors who came in in 2023. We have two sub-postmaster representatives, and we are looking for a senior independent director, which will further strengthen the board.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
In the Commons on 10 January, the Prime Minister promised that postmasters would be cleared and compensated swiftly. That same day, Minister Kevin Hollinrake said at the Dispatch Box that all compensation should be paid by August, which is encouraging after many years of delay. However, last Sunday, the Secretary of State Kemi Badenoch said on the BBC that setting a deadline is “not a priority” and that getting the money out and sorting out the governance of the Post Office is the critical thing. Which is it—that the compensation should be paid by August, or that a deadline is not a priority?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. We have to clarify that what we are doing here is separating their compensation, so that it is done as immediately and expeditiously as possible. Then we will do fact-finding through the inquiry and accountability will follow. The Prime Minister and Secretary of State have said that there will be no deadline put in place, partly because this is a complex process that requires the postmasters to co-operate and come forward. Of the 2,417 postmasters in the HSS scheme, 100% have received offers, of which 80% have been accepted. We are making great progress.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, on the issue of how long the arm between the Government and the Post Office was, in 2020, following a High Court decision against the Post Office, experts on electronic evidence were invited by the Government to suggest changes to the legal presumption that computers are reliable. That lies at the heart of this case. To whom did those experts report, was the Post Office consulted about whether the recommendations should come into force and why have the recommendations never even surfaced, let alone been put into force?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I know that he is well versed in these matters. As we have discussed in the House before, there will be many ramifications from this case when the facts come out, one of which, as the noble Lord highlighted, is this presumption that the computer is always right, which clearly was not the case. I would have to refer to MoJ colleagues to find out exactly what happened in that case. The judgment was given in the Appeal Court in 2019 and the inquiry was set up in 2020. In 2021, when the convictions were overturned, the inquiry became a statutory inquiry. Under a statutory inquiry, we will get to the bottom of those questions.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the chairman oversaw this scandal. Can the Minister assure us that he will not be given a compensation package that demonstrates that, if you fail, you get paid?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The chairman who is just leaving was not the chairman pre-2015 and he is not receiving any compensation.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am perplexed: the Statement said that the chairman left by mutual agreement, the Minister spoke earlier about his resignation, but the Secretary of State made it clear that she sacked him. Which was it? Henry Staunton was appointed by a Conservative Secretary of State, so presumably that was a mistake, for which the Minister is apologising. How can the Government make sure that, when they appoint a new chairman, they will not make the same mistake again?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that. A key part of making these appointments is to make sure that we have the right people, in the right place, and the right leadership. In this case, we agreed to part company by mutual consent. The point is that there are issues with the governance of the Post Office beyond Horizon. There needs to be further reform of the Post Office and we have to start with the chairman to move that forward.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that it was hoped that the appointment would be made as soon as possible, hopefully this year. In the meantime, this organisation is a burning platform; it needs leadership. Where does the Minister expect that leadership to come from until the appointment is made?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The assessment at the moment is that, with the strengthening of the non-executive directors and the current executive team in place, we have a team that can continue to manage the Post Office. We believe that we have a situation that is stable, but it now needs to be improved. That is the challenge before us.
Teesworks Joint Venture
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, at the heart of this issue are the people of Teesside and the public asset formerly owned by them, which should be regenerated for their benefit, to generate jobs, employment and industry. They should also be receiving sufficient return for their investment of land and the other value of the site. The governance of the project should ensure an appropriate sharing of the risk taken by the private sector partners in order to justify the returns they have already accrued, as documented in the review. For the Government to suggest in this Statement that the report exonerates all those involved from any questions about what has happened and to insinuate that local MPs’ challenge of the many issues explored in the review was them using the communities of the north-east as a political football is simply not appropriate.
We understand that the project is complex. I have experience of instigating and overseeing a billion-pound regeneration project, so I understand the complexities that can arise. We also recognise that, in an area like Teesside, the urgency of moving at pace on a project which is going to generate jobs and employment is vital. However, that should not give any of those involved carte blanche to ignore the absolute necessity for the project to follow the strongest principles of probity, governance, transparency of decision-making, procurement practice, scrutiny and best value.
This very thorough and detailed report delivers a scathing assessment of the way those principles have been treated. Its 28 recommendations highlight: the need for reviews of financial regulations; better oversight and scrutiny; the make-up of the board; reporting to the board; that the public interest test should be foremost in terms of transparency; and that not enough attention is paid to conflicts of interest, including those of the mayor. Very seriously, the report highlights procurement issues, including the decision in August 2021 to change the balance of ownership in favour of the private owners to a 90:10 split, and the issue of the balance of risk between the public and private sector, when, to date, the public sector seems to have taken the bulk of the risk and been responsible for the costs invested, while the private sector has had the benefit of the profits. I am sure this way of operating would have gone down as a wow factor on “Dragons’ Den”, but has it really all been in the best interest of the people of Teesside? Have they got value for money for their public investment?
The concerns outlined in the report are absolutely not minor or trivial matters. The Minister made much of the fact that the report concludes it did not find evidence of illegality or corruption. Well, good, but surely we have learned from recent high-profile scandals, such as the Post Office Horizon issue, infected blood, and the supply of PPE, that there may be ways of operating that, while not strictly speaking illegal, are certainly not desirable or acceptable.
This scandal has exposed gaps in accountability and proper attention to local democratic scrutiny and a failure to follow the principles of spending public money, which makes it clear that there should be a further investigation by the National Audit Office. The NAO has already indicated that it would be willing and able to carry out that review. The people of the north-east surely deserve reassurance that every pound of their money invested in this project will count and will deliver sufficient return—especially as the private sector developers seem to have reaped a pretty healthy return, with little or no investment. So I ask the Minister: will a proper accounting review by the NAO will now be undertaken?
I understand that the chair of the Public Accounts Committee called the metro mayors together when they were elected and suggested they put robust auditing arrangements in place—as, following the abolition of the Audit Commission, there was no regulated accounting for them. The accounts published recently for Teesside were the first for the public to see. Is the Minister reassured that the advice of the PAC chair was taken?
This review represents a scathing indictment of what has happened on Teesside, and if we are to grow the country’s economy at pace and scale, as is my party’s ambition, surely it is important to understand the detail of the lessons that need to be learned. What steps did the Government take to ensure that officials who have previously worked at South Tees Development Corporation or public bodies on Teesside were free to comply with the investigation, regardless of any non-disclosure agreements they may have signed? The report itself cites that a former monitoring officer who advised on some of the significant decisions—including the move to 90:10 ownership—
“was invited to interview but declined because they felt their professional duties barred them from participating in the review”.
Can the Minister answer the question that so many local people are asking about the sale of scrap metal and aggregate from the site? Is she reassured that an appropriate share of the benefit from those sales has gone to local people?
To conclude, while we all accept that there is a need for major regeneration projects to proceed with pace, is the Minister satisfied with a report which found that:
“We did not see sufficient information provided to Board to allow them to provide effective challenge and undertake the level of due diligence expected of a commercial Board”?
There has been no private finance invested to date, while over £560 million of public funds have been spent or committed. Outcomes are reported quarterly to government, in line with the agreed criteria. However, these do not record the cumulative position on either costs or benefits, nor do they compare the current overall position in respect of costs or benefits with those set out in the business case.
Inappropriate decisions and a lack of transparency, which failed to guard against allegations of wrongdoing, are occurring and the principles of spending public money are not being consistently observed. Does the Minister conclude that the people of Teesside got value for money for their very considerable investment? Does she conclude, as the Minister in the other place did, that there should be no referrals onwards to other bodies for further review? Surely this damning report asks more questions than it answers—questions that the people of the north-east deserve and have a right to have answered.
I will finish with the final words of the report, which ask the questions so many local people, including the Northern Echo, want answered. The report says that:
“Based on the evidence from the review the governance and financial management arrangements are not of themselves sufficiently robust or transparent to evidence value for money”.
What are the Government going to do about this?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. What a sad state of affairs it is that a vital and very large regeneration project in the north-east of England has to be the subject of an independent government review because of justified public criticism and concern.
The Financial Times and the Yorkshire Post have both, independently, been investigating the decisions made by the mayor and the development corporation. Senior investigative journalists with considerable experience have been seeking answers to basic questions of openness and probity in relation to the mayor, the development corporation, the joint venture and the local councils. They were absolutely right to do so. What is more, this report confirms their claims.
Unfortunately, this Statement seeks to draw a veil over the very serious conclusions drawn by the independent panel. The starting point is that the Tees Valley project is funded by hundreds of millions of pounds of public money, either from government grant or local prudential borrowing. The investment of public money rightly brings with it higher levels of transparency, challenge and probity.
There are 28 recommendations in the report, and they reveal a damning indictment of the process and procedures adopted by the mayor and the STDC with the joint venture company. The report states that the panel is not confident that
“we have been given access to all relevant materials”,
and that
“we have not been able to pursue all lines of evidence or examine all transactions”.
Anyone reading that will know that the panel is greatly concerned that there is much more to be investigated. My first question to the Minister is whether the panel will be given more time to examine those areas that have yet to be covered, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, suggested, whether the NAO will be asked to investigate.
In its own words, the panel focused on just six areas, the main one being the establishment of the joint venture. Initially, this was a 50:50 deal between the public and private sectors, and that is a common arrangement for such schemes. However, the arrangement morphed into a 90:10 split, with the private sector taking the 90%. The report states that
“there is no formal partnership agreement that sets out the obligations of the JV partners, although it is clear that the JV Partners are heavily influential within the operations of the Teesworks site”.
My second question is whether the Minister concurs that there is no such formal agreement. If so, will the Government demand that there is one, and that that agreement will be open to public scrutiny?
One of the curious decisions made by the Teesside mayor and the combined authority is the appointment of two individuals as partners in the joint venture. In my experience, this is highly unusual in publicly funded projects. My third question is therefore whether a joint venture with individuals is in the best interests of transparency.
I turn to my fourth question. Following the report’s statement that the panel were “surprised” that, when the joint venture was set up in 2020, the report doing so
“contains so little detailed explanation and implies that there aren’t any material implications directly arising from this change in approach”,
even though the result of the joint venture was that
“two or three privately owned companies would likely receive significant financial returns”.
This was indeed the outcome. Can the Minister tell the House whether the balance of reward and liability detailed in the report is a fair one, and one which gives best value to public money?
There are myriad questions that require an answer from the Government. My next question concerns the liabilities apparently unknowingly acquired by the local councils and the Tees Valley Combined Authority. The first two recommendations of the report focus on the issue of who makes the gains and who holds the losses. My fifth question is this: does the Minister agree that passing on liabilities to local authorities while local government is in such a parlous financial state is, at the least, poor management, and, at worst, a deliberate ploy to shoulder local authorities with liabilities that are not rightly theirs?
I turn to my sixth and final question. Will the Minister agree to return to the House with a progress report on the implementation of all 28 recommendations, as I note the mayor has accepted these recommendations only “in principle”? Those of us who care deeply about good governance, probity in the use of public money and transparent decision-making want to see these recommendations implemented in full.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their questions. Before I turn to the specific points, it is worth reminding the House of the context of both the review and the work being done in Tees Valley by the development corporation.
Remediating and regenerating the former Redcar steelworks is a highly complex brownfield regeneration opportunity. The alternative is a massive liability to taxpayers in clean-up costs and an annual multimillion pound bill just to maintain a highly contaminated site. Most importantly, as my noble friend Lord Heseltine said in his 2016 report on the Tees Valley, the site is also part of a much bigger picture, which provides an opportunity for regeneration that is unrivalled in size and scale and also in potential opportunity, as we are seeing with development of the freeport in the area.
In June last year, at the request of the Tees Valley mayor, my noble friend Lord Houchen, an extraordinary independent review was launched by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. That review was commissioned in response to and to consider the serious allegations of corruption and illegality made by a Labour Member of Parliament in the House of Commons. The findings of the review are clear on this point: those allegations are not true. The panel found no evidence of corruption or illegality. In addition, the panel also made a series of recommendations aiming to strengthen governance and increase transparency. We welcome this oversight, as does the mayor, who has confirmed that he intends in principle to accept all the recommendations relevant to him and his authority. There were two recommendations relevant to central government. We will carefully consider how to support the continued success of mayoral development corporations and the recommendation regarding the landfill tax.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked a series of specific questions about the report’s recommendations. It is right that the panel has considered a number of specific issues in the development of its conclusions and recommendations. The next steps are that the Secretary of State has written to the Tees Valley mayor, asking him to respond to the panel’s recommendations within six weeks, and it would not be right at this time for me to comment any further on specific examples quoted. It is important that the combined authority shows progress, and we will wait to see its proposals before deciding on further action. However, I am confident that the mayor will take these recommendations seriously and I look forward to receiving that update. It is only right that we give the mayor, working with partners, time to reflect on the panel’s report. We will review his reflections and response to the Secretary of State before setting out any further action that may be needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked whether the NAO would now be asked to come in and do a further report in this area. The Secretary of State considered at the time of the review the suggestion that the NAO should undertake this review. However, it is not its role to audit or examine individual local authorities, and its powers would not normally be used for that purpose. Instead, the Secretary of State appointed a panel of three independent local government experts. It would therefore be duplicative and wasteful to commission a second review. The NAO said it would use our review to understand the implications for its other work programmes.
While the origination of the review is unique in that it was a request from the mayor, the form of the review is similar to others commissioned by the department, including in Croydon, Nottingham, Slough and Woking. We are taking a similar approach to other cases in relation to the next steps following the review by asking the mayor to respond to the Secretary of State about how he intends to respond to the review’s recommendations.
The noble Baroness also asked whether people were free to give evidence to the review, and in particular about the use of non-disclosure agreements. The panel chair has confirmed that she is not aware of any party who could not speak to the review or provide information due to a non-disclosure agreement. She is right that in the review it is stated that one former monitoring officer was invited to interview but declined because they felt their professional duties barred them from participating in the review, but that was not the subject of an NDA. Indeed, Tees Valley combined authority confirmed to the panel that it had informed the individual that it had no objection to them participating in the review.
It is also important in that context and in the context of the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about whether the panel had sufficient information to draw conclusions from the review and sufficient time to conduct it, to give the full quote:
“We have however secured sufficient consistent evidence to support our conclusions. We have found no evidence of corruption or illegality. We have identified a need to strengthen governance and increase transparency which can be done with limited impact on pace of delivery”.
The noble Baroness was right that the panel could not follow every lead; none the less, it stated that it had confidence in its findings based on the evidence that it had.
In terms of the timing of the review, I understand that it was totally independent of government; the panel was given sufficient time to conduct the review in the way that it wanted and gather the evidence it felt it needed to draw its conclusions. There was no constraint on the panel in that respect.
Finally, I turn to the questions of private involvement in the redevelopment of the Tees Valley, which is essential, as well as value for money and the public benefit that will come from the regeneration project. It is important to acknowledge that, after SSI’s collapse, the Government took on the responsibility for the site via the receivership process. They spent around £18 million annually just to keep the site secure and manage the worst hazards, including explosion and pollution risks for local populations. The site has required investment to clean up and an important principle of devolution is that decisions are taken locally to benefit local people.
While regeneration is still in its early stages and it is too early to make such an assessment on value for money, the report has identified that a number of benefits have already been achieved, including: 17% of the land already under contract, with a further 40% at heads of terms; 940 construction jobs, plus a further 1,950 recently announced; 2,295 direct and 3,890 indirect jobs created once the sites are operational; 450 acres of land remediated or in remediation; £1.3 billion of business rate income potential over the next 40 years, with a further £1.4 billion at heads of terms; and a new £450 million quay.
So both noble Baronesses are right to say that at the heart of this issue are the people of Teesside and the potential value of that site. The figures I quoted show some of the benefits that we are beginning to derive from this major project. We welcome the scrutiny of the panel, and I place on record our great thanks to the three-strong panel for their thorough work: Angie Ridgwell, the chief executive of Lancashire county council, Richard Paver, previously the first treasurer of the Greater Manchester combined authority, and Quentin Baker, the director of law and governance at Hertfordshire county council.
Tees Valley has a proud industrial history, and the Government are committed to giving it the proudest possible future, putting it front and centre of our mission to level up the country.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
The Minister said it was not the National Audit Office’s role to investigate individual authorities—or something like that—but the report has revealed at least massive financial mismanagement of this project. It seems that, since the report was published, further calls to the National Audit Office to investigate this have been made. Why will the Government not accept them?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My answer is the same as before: the Secretary of State, at the time of the review, considered the suggestion that the NAO undertake the review. But it is not its role to audit or examine individual local authorities, and its powers would not normally be used for that purpose. The process that has been followed for this review has been followed for other reviews of local authorities when looking at such issues. We followed the normal process in this instance.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s Statement and the robust and comprehensive report of the panel. Does she agree that, particularly in the other place, elected representatives have a special responsibility to judiciously use parliamentary privilege? I think I can say that as a former Member of the other place, and now a Member of your Lordships’ House. In future we need to learn lessons from this situation. Aspersions were cast and accusations were made of illegality against a Member of your Lordships’ House. More importantly, it did real damage to inward investment and future business in the Tees Valley. That is obviously to be regretted.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that it is a matter of regret that those allegations were made, in the terms that they were made. It is incredibly serious to allege corruption and illegality. The findings of the review are absolutely clear on this; the review found no evidence of corruption or illegality.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid that allegations of illegality and corruption were not the only allegations that led to this review. There were also allegations of a lack of transparency and—as a taxpayer in Tees Valley myself; my family have lived there for generations—there is a great deal of concern about a lack of value for money for taxpayers. Those complaints have been upheld by this report. On various occasions in the run-up to this review, the Mayor of Tees Valley asserted that there could not have been any wrongdoing because an official from the Government was involved in the decisions that were found so lacking by this review. Would the Minister like to comment on that?
Baroness Penn (Con)
As I said in my original response, the Government welcome the recommendations on strengthening governance and transparency. We welcome the oversight that this review has provided in those terms. I think the noble Baroness might be referring to the fact that the government official is a member of the board of the development authority. When a government official is a member on a board, in examples such as this, their role is as an observer. In this case, however, the panel noted examples of questions being raised by that government member as part of that review.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I would like to directly quote from the report because the devil is always in the detail:
“The JV partners are clearly astute, commercial businessmen. They have a clear business model whereby they support distressed businesses and do not accept liabilities until they are satisfied they can hedge investment against secure income streams … At this juncture, the JV partners have put no direct cash into the project and have received nearly £45m in dividends and payments, and hold £63m of cash … in TWL accounts”.
This is on the back of £500 million-worth of public sector investment, which made those strips of land ready for the private sector operators to make these profits. Does this kind of approach show the principles of good and ethical public sector procurement that gives value to the taxpayer? If not, what will the Government do to ensure that this kind of deal does not happen again—not just in Teesside, but in any mayoral authority?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I have set out, there have already been clear public benefits to the redevelopment in Teesside. On the question of involving private partners in this work, the report sets out very clearly that the business case was clear: public sector funding would not be sufficient to complete remediation of the site and a private sector partner would be required. There are lessons to be learned from this report; the Government have been clear on that. That is why we have given the Mayor of Tees Valley time to consider the recommendations in the report, as the vast majority are for the mayor and combined authority. We will then look at those responses and consider the recommendations for the Government alongside that and take forward a process for improving accountability and transparency in this instance.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the investment they have made and for the review panel they held. I will ask a slightly different question. Those of us in North Yorkshire feel a little like the poor relations, because a lot of investment has gone into Tees Valley. We are about to have elections for a North Yorkshire and York mayor. If my reading of the orders setting up the mayor are correct, we will not be in receipt of any government funds; we will have to raise our own money to pay for infrastructure, transport and other services. Is my understanding correct, and does it not seem a little unfair that we could not have even a small proportion of the money that has gone into Tees Valley?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the decision to set up the North Yorkshire and York Mayoral Combined Authority was taken in combination with the elected representatives and local councils in that area, which all agreed to it. Part of those discussions was around funding, and it is right that we take forward what was agreed as part of that package. Of course, a vast range of different funds are available to combined authorities and local authorities to benefit from, including our levelling-up funding, and those opportunities will continue in future.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the Oral Statement is all but a total whitewash? None of the issues raised in questions to the Minister was covered in it. Can she specifically explain what the issues were that resulted in the Secretary of State requesting the panel to make recommendations on strengthening governance and increasing transparency? From that, we must assume that very real concerns were held by the Secretary of State that were not covered in the Oral Statement.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, my understanding of the genesis of the report is that it was requested by the Tees Valley Mayor himself to allow a response to the very serious allegations made by a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons about corruption and illegality. Those allegations have been found to be untrue.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I know that the Minister takes seriously the importance of this project for Teesside, but I do not recognise anything that she said about those parts of the report that are excoriating in their description of how public and private money has been handled. It states that
“most decisions are vested in a small number of individuals. This together with the limited reporting means that there is not a robustness within the system. Inappropriate decisions and a lack of transparency which fail to guard against allegations of wrongdoing are occurring, and the principles of spending public money are not being consistently observed”.
That is pretty serious, and I am sure that she must recognise that.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I absolutely recognise the issues raised by the independent panel. It has clearly considered a number of specific issues, and the Secretary of State has written to the Tees Valley Mayor asking him to respond to the panel’s recommendations within six weeks. It is not right for me at this time to comment further on specific examples, but it is important that the combined authority shows progress. We will wait to see its own proposals before deciding on any further action. It is worth making sure that the report is taken in its full context and that we look at the full picture. Another quote from the report that may be useful is:
“There are many voices which articulate a positive view of the project, highlighting the work that has been done and the clear evidence of the achievements which have been made in regenerating an historic part of the UK’s industrial heritage, the final demise of which, in 2015/16 had devastating results for a community that had been badly affected by the changing global patterns of industrial production. A significant amount of regeneration of the area has occurred and new businesses are moving in bringing jobs and other collateral benefits for the local area”.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the report also clearly shows that the site was costing the Government £20 million? I went to the site in my former role as chairman of the Homes and Communities Agency many years ago. The report shows that there are now 9,000 jobs on the site and nearly £1.5 billion-worth of business rates being created, yet there is an awful lot being said here in criticism of something that is actually showing real levelling up taking place.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that the cost of not going ahead would not have been not nothing but an annual cost to the taxpayer with no benefit whatever—it was just keeping the site safe. I have just quoted the report’s recognition of the regeneration that has started at that site. Benefits to the area have begun to accrue in terms of jobs, potential business rates and wealth generation that we would not have seen if action had not been taken to reinvigorate the largest site, in Europe at least, in terms of the need for regeneration.
Baroness Ford (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the hollowing out of local government audits since the abolition of the Audit Commission has led to serious deficiencies in financial control in the audit of complex joint ventures such as this? It is simply not acceptable that we leave a situation where we have no capacity to understand the obligations and accountabilities of joint venture partners. What are the Government proposing to do about that as a result of this review?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government do not agree with that position. The Audit Commission was bureaucratic; it tied up local government with tick-box exercises rather than having real value. That is why it was abolished. It is right that we have the proper processes in place to ensure proper accountability, transparency and value for money. We believe that can be done through local processes. We will obviously look at the recommendations in the report, including those for central government, and take those into account as we continue to take our work forward.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, would it be reasonable for this House to expect the mayor, who, as the Minister said, is a Member of this House, to perhaps attend this debate and answer some of the questions?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this Statement repeat is by the Government to respond on their position on this report. As I have set out, the Secretary of State has written to the mayor and asked for his response to its recommendations within six weeks. We will then consider any further steps that need to be taken and make sure that the House is updated appropriately.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, there are many areas of concern that are yet to be covered by any investigation. Indeed, the report notes that many issues raised by third parties were outside the scope of its review, such as those raised regarding wildlife die-off and health and safety. There were, of course, many grave concerns and a tragedy of two men dying on the site. There were subsequent accidents where an excavator fell into the river with the driver inside, and dangerous exposure to benzine. There must be concern about whether the remediation of the site has been carried out properly. What further plans do the Government have to look into all those other issues raised locally, which remain concerns and which the report has not covered?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I do not believe that there are any further plans to cover any further reviews.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the report says clearly that the measures in place
“do not meet the standards expected when managing public funds”.
I have read the recommendations and I look forward to the mayor’s response to them. Does the Minister think that, outside of the mayor’s response, the Government have a duty to ensure that this kind of practice does not continue and that there is training or perhaps some intervention from the Government? The Government have to take some of the responsibility here, because they have allowed a situation to evolve where the standards that we would expect for managing public funds have not been met. For all we know, because of the lack of transparency, this situation could be replicated in other areas.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I say to the noble Baroness that we have considered the panel’s findings against the draft best value guidance, which was published in July 2023, and concluded that they do not meet the test for urgent intervention. The panel makes a number of recommendations for the combined authority, the development corporation and other partners, and some for government. We are now giving the mayor and partners time to reflect on the panel’s report. We have asked him to write to us and set out his action plan for responding to the recommendations within six weeks. One of the recommendations for government was around the clarity of legislation in this area and oversight arrangements. We will take that away and look at it carefully, because that is an area, for example, that could have read- across to other development corporations or combined authorities.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister has mentioned a number of benefits—and no one disputes that regeneration benefits are required—but does she accept that those benefits have come totally on the back of public sector investment and that, as the report says, no private sector investment has gone towards them, yet still the liabilities for the land, if not used, lie with the public sector? That is the correct position, is it not?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The reality is that a project of this size will require significant public sector investment, which has taken place, but the review is also clear that remediation of this size and scale would not be able to take place without private partners also participating. We are making sure that we look at the lessons that we can learn from this review, but it is also important to consider both the option of doing nothing, which would have come at a multibillion-pound cost to the public purse, and the benefits that people in the local area are already reaping from the investment that has come in to date.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, asked about the lack of the audit function in local authorities. The Minister said that the Government had put “processes in place” to replace the Audit Commission. Can she explain what those processes are, and whether they will now be involved in investigating financial management in this Tees Valley development corporation?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Audit Commission regulated, micro-managed and inspected local councils, forcing them to spend time ticking boxes and filling in forms rather than getting on with the business of local government. It hindered transparency and scrutiny. Local government can put in its own systems of local authority financial reporting and audit to ensure that it is accountable for spending public money effectively.
With regard to transparency functions, there is Oflog—the new data-driven organisation that will provide transparent and authoritative sources of information for the performance of local government. This will, however, be vastly different to how the Audit Commission operated, which imposed compliance requirements on local authorities and conducted routine inspections.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have not heard anyone advocating for the Audit Commission; what we have been saying is that, since the Audit Commission went, the private sector auditors who have been appointed have struggled to deal with the complexities of joint venture auditing. That is the issue. With that in mind, will the Minister reflect on the quite exceptional circumstances of this case and whether it might justify a more detailed audit review by the National Audit Office? Has she had a response to the request from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we hear back once the mayor has had a chance to consider his response to the 28 recommendations in the review?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am afraid that I will have to disappoint the noble Baroness on her first question. We will not be referring this matter to the NAO. However, as I said in my initial response, the NAO has said that it will reflect on the findings of the review for its own programme of work. Of course, when the Government receive their response from the mayor and partners, we will reflect on what that means for next steps and will make sure that the House is kept up to date on what they are.
Situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the horrors of recent months in Israel and Gaza have been intolerable. Millions are displaced, desperate and hungry, and Israel continues to use devastating tactics that have seen far too many innocent civilians killed. With unacceptable blocks on essential aid and nowhere safe for civilians, there is a humanitarian catastrophe and, now, warnings of a deadly famine. Meanwhile, Hamas terrorists continue to hold hostages, hide among civilians, and fire rockets into Israel.
The need for a sustainable ceasefire is clear. The fighting must stop urgently; we need a humanitarian truce now. A humanitarian truce leading to a sustainable ceasefire is a necessary step from which we can begin a bigger push towards a political solution and a just and lasting peace. A sustainable ceasefire means that Hamas must release all remaining hostages and end attacks on Israel, and that Israel must end its bombing campaign and allow full humanitarian access to Gaza. I hope the Minister will be able to update the House on the latest negotiations to secure the hostages’ release and a humanitarian truce. There must be a new political process to turn the rhetoric around two states living side by side in peace into a reality. Israeli and Palestinian leaders must engage with this process as the only long-term hope of delivering peace and stability.
Last night, the Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said that the United Kingdom has “a responsibility” to set out what a Palestinian state would look like. He stressed that the Palestinian people would have to be shown “irreversible” progress towards a two-state solution, and that
“as that happens, we with allies will look at the issue of recognising a Palestinian state, including at the United Nations”.
This morning, in FCDO Questions, my right honourable friend David Lammy welcomed this, arguing that recognition should not wait for the final status agreement but should be part of efforts to achieve one. Can the Minister tell us how we will take this forward at the United Nations, and which allies will be backing the Foreign Secretary’s call?
The International Court of Justice’s interim ruling under the genocide convention on the situation in Gaza is a profoundly serious moment. International law must be upheld, the international courts must be respected, and all sides must be accountable for their actions. The ICJ’s interim ruling does not give a verdict on this case, but it sets out urgent provisional measures that must be followed. Andrew Mitchell said yesterday that he welcomed the ICJ’s call for the immediate release of hostages and the need to get more aid into Gaza, making it clear that an immediate pause is necessary to get the aid in and the hostages out. He then stressed that the United Kingdom regularly calls on Israel
“to uphold its obligations under international humanitarian law, and … will continue to do so”. —[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/24; col. 623.]
Can the Minister confirm that this included calling on Israel to comply with the orders in this ruling in full? Have we made that call?
The allegations that a number of UNRWA employees were involved in the appalling 7 October terror attacks are truly shocking. Anyone involved should be held to account in full by law. It is right that contracts have been terminated and UNRWA has launched an investigation. However, Gaza is in a humanitarian emergency, and aid getting in must surge, not stop. UNRWA plays a vital role in providing life-saving assistance.
Yesterday, Andrew Mitchell said that he had spoken to Sigrid Kaag, the humanitarian and reconstruction co-ordinator for Gaza, and that
“she made it clear … that while we have zero tolerance of these dreadful things that are alleged to have been done, we cannot operate at zero risks”.
In confirming that the United Kingdom will suspend any future funding until we have the reports of the investigation, Andrew Mitchell recognised that UNRWA assets are absolutely
“essential to delivering in Gaza”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/24; col. 628.]
Will the Minister this afternoon outline a clear and fast pathway for future funding to return, so that aid can get in? We cannot let innocent Palestinians lose life- saving aid because of the actions of the Hamas terrorists.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, is a respected Minister in this House and I mean no disrespect to him. However, we are asking questions on a Statement about the Foreign Secretary’s activities, in the House that he is a Member of, but repeated by another Minister, it having been made in the House of Commons. The Foreign Secretary made a very significant contribution to this debate, outside this House, to the Conservative Middle East Council, on which we are also going to be asking questions of this Minister. I think it would be appropriate for the Foreign Secretary to be in this House, of which he is a Member, to take questions on speeches that he makes—especially those which could make a significant change to policy, and which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked valid questions on. We can now only go on a speech made at a Conservative Party event and an article in the Daily Mail in trying to elicit whether the Government’s policy on the recognition of the state of Palestine has changed.
If it has changed, these Benches will welcome it. We have a long-standing view on the recognition of the state of Palestine. My honourable friend Layla Moran has twice now launched her presentation Bill in the House of Commons, and in it she outlined what practical steps would be necessary if we were moving towards recognition. That was first presented before the violence in October and the Hamas atrocities, but it is even more important now. I look forward to the Minister outlining very clearly what the Government’s new approach is regarding what practical steps they will be taking to bring this about. This House has debated recognition of the state of Palestine. Is it the Government’s intention that, in government time, we will be debating this again? That would be a natural corollary of what the Foreign Secretary’s speech last night indicated.
With regard to the ICJ, it was regrettable from our perspective that the Government rather undermined the processes, but it is welcome that they have accepted what the rulings are: the recognition of the atrocities committed by Hamas and the responsibilities now upon Israel. Previously, I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, what data and information the UK Government are collecting from our monitoring, both in the skies and through other monitoring, with regard to activities. Will we be participating in the work of the ICJ now, given its ruling, to ensure that proper information is collated about the tactics of the Israel Defense Forces within Gaza? We know, even just today, from BBC Verify, of the estimate that between 51% and 61% of all buildings in Gaza have now been destroyed or damaged; that is between 144,000 and 175,000 buildings. It is estimated that 26,000 Palestinians have been killed, 70% of them being women and children. The need for adherence to the ruling is incredibly important.
On the UNRWA situation and the very serious allegations, I agree with the noble Lord that the investigation needs to be expedited and clear, and that those responsible need to be prosecuted. I welcome the Minister’s Statement that 13,000 staff are providing life-saving services for the people within Gaza. As we know, UNRWA is operating outside Gaza too. Can the Minister clarify what the UK “pause” means in reality? Have we stopped co-ordinating on the delivery of aid with UNRWA, given that, in many areas, it continues to be the only provider of assistance? Is our pause open-ended, or will it be contingent on whether the report has been made or any prosecutions carried forward?
Finally, there is now likely to be US retaliation for the attacks and the deaths of their service personnel. There is likely to be political change in the Israeli Government, depending on coalition partners’ response to the latest talks in Paris. This is a time of great volatility and concern. What role is the UK playing overall? Is it a leading role, if we are changing our position on the state of Palestine, to ensure a collective approach to not just a full bilateral ceasefire, but a regional partnership for peace, in what may be a very dangerous time ahead?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I am grateful to both the noble Lords. I agree wholeheartedly with the analysis of the current situation given by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. The whole House shares his and my horror at the impact of this war. It is 115 days since Hamas’s attacks against the State of Israel. Hamas continues to hold more than 130 hostages, and innocent Palestinians are suffering, with over 25,000 people killed. Israelis must be able to live in security and Gazans must be able to rebuild their lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about the latest negotiations. The United Kingdom is involved, at the highest levels, in setting up a contact group with key partners. We are in the key position of having friends across the region and being a friend to the State of Israel. We are working closely with everyone. The Prime Minister has spoken to the President of the United States at length and to a great many other people. The Foreign Secretary is not here today because he is travelling to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Oman and Lebanon, as part of a continued list of engagements in the region which he has been undertaking since he took his post. I am sure that the House thinks that is right, because he clearly has to take that role. I will come on to talk about concerns about recent comments.
We have called for an immediate pause to get more aid in and hostages out. We want this pause to turn into a sustainable, permanent ceasefire, without a return to fighting. We have identified five steps for this to happen, which answers one of the crucial questions that both noble Lords asked. A political horizon will provide a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution. We can then form a new Palestinian Government for the West Bank in Gaza, accompanied by an international support package. Key to that is removing Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel, the release of all Israeli hostages and Hamas leaders agreeing to leave Gaza.
The noble Lords asked about the ICJ ruling. The United Kingdom is a firm supporter of the rules-based order and has been for decades. We respect the ICJ ruling in its entirety. One cannot pick and mix on this. There is a question about whether it came at a time when such sensitivities were manifest in the region, but we absolutely accept this ruling.
My right honourable friend Andrew Mitchell spoke to Philippe Lazzarini, the head of UNRWA, the day before yesterday. The inquiry that he announced goes much further than a normal UN inquiry; it is independent and we must let it take its course. I share everyone’s view that it is wrong to have people who are alleged to have been perpetrators of the 7 October attacks in this organisation. It is right to cease their employment and to investigate further.
I give the House this clear commitment. First, our contributions to UNRWA have been made for this financial year and our commitment to trebling aid to Gaza still stands. The UK is providing £60 million in humanitarian assistance to support other partners, including the British Red Cross, UNICEF, the UN World Food Programme and the Egyptian Red Crescent Society, in order to respond to the critical food, fuel, water, health, shelter and security needs in Gaza.
We will continue our support for the United Nations World Food Programme to deliver a new humanitarian land corridor from Jordan into Gaza. Some 750 tonnes of life-saving food aid arrived in the first delivery in December. The second delivery of 315 tonnes was made earlier this year. We will continue to support the Red Crescent Society, with which we have a long-standing, trusted relationship, to make sure that this happens. But for this to happen, we need to see border crossings open on a more sustained basis. We are calling for the Ashdod port to be opened as a route for aid to reach Gaza, and to extend the opening hours and the capacity of the Nitzana screening facility and the Kerem Shalom checkpoint so that more trucks, aid and fuel can enter Gaza. This requires the Kerem Shalom crossing to be open seven days a week. My noble friend Lord Cameron has raised this at the highest levels in Israel.
I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, a complete answer today to his question about data collection. There is a variety of different sources—some open, and some requiring other forms of data. We are monitoring what is going on, and we are concerned about the scale of the tragic loss of life. We want to make sure that we are encouraging Israel to defend its borders, as it has the absolute right to do, but to do so proportionately.
The US retaliation against the attack on its base in Jordan is obviously an indication of the complexity of the problems right across the region. We are in close touch with the United States about this. We are deeply mindful of the 2,500 British personnel in the region, and we want to make sure that they are safe and that their families are assured that they are safe. Any response must, first of all, give a clear indication to Iran and its proxies that they cannot operate in this way. We are also mindful that we need to move this whole region towards a more peaceful and stable future.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there was a very warm reaction to the reports of what the Foreign Secretary said to the Conservative Middle East Council dinner? Does this not show that the old approach to a two-state solution—whereby Palestine is recognised as a state and Israel is fully recognised by the Arabs at the end of the process—is not going to work? This is a very difficult issue. What is probably needed is a process which, from the start, makes it clear that Arab participants should recognise Israel and that all of us, including Israel, should recognise Palestine as a state. This is the only viable outcome.
Do the Government share the view of the US Secretary of State, who said that UNRWA’s ability to provide and distribute various forms of aid in Gaza was “absolutely indispensable”? This is surely covered by the ruling of the International Court of Justice that all must do their best to increase the flow of aid into Gaza—including UNRWA, even though what some of its employees have been accused of is quite horrible and must be punished following an inquiry.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord understands more than any of us how sensitive this time and the surrounding negotiations are. It is absolutely clear that Gaza and the West Bank are occupied Palestinian territory and will be part of a future Palestinian state. We support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. Recently, I read a most interesting quote from former Mossad director, Meir Dagan. Commenting on the two-state solution, he said:
“We have no other way. Not because the Palestinians are my top priority but because I am concerned about Israel’s well-being and I want to do what I can to ensure Israel’s existence.”
That shows a real depth of understanding of the importance of working towards that conclusion.
On the noble Lord’s point about UNRWA, we are not alone in having paused our financial support for UNRWA. The United States, Germany, Australia, Italy, Canada, Finland, Switzerland and the Netherlands have all temporarily paused funding. I gave a list of other organisations that we are using. The noble Lord is absolutely right that UNRWA has the facilities on the ground and many thousands of people working in and around Gaza who have the ability to get food, fuel and all other humanitarian items to the people of Gaza. We want to be back working with it when this inquiry has worked out who precisely was involved in the attacks to get back international confidence in it as an organisation to deliver aid.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, we have been having discussions about the process which will lead to peace, but we need to start the process. In order to start the process, do we not need to recognise two things? First, the world of 8 October is a fundamentally different world from the world of 6 October. Secondly, Israel is a democracy, unlike Hamas in Gaza or the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. That means that if we are going to be realistic about encouraging Israel to start that process, we need to recognise that, even today, well over 100 of its citizens are still being held hostage. I know the Minister has personally made significant efforts to meet hostage families and to work on that issue. If we are going to start a process to peace in the Middle East, which I would welcome as I have worked on it for as long as I can, we need to face basic political realities. Unless and until those hostages are released, the process will not begin. If we want to see peace in the Middle East after that conflict, the first step must be to get the hostages released. Does my noble friend agree?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I certainly do. That is the first step in a road out of this sorry saga that we all want to see achieved. I cannot imagine—well, I can imagine what it is like for the families, because on two occasions I have met them, and I am due to meet some more this week. Noble Lords can understand the emotion. When you meet them, it is absolutely a searing realisation of the true brutality of those events and the continuous misery for those families, including the parents of a child who is around one year old. You can only imagine what they feel about that.
On my noble friend’s point about democracy, he is absolutely right. As we can see daily in our newspapers, Israel is a vibrant democracy. There are future changes perhaps—we do not know—but we will support whoever is the legitimate Government of Israel to help to find a solution to this. My noble friend is also right that it has been 18 years, I think, since free and fair elections, or elections, have taken place in Gaza. The Hamas controlling body has no democratic authority. We want to make sure that the future of Gaza does not have Hamas anywhere in it.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, while welcoming much of what the Minister has said, will he tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the Israeli Government actually respond to the request that the UK Government and the Foreign Secretary are now making about an immediate cessation of hostilities to allow for more aid to get in, for hostages to get out and above all for the slaughter to stop with a view to turning this into a permanent sustainable ceasefire, which is demanded by more and more countries and by public opinion in this country? Has the time not come for the UK to cease trading in arms with Israel while it continues to kill thousands of civilians, as we have heard, 70% of whom are women and children, which my noble friend Lord Collins has described from the Front Bench as a humanitarian disaster?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are very concerned with the immediate days—hours, even—of this emerging saga. Whatever any Minister says at any Dispatch Box is very often out of date by the time he or she sits down. First of all, we absolutely accept that Israel has the right to defend itself against the vile terrorism that it suffered on 7 October. We have very strict rules in this country and fantastic oversight, in this place and beyond, of our arms trading arrangements. Any Government should apply those oversights to it, and we do. But it is absolutely vital that we concentrate on the immediate problem, which is getting those hostages released. I pay tribute to the Government of Qatar for their support and great expertise in achieving this. Those who have been involved in the Northern Ireland issue over the years know how galling it is when you see people that you know have done terrible things being swapped for victims of terrorism who have done no wrong. But it does require an enormous amount of courage and determination to make sure that we can get these hostages out and move forward to sustainable, lasting peace.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. I also pay tribute to workers in Gaza, particularly, and in the West Bank, many of whom are risking their own lives to provide support and medical help for the victims of the bombardments. Does the Minister appreciate that UNRWA apparently does not have enough money to see it through February, to provide aid in Gaza and in the West Bank? Will he look into, or have the Government looked into, the fact that medical facilities for victims are being denied and systematically destroyed, according to the reports coming to us from Medical Aid for Palestinians? What are the Government going to do to ensure that all the victims have access to the medical support and the help that international law says they should?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is crucial to get the right amount of medical aid and food, and all the other types of sustenance the people of Gaza require. That means more trucks, more ships and more material getting across borders. That is our priority, and there are a great many organisations that can assist with the delivery of that; I listed them earlier. But the noble Baroness is right; UNRWA employs 13,000 people in Gaza and has provided essential basic healthcare, education, protection and vital humanitarian assistance for hundreds of thousands of people in Gaza. Some 1.7 million Palestinians in Gaza are eligible for UNRWA support. In Gaza, it operates 183 schools and two primary healthcare facilities. We want to make sure that we can use this agency as quickly as possible, but that is not stopping the level of compassionate support that the British people are giving to the people of Gaza. We are getting that aid in as quickly as we can, but we need those border crossings to be more functional.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register, particularly those relating to friendship with Israel. Does my noble friend remember that, when the International Court of Justice announced its inquiry, Hamas pledged to honour those interim judgments? The court has asked for the release of hostages. Is my noble friend disappointed that that has not happened—that Hamas has broken its word? If we are to recognise an independent Palestinian state before there is a lasting peace and mutual recognition of boundaries, what assurances does my noble friend intend to put in to ensure the safety of Israel? Or would the British Government be content, for example, with a sovereign Palestinian state entering into a defence arrangement with Iran?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I understand my noble friend’s concerns and hope that, through the process we can now move towards, we can address the 30-year failure of the international community to support a lasting solution. In Israel we have seen rising incomes and a state that is very advanced in its security, trade and the living standards of its population, but one thing that has not been delivered to the people of Israel, and which really matters to them and to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, is security. That is what we want to achieve. We want a lasting security, and then Israel can continue to be a real force, both economically and culturally, around the world.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, no democratic country should have the mandate to mercilessly kill another nation. What advice have our Government received since the ICJ interim ruling as to whether they will also be dragged into complicity should the international court determine that there have been war crimes and breaches of the genocide convention?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The British Government have never defined what genocide is; we leave that for a court to do. However, we do not believe that this qualifies as genocide. We accept, and are pleased by, the ruling of the court in its calls for the release of the hostages and for the necessity of getting aid into Gaza.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the failure of the international community for 30 years or more in this matter. That implies that, if a two-state solution is to be brought about, as the Foreign Secretary said last night—and I very much welcome his remarks, and indeed the very balanced remarks of the Opposition, if I may say so, this afternoon—that surely implies that simply asking them to bring about a solution is not going to be enough. It requires more than just persuasion, and possibly a degree of international coercion on both sides, to bring about a solution in the wider interest. That is difficult when the Israeli Government, as at the moment, do not believe in and have rejected a two-state solution. Does the Minister have any ideas how the real problem of Hamas might be dealt with in this ongoing discussion?
Lord Benyon (Con)
None of these solutions is entirely in our gift. We do not have the ability to wave a wand or send a gunboat or do all the things that Foreign Ministers might have done in centuries past. It comes down to really hard work and old-fashioned diplomacy. That is what my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, other Ministers, my noble friend Lord Ahmad—who has been ceaselessly working on this—and the Diplomatic Service have been trying to draw together. We think we have a thread which can lead towards a solution. We have to be positive about this. If you just think of the world as it exists—my noble friend referred to 8 October, the day after the attack—it is so bleak and depressing that you can hardly see a way forward. But there is a solution and we know it can work. It comes down to working with our partners, and, most of all, working with the Government of Israel and with sensible people in the Occupied Territories, to make sure that we can have a solution which is free of Hamas and gives lasting security to the Palestinian people and Israeli citizens.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government assume that alternative sources of finance for humanitarian aid, which the Minister mentioned, will make up for the loss of financial aid currently going to UNRWA? Clearly, the Government are radically revising their policy at the moment and have set out these five important conditions. So far as the two-state solution is concerned, are the Government going to wait for the slowest? Will they wait for a consensus among their allies? What will they deem to be necessary before they accept a two-state solution? On the other matter, is the Minister confident that the Palestinian Authority is ready to assume responsibility for the West Bank and Gaza?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend the Foreign Secretary met the President of the Occupied West Bank Territories, Mahmoud Abbas, and will continue to talk to him to find, I hope, precisely that solution. On the noble Lord’s first point, on UNRWA, as I said, we have given to UNRWA what we were going to give this financial year, and the additional sums that we are promising will still get, in aid, to the people of Gaza through a variety of sources that I listed earlier.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister clarify his last remarks? When he said that my noble friend Lord Cameron has had discussions with the Prime Minister of Palestine, can we be crystal-clear that the United Kingdom will not recognise a state of Palestine that is led by the current Palestinian Authority and the Fatah organisation, which has been so involved in terror, and will not recognise a Gaza-led Government where Hamas has either control or power?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, and allow me to clarify. We will recognise a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution at the time that is right and with the leadership in place. We have already talked about needing a technocratic Government who will resolve the issues that exist within Gaza in particular, and we want to make sure that that Government do not have Hamas anywhere near them, or as part of them, and that they are trusted in those territories but also by the people of Israel, who want to live in peace with their neighbours.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, for as long as most of us can remember, Ministers at the Dispatch Box, of both parties, have reiterated the commitment to a two-state solution, although I have to say—and a Select Committee of this House made this position explicit not so long ago—that the possibility of that being achieved as long as the Government in Israel pursue their expansion of settlements on the West Bank is diminishing. It is only at times of awful violence, such as we have seen in the last few months, that the attention of the international community is focused on what the two-state solution actually means and whether we will work for it as soon as the violence ceases. What is new is not just that Israel has been moving towards making a two-state solution more difficult but that the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has made it quite clear that he simply will not accept a Palestinian state. I should like to know what steps the Government are taking to try to impress on him that there can be no long-term chance of peace in the Middle East until the Palestinians, like the Israelis, have a state of their own.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord raises the fundamental issue here. There are different voices in Israel, and we will work with whoever is in government to achieve what we, with our partners in the region and with countries such as the United States, think is the best way forward for the people of Israel and those living in the Occupied Territories. The noble Lord is right: that is very difficult to achieve, particularly when people at the top of the Government are saying that our policy is not right for them. However, there are plenty of people who believe—I earlier quoted somebody deeply involved with the security of the State of Israel—that it is fundamentally important not just for the Palestinians but for the future of Israel. It is that which we want to secure. Israel is our friend; we can speak frankly with friends, and that is what we do in diplomatic terms. We do not cut ourselves off from it just because there might be some side to an argument that we disagree with. We will work with Israel to try to achieve what we think is best for the long-term security of the region, which affects us all.
Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 30th January 2024
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pedicabs (London) Act 2024 View all Pedicabs (London) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 35-I Marshalled list for Report - (26 Jan 2024)
Lord Davies of Gower
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment spells out that provision in pedicab regulations about the conduct of drivers can include provision about making noise. Regulations might, for example, prohibit a driver from making certain kinds of noise or noise over a certain volume at some or all times or in some or all places.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for your Lordships’ continued interest in this small but important Bill. The Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords, and I reiterate what I have said in private sessions: that your Lordships’ engagement has helped the Government reflect on the Bill’s provisions.
The first group today consists of a single amendment. It will amend Clause 2(6)(i), which relates to the conduct of pedicab drivers. It will specify that pedicab regulations can include provisions about making noise. During Grand Committee, I was clear that the Bill as drafted provided sufficient scope for pedicab regulations to address the issue of noise, under Clause 2(6). Furthermore, Transport for London has provided assurance that the playing of loud music and causing disturbance would be covered in its regulations.
However, it was clear that your Lordships felt particularly strongly about this issue. This is understandable. The Government are aware of the stories of loud music being played from pedicabs during the day and long into the night, and understand the disruption this causes to residents, businesses and those going about their daily lives. The Government have therefore tabled the amendment in recognition of the importance of this issue and to support the emergence of an effective regulatory regime.
Consistent with the approach taken in the Bill, the precise manner in which noise nuisance is addressed will be for Transport for London to determine in bringing forward regulations, and, again, this will be subject to consultation as per Clause 1(3). I hope that noble Lords welcome this amendment and that it satisfactorily addresses any outstanding concerns. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the amendment tabled by my noble friend. I am hugely grateful to him for having listened carefully during our debates in Committee. I congratulate him on the influence he has been able to have in the department in securing the Secretary of State’s agreement to this change.
I note that my noble friend said that in the Government’s view, the Bill’s original wording was sufficient to tackle the concern about noise; none the less, it is reassuring to have noise provisions in the Bill. I should be particularly pleased if my noble friend emphasised when he winds up that the explanatory statement alongside the amendment on the Marshalled List points out that the regulations that can be made to deal with noise, and which would be subject to consultation by Transport for London, might
“prohibit a driver from making certain kinds of noise or noise over a certain volume at some or all times or in some or all places.”
As my noble friend knows, one of my concerns, and one of the reasons why I was keen to get provisions on noise in the Bill, is that there has been a tendency to talk about noise only after a certain time of day. The existing law that allows any clampdown on noise pollution very much kicks in after a certain time and, as we know, the noise made by these vehicles and their drivers can be particularly disturbing and disruptive at any time of day. That is worth us reinforcing, so that TfL knows the expectation of this House.
As this is probably the last time I will speak during the passage of the Bill, I thank my noble friend again and congratulate him on his successful stewardship of this important Bill, which people have waited a long time for in London. I congratulate him on what he has been able to achieve over the past couple of months.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I repeat my declarations of interest from previous occasions. I entirely agree with my noble friend Baroness Stowell—she is right. I worry about the House of Lords legislating for the difference between “noise” and “music”. We might be in a minority in the country overall in our distinction between the two, but this is a magnificent example of a Bill that has been changed by good points made by Back-Benchers in this House. The clause proposed by my noble friend Lord Davies is an entirely sensible move.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on his stewardship and handling of the Bill. It is, perhaps, not the biggest, most important transport Bill to come before your Lordships but is none the less highly targeted, and we commend it. In particular, I thank my noble friend for listening to the concerns about noise that have been raised almost universally around the House. I have witnessed this when walking back from your Lordships’ House to where I often stay during the week, and I have heard this extraordinary noise coming from these vehicles.
There is a problem, and the Bill is an enabling Bill. It allows TfL to produce the regulations and regulate the operators of these vehicles. Noise is one of the most important issues the House has heard about, and I am delighted the Government have recognised it and produced their own amendment.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, there is a risk that this is beginning to sound like Third Reading, but I put on record from these Benches my thanks to the Minister and his team for their time and the care with which they have considered the points we made on Report and in meetings between then and today. They have been generous with their time and prepared to give serious consideration to the points made.
This amendment is, as noble Lords have said, about noise. Where, when, how and how loud the noise is, is a key aspect of the concerns about pedicabs. This is therefore a very useful addition and clarification and is in direct response to points made in Grand Committee. I am delighted that this amendment has come forward.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, I will be very brief. We support this amendment and congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward; it demonstrates that Members of the House have been listened to. There is clearly a problem of noise created by pedicabs, and it affects people of all social classes who live in Soho, Mayfair and parts of Westminster. We are glad to see this amendment being proposed.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the acceptance of this amendment. We recognise the point made by my noble friend Lady Stowell about noise being disallowed after 9 pm. Clearly, during the winter months and dark nights it is not good to have this sort of behaviour and high levels of noise on the streets. That was very much behind the thinking in bringing this amendment forward. I am very grateful to all other noble Lords who have spoken, and I will certainly pass the thanks on to the team.
Baroness Randerson
“(6A) For the purpose ensuring greater safety of electric powered pedicabs (of a type specified in subsection (6B)) and secondary lithium-ion batteries used to power them, regulations must be made within 12 months of the passing of this Act specifying that such vehicles and the lithium-ion batteries used to power them must—(a) have had conformity assessment procedures carried out on them by a conformity assessment body authorised by the Secretary of State to carry out such assessments; and(b) have the technical documentation and declaration of conformity drawn up by the manufacturer.(6B) The type of pedicab to which section (6A) refers—(a) must be pedalled in order to receive electric-powered back-up; and(b) has an electric motor with a maximum power output of backup power of no more than 250 watts; and(c) can travel at no more than 15.5 mph as the electric motor will not propel the bike when travelling more than 15.5mph.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to make regulations to introduce independent conformity assessment processes for electric powered pedicabs and the batteries used to power them.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I regret to tell the House that this group will take slightly longer than the previous one. This amendment in my name is about the safety of pedicabs and the lithium-ion batteries that assist with the pedalling to propel them in certain cases. It covers only pedicabs where the battery back-up is available only when the pedicab is being pedalled, where such back-up can be given only up to 15.5 miles per hour and where the maximum power is up to 250 watts. Currently, there are no requirements for independent safety tests on such vehicles and their batteries.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Foster put forward amendments about these issues, which I also spoke to. He is unfortunately unable to be here today, so I am attempting to carry forward his work. From the outset on the Bill, safety and testing, in general, have been at the centre of the Government’s thinking. Clause 2(6)(c) refers to “safety requirements” and Clause 2(6)(f) to “the testing of pedicabs”. In his opening speech, the Minister referred to safety on four occasions.
My amendment builds on an issue that has been taken up by noble Lords across the Chamber. I have also raised it previously in different contexts, as has my noble friend Lord Foster. I raised it on 11 July last year with the Minister’s predecessor and my noble friend raised it on 23 November last year in a QSD. Unfortunately, on both occasions, government responses lacked the clarity that we need on the crucial differences in testing requirements between the L-category vehicles up to 1,000 watts and the sub-250-watt electric bicycles. The latter are pedal cycles with an auxiliary electric motor and a maximum continuous rated power of up to 250 watts. The other key difference is that the more powerful vehicles, over 250 watts, have to be registered and have a number plate, which vehicles up to 250 watts do not require.
In Grand Committee, Amendments 21 and 22 dealt with charging systems and with lithium-ion batteries powering electrically assisted pedicabs. The Minister, in his response, said:
“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”.—[Official Report, 11/12/23; col. GC 243.]
He then went on to point out that manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products meet safety standards. That is self-certification, which is exactly the point of the amendment and why we need higher standards with third-party safety assessments coming in. Those safety assessments should be undertaken by conformity assessment bodies, also called test houses. To assist noble Lords with a parallel, that is how fire- works, for example, are tested and assured for safety.
In his response to our last debate, the Minister also said that batteries must comply with the Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008. However, unfortunately, those regulations limit only the amount of cadmium and mercury in the battery and have nothing to do with fire safety testing. I press these issues because already, 13 people have died as a result of lithium-ion battery fires, one person on New Year’s Day this year. Many more people have been very badly injured and there has been a massive cost from the destruction of property.
These amendments are supported by organisations such as the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Association of British Insurers, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the charity Electrical Safety First. They are also supported by dozens of other similar organisations—30 in total.
In June, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, assured my noble friend Lord Foster that the Government were taking action on these issues, but nothing has happened since. A recent survey showed that a third of e-bikes and batteries are bought online, where is it known that standards are likely to be lower and the whole situation is known to be riskier. As the Bill is intrinsically concerned with a set of activities—pedicab riding—known to be without any regulation, where the Government rightly say that risks have been taken and these are dangerous activities, this is exactly the kind of situation where some of kind of control over the lithium-ion batteries involved in the vehicles would be very useful, worth while and likely to save lives or reduce the risk to people’s health.
Nearly half the people who charge their bike batteries do so in a communal area. That is known to be the most dangerous place to do it. If a fire breaks out, it blocks your exit and it is far too hot in these circumstances for you to be able to go through that area. More than half of people with electric bikes charge them while they are asleep, so a fire is more likely to take hold. All these risks could be dealt with by safety measures built into the regulations flowing from the Bill and public awareness could be raised. The Government have emphasised the dangers posed by pedicabs and battery fires are clearly part of that. I am certainly not going to push this to a vote today, but I ask the Minister—who is clearly keen to listen to concerns—to think about this very seriously. I urge him either to accept this amendment or to bring something back of a similar nature.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the argument made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I find it very strange that, in this modern world, it seems impossible to rely on the safety of something as straightforward as a battery. We have known about battery-like things for at least 250 years. I think it was in the 18th century that the first battery was discovered.
Now we have lithium-ion batteries, which appear to be perfectly safe in one’s telephone but not if they are attached to a pedicab. We have a similar problem with e-scooters. On some occasions, the batteries have been known to blow up, which is why they are banned from every part of the London Underground network—platforms and stations as well as trains; they are a fire risk. How has this circumstance come about? I have no answer.
While I have sympathy with the noble Baroness’s argument, I am glad to hear that she is not intending to advance this to a vote. I am not entirely sure that this is the right Bill for the issue to be addressed in. There is a wider question about what the Government are doing to ensure the safety of batteries that are available for consumers to buy as part of equipment. In this case, they are allowed to buy e-scooters, but not to ride them on the public highway. That is another anomaly that perhaps we will address at some stage, when the endless trial the Government have been conducting on e-scooters is eventually brought to a conclusion and some determination is made about their future. There needs to be a measure that addressees the safety of batteries more broadly than simply in pedicabs, as this amendment would.
We will come in the next group to the question of guidance. I will simply say that if my noble friend were to say that safety issues including the safety of batteries would be included in guidance and covered by regulations, I think that would be satisfactory, without the need for the noble Baroness’s amendment. It is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend; it all makes sense. I shall give a little history: at one stage I was chairman of a lithium battery manufacturer. It is possible in the manufacturing of a lithium battery for a little strip of lithium to move from one part of the battery to another during the manufacturing process. That can later cause a fire.
The trouble with this amendment is entirely that, as my noble friend mentioned, if we got it right in pedicabs, we would be getting it right in only a tiny percentage of the total number of vehicles with large lithium batteries. It is a particularly serious problem when fires break out in big batteries in small houses. These pedicabs are not going to be recharged in people’s houses in the majority of cases; it will be done at a depot of some sort.
This is a good provision in the wrong place. I would look forward to supporting such a clause in a different place, if only there was something equivalent. The noble Baroness has grabbed the opportunity and should be applauded for doing that.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the first part of the noble Baroness’s amendment is very interesting but has a much wider application. None the less, she has cleverly found an opportunity to air broader concerns about lithium batteries. However, I feel rather sorry for the second part of her amendment, which is a very substantive measure. I do not think she particularly referred to it in her remarks and it has not been covered in the debate so far. It is about the amount of power that can be deployed by these vehicles and that they must be pedal-assisted and not just pure electric power.
The reason I support the noble Baroness’s sentiment behind that is something that we have covered in earlier debates. With electrically powered vehicles, which I think are great and have the ability to solve all sorts of environmental and other problems, particularly in cities, there is a blurring of where an electric bicycle ends and an electric motorcycle begins, and where an electric-powered but pedal-assisted vehicle ends and a motor vehicle begins, and whether the words that the noble Baroness has suggested really belong in TfL’s guidance or in the Bill. My concern is about putting very specific things in the Bill in terms of future-proofing. Who knows what will come along in future developments? Perhaps it is better covered by guidance.
However, there is a much wider concern about the difficulty of keeping up, from a regulatory perspective, with very rapid consumer change and the availability of electric scooters, which we talked about a lot at earlier stages of the Bill. Perhaps when the noble Baroness comes to wind up her remarks, she might just dwell a little on the second part of her amendment.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, we on this side of the House have enormous sympathy for the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has proposed, and I find myself, at least on this occasion, in full agreement with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Borwick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. However, it is the Government’s decision that one of the few transport measures they were prepared to put in their programme for this Session was a pedicabs Bill which, of course, is of very limited reach and scope. In fact, you could say that its reach is two wards of a single London borough. That is a pity, given that the country has enormous transport challenges in front of it, such as a failing railway system and the need for bus regulation. I could go on.
However, one of the issues that clearly has to be addressed is the one highlighted in this amendment. Although it would be inappropriate to try to carry amendments on this question of electric batteries, I hoped that the Minister might be able—indeed, I have urged him privately to do this—to come up with a timetable for when the Government might address these wider and more important questions. I am looking forward to his speech because it seems to me that in the House we have had a lot of concern raised about electric batteries and about the experimental period, as it were, of regulation of e-scooters, and we do not know how long that is going to go on for or what the outcome is eventually going to be. I would have thought that the Government must have a plan—after all, they are, I assume, thinking they might be re-elected—so we would quite like to know what future plans the Government have on what are very important and serious matters in which lives are at stake.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for their diligence in scrutinising this Bill’s provisions. This second group of amendments is focused on electric pedicabs. My department is aware of concerns held by noble Lords surrounding batteries in e-cycles and e-scooters. Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, seeks to place a requirement on the Government to introduce independent conformity assessment processes for electrically powered pedicabs and the batteries used to power these vehicles. If I may say so, she Baroness puts her case well, and I will now seek to answer some of her points.
Noble Lords may recall my response to an amendment tabled in Committee on conformity assessments and potentially placing requirements on power-assisted pedicabs. My response to the amendment debated today will echo my previous position. The Bill is about closing the legal anomaly so that London pedicabs can be licensed for the first time. The amendment raises a much wider question about the construction of electrically assisted pedal cycles.
The UKCA, the UK conformity assessment marking, and its EU equivalent, the CE, the conformité Européene, demonstrate a manufacturer’s claim of conformity with statutory requirements. All e-cycles and e-scooters need to comply with UK product safety regulations. This includes the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008, which set out the detailed health and safety requirements for the design and construction of a product. Additionally, there is an existing requirement in these machinery regulations that responsible persons for all machinery within scope, which would include power-assisted pedicabs, must draw up a detailed technical file and a declaration of conformity. There are existing requirements to carry out appropriate conformity assessment procedures. In instances where the responsible person does not comply with existing requirements, they are in breach of the regulations.
The Government are seeking to reform the UK’s product safety framework through the product safety review. The Office for Product Safety and Standards is currently reviewing responses to its consultation on how it regulates all products on the GB market, including machinery, and where multiple regulations apply to specific products. The Government’s intention is to publish a response later this year that summarises findings and sets out its future plans.
Product regulations would not cover a scenario whereby a pedicab driver or operator adapted their power-assisted pedicab following purchase, However, Clause 2(6) provides Transport for London with the ability to make provisions relating to matters such as safety requirements, testing, speed restrictions, and the quality and roadworthiness of pedicabs. Therefore, there is sufficient scope for Transport for London to determine the expected standards for pedicabs operating on London’s roads.
Although pedicab batteries when not supplied as part of a pedicab would not be subject to a regime that requires the UK conformity assessment marking to be affixed to them, their safety would be covered by the General Product Safety Regulations. These regulations require that all consumer products placed on the market are safe. Furthermore, batteries must comply with the Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008, which restrict the substances used in batteries and accumulators, as well as setting out requirements for their environmentally friendly end of life.
In bringing my comments to a conclusion, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the work of the Office for Product Safety and Standards, and Defra. They are in the process of reviewing the position on batteries. This includes examining the new EU battery directive and looking into the safety of the lithium-ion batteries used in e-cycles and e-scooters. This work should conclude in 2024. Alongside this, my department is developing guidance on the safe use of batteries in e-cycles and e-scooters, and we will publish this soon. I respectfully suggest that the Bill, with its narrow focus on licensing London pedicabs, is not the place to start tackling this issue. It is best dealt with as part of the wider work being taken forward by the Office for Product Safety and Standards and by Defra.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response, although it was rather disappointing. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, makes the point that this is not the right place for these regulations, but he accepts that there is a clear danger. I simply approach it from the point of view that this might be a good place to start dealing with this danger. However, I accept that pedicabs make up a tiny percentage of the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, says.
Lord Davies of Gower
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that pedicab regulations will no longer be subject to any form of parliamentary procedure.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this final group of amendments covers the process for regulations made under the Bill. Amendment 3 places responsibility for making pedicab regulations solely with Transport for London, meaning that pedicab regulations will no longer be subject to any form of parliamentary procedure.
Noble Lords will be aware that this marks a shift in the Government’s approach. The Government have listened to, and reflected on, the points raised at Second Reading and in Grand Committee, and reached the conclusion that these powers should rest with Transport for London. The Government have reached this view for several important reasons. First, it is consistent with the position for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing in the capital, where Transport for London has demonstrable experience of operating effective licensing regimes. Secondly, the Bill’s provisions extend to Greater London only, addressing the legal anomaly that has meant that London’s pedicab industry has been unregulated. The Bill presents a solution to a London-centric issue. Thirdly and finally, the relative size of the pedicab industry in London is an important factor. Estimates suggest that pedicab numbers range from 200 up to 900 in peak season. This is a significantly smaller industry than London’s taxi and PHV industries, where there are over 100,000 licensed vehicles and over 120,000 licensed drivers. Therefore, this amendment offers a proportionate approach.
While I am confident that this amendment is supported by the majority of your Lordships, I am aware that there may be some noble Lords concerned that Transport for London would seize this opportunity to remove all pedicabs from London’s streets, or to impose draconian restrictions that all but ban these vehicles. I reiterate that I do not—
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I apologise for jumping in on this point but it is very important. The Minister said that the generation of regulations would be solely the responsibility of Transport for London, which is exactly where we seek to be. In preparing for this debate I looked through the Bill, and all the Minister’s amendment does—I say “all” but it may be enough, in which case I will be delighted—is to take a subsection out of Clause 6. Can I be assured that that subsection’s deletion effectively removes any DfT input to the creation of regulations other than the amendment that goes with it to introduce guidance?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Yes, that is my understanding of the amendment and is correct.
Although I am confident that this amendment is supported by the majority of your Lordships, as I said, I am aware that some noble Lords may be concerned that Transport for London would seize this opportunity to remove all pedicabs from London’s streets or to impose draconian restrictions. However, I reiterate that I do not understand this to be TfL’s intention and, furthermore, it is highly unlikely that pedicab regulations could be used to do this.
However, this moves me to Amendment 4, which gives the Secretary of State the option of issuing statutory guidance to Transport for London relating to how functions under pedicab regulations are exercised. The amendment specifies that statutory guidance may cover how functions are exercised so as to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm. This amendment intends to strike a balance with the removal of parliamentary procedure for secondary legislation made under the Bill. The Government remain aware this will be a newly regulated industry, and this amendment will give the Secretary of State the option of influencing the shape of the London pedicab regime.
Transport for London or any person authorised by it to carry out functions under pedicab regulations on its behalf will need to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. This provides a level of oversight which I hope provides assurance to any noble Lords with concerns. Further to this, Clause 1(3) requires TfL to conduct a consultation prior to making pedicab regulations.
I hope this demonstrates that the Government have listened, and that these amendments are viewed by your Lordships as a thoughtful way forward, one which will best enable Transport for London to commence work on bringing forward its regulatory regime. I beg to move.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, this is almost full circle for me. About six years ago I received several complaints about pedicabs, and I tabled Written Questions for the then Minister, to be told straight off, “It is nothing to do with the Government—it is a matter for Transport for London”. Therefore, it is quite good that, coming full circle, many of these issues will be taken—with guidance—by Transport for London. That is the right and proper place for some of these issues; it makes sense to me.
I am particularly pleased that notice has been taken of safeguarding issues, particularly for children, and I am sure guidance will include that, and for anybody who is in a vulnerable situation as well, whether it be children or young women. That is absolutely right and proper.
I slightly worry that the issue of identification has not taken place. For example, if a pedicab driver does something that is not correct or behaves in an outrageous way—as we have often seen happen—as I understand it, there is no way to identify who is the owner or the driver of that pedicab and therefore to take action. I hope that this issue might be raised, maybe in guidance to Transport for London.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5 but in doing so, I welcome the Minister’s acceptance that this is very much an issue for Transport for London. My Amendment 5 is simply there to give the Minister the opportunity to provide this House with clarity on the potential scope of the Secretary of State of State’s guidance. Because we have had this complete somersault between Committee and Report over who is going to be responsible for this, it is important to get that clarification.
There is cross-party consensus that this really is an issue for Transport for London. Like my noble friend Lord Storey, I am very pleased to see the reference to safeguarding in Amendment 4. This legislation obviously applies only to London, but it would be helpful if the Government were to publicise it beyond London because, as we made clear in our discussions at the previous stage, there are pedicab regulations in other parts of the country. It would be useful to have greater awareness of issues such as the importance of safeguarding, registration, safety and so on.
My amendment is a kind of checklist of the main issues to consider: environmental benefits; safety, which is about a lot more than just battery fires; and minimising disruption, danger and disturbance to other people, as some neighbours in London have suffered from noise and inconsiderate parking for a long time. We should not be discussing the suitability of cab ranks in detail here, but it will clearly be of great importance when decisions are made by Transport for London. My final issue is that of licensing and penalties. I assume that licensing will involve identification and registration.
It is important to make it clear that we do not want regulations which are so onerous that they destroy this industry altogether. Like other noble Lords, we want just to bring it under control so that it benefits London and is an asset, not a liability, to London tourism. For the people who hire these cabs, it should be safe and fun, not risky. I press the Minister to reassure us that the Secretary of State’s guidance will not be so onerous that it enables penalties so stiff that they put people out of business.
Proposed new subsection (6) of government Amendment 4 refers to consultation, and rightly so. Can the Minister give us an assurance that there will be Secretary of State consultation with cycling organisations and the organisation representing pedicab operators in London? Its representatives were in touch with us prior to Committee, so there is clearly such an organisation, and it is the kind of organisation that, in other industries, brings a sense of coherence that raises standards, as taxi organisations do. It is important that proper consultation is done.
Lord Borwick (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward this suggestion, which, as he said, was proposed by many parties. But I am still confused, in that the Member’s explanatory statement, which is very sensible, does not quite tie up with Amendment 3 itself. Amendment 3 says “leave out subsection (2)”, but why is subsection (1) still in place? That says that
“The power to make pedicab regulations is exercisable by statutory instrument”.
If the intention is that they should not be exercisable by statutory instrument, why should we leave in that phrase? Would it not be better if the amendment left out both subsection (2) and subsection (1)? I think that would improve the Bill.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the Minister, as others have done, for the amount of time he has taken on this Bill. Our central concern was that this is a London problem, and we created TfL to look after London’s problems. Now, I am in favour of TfL—somewhat biasedly, because I helped create it—but it has lived up to our expectations and has done a good job over the 23 years of its existence. It is very much the right organisation to do this task.
I thank the Minister for his Amendment 3, which he assures me will give TfL sole responsibility for developing regulations. I do take the point about why subsections (1), (3) and (4) are being retained, but I am sure it is all right because I have faith in the wonderful drafting powers of his team. If, upon consideration, they become a concern, I am sure that a government amendment will be tabled at Third Reading to amend any conflicts between the different parts. I hope he will give that consideration, if his team do advise him that there is a conflict.
Having said that I am in favour of Transport for London doing this task, I grudgingly accept that some of the concerns about TfL getting carried away and banning everything in sight, and making people bankrupt by charging them utterly unreasonable fees et cetera, do make a case for Amendment 4. Therefore, I recognise that that is the trade-off between the important position to take throughout the parliamentary process, while making sure there is a potential for government to create guidance that TfL has to have regard to. The balance between the two amendments, from our point of view, is acceptable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has produced Amendment 5, which is drafted very much in the terms of many of her amendments, in the sense that it is motherhood. I am actually in favour of motherhood; it helps the world go round, and it says a series of sensible things. But the problem with putting something in legislation is whether it says all the things that should be said, or whether, conversely, it contradicts things that might be wanted. I am afraid I cannot support her. I do not think it is her intention to press the amendment, but I do commend it as a questionnaire for the Minister, to clarify the Government’s position on the points raised.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I once again thank your Lordships for their careful consideration of the Bill. I have outlined the purpose of the Government’s amendments in this group, and will now address Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
I first reiterate the Government’s objective in bringing forward this Bill. The purpose is to provide Transport for London with the tools it needs to regulate London’s pedicabs so that journeys and vehicles are safer and fairer. This means addressing both the safety-related and traffic-related concerns, and tackling the antisocial and nuisance behaviour of certain pedicab operators and drivers.
Amendment 5, which attempts to set objectives to which the Secretary of State must have regard when issuing statutory guidance, shares the Government’s objectives. However, this has been tabled in response to the Government’s Amendment 4, which provides the Secretary of State with the option of issuing statutory guidance to Transport for London relating to the exercise of its functions and the pedicab regulations. This provides clear parameters for the scope of any statutory guidance and therefore Amendment 5 is not necessary, as the matters it covers are addressed by provisions in the Bill. In addition, I note that prescribing in detail what the Secretary of State must consider when issuing guidance could have the effect of inadvertently excluding from the scope of the guidance matters which have not been specifically listed. For this reason, a general approach is considered preferable.
I will highlight some of the relevant provisions in the Bill. Clause 2(5) covers fares, including what fares may be charged and how passengers are notified of these. Clause 2(6) covers a wide range of issues relating to the operation of London’s pedicabs. This includes safety, the quality and roadworthiness of pedicabs, the working conditions of drivers and their conduct. Clause 2(7) gives Transport for London the power to place limitations on where and when pedicabs can operate, and Transport for London has already confirmed it will need to give proper consideration to the matter of pedicab ranks, taking into account the needs of pedicab drivers, passengers and other road users. Clause 3 sets out the enforcement mechanisms available to Transport for London and includes details of penalties.
A couple of points were raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about identification of the pedicabs. That really will be a matter for Transport for London, however it intends to license them. I can think of various ways it could do it; I am sure he could as well but it will be a matter for Transport for London. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, regarding the need to consult, that is written into the Bill, most certainly, and I feel quite sure that cycling organisations will be included in that. I think that more or less covers everything apart from the point from the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. On that, we can confirm that this is solely Transport for London’s responsibility.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Guidance(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to Transport for London about the exercise of their functions under pedicab regulations.(2) The guidance may, in particular, include guidance about how those functions may be exercised so as to protect children, and vulnerable individuals who are 18 or over, from harm.(3) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section.(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued under this section, and any revision of it, to be published.(5) Transport for London, and any person authorised by them to carry out functions under pedicab regulations on their behalf, must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when exercising their functions under the regulations.(6) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult whoever the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member's explanatory statement
This clause allows the Secretary of State to give guidance to TfL about the exercise of functions under pedicab regulations. Subsection (5) requires TfL, and those authorised by TfL to exercise functions under the regulations, to have regard to the guidance when exercising functions under the regulations.