House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
This morning, two people were charged with offences under the Official Secrets Act 1911. One of those individuals was a parliamentary passholder at the time of the alleged offences. This matter is now sub judice and, under the terms of the House’s resolution on matters of sub judice, Members should not refer to it in the Chamber. I know that hon. and right hon. Members will understand how important it is that we do not say anything in this place that might prejudice a criminal trial relating to a matter of national security.
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
The Renters (Reform) Bill will have its Report stage on Wednesday 24 April. The Bill abolishes section 21 evictions, moves the sector to a system of periodic tenancies and introduces a private rented sector property portal and ombudsman, improving the system for responsible tenants and good-faith landlords.
Fleur Anderson
Ministers first promised to end no-fault evictions five years ago. Since then, 85,000 households have been threatened with no-fault evictions, including a constant stream of residents in Putney. Does the Minister not agree that that was ample time to implement the necessary improvements and that the delay has caused immense suffering to people in the private rented sector?
Jacob Young
I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to abolish section 21 evictions as soon as possible. When it comes to the Bill, we published the White Paper in 2022, we published the Bill in 2023 and we are bringing forward the Report stage on Wednesday.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
In 2019, the UK Government announced plans to outlaw no-fault eviction notices. However, just last week, the housing charity Shelter revealed that almost 1 million renters in England have been served no-fault eviction notices since that announcement. While the Government seem to be unable to get the rental reform agenda past their Conservative Back Benchers, the Scottish Parliament banned no-fault evictions back in 2017. Does the Minister agree that that is yet another example of the Scottish Parliament delivering for the people while Westminster dysfunction only lets them down?
Jacob Young
As I said to the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), we are abolishing section 21 evictions. The Bill will return to the House on Wednesday.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
Cornwall is one of the most beautiful areas of the country, second only to Dorset. [Interruption.] Thank you. It has the longest county coastline in England and, as such, its council faces unique challenges in delivering services. The Government are committed to reforming the local government funding landscape in the next Parliament to deliver simpler, fairer and longer settlements. As part of that process, the Government have previously publicly announced that they are exploring options for specific formulae for flooding and coastal erosion. We will engage councils about those options as reform progresses.
Steve Double
The Government have already accepted the additional cost of delivering services in rural areas through the rural services delivery grant, but they have not yet accepted those additional costs for coastal areas. Would the Minister consider establishing a coastal services delivery grant to ensure that coastal regions such as Cornwall, which as he said has the longest—and most beautiful—coastline in the country, get the funding that they need?
Simon Hoare
Second most beautiful, I remind my hon. Friend. He makes an important point, representing as he does his constituents and the wider county of Cornwall, and an interesting suggestion. Strong points sit behind his argument. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss that further, but he makes good points and gives me food for thought.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The cost of delivering services in Somerset is rising, with care costs rising by 47% between 2022 and 2023, yet urban councils receive about 38% more Government funding spending power per head than rural councils. What steps is the Department taking to address that inequality and help rural councils to deliver vital public services?
Simon Hoare
As the hon. Lady will know, the rural services delivery grant tries to reflect that as well, but if only the Lib Dem leadership of her council had got on—as Dorset did—and delivered the benefits of going unitary, rather than fiddling while Rome burns, her situation might be a little better.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Our Mayors play a powerful role in driving economic growth, improving public services and giving local areas a powerful voice on the national stage. I met all the Mayors as a group before Christmas, as well as Mayor Brabin, as chair of UK Mayors this year, and a number of Mayors on an individual basis. I look forward to meeting and working closely with all the Mayors, collectively and individually, after the May elections, including the three new Mayors who will be elected for the East Midlands, the North-East Combined Authority, and York and North Yorkshire.
James Morris
Since he was first elected in 2017, Andy Street has delivered £10 billion of new investment to the west midlands region, more housing—particularly on brownfield land—and much-needed investment in transport infrastructure across the region. Does the Secretary of State agree that, when voters go to the polls next week, they should support Andy Street to continue that track record of delivery for the west midlands?
Michael Gove
I agree with my hon. Friend. Andy Street has been outstanding at delivering jobs and more homes in the west midlands than in any other region, according to housing targets. He has done so despite the failure of Birmingham City Council, which was driven into bankruptcy by Labour.
Karl MᶜCartney
Can my right hon. Friend further update colleagues and my constituents on the progress of the Greater Lincolnshire devolution deal, following the deals approved at upper tier council level earlier this year?
Michael Gove
We have been consulting and we have listened, and we will have to wait until after 2 May to say more. I am looking forward to working with my hon. Friend to make Lincolnshire great again.
Dan Jarvis
Given that after 2 May there will be 12 metro Mayors directly representing 27 million people in England, does the Secretary of State think that there should be a dedicated formal structure that will enable the metro Mayors to work more effectively with Whitehall Government, rather than the somewhat ad hoc structures that are currently in place?
Michael Gove
That is a fair point. The ad hoc structures that the hon. Gentleman described work well. All the existing Mayors work well together, and all party politics aside, it has been instructive to see the kind words that Andy Burnham has directed towards Andy Street and vice versa. Now that the mayoral model, which has worked overall with one or two slight bumps in the road, has reached a level of maturity, his point is very fair.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
Voters in the upcoming North Yorkshire mayoral election are facing significant economic hardship and deserve to know that their money is being spent responsibly. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that one candidate in the North Yorkshire mayoral race has made over £300 million of unfunded spending commitments for the county? Could central Government perhaps provide an assessment of the economic impact of such spending commitments?
Michael Gove
It is striking that the Conservative candidate in North Yorkshire is the only one who has a plan for growth, and a long-term plan for York and North Yorkshire’s economy. When it comes to value for money for our Mayors, I should point out that the Conservative Mayors for Tees Valley and for the West Midlands, Ben Houchen and Andy Street, levy not a penny in extra mayoral taxation, unlike the Labour Mayor in London, whose spendthrift ways will see him thrown out on 2 May.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Despite that love-in, as the Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street has over-promised and under-delivered. Almost 70% of devolved housing funds have not been used, and he has done nothing to tackle rogue landlords. The mayoral model can work, and Sadiq Khan’s affordable housebuilding in London is evidence of that. When did the Secretary of State last meet Andy Street, and did he raise those failures with him?
Michael Gove
I talk to Andy Street constantly because he is a model of what a strong Mayor should be. The right hon. Lady talks about housing. There are housing targets set at a regional level—which Mayor missed them by most? Sadiq Khan in London. Which Mayor has exceeded those targets? Andy Street in the west midlands. Sadiq Khan has failed on housing, failed on crime and failed on transport, and he will be kicked out on 2 May.
Angela Rayner
Roll on a general election. Sadiq Khan has been building a better London for everyone. If the right hon. Gentleman wants more evidence of Mayors working, he should look up north: Tracy Brabin, Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham have been bringing transport services back under public control, giving better value for money. In the Tees Valley, we see the opposite. The review into Lord Houchen’s mishandling of Teesworks found
“the principles of spending public money are not being consistently observed.”
So why will the Secretary of State not give the National Audit Office the chance to investigate?
Michael Gove
I am sure the right hon. Lady is very, very keen that all sorts of matters are investigated properly by independent figures who can be trusted, but in the Tees Valley Ben Houchen has done more than any other Metro Mayor to bring jobs and investment into his region. The thousands of jobs created in Teesworks stand in stark contrast to Labour’s failure, from London to Liverpool, to bring in the jobs required. Andy Street, I should reinforce, is the single most successful Mayor in the country. That is why both Andy and Ben will be re-elected on 2 May, alongside Conservative Mayors in York and North Yorkshire, the East Midlands and, of course, London.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
No qualifying leaseholder in a building above 11 metres in England will be liable for cladding remediation costs. Where we are able to do so and where they still exist, we are making those who cause these issues pay to resolve them.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
In my constituency, residents are asking for transparency in their service charges. They are fearful that they are being charged for surveys for fire remediation work, which is the responsibility of the developer and not the people who live in the flats and who are not the cause of those problems. What will the Government do for people in Master Gunner Place or Grove Place in my constituency, where people are asking questions but not getting answers on why they are paying these excessive charges? In one case, there was a 107% increase in the service charge. The Government are making all the right noises, but I do not see much result at the sharp end for my constituents.
Lee Rowley
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely vital there is transparency in how, when and why leaseholders are being charged. That is why we have done one thing and been doing another thing in the past few weeks alone. Last week, on the new building safety approach for high-rise buildings, we were very clear in a joint letter about highlighting the importance of temperate remuneration and cost. Secondly, we need to continue to bring forward the reforms in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, which will see a transformation in transparency on service charges. The Government brought that Bill forward and it will come through as soon as the other place has concluded its observations.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister has done good work in protecting leaseholders and renters from remediation costs above 11 metres. As a leaseholder myself, I am a bit baffled as to why people are not protected when fire remediation measures are necessary below 11 metres. I would be grateful if he could explain the Government’s reasoning.
Lee Rowley
When the Building Safety Act 2022, which put in place the differentiation, was going through, we were very clear and asked colleagues, on the Floor of the House, for any examples of where there were potential issues below 11 metres. If my right hon. Friend or any other Member has an issue, I would be very keen to hear from them. The reality is that, over the past two years nearly, we have received only 160 potential issues. Of those, we can count on one hand where there has been a problem. We are working with each of those three buildings to make the progress we need to make.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Select Committee welcomed the more than £2 billion provided through the building safety fund to private leaseholders with regard to remediation due to fire safety works. On the other hand, social housing providers received only £200 million, which is about 10% of the amount going to private leaseholders. How can it possibly be fair that in a block of flats a private leaseholder gets their remediation costs paid, but in the same flat next door a social housing tenant has to pay for the total cost out of their rent? That simply is not fair. Ministers have accepted the unfairness in the past. When will they do something about it?
Lee Rowley
As my constituency neighbour recognises, there is, rightly, a substantial amount of taxpayer subsidy for remediation. We are trying to ensure that that taxpayer subsidy is then clawed back from those responsible for the problems in the first place. Where there are challenges and issues with registered providers, we are very happy to talk to them. We have done that and we have made changes where necessary.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Following a fire last summer, timber and unplasticized polyvinyl chloride cladding on 586 homes in the borough of Barnet was identified as needing remediation. A number of those homes are in my constituency. Homeowners are facing bills of £23,000. Will the Government help them with those bills?
Lee Rowley
This important issue is very much on our radar, and one that we are working through. I had meetings about it only a few days ago, and I continue to do so. Perhaps I could update my right hon. Friend separately outside the Chamber with further information about our proposed approach.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Soaring service charges are placing an intolerable financial strain on leaseholders and those with shared ownership across the country. Among the main drivers of the eye-watering demands with which many have been served over recent months are staggering rises in buildings insurance premiums and the passing on of significant costs relating to the functioning of the new building safety regime. Given that many leaseholders are being pushed to the very limits of what they can afford, do the Government now accept that the service charge transparency provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill—and pleading with freeholders to take a temperate approach—are not enough, and that Ministers should explore with urgency what further measures could be included to protect leaseholders better from unreasonable charges and give them more control over their buildings?
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman is aware that our substantial reform package sets out clearly and transparently the changes that are being introduced and what people are expected to pay. It could not be clearer than it is in the legislation, which is one of my reasons for wanting it to proceed as quickly as possible. When there are issues, we are keen to look at them and, where we can, take action, but the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is designed to improve transparency and reduce problems, and I am sure that it will do that once it has completed its passage here and in the other place.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
At the end of March 2024, 110 local planning authorities—a third of the total—had adopted a local plan in the past five years, while 291 had plans that were more than five years old. Of those, more than half are making progress towards updating their plans. The Government have made it clear that authorities should continue to update their plans because that is the best way to deliver development that is in the interests of local communities.
Dr Evans
My Liberal Democrat-run local council is one of those without an up-to-date local plan. In fact, it has now delayed its plan until 2026, which means that places such as Burbage have housing without full protection. That puts pressure on our GP services, our school places and even our roads. What more can the Government do to persuade Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council to ensure that its plan is established and updated so that my residents have the required protections?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend has raised this matter in the Chamber before, and it is a great example of why it is so important that Bosworth has this Conservative Member of Parliament to highlight the challenges and failures of the Liberal Democrat council. Ultimately, the Government will not hesitate to take action against councils that are not fulfilling their obligations. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done so over the past few months, and we will continue to do so, because we expect councils to do their job and put their plans in place. When Liberal Democrat councils fail to do that, we will call them out.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York has one of the worst housing crises in the country, yet we have not had a local plan to restrain developers for 68 years. Why has it taken this Tory Government more than 14 years to deliver a local plan for York?
Lee Rowley
I am relatively clear that the Labour party has been in charge of York for a substantial proportion of the last 14 years. If the hon. Lady wants an answer to her question about why there is no local plan, she should look to her own party.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
To help local authorities finalise their local plans, my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues have made significant changes to the planning rules. As a result, Wiltshire has cut its house building by 9,000, North Somerset has reduced its house building plans by 29%, and Three Rivers and others are doing likewise, to ensure that local plans better reflect their communities. Does my hon. Friend expect all local authorities to consider whether the new rules apply in their communities?
Lee Rowley
It is vital for local councils to follow what is in the national planning policy framework. We know that where local plans are in place councils build more houses, but, most important, they build more houses in the right places, so that communities can be confident that they are being built where they are needed.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The problem with the Government’s developer-led approach to planning is that it means that we see houses built for demand, but not for local need. In a community such as the Lake District, developers will sell anything they can build, but will it meet the need of local communities? Often it will not. Will the Minister ensure that local authorities and national parks putting together local plans are allowed to designate land specifically and exclusively for genuinely affordable housing so that they can say no to the houses we do not need and yes to the ones we do?
Lee Rowley
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the planning system has a substantial amount of flexibility—it is one of the frustrations—to ensure that local councils do the right thing. Where they do the right thing, they should be celebrated; where they do not, we should criticise them and hope that they are thrown out. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing against developer-led planning—capitalism, as it is otherwise known—that is a very interesting place for liberalism in this country to go.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
Community ownership can boost local connections and pride of place, and bolster resilience. So far, we have awarded about £103 million to 333 projects across the UK. We are working with an external evaluation partner on an evaluation of the fund. We are already seeing some great examples of COF projects making a real difference to their communities, such as Grow the Glens in Northern Ireland and East Boldre community stores in the south-east of England.
Dr Davies
There have already been three worthy beneficiaries of the community ownership fund in my constituency: the village shop in Llandyrnog; the Salusbury Arms in Tremeirchion, which the Minister has visited; and Rhyl football club, which hopes to secure the future of its ground, Belle Vue. His Department has been very helpful throughout, but what further advice and guidance can be provided for applicants in future rounds?
Jacob Young
I enjoyed visiting the Salusbury Arms with my hon. Friend and raising a glass to the community there. Ahead of round 4, we launched a brand-new expression of interest process, which provides interested applicants with an outcome within minutes. To support applicants at the fourth stage, we have also updated the prospectus and other guidance on gov.uk. We want to help as many communities as possible to benefit from the fund, spreading the benefits of levelling up nationwide.
Simon Baynes
Does the Minister agree that the recent grant of £452,700 to the Owain Glyndŵr hotel in Corwen, in Clwyd South, is a wonderful example of the hugely beneficial impact of the community ownership fund on local communities? The grant will enable this much-loved hotel to play a central role in the town again, and to benefit from the reopening of Corwen station and the other projects in Corwen arising from my Clwyd South levelling-up fund.
Jacob Young
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that exciting project, which seeks to secure the future of the Owain Glyndŵr hotel and develop it into a community social hub showcasing the life and history of the area. I agree that the project is a great example of what the community ownership fund seeks to do across our United Kingdom. The fund not only safeguards priceless and much-loved local assets, but supports ambition and builds opportunity in local areas. I will be visiting north Wales in the very near future and will test my diary to see whether it is possible to swing by and say, “Da iawn.”
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned pubs that have been rescued and secured for the community, but where historic local pubs, which were at one time hubs of the community, have been wrecked by absentee owners and therefore require capital investment, does he envisage the funding being used in that regard as well?
Jacob Young
The fund is open to community groups, charities, and town and parish councils. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that the pub to which he refers would be eligible, but I am more than happy to meet him following this session to get further details.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I know you know that there could not possibly be a better project to receive funding from the Government than the Rhondda tunnel, which would connect Blaencwm and Blaengwynfi—I am very happy to dangle all the Ministers down the hole and into the tunnel, if they ever want to come and see it. I know the Secretary of State knows all about it, because I had two meetings with him about it several years ago. I have met lots of Ministers who have privately been very supportive and told me to apply for this, that or the other fund, but not a single penny has yet transpired. An official has recently told Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council that it should make a specific exemption for an application for money. Is that still a possibility, to ensure that the Rhondda tunnel comes to pass?
Jacob Young
I do not think that the community ownership fund is the appropriate fund. As I have just said to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), the community ownership fund is open to charities, to community groups and to town and parish councils, but with regard to the hon. Gentleman’s tunnel project, I would be more than happy to meet him and identify what funding opportunities are available.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
As part of their town investment plan, places were required to consult extensively with local communities and to evidence how this feedback shaped their plan. The impact of the towns fund on local communities is also a crucial part of the towns fund impact evaluation, to be published in early 2026.
James Wild
One success of the towns fund is the breadth of projects, which in King’s Lynn include Shakespeare’s St George’s guildhall, a new community library and adult skills centre and a school of nursing studies. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the very welcome extra £20 million through the long-term plan for towns that Lynn has just been awarded can be used to complement those schemes as well as to secure other investment into the area?
Jacob Young
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to levelling up in King’s Lynn and across Norfolk. Our long-term plan for towns puts power back into the hands of local people. Each town must set up a new town board, comprised of local community representatives and the Members of Parliament for the respective area, who are responsible for developing the long-term plan for their area, underpinned by evidence of extensive community engagement. This plan can include the regeneration projects that my hon. Friend has mentioned, if that is considered a local priority. I look forward to working with him and to seeing the plans when they are finally brought forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. He will recall that I asked some time ago about the Ards and North Down Council’s Whitespots project—a historical project for tourism that relates to the second world war and also to the history of mining in the area. The Minister said that when the Northern Ireland Assembly was up and running, he would be keen to ensure that the project could take place. Can he confirm that the moneys necessary for the project are there, and will he ensure that he, as Minister, does everything he can to make it happen?
Jacob Young
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks, but I can say that the £30 million that was set aside for Northern Ireland in round 3 of the levelling-up fund has been given to the Northern Ireland Executive as part of the Executive reformation fund. I was in Northern Ireland over the recess, where we were celebrating more than £435 million of levelling-up funding going to Northern Ireland since 2019.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is now approaching five years since the towns fund was launched, promising £3.6 billion of investment to level up the country. Most of it remains unspent, and the cross-party Public Accounts Committee has said that the Department for Levelling Up could not
“give any compelling examples of what had been delivered so far”.
That is a damning assessment of this five years of the fund, never mind after 14 years in power—so, Minister, why are this Government such a failure?
Jacob Young
I think that is quite poor, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman’s constituency has itself benefited from £11.1 million of UK shared prosperity funding and £13.4 million from the levelling up fund. Next to him I see the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), whose constituency has benefited from £24.4 million from the towns fund. Oldham is also the recipient of £10.8 million from the future high streets fund. We are levelling up right across the country, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, we make continuous assessment with regard to the adequacy of funding. In this financial year we have made £64.7 billion available to local government in England, an above-inflation increase for local authorities as their real-terms increase in core spending power is now up to £4.5 billion or 7.5% in cash terms. That includes the additional measures for local authorities, worth £600 million, that we announced on 25 January, having listened to the views of local government, to her views when she engaged in the consultation and to the views of hon. and right hon. Friends across Shropshire.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for his answer, but we have seen Shropshire Council make £50 million of cuts this year, and we are told that there will be £60 million of cuts next year to avoid a section 144 notice. Local residents are particularly concerned about the potential closure of recycling centres and a likely increase in fly-tipping across our beautiful countryside. Does the Minister agree that rural councils are in danger of delivering nothing more than statutory services if things continue? Will he consider adjusting the way that funding is allocated so that rural councils are given an amount that reflects the cost of delivering services in their area?
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady is right to point to the need to review the formula, which is a commitment for the next Parliament. She will probably be aware—I hope she is—of the £8.9 million extra that Shropshire Council received this year through the rural services delivery grant in order to deliver those sorts of services. Do I think rural councils have to reduce to statutory services alone? No. All my engagement with the sector points to a vibrancy and a commitment to innovation, shaping places and improving the lives of people up and down the country, including in Shropshire.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Trevor from the Drighlington memory café—Trevor has been ably supported by our fantastic Morley town mayor—Nicola from the Morley grief group, Dan from WF3 Kindness and Christine from the veterans luncheon club are just some of the amazing volunteers and community groups in my area who give up their time to help local people. Will the Minister join me in thanking and paying tribute to the unsung heroes in our communities across the country?
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should never lose an opportunity to trumpet our thanks to people like Trevor, Christine and all our volunteers up and down the country who make such a difference to people’s lives. They work alongside councils and other bodies to make life better and happier, and to make places more pleasant to live. I thank them unreservedly.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Funding cuts are adding to the clear pressures on local government around the country. One such example is developers who come armed with substantial funds and resources to contest their planning applications. Locally, Warwick District Council had an application just last week that the planning committee was essentially advised to allow because of a fear of not having the financial resources to contest it. I have written to the Secretary of State about this issue. Should we be extremely concerned about it nationally?
Simon Hoare
Each planning authority has a quasi-judicial role to adjudge planning applications against national and local plans, and I have every confidence that planning committees up and down the country do that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer to a 7.5% cash-terms increase for local government in this financial year as a cut, that is a very eccentric definition even for a Labour Member.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Ministers are aware that Maldon District Council was allocated £5 million of levelling-up funding. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the council and I have been informed that the funding must be spent on cultural projects, despite our having a local plan that will see the closure of St Peter’s Hospital. We want the money to be spent on levelling up health and wellbeing, which is one of the five principles of levelling up. Will Ministers urgently review all our representations so that we can work at pace to sort out this terrible issue and level up our health situation?
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I know St Peter’s Hospital pretty well from a previous life. The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), has signalled to me that he is aware of the issue, has sympathy with my right hon. Friend and will be happy to meet her in pretty quick time to discuss further details.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Working people are paying the price of the cost of living crisis, but is it not the truth that the Liz Truss mini-Budget did not occur in a vacuum? There is a pattern of the Tories shifting the tax burden on to hard-pressed households. Council tax bills have rocketed by almost £500 since the Tories came to power, on top of which Conservative councils charge residents almost £280 more than their Labour counterparts. As voters go to the polls on 2 May, does the Minister hope that they will somehow forget the council tax bombshell facing them? Or does he expect that more candidates will follow the lead of the west midlands campaign and ditch the toxic Tory brand completely?
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman wins first prize in the brass neck of the afternoon competition; I remind him gently and politely about the situation in Birmingham. It is well known by residents up and down the land that Conservative-led councils are more efficient, deliver greater improvement at pace and are far more focused on delivering for their residents. Colleagues and I will take that proud record to the voters during this local election campaign, and I have every confidence we will triumph in it.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
Our decision-making criteria for the community ownership fund can be found in the published explanatory note on gov.uk. Round 4 window 1 has now closed and will be assessed according to those criteria. Round 4 window 2 will open in the coming weeks.
Mrs Drummond
I was delighted to hear that so many projects have received a large amount of money to take over community centres, heritage buildings, pubs and sporting facilities. The list also includes green spaces, so will the Minister confirm that if a community group wanted to buy part of a chalk stream that is for sale for the benefit of that community, that would be within the scope of the community ownership fund?
Jacob Young
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter. We have funded similar land purchases, but this will be dependent on the factors locally.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
The Government are committed to ending rough sleeping. We published our cross-government strategy “Ending rough sleeping for good” in September 2022, and we are investing an unprecedented £2.4 billion to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping over three years. Rough sleeping levels were 18% lower in 2023 than they were at the peak in 2017 and they were 9% lower than pre-pandemic levels.
Paula Barker
This Government and Department have presided over a litany of failures. The Conservative party has pledged to end rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. I have to disagree with the hon. Lady, because rough sleeping numbers are yet again on the up. Instead of fulfilling their manifesto commitment, the Government have prioritised criminalising the homeless, rather than ending homelessness. Even many Conservative Back Benchers cannot support that, so when will this Department’s leadership grow a backbone and tell their colleagues in the Home Office to shelve the pernicious plans that exist within the Criminal Justice Bill?
Felicity Buchan
This Government are absolutely committed to ending rough sleeping, which is why we are investing £2.4 billion. Importantly, £1.2 billion is going into prevention, so that we prevent homelessness before it happens. I want to address the point about the Criminal Justice Bill. The Government are clear that no one should be criminalised for having nowhere to live. The Bill gives powers to the police and local authorities only where behaviour causes damage, distress, harassment or disruption. Guidance will be issued that makes it clear that outreach and support should be prioritised.
Will Quince
I welcome the fact that the Government are investing £2.4 billion on tackling homelessness and rough sleeping. Notwithstanding what the Minister just said, does she agree that we need to help people off the streets, not risk criminalising them, as is regrettably proposed in part of the Criminal Justice Bill?
Felicity Buchan
I thank my hon. Friend for his words welcoming Government expenditure on tackling rough sleeping and homelessness. The Government are very focused on helping the most vulnerable in our society, who are often rough sleepers. That is a cross-government effort. For instance, I work closely with the Department for Education on care leavers and I work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care on those who have addictions. I reassure my hon. Friend that no one will be criminalised simply for sleeping rough.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
As well as trying to criminalise rough sleepers, put them in jail and give them a hefty fine, it is crystal clear that the Government will not meet their target to end rough sleeping by the end of 2024. Rough sleeping is all too plain to see—as we walk into this place or go to any city or town, we see the tragic consequences of Government policies. Is it not now time for Ministers to do the right thing: end section 21 no-fault evictions for good—no ifs, no buts; no excuses and narratives about the courts—and build the homes for social rent at the scale the country needs? If they do not do that, we will.
Felicity Buchan
We are abolishing section 21 and building affordable homes. Where are affordable homes not being built? In London.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
We are taking significant steps to speed up the planning system. In large infrastructure projects, that is through the nationally significant infrastructure projects action plan and the “Getting Great Britain building again” policy paper. In relation to the TCPA, we are offering greater clarity through the republication of the national planning policy framework, greater consistency through instructing local councils to ensure that they discharge their responsibilities, and greater capacity through additional support for local councils.
Andrew Selous
Can I convey the extreme irritation of two parishes in my constituency that have had five locations for a mobile phone mast turned down? Given that mobile connectivity is now an essential requirement, is it not time that local authorities advised on which technically feasible locations they would be prepared to grant planning permission? Local people could then say where they were happiest for such projects to go, and we would end this stupid cat-and-mouse game that wastes time and means people do not get the connectivity they need.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is right that connectivity is vital in all our communities. It is incumbent upon local councils, including his council in Bedfordshire, to ensure that they are providing the greatest clarity possible for that connectivity and that it is put in place.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
This Government are extremely supportive of efforts to bring together people of different faiths and beliefs. The faith Minister meets regularly with faith leaders to encourage these efforts, and the Department has funded a range of partners, including Near Neighbours and Strengthening Faith Institutions, to organise local level interfaith dialogue.
Kirsten Oswald
I thank the Minister for her answer, but two months ago the Secretary of State announced that he would pull funding from the Inter Faith Network, which is the largest interfaith charity on these islands. It will close next week, after 40 years. It is an astonishing decision by the UK Government to close Britain’s main forum for Jewish-Muslim dialogue now. The Secretary of State could still reverse that very poor decision, but that would have to happen this week. What are the chances of that?
Felicity Buchan
Let me explain what occurred. The closure of the Inter Faith Network is a matter for the Inter Faith Network, as an independent charity; it is not a matter for Government. We have always made it very clear to all charities that receive Government funding that they need to have sustainable sources of other funding. In my response to the urgent question about a month ago, I made clear the reasons for the closure. To repeat, the decision to withdraw the funding was taken because of the appointment of a member of the Muslim Council of Britain as a trustee. Governments of various different hues have decided that they will not deal with the Muslim Council of Britain.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
SHiFT is an inspirational charity run by a visionary social entrepreneur, Sophie Humphreys. It works in order to ensure that young people at risk of engaging with the criminal justice system are diverted to better outcomes. On Thursday, two new SHiFT interventions will open in Middlesbrough and in Redcar and Cleveland, with the support of £3.9 million from my Department. That is proof that when it comes to intervening early to give young people a better life, it is a Conservative Government and a Conservative Mayor in Tees Valley who are delivering for the most vulnerable.
Patricia Gibson
The levelling-up funding awarded to my constituency three years ago for the upgrade of the B714 has still not been delivered. However, when I have raised concerns that the funding is insufficient for the upgrade, given inflationary pressures, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up told me to raise the matter with the Department for Transport, which in turn referred me back to the Secretary of State. Can I have an explanation from the Secretary of State as to how approved projects can proceed as envisaged, even if funding is delivered, when inflation is not factored into the funding?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. I can offer her, and also the Member of the Scottish Parliament for North Ayrshire and North Ayrshire Council, a meeting with me, so that we can deliver this project, because I know that she is absolutely committed to ensuring that the levelling-up fund—UK Government money—is spent effectively in her constituency. That is proof that we work better together.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Michael Gove
Diolch. I am looking forward more than I can say to visiting Ynys Môn. This is a fantastic example of a brilliant Conservative MP securing funding for Wales, for the Welsh language, for Welsh jobs and for Welsh investment. May I say that Anglesey has never flourished in the way it is now flourishing with her as its MP?
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
We know that the Tories continually prioritise their banker mates over the rest of the country. An example of that was in the spring Budget when the Chancellor announced levelling-up funding for Canary Wharf—an area that is home to some of the world’s biggest banks—which will receive more that £16,000 per head in funding commitments compared with Scotland. With the Leader of the Opposition and his Labour party backing Tory tax and spending plans and U-turning on capping bankers’ bonuses, does the Secretary of State agree that the Labour party offers no real alternative for the people of Scotland?
Michael Gove
I think SNP press releases have suffered recently as a result of the travails that the chief executive of that party has been suffering, but as SNP press releases go, that has to be one of the weakest I have ever heard in this House. The Scottish Government are closing VisitScotland centres, they cannot deliver ferries, Scotland is plunging down the educational league tables, and, when it comes to delivering services in Scotland, theatres, community centres and councils are coming to us for cash. The Scottish Government are a disaster, and all the hon. Lady can do is repeat the failed talking points—
Mr Speaker
Order. Secretary of State, that is completely outrageous, after I had just said that we are on topicals. Please do not take advantage of your own Members. It is not fair to them and it is not fair to the rest of the Chamber.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
My hon. Friend has been a long-standing campaigner for balance within coastal communities. I know that both she and colleagues from the south-west and elsewhere are very keen to see some of the reforms that the Government are introducing on short-term lets and the changes to the planning system.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Michael Gove
Our Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is making great progress in the House of Lords. It is being debated today and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman supporting it when it comes back here and gets on to the statute book.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
This is a tremendously serious issue. My Department and other Government Departments, led by the Security Minister in the Home Office, are spending a huge amount of time, effort and resource in ensuring the safety of candidates; the safety, security and robustness of the process; and that all those who wish to take part in our democratic functions, in whichever fora they happen to manifest themselves, can do so safely and securely. That is a very firm commitment. The hon. Member will know that we are dealing with that as a serious matter.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Michael Gove
That is spot on. It is Andy Street and Conservative councils in Walsall, Dudley and Solihull that are delivering houses and protecting the green belt. That is better for economic growth, better for the environment, and better than bankrupt Labour Birmingham.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
The Government are very focused on temporary accommodation. That is why we are investing £2.4 billion, of which £1.2 billion is specifically for the homelessness prevention grant. In the last Budget, we increased the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile. That is worth £1.2 billion. We have also increased the local authority housing fund.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Please can my right hon. Friend set out what the Government are doing to ensure that more young people can live in their own home as early as possible in their adult lives, and specifically whether greater consideration can be given to mechanisms that result in only one affordable payment being made a month, rather than one mortgage payment and one rental payment?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need to look to reform both the mortgage market and our planning system. We will bring forward further steps on both in the coming weeks.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Michael Gove
I know how important it is to deliver affordable homes in the Lake district, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We will take a close look at the examples he cites, to ensure that we are not killing the geese that lay the golden eggs.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Tourism is vital to Bournemouth’s economy, and half our visitors come by car. A few choose to park on double yellow lines for the day, as the parking penalty is only £35, unlike here in London where it is £65, increasing to £130 if not paid promptly. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be immensely helpful, and would ensure that emergency vehicle access is not blocked, were Bournemouth allowed to operate the same penalties as we have in London?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is right: antisocial parking is a blight outside London, and we need to review extending the powers that are currently exercised in London to other parts of the country.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Michael Gove
Fair point. Frank Dobson said that he was going to reform the leasehold system in 1995. We are doing it now. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, which the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), is piloting, will bring relief to leaseholders.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
A raft of Labour councillors in Kirklees have resigned from their party, with one of them describing their leadership as a “toxic swamp,” so it will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend that the local Conservative campaign to split Kirklees and get better leadership and accountability is really gathering momentum. Does he agree that leadership needs to be locally driven, and that the best way to achieve that is to vote for more Conservative councillors on 2 May—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is not fair. Just tell me which questions you don’t want, and it will make my job easier.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need change in Kirklees. The best way in which people can demonstrate their desire for change and the reconfiguration of Kirklees is by voting Conservative on 2 May.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Today is Earth Day. The Government introduced the zero carbon homes standard and the code for sustainable homes and then scrapped them. The future homes standard now has centralised support, but local authorities such as Leeds want to go above planning policy to reach higher standards. Why will the Secretary of State not allow Leeds to build even better zero carbon homes?
Michael Gove
We have a good relationship with Leeds City Council, and indeed with its leader and chief executive, so let me investigate.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Ben Houchen has done a remarkable job of saving our airport, overseeing the redevelopment of Teesworks, and securing new jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given Ben’s record of delivering and the promise of more, voters should back him on 2 May?
Michael Gove
It is an easy one! You are right, Mr Speaker: everyone should back Ben Houchen—
Mr Speaker
Let me help: it is an easy one for you to answer. Now let us move on.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for his reply to my letter of 21 March. He said that a short paper on the topic of the Union was prepared by officials and presented to the UK Government in July 2020. However, a media report at the time suggested that an employee of Hanbury Strategy had provided data and helped to prepare that paper for the Cabinet. Was public money used for the insights that Hanbury Strategy prepared for that paper, and when will the public get to see them?
Michael Gove
Once again, I have to admire the sheer chutzpah of Scottish National party Members talking about the misappropriation of cash. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Scottish Government’s budget has led to the closure of 25 tourist information centres and a variety of other ventures that are trying to get investment into Scotland, whereas the UK Government are providing investment in Scotland—proving once again that we are better together.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
My constituents are increasingly concerned about the number of planning applications being approved—particularly in rural areas—when the infrastructure and public services quite evidently cannot cope with the demand. What plans do Ministers have to ensure that local residents have more say in future?
Michael Gove
The new national planning policy framework, as enacted by this Front-Bench team, will ensure that local voices determine the shape of local communities.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
My constituents who live on the Abbottsmoor estate in Port Talbot are locked into paying unjustified and extortionate ground rent fees and charges for poor maintenance. Will the Secretary of State commit to strengthening the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill by ensuring that all leaseholders have the right to vary their lease, setting ground rents to a peppercorn, ensuring that premiums are as cheap as possible, regulating managing agents, and abolishing forfeiture?
Michael Gove
I always listen with respect to arguments made by a Kinnock, and in this case, I think the hon. Gentleman is broadly—broadly—in the right territory.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
What steps are being taken to ensure that planning authorities and, more importantly, the Planning Inspectorate are utilising the powers in the new NPPF to protect land use in food production?
Michael Gove
The NPPF could not be clearer about that. The new chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate is very aware of how important it is to ensure that there is public confidence in the NPPF.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
My constituency has some of the highest levels of health inequalities in the country, which have been further increased by the cost of living crisis and the continual cuts to our council budgets. If the Government are serious about levelling up, why was Bradford East’s bid to reduce health inequalities knocked back?
Michael Gove
The Labour leadership in Bradford Council must look to its performance. I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the Labour leaderships in Leeds and in Bradford—Bradford could learn a lot from what Leeds has done. This is not a party political point; it is a point about failure specifically in Bradford.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
My constituents have significant concerns about crime and antisocial behaviour in the town centre. Public space protection orders can play an important role, but the local Labour council refuses to use the powers it has. We have groups of men drinking alcohol in the middle of the town centre, and the council does nothing. Does the Secretary of State agree that, yet again, Ipswich Labour should step up?
Michael Gove
It is sad, but not surprising, that Labour in Ipswich has failed again. That is why it is so important that people vote Conservative at the police and crime commissioner elections on 2 May. There are few more effective scourges of crime than the Conservative police and crime commissioner, Tim Passmore, and my hon. Friend, who does such a brilliant job in Ipswich.
Sudan: Government Response
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Deputy Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the crisis in Sudan.
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question.
Britain is pursuing all diplomatic avenues to press the warring parties into a permanent ceasefire, allow unrestricted humanitarian access, protect civilians, and commit to a sustained and meaningful peace process. I visited eastern Chad last month, where I met with refugees who had lost everything and were fleeing conflict and hunger. I was greatly moved by what I saw, and reaffirmed Britain’s steadfast commitment to the people of Sudan. Some 88% of those crossing the border were women and children.
On Monday, to mark one year of brutal conflict in Sudan, Britain announced its third raft of sanctions, targeting two entities linked to the Rapid Support Forces and one entity linked to the Sudanese armed forces. On the same day, my noble Friend Lord Benyon represented the UK at the Paris humanitarian pledging conference for Sudan and its neighbours. On behalf of the UK, he pledged £89 million, a near-doubling of UK overseas development aid for Sudan from the previous year. He delivered a strong message with international partners, which—along with Britain’s sanctions—sends a clear signal to the warring parties that they must stop fighting and meaningfully engage in the peace process.
We continue to lead at the United Nations Security Council, where we hold the pen on Sudan. On 8 March, the UN Security Council adopted a UK-drafted Ramadan ceasefire resolution calling for immediate cessation of hostilities. On 20 March, we warned that obstruction of humanitarian access by the SAF and RSF is resulting in the starvation of the Sudanese people. Over the past year, Britain has provided £42.6 million in humanitarian aid to support people in Sudan, including £12.2 million to UNICEF for nutrition activities and approximately £23 million to the Sudan Humanitarian Fund for multi-sector response, including a high proportion of food security interventions.
Britain has also helped those fleeing to neighbouring countries: last year, we provided £7.75 million to support new and existing Sudanese refugees in South Sudan, and £15 million to Chad. We continue to advocate for a return to a civilian-led Government, and we urge all Sudanese stakeholders to engage in an inclusive dialogue that will deliver the peace and stability that the Sudanese people deserve.
Ms Brown
I am grateful for that answer.
The sheer horror unleashed by the generals’ war in Sudan is appalling to recount. We are approaching 9 million people forcibly displaced, with evidence of systematic sexual violence and heinous mass atrocities in Darfur and elsewhere. Some 3.5 million Sudanese children under the age of five are acutely malnourished, and massive famine is now seen as almost inevitable. Some models project up to a million deaths. As the UN Secretary-General said, this is
“a war…on the Sudanese people”,
and it must end with an immediate ceasefire.
I strongly welcome the sanctions from last week and the additional humanitarian funding, but is there going to be a dedicated high-level Sudan envoy, and what conversations are Ministers having with those who continue to fund and enable this war, because greater co-ordination has to be the priority? All states must recognise the truly disastrous consequences if Sudan collapses not just for the Sudanese people, but for the entire region.
But there is hope, because through all the horror and the destruction, despite the blocks on humanitarian access, the Sudanese people are still standing together in their own communities. The resistance committees and the emergency rooms are sometimes the sole source of relief, as famine spreads and medical access runs out for the sick and injured, and they are the undaunted spirit and hope of a Sudan free from the generals and their catastrophic war. How can we correct the mistakes of the past and back Sudanese civilians directly?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady very much for the eloquent way in which she has outlined the position in Sudan, and she is absolutely right. On the subject of the Sudan envoy, let me assure her that there is a very strong and very experienced envoy who covers the horn of Africa, and she focuses particularly on Sudan. The hon. Lady eloquently set out the wider effects of Sudan continuing on this path in the region, and I agree with her, and she also made clear the benefits that the emergency rooms, sometimes the only source of relief, are providing.
The hon. Lady asks about the mistakes that have been made in the past in respect of civilian rule. Britain has called—I think from across all parts of this House—for a ceasefire so that the generals take their troops back to barracks and the political space has a chance to advance. She will know that Abdalla Hamdok and Taqaddum, the civil society political grouping, have been working together, supported by Britain, in a conference in Addis Ababa and elsewhere. We are very committed to trying to work with them, so that there is one sensible but broad political offer for Sudan, as and when the chance of a ceasefire and the political track re-engaging takes place.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government have any evidence that they can share with this House of the involvement of major foreign powers in what is happening in this terrible conflict in Sudan?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend will have seen the open-source reporting of various outlets. The point the British Government make on all occasions is that any arms supply into Sudan merely prolongs this conflict, and we urge anyone who is thinking of supplying either side or supplying either side to think very carefully and to desist.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Last week, the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights released a detailed report on the genocide in Darfur. The report describes atrocity crimes—including massacres, sexual violence, the burning of villages and the destruction of key infrastructure—all targeting Darfurians in the region. The authors of the report say:
“Just twenty years after the first genocide…the same perpetrators are committing the same atrocities against the same innocent groups, all while evading accountability.”
Can I ask the Minister whether he has read the report, and is his Department planning to meet the Raoul Wallenberg Centre? What is the Government’s own assessment of the risk of genocide in Darfur, and how are they planning to implement their obligations under the genocide convention? Finally, has a joint analysis of conflict and stability been carried out on the situation in Sudan, and if not, why not? If it has, will he share those findings with the House?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on what is happening in Darfur. He will know that we have funded the Centre for Information Resilience, which investigates attacks on civilians, and is monitoring and keeping records wherever possible, so that—at some point, one day—there can be accountability and no impunity. He will also be aware that the position in Darfur—he asked me this question specifically—bears all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing. I first visited Darfur in 2005, and again in 2006 with the Foreign Secretary. It has been a significant preoccupation of this House, and rightly so. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we are doing everything we can to support the poor and long-suffering people of Darfur in every way we can, but he will equally understand the physical constraints on being able to do that in the way that we would wish.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
This has been described as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in decades, and the war that the world chooses to ignore. Last week, members of the all-party group on Sudan and South Sudan heard from eyewitnesses and aid workers. We heard of 5 million people on the brink of famine, of aid convoys being held at gunpoint, of aid being looted, and of 50 aid workers murdered. The war, the misery, has gone on for a year, and it is getting worse. People want to know what the UK, as the penholder at the UN, is doing to try to shift the dial and bring peace. On behalf of the all-party group, I ask: what pressure are we putting on the United Arab Emirates and Iran to stop them supplying arms? What actions are being taken to enable the aid convoys to move? What is being done to end the culture of impunity? Why have those already indicted for genocide never been held to account, and why will the UK not appoint a dedicated envoy, so we can show that we put all our diplomatic weight behind efforts to find peace?
Mr Mitchell
We always consider whether the issue of the envoy could be boosted, and as I said to my right hon. Friend, we think that the position at the moment is providing maximum effect, but we keep such matters under review. I pay particular tribute to her and the APPG for the work they do. She is entirely right in what she says: the UN issued a white note on 15 March, warning of the risk of conflict-induced famine. At least 21 humanitarian aid workers have been murdered, 8.6 million people are displaced, and nearly 18 million people are suffering acute levels of food insecurity. That is 40% of the population, and among them are 730,000 children who are facing the deadliest form of malnutrition.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
As has been said, almost 25 million people in Sudan are in need of assistance, more than 8 million people have been left displaced, and the lives of 230,000 children and new mothers are at grave risk due to famine. The United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that $2.7 billion is needed to meet the huge humanitarian need in the country. I note from what the Minister said that the UK has doubled the humanitarian aid that it has committed, but does the Minister agree that that still falls far short of the threshold? Ultimately, it will achieve very little if there is not a ceasefire and an end to the fighting, to allow that aid to be distributed safely. What are the UK Government doing, along with our international partners, to ensure that we achieve that immediate and lasting ceasefire sooner rather than later?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a ceasefire is essential, with troops returning to barracks and the opening up of a political track, and that is the central thrust of the British Government’s policy. He acknowledges that we have managed nearly to double aid to £89 million this year. For South Sudan—this, of course, also addresses many of the problems of Sudan—the figure for this financial year is £111 million, which is more than double what it was. That includes multilateral and bilateral spend. The fact that Britain has doubled its contribution gives it a locus, which was well used by my noble friend Lord Benyon last week in Paris at the Sudan conference, to make the point about other countries also supporting, given the desperate plight in which so many in Sudan find themselves.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome this urgent question and the Government’s response. We regularly talk about what is going on in Ukraine and the middle east, but we do not focus on the continent of Africa, or Sudan, which is turning into a failed state. There is every prospect of what is going on in Sudan spilling out into other parts of central Africa and the Sahel. Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary update the House on whether we have any presence in Port Sudan? He talks about peace talks. Egypt has also engaged in those, so can he update the House on the prospect of what is happening bringing the necessary parties together?
Mr Mitchell
In respect of my right hon. Friend’s final point, we are hopeful that the third set of negotiations in Jeddah will take place. The Saudis committed on 15 April to that happening in early May, and we are extremely grateful to the Saudis for that and for inviting the UAE, Egypt, the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development to be part of the negotiations. The former Chairman of the Defence Committee is right about the danger of contagion across the region. We are doing everything we can to support Abdalla Hamdok and the Taqaddum, as I mentioned earlier. In terms of our support within Sudan, the ambassador is currently based in Addis Ababa and is working energetically with all the relevant parties to try to make progress.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Sudanese community in Liverpool, Riverside, will be decidedly underwhelmed by the Minister’s response to this urgent question. He mentioned supporting people moving to neighbouring areas, but he did not mention the Sudanese who have lived, worked and contributed for years to the UK bringing over family members who are fleeing the conflict, or extending student visas or protections for Sudanese asylum seekers. What will it take for the UK to provide a visa programme for Sudanese asylum seekers, similar to the Ukrainian scheme?
Mr Mitchell
The two situations are not analogous. If the Labour party wants to launch a campaign for extra visas and a special scheme matching the one in Ukraine, I look forward to hearing details of it.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
My wife and I spent a wonderful holiday in Sudan a few years ago, and it was wonderful to see the amazing people there, as well as the rich cultural heritage that Sudan has to offer. There are many world heritage sites, such as the pyramids of Meroë—there are more pyramids in Sudan than Egypt—ancient cathedrals, and even Lord Kitchener’s boat. We hear that fighting has spread to some of the world heritage areas. UNESCO is protecting two world heritage areas, Meroë and Gebel Barkal, under the heritage emergency fund, to which the UK Government contribute, but what further work and money can the UK put in to protect this world heritage, bolster UNESCO and protect these ancient and important aspects of our civilisation?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right about the great heritage and deep links, including heritage links, between Britain and Sudan over many years. The truth is that we have to do everything we can, holding the pen on Sudan at the United Nations as we do, to achieve this ceasefire and the reopening of political space. If we can do that, we can focus directly on the points that he makes.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
What discussions has the Minister had with other countries to apply pressure to stop the flow of arms into this conflict, and to try to bring it to an end as soon as possible?
Mr Mitchell
These discussions are taking place in the margins of the United Nations, and at the conference that took place in Paris on Monday last week. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that we need to ensure that arms do not fuel the conflict, and that is why Britain urges everyone to ensure there is no further arming of either party. The arms embargo goes all the way over Darfur, and would be over the whole of Sudan, if the Chinese and Russians were willing to sign up with the rest of us to implementing it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. You have caught me off balance; I was just about to take my diabetic tablets when you called me. I thank the Minister for his answers to the UQ. He will be aware that more than 9,000 people have been killed, and nearly 6 million displaced, and Christians are facing persecution. What support are the Government offering to non-governmental organisations on the ground, such as Church missionaries, who seek to help displaced Christians not only feed children, but provide them with a semblance of an education and, most importantly, hope of a future life?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will understand the great difficulties in helping directly on the ground; I know the matter is of great interest, both to him and to the Prime Minister’s envoy for freedom of religion or belief, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). We must continue to find every possible way of supporting the important groups that he mentioned.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw the Minister’s attention to a report on the BBC website, in case he has not read it, by Zeinab Mohammed Salih, a Sudanese journalist. She recalls:
“People have told me of ethnically targeted killings and sexual violence. They remain traumatised, months afterwards.”
The Minister may be aware that months before the war broke out, sexual violence and gender-based violence was being used against women. In June 2023, it was estimated that there were more than 60,000 survivors of conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan, and we continue to see reports of sexual violence. What steps are the Government taking to address that really important issue, and to prevent further cases of violence, and of rape being used as a war weapon?
Mr Mitchell
I am afraid that the hon. Lady is entirely right. We have read these reports and many others with horror. That is one of the reasons why we are supporting the Centre for Information Resilience, so that we can do everything we can to deter there being any question of impunity, but it is extraordinarily difficult. As she rightly said, what is happening in Darfur bears all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The attention paid to the conflict in Sudan does not reflect the enormity of the suffering there, with millions displaced and facing famine, violence and insecurity. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Africa, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) for securing the urgent question. The Minister spoke about the limited arms embargo, such as it is. Is he aware that it is being broken on a grand scale, and that there is a pervasive flow of arms into Sudan? What is he doing to monitor that, and to try to reduce that flow of arms, which is fuelling the conflict?
Mr Mitchell
On the hon. Lady’s second point, I have set out the clear message from the British Government about the supply of arms,. On her first point, she is right that conflicts elsewhere in the world—particularly in Ukraine and Gaza—have to some extent taken attention away from Sudan, and indeed Ethiopia, on which, in Geneva last Tuesday, Britain was leading the effort to raise money to head off a famine. Part of the benefit of the urgent question is that we can make clear the threat, what is happening in Sudan, and what Britain is doing to try to assist.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Sudanese students at Heriot-Watt University in my constituency were desperately worried about their family members in Sudan when I met them last year at the request of the university chaplain. Many of their family members needed help fleeing to neighbouring countries, and others have sought family reunification with British citizens already living here. What are the Government doing to help British citizens to save the lives of their relatives in Sudan?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. and learned Lady will know the steps that Britain took a year ago to help those who were seeking to leave, but since then the vast amount of migration has been across the border into Chad and South Sudan, and indeed into Ethiopia. Britain has contributed £15 million to help those whom I saw near Adré, on the border between Sudan and Chad, at the end of last month. In respect of South Sudan, where there is a significant and increased programme of humanitarian support, we have directly contributed nearly £8 million.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I recently met the community president and secretary general of the Sudanese Community Association of Greater Manchester. We discussed the horrific civil war in Sudan and the desperate need to bring about a peaceful and sustainable end to the conflict. The war may be taking place in Sudan, but it has huge implications for Sudanese communities in Britain, like the one in Manchester. What support is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office providing Sudanese communities in Britain, who are trying to support their loved ones who are fleeing from violence to reach a place of safety?
Mr Mitchell
There is very little we can do until those people reach a place of safety. As I said, many have fled across the border into Chad and South Sudan. We are actively helping those people in the way that I described.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Sudan is experiencing the worst displacement crisis in the world. It is not so much a civil war but a war on civilians, who are losing their homes, livelihoods and lives on a scale that is hard to comprehend. The Sudanese people feel forgotten, so it is vital that both aid and political focus are forthcoming. Will the Minister work with his Home Office colleagues to support Sudanese people in the asylum system, who are beside themselves with worry about family members? Will he better facilitate reunion for those UK citizens who have family among the most affected and who are able to leave?
Mr Mitchell
We will do everything we can to assist. The hon. Lady will understand the constraints we work within, but I will note what she said. If she has any specific cases that she wishes to raise, I hope she will do so.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Given the level of death, despair and starvation, we need an immediate ceasefire in Sudan. Cross-border and cross-line humanitarian aid access is being blocked and impaired by both sides, even though they are, in effect, starving their own people to death. What steps are the Government taking to get the Adré crossing open, and to expose the impact of RSF extortion on humanitarian aid convoys?
Mr Mitchell
I was in Adré when I visited the border between Chad and Sudan. I saw the weight of human misery crossing that border—88% of those crossing were women and children, which shows that the men had either been murdered or gone into hiding. The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the importance of Adré. He is right about the two generals effectively waging war on their own people—starving their own people, as he said. That is why everyone is urging the two generals to desist, get their troops back to barracks and give a chance for a political track to reconvene and re-emerge.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
What assurance can the Minister give the Sudanese community in Newport—who, as others have said, feel that the conflict and its catastrophic consequences have gone largely unseen—that the Government are doing all they can to get aid in through the Adré crossing, and are trying as hard as they can to build consensus among neighbouring and regional states that the war must end?
Mr Mitchell
I hope that today’s urgent question will be of some comfort in respect of what the Government are seeking to do and the role we play at the United Nations—where we are the penholder—and in the Troika, with Norway and the United States, to try to bring this awful crisis to a conclusion.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The information that we have received via al-Jazeera and others about the situation in Sudan is truly horrendous: 8.2 million people have left their homes, 17.7 million are experiencing food shortages, and cholera, measles and other diseases are rife. Unless there is a rapid ceasefire, the planting season simply will not begin, and there will be even greater and deeper hunger, not just in Sudan but in neighbouring countries. Does the Minister have any realistic hope that the combination of the UN and the African Union—and anyone else who can intervene—will bring about a ceasefire to allow, at least, people to return to their homes and to be able to feed themselves?
Mr Mitchell
The former Leader of the Opposition makes the case very clearly. The figures he sets out show the scale of the disaster that has engulfed Sudan. When I was on the border between Chad and Sudan near Adré, I saw for myself the work that was being done by organisations such as the World Food Programme, which Britain strongly supports, but also the International Rescue Committee and Médecins Sans Frontières. The work is going on wherever it can, but it is extremely difficult because of the circumstances he set out.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
What assessment has been made of the potential levels of food insecurity and the level of response needed if the conflict goes on through the summer and disrupts the next planting season?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is entirely right. The World Food Programme told me, when I was in Chad, that it effectively had supplies of food only until the end of May. That is one of the reasons why Britain has increased so substantially its bilateral aid, and why my noble Friend Lord Benyon went to the Paris meeting on Monday last week to make sure that others, too, put their money where their mouth is and supported the desperate situation she described.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
This morning I had the pleasure to meet some brilliant organisations working on behalf of people in Sudan who are desperate to be reunited with family here in the UK. They want answers to two questions. First, given the circumstances people are having to live in, why is it taking over a year for many applications to be decided? Secondly, why do the Government demand that these people make dangerous and illegal cross-border journeys before they will even consider their applications, because they have to enrol biometric information? That seems completely counterintuitive. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Home Office a polite kick up the backside and urge a change in approach?
Mr Mitchell
If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me details of any specific cases, I will of course make sure they are looked into.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
What steps are the Government able to take to stem the flow of resources—not only weapons, but fuel—to the RSF across the border from Libya? Are the Government monitoring the potential for onwards flow to Sudan as a result of continuing Russian supply of arms within Libya?
Mr Mitchell
We urge all parties not to supply weapons to the belligerents in Sudan. It will merely extend and continue the appalling situation that exists there. That is why Britain is so clear that we should seek to starve this conflict of any additional weaponry.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Opposition welcome the Government’s atrocity monitoring and prevention work in Sudan, even though it is belated. It is important to join up that work with our diplomatic efforts in support of talks in Jeddah next month that are inclusive and effective. Is there a strategy to use targeted pressure to help isolate those responsible for atrocities and bring them to justice, and to bring both warring parties to the table?
Mr Mitchell
In respect of targeted pressure, the hon. Lady will have seen the recent announcements about sanctions against both the RSF and the SAF, and the earlier steps that were taken. She is right to focus on Jeddah 3, which looks to be the best bet at the moment for progress. Britain is giving very strong support to that process.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
On Monday, the Government announced three sanctions against businesses supplying the SAF and the RSF. What assessment has the Deputy Foreign Secretary made of how effective they will be in the greater scheme of all the arms that are being supplied to those two warring factions?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is right to focus on the sanctions. Although we do not talk about future plans on sanctions across the Floor of the House, the way these things work is that when we see that sanctions are not working as well as we had hoped, we will always seek to reinforce them. That is the nature of imposing sanctions, as we have seen in other areas. We will do everything we can, through the sanctions regime, to advance the objective that she and I share.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Minister referred to the problem of food security. It does seem very likely that the planting season will be disrupted again this year. What are the implications for food security in Sudan and South Sudan this autumn and into next year? Has a target been set for the amount of international aid to be gathered to deal with that looming crisis?
Mr Mitchell
The targets that are required are the subject of continuous discussion, particularly with the World Food Programme and at the United Nations, and they helped to inform the discussions that took place in Paris last week. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right about the dangers of the harvest failing. The lean season approaches in other parts of Africa too, including Ethiopia. This is the nature of climate change and sometimes factors like El Niño, and it is extremely worrying. The effects of the harvest failing and the onset of the lean season are very serious in terms of nutrition and food dependency.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for his previous engagement regarding a number of my constituents whose family members have been stuck, and affected by the ongoing conflict in Sudan. May I ask what conversations he has had with his counterparts in Egypt, who, as far as I understand, are still suspending the issue of visas to Sudanese nationals who are holding UK travel documents, with the result that people are stuck in Egypt when they could well be here with their families right now if that were not being held up by the Egyptian authorities?
Mr Mitchell
We have an extremely effective embassy team in Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt, with very close relations across the top of the Egyptian Government and in all parts of it. If the hon. Lady wishes to raise any specific cases with me again, I hope that she will do so, and I will certainly take them up for her.
Points of Order
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, on 15 April, I said:
“All trans children and young people deserve access to high-quality and timely healthcare and support. Around 100 studies have not been included in the Cass report, and we need to know why.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 65.]
I was quoting from Stonewall’s briefing. There was some fallout from that, so I have spent the weekend in conversation with Stonewall and Dr Cass. It seems that by quoting from the briefing, I may have inadvertently misled the House. As you know, Mr Speaker, I have been thrown out of Parliament for calling the then Prime Minister a liar, so it means a lot to me to be able to come back and correct the record, and practise what I preach.
I spent the weekend speaking to Dr Cass, and I am very grateful for her time. She has made it clear—not just to me, but to the trans and LGBT+ communities in a number of valuable clarifications on the radio and in other media—that all reports were included and that research of both high and moderate quality was considered as part of the evidence review. Dr Cass has also said that her report is being misrepresented and hijacked—but not by me, Mr Speaker; let me make that clear. My question to the Secretary of State for Health was about additional funding for children’s mental health services. The report is being hijacked by anti-trans groups, and that is why it is important that we can be as factual as possible about the research.
I was also concerned about the advice that Dr Cass was given about her safety, and was shocked that some people implied that I was partly responsible for—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am really bothered about this—it was meant to be just a quick correction, rather than opening up a debate. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being honest and correcting the record; she has absolutely done that, and has made it very clear that she was correcting it. Other Members wish to speak, so I have to move on. We cannot open up a debate. The Clerk is getting very worried.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, during questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi) raised the issue of ticket touting. In response, the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) made two claims that I believe were inaccurate.
First, the Minister claimed that legislation in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Digital Economy Act 2017 dealt with some of the issues relating to bots in the secondary market. However, there does not seem to have been a single conviction specifically for bot use, and there is a great deal of evidence that bots are still being used. Secondly, the Minister claimed that measures to cap resale prices in Ireland had increased “fraudulent activity”. In fact, there is no evidence whatever that such activity has increased. Fraud was actually reported to be down 27% in Ireland in the last quarter of 2023, and the Irish Government’s post-enactment report on their Sale of Tickets (Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational and Sporting Events) Act 2021 concludes:
“This is a positive endorsement of the operation of the Act and means that the objectives of the Act are being met whereby genuine fans can attend events at affordable prices.”
I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on how we might encourage the Minister to correct the record.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order, and for notice of it. It is for Ministers to correct the record if they wish to. In the meantime, she has certainly put her points on the record for everyone to see.
Bill Presented
Thames Water (Special Administration) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Olney presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to apply for an order for special administration in relation to Thames Water; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 21 June and to be printed (Bill 204).
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Monday 22nd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 22 April 2024 - (22 Apr 2024)
17:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 229 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 234 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 37 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 222 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I can confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 1
Introduction
The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3G.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 10F, and Government motion to disagree.
Michael Tomlinson
It appears that I was indeed optimistic last week when I foresaw the end of ping-pong and looked forward to the time when we were not debating this particular piece of legislation. It is disappointing that we are back here again. Of course the other place should undertake its role as a revising Chamber, and of course it is entitled to ask the Government to think again, but we did think again, with the House now voting for the third time as part of ping-pong and strongly endorsing this Bill. We need to bring the process to a conclusion.
The Labour party has voted against our measures to tackle illegal migration 134 times. One hundred and thirty-four times it has told the British people that it opposes our tougher immigration legislation. Enough is enough. The Opposition have delayed this Bill for too long, and we must get on with it.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I am sure that, like me, the Minister will have read the Law Society of England and Wales’s briefing on these amendments. Has he seen the polling it has reported, which shows that the majority of voters think the Government should either accept some amendments to the Rwanda policy or scrap it altogether? Only a quarter of the public think the Government should try to get the Bill through in its current form, and all the Lords amendments are supported by the majority of the public. Has he seen that polling, and will he stop trying to turn this matter into a political football and address the gravamen of the amendments?
Michael Tomlinson
I certainly will. I am very grateful indeed to the hon. and learned Lady, because she gets to the point of the amendments. She is absolutely right to say that we should address them in detail, and I will do just that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I say this with all humility and with respect for the Minister, who I know is an honourable person: does he agree that there is a simple way out of this deadlock? It is to accept those who can demonstrate that they assisted the British forces in Afghanistan. Does the Minister further agree that this back and forth is an example not of democratic exercise, but of democratic embarrassment? A way forward must be found before we bring this place and our procedures into disrepute.
Michael Tomlinson
I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman. As always, he engages with the substance of the matter. He and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) have raised this point. I will turn to that specific amendment, and I hope to persuade him, through my words, that steps have been taken and reassurances have been made. I hope to reassure him personally that he will be able to support the Government in the Aye Lobby later today.
I turn to the Lords amendment tabled by the noble Lord Hope of Craighead. I want to reiterate some salient points. First, as the House knows, we will only ratify the treaty once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. Secondly, the implementation of these provisions will be kept under review by the independent monitoring committee. Thirdly, clause 9 makes it clear that the Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I know that there is a problem in detaining illegal migrants at the moment under habeas corpus, but when the Bill comes into force, will it be the legal position that we can then detain people before offshoring them, because that is the only real deterrent?
Michael Tomlinson
My right hon. Friend might have heard a few words from the Prime Minister in that regard this morning, and that is exactly right. Specifically in relation to the amendment, however, I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord Hope. There is no obligation, whether in legislation or in the treaty, to send anyone to Rwanda, as my noble Friend Lord Sharpe has said. Article 4 of the treaty sets out clearly that it is for the United Kingdom to
“determine the timing of a request for relocation of individuals under this Agreement and the number of requests for relocation to be made”.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Before my right hon. and learned Friend moves away from the treaty, could he help with some clarity on the relationship, as the Government see it, between the Rwanda treaty and this Bill? Specifically, is an assessment of Rwanda’s safety for the purposes of this Bill the same thing as compliance with the Rwanda treaty on the part of the state of Rwanda? If not, what is the difference? Does the concept of safety extend beyond compliance with the treaty, or is it solely limited to the question of compliance with the treaty?
Michael Tomlinson
As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his engagement, both inside and outside the Chamber. He has been a regular attender at these ping-pong sessions. The treaty is the operating legal instrument between the two international bodies, the United Kingdom and Rwanda. That is the status of that treaty. This Bill brings it into effect in law in this country. He knows about dealing with the system of dualism. In fact, he has appeared in the Supreme Court arguing these very points, so he knows in detail the differences between a treaty and an Act of Parliament. As I set out, there is no obligation within the treaty. It is plainly written in article 4(1) that the
“United Kingdom shall not be obliged to make any request for relocation under this Agreement.”
That means that the Government would not be obliged to relocate individuals under the terms of the treaty if, for example, there had been unexpected changes of circumstances. I know that that is something my right hon. and learned Friend has been concerned about.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Would my right hon. and learned Friend also care to note that Lord Hoffman, in the case of R v. Lyons—in relation to a European Court of Human Rights case—was unequivocal when he said that a treaty was not the same as a statute, and that it is the statute that prevails? When a statute is made and the words are clear and unambiguous, it follows that the courts will obey what the Act sets out, which is exactly the position in this case.
Michael Tomlinson
My hon. Friend has also been a consistent member of these ping-pong sessions and he has consistently cited paragraph 144 of the Supreme Court judgment. He knows that I agree with him on this point, and that I firmly believe that this legislation, as drafted, is clear and unambiguous. I hope that that reassures him.
Turning back to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), there are procedures already in place under the terms of the treaty to monitor the safety of Rwanda for those who are relocated there. I can reassure him and the House that we have already established the right mechanisms so that, should the situation ever arise, the Government will respond as necessary. This would include a range of options to respond, including, as he knows, primary legislation if required.
Implementation continues and I can now confirm that last Friday the Rwandan Parliament passed its domestic legislation to implement its new asylum system. The partnership is one important component of a much broader bilateral relationship, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has recently reminded us. This is a migration and economic development partnership, and I would like to put on record my thanks to all officials, including those in the Government of Rwanda, for their hard work in implementing the treaty and delivering this crucial partnership.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I note what the Minister said about last Friday but, if Rwanda is truly safe, why are Rwandans excluded from being returned under this legislation? Can he give us the reasons why he and the Prime Minister refuse to accept the need to prove the safety of Rwanda as a requirement?
Michael Tomlinson
The proof of the safety is in the binding international treaty between two international partners, namely the United Kingdom and the Government of Rwanda. The treaty addresses the concerns set out by the Supreme Court, namely the concerns in and around refoulement, and I invite this House to accept that reassurance. That is why I say the amendments are unnecessary.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The obvious reason why Rwandans are not covered by the Bill is because returning a Rwandan to Rwanda would take them to their home country, not a third country.
Michael Tomlinson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been closely following these proceedings not just throughout ping-pong but throughout his time in this role. He knows deeply the interplay and the interrelationship between the two countries.
Michael Tomlinson
I will make some progress, as I have given way too much. I have taken criticism for the number of times I give way.
On Lords amendment 10F, as my noble Friend Lord Sharpe and I have said previously, this Government greatly value the contribution of those who have supported us and our armed forces overseas, which is why there are legal routes for them to come to the United Kingdom. There is already existing legislation, including but not limited to the Illegal Migration Act 2023, under which the Secretary of State has a range of powers to consider cases and specific categories of persons. I have already made a clear commitment on behalf of His Majesty’s Government that we will consider how removal would apply under existing immigration legislation, which means that, once the review of Afghan relocations and assistance policy decisions for those with credible links to Afghan specialist units is concluded, the Government will not remove to Rwanda those who receive a positive eligibility decision as a result of the review, where they are already in the United Kingdom as of today. This is an important point, and it is a point that I emphasise to the House today.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister may have read about my constituent in The Guardian today: a man who was originally an Afghan, has British citizenship and served with our armed forces for 15 years. He and his family were called forward to the Baron hotel but could not get there because of an explosion, and they have been in hell ever since. His young children and wife are unable to join him here in the UK. He is not eligible for ARAP because he is a British citizen.
The Government have written to me suggesting that his children might apply to ARAP, but I believe that under-10s will probably not qualify. The Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is in tatters and will not accept them, as the Government are now trying to say that they were invited, rather than instructed, to go to the Baron hotel. If the Minister took five minutes to read the story of my constituent, who gave so much of his life to support our forces in Afghanistan, he would understand why it is not sustainable for him to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there are safe, legal routes for those who are eminently eligible, and why amendment 10F matters.
Michael Tomlinson
This amendment is unnecessary. As I have told the hon. Lady and tried to explain to the House, there is already existing legislation, including but not limited to the Illegal Migration Act. I have confirmed that the Government will not remove to Rwanda those who receive a positive eligibility decision as a result of the review. This Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that come with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage in serving alongside us. We will not let them down.
Criminal gangs are determining who comes to the United Kingdom, as vulnerable people are lured into risking their lives in unseaworthy boats. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being spent on illegal migration, and our resources and services are reaching their limits. We must put an end to it. We must pass this legislation and stop the boats.
I urge the House once again to send an unambiguous message to the other place that the time has come for the Labour Lords to respect the views of this House and to let this Bill now pass.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
There is not a huge amount more to be said about this sham, this con of a Bill, that has not already been said. The plan is as unworkable as it is unaffordable. That is why Labour would instead repurpose the money that is being squandered and set aside for the scheme into a cross-border police unit and security partnership, which would go after the criminal gangs upstream and restore order to our border.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that a permanent secretary has said that there is no evidence the plan will work as a deterrent, as it will account for just 1% of those crossing the channel, does my hon. agree that it is just a gimmick?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right: the test of such a policy is whether it will work as a deterrent. When we are dealing with people who have risked life and limb to cross continents, they are not going to be put off by a 1% chance of being sent to Rwanda. The policy fails on its own terms, and the permanent secretary was absolutely right to put that red flag on it two years ago. It is extraordinary that we are where we are today.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the tokenism of the worst sort that he spoke about was carried on by the Prime Minister’s announcement that 25 courtrooms and 150 judges will be available to deal with legal challenges from asylum seekers? Given that our courts are struggling with backlogs, partly due to not having enough barristers and courts, does he agree that it would be interesting to know how the Government would achieve that?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, although I had forgotten chapter 562 in this never-ending story. My recollection is that the Prime Minister was then slapped down by the judiciary, who said, “We have a huge backlog to get through and this is not a priority.” We should thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House of yet another disastrous chapter in this story.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In the unlikely event that we have a Labour Government, would the shadow Minister be happy if future Opposition parties, which necessarily and usually dominate the House of Lords, frustrated them? Will he advise his friends up there to respect the will of the elected House?
Stephen Kinnock
I will advise the other place to do what it is doing, as a revising Chamber: standing up for its constitutional obligations to look at every piece of legislation that we send to it from this place and take the measures that it feels strongly about. This set of amendments in no way prevents this policy from being enacted or flights from taking off; what we are seeing is simply those Members in the other place doing their constitutional duty.
The plan is not only completely unworkable, but shockingly unaffordable. It is likely to cost an astonishing £2 million per deportee. To add insult to injury, it puts the tens of thousands of asylum seekers who are deemed inadmissible and yet cannot be sent to Rwanda, because of the lack of capacity there, into limbo, in expensive hotels, stuck in a perma-backlog at a staggering cost to the taxpayer. This is a dreadful policy and it is shameful politics.
When the Bill was first introduced, the Prime Minister described it as “emergency legislation”, yet the Government’s management of the parliamentary timetable would suggest that the opposite is the case. Ministers had ample opportunity to schedule debates and votes on 25 and 26 March, before the Easter recess, but they chose not to do so. Indeed, there was plenty of scope to accelerate the process last week. People could be forgiven for concluding that the truth of the matter is that Ministers have been deliberately stringing this out for two reasons: first, because they thought they could make some grubby political capital from the delay; and, secondly, because they have been scrambling to organise a flight and all the other logistics that are not in place. The Prime Minister, in his somewhat whinging and buck-passing press conference this morning, admitted that the first flight to Rwanda will not take off until—checks notes—July.
Today is 22 April. We were initially told that this was “emergency legislation”, yet we are now being told that there will be a 10 to 12-week delay in getting the first flight off the ground. I do not know what your definition of an emergency is, Madam Deputy Speaker, but a 10 to 12-week response time seems a bit of a stretch. Given that none of the amendments to the Bill could be seen as wrecking amendments by any stretch of the imagination, it is difficult to see why those on the Government Benches could not just accept the amendments and get on with it. The fundamental point is that not one of the amendments that have been coming to us from the other place would prevent planes from getting into the air.
Turning first to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Hope, this amendment simply reflects what the Government have already said: that court judgments are taken at a moment in time and that a country may well be safe at a given point, but not at another. If the Bill passes unamended, this House will, in essence, be asserting that Rwanda will be a safe country for ever more. Surely the indisputable lesson of recent times is that we live in a dangerous and turbulent world, where authoritarians are on the march and the rules-based order is under threat. Who knows what might happen in Rwanda in the future, or in any other country for that matter?
Imran Hussain
The Minister made the point that we have entered into a treaty and been told that Rwanda is safe. Does my hon. Friend agree that sets a very serious and dangerous precedent for the future, because that may not always be the case? How will we be able to work our way out of any unsafe country where we have such a treaty in place?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree with my hon. Friend. One reason we are seeing such a strong pushback from the other place is precisely that its Members are deeply uncomfortable with trying to make something true that is not true. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Rwanda is not a safe country, yet we are being asked to legislate to say that it is. We can legislate to say that the sky is green and the grass is blue, but that does not make it so, and that is why we have such an important point of principle in the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the hon. Lady makes another intervention, I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that we have only until 5.15 pm to debate this matter. Eight Back Benchers wish to speak and, at the moment, their speeches will be limited to three minutes, so it might not be entirely fair for the hon. Lady to keep making interventions.
Stephen Kinnock
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord Hope simply requires the Home Secretary to lay a statement before Parliament confirming that the Rwanda treaty has been implemented and that the country is safe. Prior to issuing his statement, the Home Secretary would presumably take account of advice provided by the Government’s hand-picked monitoring committee, as specified in the treaty.
Lord Hope’s amendment also allows the Home Secretary to lay a statement making clear that Rwanda is no longer safe, should the situation on the ground in Rwanda change. This “trust but verify” approach is embedded in countless pieces of legislation that have made their way on to the statute book over the centuries. It is a perfectly fair, measured, reasonable and non-controversial proposal, and it is simply bizarre and incomprehensible that the Government are refusing to accept it.
Let me turn now to the noble Lord Browne’s amendment. Frankly, I just do not know where to start with this one, Madam Deputy Speaker. It beggars belief that the Government are still insisting on being able to deport to Rwanda Afghans who have bravely fought alongside British forces against the Taliban. It really is shameful that we are still debating what should be a given. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Afghans who stood shoulder to shoulder with our troops, yet this Government are seeking to trash our reputation as a country that honours its debts. What a disgrace. Ministers should hang their heads in shame.
Over the course of the past few weeks, Ministers have deployed a variety of spurious and mealy-mouthed arguments to defend their position, but the one that they have most frequently used is that there are already safe and legal routes in place in the shape of the ARAP and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, but that is simply not the case. Operation Warm Welcome became operation cold shoulder when the Prime Minister torpedoed both schemes and left these Afghans stranded—shocking but true.
Court documents show that, in November 2022, the Prime Minister issued instructions to halt flights from neighbouring Pakistan for an entire year for Afghans who had already been granted resettlement rights in the UK, and only restarted them when the Pakistani Government threatened to send these heroic individuals back across the border to meet their fate at the hands of the Taliban. Let the content of those court documents sink in: the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom explicitly instructed the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office to stop assisting Afghans who had put their lives on the line for our country. What a disgrace. What a betrayal of British values. What a hammer blow to our moral standing in the world, but the noble Lord Browne’s amendment is driven not only by a basic moral imperative, but by our national interest and military logic for the simple and obvious reason that the ability of our armed forces to recruit local allies to support us in the future will be severely constrained if this Bill passes unamended. It should therefore not come as a surprise to anyone that our armed forces are outraged and repelled by the Government’s refusal to accept Lord Browne’s amendment.
Indeed, just last weekend, 13 senior military figures signed a letter to the Sunday Telegraph stating robustly that
“any brave men and women who have fought alongside our armed forces or served the UK Government overseas”
must be exempt from removal to Rwanda. I urge Members across the House to join me in supporting the two amendments that are in front of us today. This whole process has been a farce, but if we just pass these amendments we can at least send the message that we are not a country that chooses to deport its military allies to a country on the other side of the world and that we are a country that cares about whether we are sending some of the most vulnerable people on the planet to a place that is safe for them. At the very least, we owe that basic level of respect and decency to ourselves as a nation and to the people whom this policy will affect. Unfortunately, respect and decency for anyone, whether in relation to our nation, to asylum seekers or to the British taxpayer, is not something that this Prime Minister and his Government hold in any regard whatever. That is why their time is up. They are not fit to govern. I fear that tonight, yet again, they will demonstrate that point in spades.
Madam Deputy Speaker
As I have just intimated, there will be an immediate time limit on Back-Bench speeches of three minutes.
Sir Jeremy Wright
In view of the time, I wish to focus what I say on the second part of amendment 3G(8). It is clear that Lord Hope has drawn attention to a flaw in the Bill’s logic. We all understand that it is about parliamentary sovereignty, but if declaring Rwanda safe in the first instance is a matter for Parliament then why is determining whether it remains safe not also a matter for Parliament? Yet the Bill covers only the first determination of safety and provides no mechanism for Parliament to change its mind if circumstances change, save for primary legislation, which we need Government to introduce.
My quarrel with the noble Lord Hope’s amendments has been that, whereas the theme of this Bill is parliamentary authority, the earlier forms of his amendments give effective authority on the safety of Rwanda to the monitoring committee, because its conclusion on treaty compliance will be determinative of the question of safety. The later versions of Lord Hope’s amendments, however, would transfer authority to Ministers to determine —presumably on the advice of the monitoring committee —that Rwanda is no longer safe, and to make a statement to that effect. I do not think that is perfect either. I still think that for the Bill to have inherent logical consistency, it should be for Parliament to decide whether Rwanda remains safe in changed circumstances—not the monitoring committee or a Minister—but how much latitude Parliament would have in deciding whether Rwanda remains safe in changed circumstances rather depends on the point I raised in an intervention on the Minister.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister opened by saying that he had looked forward last week to not debating the Bill. I, too, wish that we did not have to debate it; indeed, I wish that it had never been brought to this House in the first place. I wish that it had never seen the light of day. If he never wanted to debate it again, he could of course have accepted the Lords amendments last week, instead of stringing this out for even longer. The Lords have tabled perfectly legitimate amendments, but Government Members are seeking to get around the tedium of voting on amendments to render vulnerable people overseas. A text message is circulating on X in the name of the Government Chief Whip, saying:
“Dear Colleagues,
With a potentially long and historic night ahead, on behalf of the Prime Minister I would like to invite you to drinks this evening from 21.30. These will take place in the Prime Minister’s office in the House of Commons.
I look forward to seeing you there.”
How absolutely heartless and despicable that Government Members will be quaffing drinks while thinking about sending people to Rwanda. How utterly without any kind of moral background. Should the Lords send back further amendments tonight and carry out the unusual procedure of double insistence, I will support them very much in that endeavour. We should use any mechanism that we can in this place to stop the Bill.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on using every procedure available to her to state the SNP’s opposition to the Bill, not least by moving amendments in the Reasons Committee last week. We in the SNP will take every single opportunity to express our opposition to this outrageous plan.
Alison Thewliss
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and note on the record that Labour did not vote on any of the reasons that I sought to amend in the Reasons Committee. I have yet to hear any explanation for why Labour Members would not use any mechanism available to them to oppose the Bill.
We had yet another press conference this afternoon. The Prime Minister did not come to this House to talk about his gurning and his greeting that those mean old Lords would not let him have his way. I point out that the Conservatives have over 100 more Lords than Labour. Perhaps the lack of enthusiasm from their own Lords is reflective of the fact that many of them did not even show up to vote last week. The policy was not in the Conservative party manifesto. The Government have no mandate for the Rwanda plan whatsoever. Indeed, what manifesto would they put in front of people that would say, “We’re going to set out to breach our international commitments and engage in state-sponsored people trafficking?” What manifesto would that be?
Let me mention briefly some of the things that the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement. He suddenly conjured up a whole load of judges to determine these cases, when they could perhaps better serve by looking at the appeals backlog that his incompetent bulk processing of asylum claims has created. He mentioned charter flights being booked, but many commercial companies, including the Rwandan state carrier, have refused to be involved in the charter flights at all, so which companies have been engaged to do that and at what cost? We still do not know.
The Prime Minister said:
“The first flight will leave in 10 to 12 weeks.”
Will that be before or after we reach summer recess—we already know how far the timescale on this has slipped for the Government—and what scrutiny will occur should they take off during recess? If the Government do manage to send anybody to Rwanda, where will they put them? We know that the Rwandans have sold off the housing that they set up to place people in. Will they be piling them up in tents? I would not put it past this Government, but that would be useful to know.
We fully support the Lords amendments, which do their very best to mitigate an absolutely dreadful piece of legislation. I cannot see what the Government’s objection is to Lords amendment 3G. They are all about taking back control, but they want absolutely no parliamentary scrutiny of whether Rwanda remains a safe country. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) rightly pointed out that we in this place have no means of declaring Rwanda unsafe, so it is safe in perpetuity—forever and ever. We cannot declare it unsafe should something happen, and that is just not logical. I note also that the Irish High Court ruled last month that, in the light of these plans, the UK is not a safe country to send asylum seekers to.
I fully support Lords amendment 10F relating to Afghans. I have mentioned many times before my support for the Afghans who served and supported UK objectives in Afghanistan and how woeful the Government’s response to their needs has been.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the £11,000 it costs per person to deport to Rwanda could be used right now to rescue my constituent and his wife, who got out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan and are now stuck there waiting for the UK Government to rescue them?
Alison Thewliss
I wholeheartedly agree. I know of many cases of people who have been sorely let down by the Government.
We note that the figures that the Government brought out this morning show that there has been an increase in small boat arrivals in the past three months compared with last year. The plan is hardly any kind of deterrent if people are still coming over in small boats in their droves. Among them were 1,216 Afghans—an increase on the 1,098 who came in the same period last year. If the Minister thinks that the Afghan schemes are such a roaring success, why are so many Afghans being forced on to small boats just to get to safety? Many of them will have family in this country, many will have been unable to avail themselves of the Afghan schemes that he so talks up, and many will not have been able to use family reunion, which is an existing safe and legal route.
Given the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not go into detail on the Afghan cases that I wished to mention. However, I will say this to the Government: this legislation is utterly despicable. It is state-sponsored people trafficking, it is against our obligations in international law, and Scotland wants no part of it. We will oppose it every step of the way.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
May I start by agreeing with what the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), said about there being nothing new to say? The trouble is that he then spent 14 minutes saying nothing new. He said that the amendments do nothing to stop flights getting off the ground, but the fact that we are still having to debate amendments is preventing the legislation from going through, which would allow the scheme—literally—to get off the ground. Now it is time to get the Rwanda legislation done.
On the remaining amendments, many people have had days, weeks and months to make their points. The Government have given undertakings, and we have heard further undertakings about the treatment of Afghan refugees today. The Bill does not oblige the Government to return anybody from Afghanistan; there are explicit schemes to protect them.
When it comes to declaring Rwanda a safe country, the only reason why the legislation states as such is that a court declared it not to be, based on limited and snapshot evidence. The Government have a white list of countries that are deemed not to be safe—the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office issues guidance about where it is safe to travel—but what constitutes “safe” in the eyes of those courts? Is Spain safe to a Catalonian dissident who is in exile because they have taken issue with the Spanish Government? Is it safe to go back to France? Some of the refugees I have met in the Napier barracks claim that they are beaten by French police, and that it is not safe for them to go back to that country. Indeed, in the eyes of some court judgments, is London safe for a person who is “openly Jewish”?
Plenty of safeguards are given in this Bill: it will bring people back to the UK if Rwanda is deemed not to be safe or appropriate. Plenty of international legal scrutiny has now been added into the Bill. The issue of refoulement, which was the Supreme Court’s major complaint, has been dealt with, and legal assessment is available for those sent to Rwanda. I will say it again: when the Home Affairs Select Committee went to Calais last year, we were told by all those who were in charge of the policing system on the beaches that when the Government announced the Rwanda scheme the previous May, there was a surge in migrants around Calais approaching the French authorities to try to regularise their position in France, because they did not want to risk being sent to Rwanda.
It is disgraceful that, time and again, those behind these amendments—the Labour party, continuing this ping-pong—have not come up with a single solution to the really important question of what we do with asylum seekers who have come to this country illegally, who have no credible case to be in the UK, but who it is practically impossible to return to their own country. It is also absolutely disgraceful that just this morning the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), made it quite clear that a Labour Government would abolish the Rwanda scheme, whether it is working or not. They are saying to people on the other side of the channel, “Just wait a few months, and then you can come in your droves.” That is the truth of the matter, and these amendments need to be beaten again.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Although at times I agree with quite a lot of what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) says, the point he has just made about Labour’s policy is absolutely incorrect. I am very pleased that the Minister stated at the beginning of his remarks that the other place absolutely has the right to act as a revising Chamber and give its advice to this Chamber.
Lords amendment 3G was tabled by the noble Lord Hope of Craighead, a former deputy president of the Supreme Court. It states that
“Rwanda cannot be treated as a safe country for…the purposes of this Act until the Secretary of State has obtained and laid before Parliament a statement from the independent Monitoring Committee”
confirming that the treaty provisions have been implemented. It also allows the Secretary of State to rescind the confirmation if the treaty stops being adhered to, rather than the nonsense position of claiming that Rwanda is safe for evermore. This is a sensible and measured amendment to deal with the facts, allowing that they may change.
On the day that the Prime Minister has stated that some asylum decision makers and judges have been trained, the joint monitoring committee has been set up and the president of the new appeal body has been selected, we still do not know whether all the other provisions of the treaty have been fully implemented or whether a sufficient number of officials are in place. With the Prime Minister insisting that flights will begin in 10 to 12 weeks, Lords amendment 3G provides a vital safeguard, ensuring that everyone sent to Rwanda will be protected by the implementation of the treaty provisions. I think that is entirely reasonable, and I agree with what the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) said.
Lords amendment 10F, tabled by the noble Lord Browne of Ladyton—a former Secretary of State for Defence—provides an exemption for people who supported the UK armed forces overseas, or who have otherwise been agents or allies of the UK overseas. Anyone seeking to rely on that exemption would need to provide notice to the Secretary of State
“within one week of arrival in the UK”.
Ministers have sought to reassure Members that they are reviewing the position, and will consider and revisit how the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined to be ARAP-eligible. However, I must note that, when responding in the House of Lords, the noble Lord Browne dubbed that assurance to be “worthless”. We should all be conscious of the strength of feeling among those former senior armed forces personnel who support this amendment. When individuals risk their lives to support British troops overseas, we must honour our commitment to provide sanctuary, not outsource it. That is why I support Lords amendment 10F.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am mindful of time, as always, and the time is quite rightly being reduced as we deal with this Bill—in a rather similar way to how, with some sort of exotic recipe, the sauce is reduced on every occasion—and we are now down to two important amendments.
I am glad that, in his tone and his approach, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has at the Dispatch Box, as he should, absolutely embraced this debate, which is all about the detail and about getting it right. He knows I support this policy. We have again heard a lot of rhetoric in this Chamber, which is unfortunate and misleading. We are doing something genuinely innovative, and it is right that we should do so.
I do think that the revised Lords amendment 3G in its form now, particularly in the light of the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), does actually strike an appropriate balance in making sure not only that the reality of the position in Rwanda is met by the deeming provision in law, but that there is a mechanism by which we can deal with this as a Parliament if indeed circumstances change.
With great respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, he did almost concede that, if there was to be a change in the situation in Rwanda, primary legislation would have to be at least considered by the Government. It seems to me that it would be far better to ensure against that and to avoid the need for further primary legislation by making sure we can wrap it all up in this Bill, and have a system that is not just strong when it comes to potential legal challenge, but gives this place its rightful role. So, alongside my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, I still commend and support that particular provision.
On Lords amendment 10F, I note the comments my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister made at the Dispatch Box, with the assurances he gave about the status of people who have had an assessment and are therefore found to have satisfied the requirements of the scheme, and that is an important step forward. I do not take the view that we should regard these matters as worthless. I do regard it as having quite a lot of weight, and I am grateful to him for that.
I think that making that very clear in the Bill would probably clear up the matter once and for all, and it may well mean—not that I mind being here until the wee small hours of the morning—that we can clear up this business once and for all. I am in the market for sorting this out now, so that the Bill can become law before it is too late this evening, which is why I would commend perhaps a little further movement on Lords amendment 10F by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Throughout the proceedings on this Bill, my party both here and in the other place has by and large given support to the Government, even though at times we have been sceptical and concerned about the effectiveness of some of the measures. However, I have to say that we draw the line when it comes to Lords amendment 10F, on the protection of people who have served with our armed forces in dangerous situations and now find their lives being put in jeopardy.
The Minister has made the point time and again that some of these amendments are wrecking amendments or attempts to create loopholes and so on, but let us look at Lords amendment 10F. The people who would be covered by this amendment will, first, have served this country. Secondly, as a result, their lives will be in danger. Thirdly, when they arrive in this country, they must within a week immediately inform the authorities they are here, which allows for the records to be looked at, their claims to be verified and their connections with the armed forces to be ascertained. Lastly, if they have not done that, in any subsequent cases the courts can draw an inference from it.
So nothing could be more watertight than this amendment, yet the Government are refusing to accept it on the basis that there are already arrangements in place. Why is it—and my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has raised this time and again in the House, as have others—that people who served the armed forces in Afghanistan find themselves in danger at present? They are on the run from the police in Pakistan, and they are hiding because the police in Pakistan want to send them back to Afghanistan, where they will be in danger. Why? Because the system has not worked for them. That is why it is important that the amendment is accepted. We have a moral duty and, as has been pointed out, if we are to look to the future and recruit people in trouble spots to help the armed forces, we have a strategic duty. If the Minister really wants to get this stuff through tonight he has a political reason for doing this, because by accepting the amendment he will at least take away another leg on which the other House is seeking to stand in opposing the Bill. For all those reasons I hope the Minister will accept the amendment, to protect those who have served us, get the Bill through, and avoid any further delay.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I think this is a disgraceful Bill and I want to oppose it at every opportunity. However, to follow on from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), we have to accept that at some stage the Bill will go through, and it is the normal run of things in these matters that the Government will have compromised on a number of issues, usually by this time. For the life of me I cannot understand why we have not reached that compromise so far, particularly on this amendment.
As the right hon. Member said, if the system was working at the moment, we would not be finding the cases that we have got. The situation in Afghanistan in particular is deteriorating at the moment. For example, I am dealing with a woman who is now in this country but who campaigned for women’s rights in Afghanistan. The Taliban are now arresting and torturing her family, just because she stood up for women’s rights. If anyone is associated with the British Government in any form, that makes matters even worse. I had a constituent asylum seeker in one of the hotels whose family simply rented out property to the BBC and some of the British authorities. The family got out, but they still have a connection, and they showed me videos of the Taliban turning up and beating, almost to a pulp, the staff who were working in those premises.
The situation is deteriorating and the existing system is not working. People who are in any way associated with the British Government, and British forces in particular, are targeted, and their families are targeted. They are not just abused; they are tortured. I think we have a debt of honour, and that compromise has to be done tonight. The amendment cannot be seen as a wrecking amendment in any way; it is simply a logical conclusion to the debate that we have had in both Houses. I urge the other place to stand firm on this amendment, because I think the British public support it. Indeed, I think that perhaps a majority in this House want to support it too. I urge the Government to think again, because this has gone beyond the normal process. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) asked what there is to gain for the Government by continuing this process. If they think it is about demonstrating their bravado and commitment, and trying to milk some publicity out of it, it is going the other way. At the moment, the general political and public mood is that, for goodness’ sake, accept that when a compromise is offered we should seize it, particularly on this issue.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I hear impatience and irritation from the Conservative Benches that we are still here debating this, but I respectfully point Members towards the impatience, irritation, and even outrage on the part of my constituents at the fact that the Government are wasting vast amounts of their money on something that they know, and the Government know, will not work. If there is a one-in-200 chance that an asylum seeker might be sent to Rwanda, it will clearly not be a disincentive. What might be a deterrent would be to process the applications that we have, and remove that 25% of asylum seekers who turn out not to be genuine, but we will never know that if we do not have the competence to process them. It would also be sensible to set out safe routes, so that people are able to bypass and therefore undermine the model of the evil people traffickers.
That outrage from my constituents is also due to knowledge of what could be done with the money that has been spent on this nonsense scheme so far. It is the equivalent of 5.7 million GP appointments, if the Government had the priorities that the British people want them to have. The two amendments are entirely sensible. I do not need to repeat all the arguments for them, but we should have independent verification, rather than simply declare that a place is safe despite the lack of evidence, which is nonsense. As an aside, if Rwanda is a safe place, why would it be a deterrent? If it is not a safe place, why would any decent Government send anybody there?
I support the Lords in pushing their amendments 3G and 10F.
Tim Farron
I will not give way, because we are about to finish and it is unfair on others.
Lords amendment 10F guarantees that those who have risked everything to protect and serve our servicemen and women in Afghanistan cannot be betrayed by this or a future Government. That is basically a simple and decent thing to ask for. Whatever motivations the Government ascribe to those pressing the amendment, it is clearly totally reasonable, and a reasonable Government would accept it.
To finish, I will address the Conservative party’s irritation that we are still here. I gently encourage Conservative Members present to imagine a time—sometime in the future maybe—when they are in opposition. Let us imagine a time when a Government of a different colour ignore the rule of law, bypass the courts, think themselves above the law and then try to use their numbers in Parliament to steamroller through something that was not in their manifesto and for which they have no mandate. An honest answer to that question would lead to this Government yielding. This is awful legislation. It is cruel, inept and expensive. We should vote to keep the amendments, the Lords should keep going, and the Government should concede.
Michael Tomlinson
With the leave of the House, may I address directly my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who both addressed Lords amendment 3G? It does not do what they are looking for. They are looking for a parliamentary moment, and this amendment would merely produce a statement. I invite them to imagine a scenario whereby what we have been discussing would not produce an urgent question or a moment for a Secretary of State to make a statement in the Chamber of the House of Commons in any event. I repeat to them: this amendment does not meet the challenge they have set. I encourage them to be with the Government in a few short minutes.
We must get on and put an end to this. We must pass this legislation to stop the boats. Perhaps in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I urge this House once again to send a clear and unambiguous message to the other place.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3G.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That concludes consideration of the Lords message of 18 April relating to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. For clarity, I should say that the result of that Division means that the House has decided that the Reasons Committee should be appointed. I would normally say at that point that the Committee do withdraw immediately, but those in it have probably already gone. [Laughter.] The House may be called upon to consider a further Lords message later today, if necessary.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (14) of Standing Order No. 80A (Carry-over of bills), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the names of
(1) Secretary Kemi Badenoch relating to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill: Carry-over Extension;
(2) Secretary Michael Gove relating to the Renters (Reform) Bill: Carry-over Extension; and
(3) Secretary Michael Gove relating to the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill: Carry-over Extension
not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Suzanne Webb.)
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Carry-over Extension)
Ordered,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 232 days until 12 December 2024.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Renters (Reform) Bill (Carry-over Extension)
Ordered,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Renters (Reform) Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 210 days until 12 December 2024.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Carry-over Extension)
Motion made, and Question put,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 177 days until 12 December 2024.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
International Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill (Money)
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief.
I rise to ensure that the moneys and staffing that are necessary for this measure are in place. I heartily welcome the House’s decision to appoint a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief and to pass this Bill—and hopefully this money resolution—to ensure that the envoy has the staff and support necessary for this position, so that this is not simply a token gesture, but effective in securing freedom of religion and belief. I want this not just in our nation, but across the world to secure the right for people to hold and practise a Christian belief or another belief, or to hold no belief. Will the Minister confirm that this is undoubtedly money well spent in terms of our international obligations, and that the secretariat will have sufficient staff and moneys to ensure that this gigantic task that we have before us tonight will be fully delivered?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raises some very important points. He will know, having seen the Bill pass through so many stages, that all the resources are in place. The Public Bill Committee is sitting on Wednesday and I will be taking the Bill forward. I am absolutely committed to the role and to providing the support services to enable the role to continue for as long as it can.
The language that we have used establishes this role permanently and in perpetuity. The recommendation comes on the back of the Bishop of Truro’s 2019 independent review into the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the freedom of religion or belief brief. Furthermore, the implementation is also a manifesto commitment, so we can be absolutely sure that the support will be provided.
Question put and agreed to.
Backbench Business
Hospice Funding
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the postcode lottery of funding for hospices; and calls on integrated care boards to urgently address the funding for hospice-provided palliative care in their areas.
As a member of all-party parliamentary group for hospice and end of life care, I am very happy to be co-leading this debate with my lovely friend, the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), who applied for this debate today.
I have so much admiration for hospice and palliative care providers, and empathy for those experiencing dying, death and bereavement. Both my parents died of cancer, and I will always be grateful for the amazing care that they received. Hospice care is important to so many people and we are very lucky to have St Michael’s Hospice in beautiful Hastings and Rye, and Demelza House, which offers palliative care for children—largely through outreach work.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) was Health and Social Care Secretary, he announced the legal right to palliative care for all ages. This was in an amendment to the Health and Care Act 2022, which declared, for the first time, a duty for integrated care boards in England to commission palliative and end of life care that meets the needs and demographic of the population it serves.
I could not believe that end of life care was not already a legal right. We should all want to see the best support available for those people who are nearing the end of their lives as well as their families, and excellent palliative care—support for people physically, mentally and spiritually—is vital.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I agree with everything that the hon. Member has just said. I wish to highlight the importance of palliative care for children and the amazing support that some children’s hospices are able to provide not just for the child, but for the entire family. It really is wraparound care, and so important for those parents going through that bereavement process.
Sally-Ann Hart
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I could not agree more; he is absolutely right.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
My hon. Friend asks why this support is not funded. In Southend we have the absolutely brilliant Havens hospice, which includes the children’s hospice Little Havens. More than 80% of its funding comes from donations, so it is dependent on sky dives and cycle rides, which is fantastic, but given that we fund, on the NHS, the beginning of life with maternity care, does she not think that we should be funding the end of life?
Sally-Ann Hart
I do, and I will be coming to that a little later.
The future of end of life care is uncertain, as increasing costs and demands are putting huge pressures on hospices and care providers. When it comes to the debate on assisted suicide, it is important that people feel confident that their end of life care will protect them from pain and suffering.
Certainly, we need increased funding. More resources are needed for end of life care services, including hospices, home care and palliative care teams. St Michael’s Hospice, for example, costs around £7 million a year to run and it receives about £2 million a year from the integrated care board and the remaining £5 million comes from the community in various forms. Like all hospices, St Michael’s is heavily dependent on the generosity of local individuals, companies, groups and trusts. This funding model is uncertain and unsustainable and places hospices under considerable strain.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on this important debate. On the point that the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) made about children’s hospices, I have the fantastic Shooting Star children’s hospice in Hampton in my constituency, which serves a wide catchment area. The hon. Lady mentioned the statutory duty, introduced by the Government, on ICBs to commission and fund palliative care, but the problem is that there is such huge variability. Surrey Heartlands, which is one of the ICBs that Shooting Star serves, spends only a paltry £39 per child, even though the average should be about £151, and other ICBs will not even disclose the amount. Does she agree that we need multi-year contracts with ICBs to serve these hospices?
Sally-Ann Hart
I agree, and will come to that later in my speech.
Demelza receives just 10% of its income from the children’s hospice grant, which ends in March 2025, and just 4% of its income from spot purchases, so 86% of its income must come from fundraising. I am concerned that neither the UK Government nor NHS England has set out whether the children’s hospice grant, which is worth £25 million, will continue beyond 2024-25. The grant is a vital source of funding for children’s hospices. Dependence on the generosity of members of the public to pay for vital healthcare would not be tolerated in other core areas of healthcare such as maternity services, cancer care or A&E. Hospices are the only statutory service that relies on fundraising to keep going, despite end of life care being an essential service that so many of us will need.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What makes hospices so remarkable is their independence. My fear is that the more one demands that they be funded by the state, that independence will be curtailed and questioned. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) put her finger on the difficulty: the problem is in the difference between the policies of different ICBs. Were they funded centrally by the grants available, as they were during the pandemic, I think it would be much better.
Sally-Ann Hart
I agree. It is important to point out that most hospices do not want 100% funding from the Government because they need the flexibility to do what they want. Fundraising is a really important part of the local community effort, bringing people together, but when the dependence on fundraising is so vast we might need to intervene to provide extra funding.
End of life care is an essential service that so many of us will need, but the situation is made worse by inflationary pressures and rising demand. We have an excellent ICB in Sussex—NHS Sussex, led by Adam Doyle—which has highlighted that hospices are recognised as having become increasingly fragile in recent years, due to a lack of resilience in their funding model, which is heavily reliant on gifted income alongside NHS grants.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Royal Trinity Hospice in my constituency supports people across central and south-west London to live and die well. Next year it will cost it £19 million to deliver care for its around 2,500 patients and support for their nearly 1,000 loved ones—a 20% on-year increase. Meanwhile, the NHS funding that it receives will decrease in real terms to 24% of the costs of running its services. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should commit to maintaining the funding levels that hospices such as Royal Trinity require to ensure that people receive the quality of end of life care and the dignified death that they deserve?
Sally-Ann Hart
This is the point of the debate: to work out what sort of funding models we need. ICBs also need to be given the freedom to assess the priorities in their local areas, but I take that on board.
We have eight hospices across Sussex, and in 2019 seven of them formed the Sussex hospice collaborative—partnership working to ensure that the hospices’ combined resources can be used to maximise the impact, reach and cost-effectiveness of their activities. NHS Sussex works closely with that collaborative arrangement, which has supported the ability to have collective conversations. In January, the APPG on hospice and end of life care published a report on Government funding for hospices. The inquiry found that despite the introduction of a legal requirement for integrated care boards to commission palliative and end of life care, ICB commissioning of hospice services is currently not fit for purpose, and the value that hospices provide to individuals in the wider health system is at risk.
Hospice funding has historically not risen in line with inflation, which has been brought starkly to light during the periods of high inflation in recent years. Costs to keep palliative services running have increased rapidly over the past few years, but that is not reflected in the Government funding that hospices receive to deliver the services, which has increased by only 1% each year on average.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Member is being generous, and making an outstanding speech. I congratulate her on bringing this matter to the House. St Mary’s hospice, St John’s hospice and Eden Valley hospice, which serve the communities of Westmorland, struggle like others to find the funding that they need to keep going. One issue is increased pay settlements in the NHS, which are good, but to compete, and to get and retain staff, they need to raise their pay to keep pace. Does she agree that one model may well be that, rather than devolving this to ICBs, which are not elected and not directly accountable to anybody, the Government fund through the national health service pay rises at NHS pay rates directly to all our hospices, so they at least do not have to worry about that?
Sally-Ann Hart
The hon. Gentleman raises a valuable point, which I am sure the Minister will take onboard.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her excellent speech, and for securing this important debate. She comes to the crux of the matter. I am really interested to hear from the Minister, because our Mountbatten Isle of Wight hospice in Newport is much loved, and one of the core institutions on the Island. Its inflation costs in the last two years have been way above what it has been getting from the ICB.
Our ICB is in special measures. We had two meetings with the ICB last week, and it was very unclear about some of its long-term plans and how it is using its funding. Does she agree that we need to ensure that our ICBs are properly managed and run? I am delighted that she has a great ICB. For us, it is a little more complicated. We need to ensure that funding goes through to hospices, so that when there is a state element of funding—one can debate the important nature of fundraising—the NHS money gets through. Right now, it does not seem to be doing so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It is the hon. Gentleman’s ICB, not mine.
Sally-Ann Hart
Yes—my hon. Friend’s ICB is not very good. Obviously, leadership structure and a clear list of priorities is essential to deliver what the public need.
The significant funding challenges are particularly concerning in the context of increasing need. Sue Ryder, a palliative and bereavement support charity, projects that the demand for specialist palliative care services in England may rise by 55% over the current decade. That rise in demand is due to several factors, including increased mortality rates and a growing desire by patients to die at home rather than in hospital. We clearly need a commitment from Government to fund a much higher percentage of total palliative care costs than at present to ensure the sustainability of the hospice sector and the vital services that hospices provide in the medium term. ICBs cannot commission specialist services without the funding to do so.
The APPG’s report made a number of recommendations to Government, the NHS and local authorities. On funding, the APPG recommended that the Government produce a national plan to ensure the right funding flows to hospices, and conduct or commission a piece of work to understand the costs of providing different models of palliative and end of life care. It also called for Government funding to address immediate pressures of paying increased staffing costs for hospices, and said that ICBs must ensure uplifts to hospice contracts that are equitable with uplifts received by NHS-run services.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We have a Marie Curie hospice in Belfast that gives excellent care to those who have cancer. Does the hon. Lady agree that, while it is important to have the financial part in place—without it, hospices cannot go on—the faith aspect is important as well? Many people need hospice care on their last journey, ever mindful that their last journey is not in this world; the next world is the one that matters. When it comes to ensuring that moneys are available, does she agree that faith is important as well, and that the faith care that the Marie Curie hospice gives in Belfast is an example of what we all need? Whatever our faith may be—Christianity or another religion—it is important to have something that looks after the hereafter.
Sally-Ann Hart
Faith is important for so many people. Even for those without a faith, there is a spiritual aspect that needs to be looked after.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington will cover the report in more detail. Hospices need to be able to plan and invest in their services and develop and train specialist staff, so they need to know in advance how much funding they are getting. Hospices already face issues of training and recruitment, and whether they will be able even to provide an adequate service because of funding restraints should not be another worry. My goddaughter is a young doctor who wants to specialise in palliative care, which is remarkable for a young person. We need more young people—more medics, nurses, occupational therapists and so on—in this growing area. A three-year funding cycle at least is required, as it would allow hospices and palliative care providers to plan accordingly.
I conclude my remarks with a worrying Hospice UK statistic: it estimates that the end of life care sector is on track for a £77 million collective deficit for the financial year 2023-24. That would present the worst end of year figures for the sector in around 20 years of tracking. Those losses are not sustainable, and our right to end of life care is at risk unless immediate action is taken. Our hospices, palliative care and end of life services need to be properly funded. Will the Minister outline what steps she is taking to ensure that that happens?
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for securing this important debate.
Hospices do incredible work. In communities across the country, they hundreds of thousands of people every year with essential palliative and end of life care. The services that hospices deliver are absolutely crucial to improving the quality of life for people in their final weeks and days, helping to provide a dignified, comfortable and compassionate end of life. That support is vital not just to people at the end of their lives, but to their family and friends. End of life care impacts not just the patient but all their loved ones, and the specialist support that hospices provide patients in their final stages of life, and their families who are watching them pass away without suffering or pain, is immeasurable. It is why hospices are so important.
In my Enfield, Southgate constituency, we are lucky to have a facility of the incredible North London Hospice, which has been caring for people since 1984. Its health and wellbeing centre in Barrowell Green helps to enable the best of life at the end of life for people across the boroughs of Enfield, Haringey and Barnet, providing tailored care, including physical, emotional, spiritual, wellbeing and bereavement support for patients, friends, carers and loved ones. I must also mention those in the wonderful North London Hospice photography club, who support each other and take amazing pictures, which they sell to raise funds for the hospice.
I remember hearing from a constituent of mine, Joy Watkins, who was receiving care and support at the hospice. Joy has sadly now passed away, but her words about the importance of the hospice and the care that she received were incredibly moving. Joy spoke about going to something called a death café—an informal space for people to talk about end of life, share their concerns and listen of others express their thoughts, hopes and experiences of death. She said that going to the death café enabled her to make choices about the end of her life. She could make choices about who to spend time with and about the finances that she would make use of at the end of her life. It transformed the way in which she viewed and handled the end of her life.
The way in which we talk about and approach dying matters, and Joy’s words have really stuck with me. Indeed, they were one of the reasons I introduced my private Member’s Bill—the Terminal Illness (Provision of Palliative Care and Support for Carers) Bill—back in 2018. Next month, Hospice UK will be promoting its campaign for Dying Matters Awareness Week, and I look forward to supporting its efforts on that important initiative. Honest and timely conversations about death and dying are essential to good end of life care, but barriers including lack of confidence, taboos around discussing death, and confusion about who should be having these conversations all too often mean that patients, carers and families may not understand what is happening or get all the information and support that they need. That is where hospices and their brilliant staff come in. More recently, a close family member of mine received support from North London Hospice, and although Gabby sadly passed away, I am so grateful for the hospice’s specialist care.
Yesterday I and about a dozen hon. Members ran the London marathon. I was proud to do so to raise money for North London Hospice. When pounding the streets of London in such a wonderful festival of community yesterday, I was struck by how many runners were, like me, raising money for their local hospices. That demonstrates the sad reality of inadequate central funding for hospices. I have been trying to bang the drum for North London Hospice since I was first elected, and although it took me a few years to muster the courage to put on the running vest and put my knees on the line, as each year passes it feels as if the challenges facing hospices grow greater and more acute.
As we know, hospices are an integral part of our health and social care system. They work in partnership with local health and care systems, helping to reduce the pressure on our NHS by caring for patients who would otherwise be directly supported by NHS services. As a community, we are reliant on hospices—they are important parts of the communities that they serve—but they are also reliant on us for support, through fundraising and donations, because they are largely charitably funded. On average, around two thirds of adult hospice income is raised through fundraising such as charity shops and marathons, and the figure is higher for children’s hospices, which must raise around four fifths of their income.
Munira Wilson
On children’s hospices, Shooting Star in my constituency, which I have already mentioned, is very grateful that the Minister has committed to the children’s hospice grant for 2024-25, which comes centrally from NHS England. The problem is that that is a year-to-year commitment, which does not help hospices such as Shooting Star to plan for the long term. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a ringfence should be placed around that funding and that it should be pegged to inflation year on year so that children’s hospices can plan properly?
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Long-term funding is absolutely essential if hospices, particularly children’s hospices, are to be able to plan ahead.
North London Hospice is reliant on donations from the community each year to fill its £10 million funding gap, as only a small proportion of its costs are funded by the NHS. Of course, the cost of living crisis continues to eat away at people’s finances, which directly impacts on our communities’ ability to provide the vital charitable support that hospices rely on. The reality of the current state of funding is that hospices are struggling to keep up with inflation and rising costs, which is leading to services being cut. However, demand for palliative care continues to grow—for North London Hospice, it has grown at a rate of 5% year on year. The costs of running hospice services, including energy bills and the cost of paying staff a fair wage, also continue to rise rapidly.
Hospices recruit from a small pool of staff in the NHS and care sector, but they are not provided with the same Government funding to meet NHS pay levels, meaning that many hospice staff are doing the same job as their NHS colleagues but being paid less for it. As a result, Hospice UK’s figures suggest an 11% growth in payroll costs this year, which means around £130 million of additional spending that is not met by increased statutory funding. As I have mentioned, those costs are not met with additional uplifts from NHS funding or contracts, and despite a legal requirement for ICBs to commission palliative care services that meet the needs of the local population, the funding that hospices receive from ICBs varies significantly across the country and means that charitable donations make up much of their income.
Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough) (Lab)
As a former hospice fundraiser—it is what I did before I came here —I am grateful to the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for securing the debate. Part of the problem that I faced at first hand was that when I was going out to private companies, trusts and foundations in order to raise funds to increase pay with inflation, that was often the hardest thing to fundraise for. The ICB was never very forthcoming, particularly when we would enter into conversations with it in the year prior to the year being funded.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Fundraising is hard enough; inflationary costs make it much harder for fundraisers to do their excellent job of bringing an enormous amount of money together to make sure that all our hospices are run adequately.
Many hospices, like North London Hospice, will continue to operate a deficit budget for 2024-25, with the shortfall being met from reserves. Indeed, Hospice UK estimates that the sector is on track for a £77 million collective deficit for financial year 2023-24, the worst end of year figures in around 20 years of tracking. This funding model is simply unsustainable, and will undoubtedly lead to hospices cutting back essential services for patients. The issue is becoming increasingly urgent. We need to look at how hospices are funded in this country. They provide essential support; they should not be a voluntary service that is topped up by whatever fundraising is available. An integral part of our healthcare system is reliant on charitable donations. No other services are funded in that way; it is unthinkable that it would be left up to charities to plug shortfalls in maternity services, for example, so why is end of life care reliant on the kindness of strangers? It is really worrying. We need a far more secure, long-term model of funding that protects our hospices and partners them with the wider health and care system. If we do not properly support our hospices, we are in danger of losing them.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I appreciate that funding models are different across the UK, but the hon. Gentleman has raised a point that I have a bit of concern about. There are two hospices in my constituency, one of which, St Margaret of Scotland, is the largest and oldest in Scotland. The voluntary capacity on the board of management has allowed it to develop and increase its palliative care provision. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should maybe look at parity of esteem between the voluntary hospice sector and our different NHS structures, in order to have equity of approach and investment?
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. We need to look at what models work best for each region. I do not know about the model he talked about, but we need to look at the long-term funding of hospices, and what works best for each hospice and region.
I am pleased that today’s debate has shown the strength of feeling on this issue, and that Members have highlighted the need for greater support and funding for hospices in the UK. That point was made clearly in the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye, as well as in interventions. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the Government’s response to the challenges that have been outlined. Finally, I once again thank everyone at North London Hospice for all their amazing work in my community and beyond, and I also thank Hospice UK for all its advocacy on these issues and its excellent briefings ahead of today’s debate.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous); it is great to see him in the Chamber after his performance yesterday in the London marathon. I congratulate him on completing it.
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this long-awaited debate, and I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for moving the motion. I thank hospices around the country that have engaged with me in my preparation for today’s debate, and I thank the Hospice UK team—Toby, Katie and Olivia in particular—for their ongoing support for me and the all-party parliamentary group on hospice and end of life care, which I co-chair along with Baroness Finlay of Llandaff.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a trustee of North Yorkshire Hospice Care, which operates both Herriot Hospice Homecare and Saint Michael’s hospice in Harrogate. I have served as a trustee of that hospice for over a decade, and have seen the difficulties that piecemeal commissioning causes for our precious hospices. To my mind, this debate is not simply about asking the Government for more money—we know that there are serious public financial challenges post pandemic—but an opportunity to discuss on the Floor of the House solutions to the challenges that our hospices face. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this debate. The number of Members who wish to speak in support of their local hospices today is testament to how much each and every one of our communities values its local hospices.
This is a matter of life and death. The hospice movement is there to deliver good deaths; that might seem a strange thing to say, but palliative care delivered in the right environment—be that a hospice, a children’s hospice, or a person’s home through a hospice at home service—is a truly wonderful thing. Those precious final few weeks of a person’s life are imprinted into our memories, and it is right that those who are dying, and those who are loving, supporting and caring for them, do so in an environment where there is proper funding and commissioning, and where we can plan and prepare to provide continuing care.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, as well as the Members who made the previous contributions, both of which focused to some extent on palliative and end of life care. Two hospices serve my constituency, St Andrew’s in Grimsby and Lindsey Lodge in Scunthorpe; both provide an excellent end of life environment. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to defuse the movement towards encouraging assisted dying, we need to ensure that our hospices provide a service as an alternative?
Peter Gibson
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have my personal views about assisted dying, and I am sure that in the fullness of time, this House will debate that issue. This debate is not about assisted dying: it is about our hospices, and how we fund and support them. With the greatest of respect to my hon. Friend, conflating the two issues is not helpful.
Even post death, our wonderful hospice movement provides much-needed bereavement care to those who have suffered the loss of a loved one. The Health and Social Care Act 2021 made provision for the very first time for the commissioning of palliative care. That is a landmark. Integrated care boards around the country now have responsibility for commissioning palliative care to meet the needs of the community that they serve, which is a good thing. It ensures that local commissioners, working together with local providers and local representatives, can deliver the palliative care needs of their respective communities.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
This is a timely debate. Tomorrow morning, the Health and Social Care Committee will have a topical session on hospice care. My hon. Friend mentioned “ICBs”, plural. I have Naomi House and Jacksplace hospice in my constituency. Its trouble is that on top of all the rising costs and inflationary pressures that it faces, it is negotiating with six ICBs for the same amount of grant. When my hon. Friend comes to summarise the recommendations of his excellent all-party group, will he recognise that challenge that many hospices face across multiple commissioning bodies?
Peter Gibson
I am very grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for his intervention, and for his continuing engagement with me on this important topic. He raises a really important issue. As I will come on to say, this is not simply about each ICB meeting its own challenges. We need national and Government attention to resolve the issue.
There is a very mixed patchwork picture across the country. During covid, the Government stepped up to the plate, acted decisively and provided much-needed financial support to the hospice movement. That support not only prevented many hospices from failing and collapsing, but ensured that much-needed palliative care could continue to be delivered around the country. The picture today, however, is one of immense challenges for our hospices. Many have failed to receive increased support under their contracts with ICBs to meet the rising costs of energy and staffing. At the same time, our hospitals face increased pressure for beds. It is a fact that one night in a hospice costs less than a night in a bed in hospital, and while there are reasons why a person may need to remain in hospital, better palliative care can be delivered in the more appropriate surroundings of a hospice.
Just last week, I met the chief executive of Sue Ryder, Heidi Travis, who also serves as a commissioner for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB. It was interesting to learn that work is being undertaken to explore ways in which hospices can do more with the same funding, or in some cases less. However, if we are to explore creative new ways of delivering hospice care, either through hospice-at-home models or virtual wards, full and frank conversations need to be had between hospices and their integrated care boards to truly explore the art of the possible.
In the Tees Valley, I have been pleased to be able to bring together, on multiple occasions, St Teresa’s in Darlington, Alice House in Hartlepool, Butterwick hospice in Stockton, and Teesside hospice in Middlesbrough. They work collectively with all eight Members of Parliament covering the Tees Valley, so that there is a collective voice for the region, and so that we can be a beacon of excellence in the provision of palliative care in the north-east. The uplift in funding for those four hospices under the North East and North Cumbria integrated care board is simply not enough, but the fact that they are working together and meeting the ICB is a sign of improving relations, and there is hope for the future.
I wish to touch on the work of our children’s hospices, which a number of Members have mentioned. They are an integral part of palliative care across the country, and I am grateful for the engagement I have had in recent weeks and months with Together for Short Lives. The NHS children’s hospice grant of £25 million from the Government is gratefully received by the sector. However, that funding should be guaranteed for a minimum of three years to enable those hospices to plan properly and commission services, and the amount should be uprated in line with inflation each year. Furthermore, the money must be ringfenced, so that when it is passed on through regional ICBs, the entirety of the money flows to the frontline—to those children’s hospices. I ask the Minister to address that point in her summing up.
In preparing for today’s debate, I asked for information and evidence from Hospice UK about hospices in each of the four nations of our country. Saint Michael’s, a hospice of which I am a trustee, is the local hospice care charity supporting people affected by terminal illness and bereavement across Harrogate. Each year, the vital care it provides costs almost £6 million to deliver. Of that, just 17% is funded by the Government; that equates to a little over £1 million of its total running costs. That leaves over £5 million to be raised through the generosity of its supporters and community. The rise in inflation has put additional strain on its finances, but has been met with a funding increase of just 1.2% from the ICB.
Shalom House in Pembrokeshire needs to raise around £288,000 to keep running, which is equal to £24,000 per month. It receives only £5,000 per month from its health board, and this amount has been halved in the last five years from £10,000. It has not received an uplift for at least the last four years. It anticipates that funding ending in September 2024, when the new commissioning model in Wales comes into effect. Without a cash injection, it is in danger of closing within the next 12 months, as its reserves are low. While Shalom House is small, the impact on the community, like that of all hospices, is huge.
In Scotland, Ardgowan in Inverclyde is, despite a very generous community, facing a deficit of £100,000. It expects this to rise to £172,000 for the next financial year. In the last 18 months, it has seen utility costs rise by 67% and insurance costs by 10%. It needs increased support.
In Northern Ireland, 65% of the funding for Foyle hospice in Londonderry comes purely from fundraising. It is unable to plan ahead or reconfigure services because of the uncertainty about statutory funding, including the outcome of the recent day hospice review. It has received some non-recurrent funding through the cancer charities relief fund, but may be unable to provide those highly valuable services when that funding runs out in March 2025.
We are a compassionate and wealthy country. We have a national health service that, despite some of its challenges, does incredible things, but so too do our hospices—be they based in buildings or in patients’ homes. Our hospices really must be seen as an integral part of our national health service.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I want to push the hon. Gentleman on the point I made to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, because I have heard this notion of symbiosis with the NHS, but they are two very distinct approaches to care. From my perspective, the palliative care sector is at its best when it is run as a voluntary local body. Would he expand a wee bit more on what he means by that kind of convergence with the NHS? There is a fear among those in the voluntary hospice sector that what they are doing to push palliative care forward could be held back by more physical integration in the NHS.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before the hon. Member continues, I just remind everybody that there is quite a bit of interest in this debate. If we could ensure self-discipline in the length of speeches, that would be very helpful.
Peter Gibson
I am very grateful for the intervention, and the hon. Gentleman raises some really important points, which I am not sure I have time to go into in detail. If the Government are going to give the national health service enough money to increase the wages of everybody in the national health service and the integrated care boards are commissioning services from hospices around the country, the very least those hospices should expect is an equal minimum uplift so that they can maintain parity of wages. Our hospices are not seeking to be nationalised. They cherish their independence passionately, and it is because of their independence that they are so integrated into our community, but if we are going to rely on them to provide services, the least we can do as a society is to meet the costs of the services we are expecting them to provide.
Mr Deputy Speaker, mindful of your words, I will bring my remarks to a close in a moment. Philanthropy and charitable giving have been the foundations on which our wonderful hospice movement has been established. To my mind, hospices’ charitable status has enabled them to be flexible and to develop an holistic pattern of palliative care outside the NHS. However, in the 21st century it cannot be acceptable that funding is reliant on pensioners performing skydives and communities baking cakes to fund palliative care.
Much work has been done, and much work must be done by our ICBs and the Government to map the demands and needs for palliative care across the country. We must end this postcode-based patchwork of provision. It really is time that the Government established a rapid taskforce to collaborate with the entire hospice movement and our integrated care boards to ensure that we as a nation have the best provision in palliative care, and that everybody can have a good and peaceful death.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson), as well as the APPG, for securing this hugely important debate on the Floor of the House.
In Coventry, we are extremely lucky to have Myton hospice. Like other hospices across the country, Myton is a critical part of the healthcare system and plays a vital role in providing care for people from the point at which their illness is diagnosed as terminal to the end of their life, while also supporting the needs of their families. The services that Myton provides are a crucial part of palliative and end of life care in Coventry. The work it does and the services it provides not only ease pressure on the wider health and care system in our city, but ensure that patients receive exactly the care they need when and where they need it. Without Myton, patients might find themselves unnecessarily relying on A&E or other hospital departments, which would massively increase the burden on, and costs for, the NHS.
I know at first hand how important Myton is to our city and local communities, because my husband, Ian, received end of life care there. Diagnosed with leukaemia in 2014, he had a stem cell transplant and was fighting his way back to reasonably good health when, three years later, he became ill with an aggressive secondary cancer and was diagnosed as terminally ill in 2018. He wanted to die at home, but we were advised that domiciliary end of life care was “clunky”. Those are not my words, but the words of the NHS care team who were advising and talking to us. That meant that we could not be sure of a timely home visit if my husband needed more pain relief—and he was on a lot of pain relief. He was on a pain driver and I could give him liquid morphine, but that shot, which only a district nurse could give him, might not have been there immediately and he might have had to wait an hour or two hours for the nurse to come. He decided to go into Myton hospice, which is only a stone’s throw away from where we lived, so it was very local to us. He went into Myton hospice, and I stayed with him until he passed peacefully away just one week later. It was a tranquil, respectful place, where all his needs were met, and ours. We were grateful for that real quality time together.
Just before Christmas, I went to an event at Myton hospice where I met staff, the loved ones of those who had received palliative and end of life care there, and the people who fundraise to help ensure that Myton can continue to provide its vital services. It takes just moments when speaking with people at such an event not only to understand the importance of the hospice sector, but also to recognise the huge funding challenges it faces. We know that the hospice sector’s reliance on fundraising for much of its income brings with it significant risks, and those risks have been compounded in recent years, first by the pandemic and now by the cost of living crisis. As a result, the hospice sector is facing a perfect storm, with the cost of delivering services increasing, while charitable donations are volatile and NHS funding is falling in real terms.
Take Myton Hospices as an example: just 20% percent of its funding comes from the NHS, and in real terms that is decreasing every year. That comes at a time when its costs are consistently increasing year on year. For the financial year 2024-25, its running costs will be £14.3 million, and it will need to raise £11 million of that in voluntary income. That is compared with running costs of £13.25 million and raised voluntary income of £10.5 million last year. Those funding challenges inevitably increase pressure on and access to services. I know that more people need a hospice bed than ever before, and demand for beds at Myton has increased by 25% over the last year. As a result, over 70% of people accepted for a bed at Myton will not be able to access one straightaway and will have to join a waiting list. Sadly, three out of four people waiting for a Myton bed will die before they can access one.
Although I understand the funding pressures that Coventry and Warwickshire integrated care board is operating under, that certainly raises questions about whether it is meeting the requirement to commission palliative and end of life care to meet the population’s needs. Indeed, I know that with funding for just four more nurses, Myton could open eight more beds and eliminate its waiting list completely, ensuring that everyone in Coventry and Warwickshire gets the palliative and end of life care that they need and deserve. Those funding challenges are certainly not unique to Myton, and most—if not all—hospices are facing similar problems. This needs to change. If we are to ensure that demand for hospice care is met, both in in-patient units and in the community, and eliminate the inequality and postcode lottery of services, we need hospice funding to be sufficient, resilient and sustainable.
I asked those at Myton hospice what steps they believe need to be taken to ensure we have a thriving hospice sector, with long-term sustainability at its heart. They told me they believe there needs to be a tariff-based approach to funding that reflects the core services provided, so that funding is based on what each hospice provides against clear criteria. They also felt that essential hospice services, including doctors and nurses, should be funded by the NHS. We must ensure that all patients with a terminal illness receive the right care to meet their needs, that that care is delivered with dignity, respect and compassion, and that the end of their life is valued as much as the beginning. To achieve this, hospices must be funded fairly and sustainably.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) and her powerful speech. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for securing such an important debate, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, who is an excellent Minister. I enjoyed working closely with her at the Department, and I know she will listen carefully and act where she can on the issues raised during the debate.
Hospices play a vital role in local communities and within the wider health and care system, providing care to those at the end of their lives, and support and comfort to their loved ones. St Helena hospice in my constituency is no different, and since its opening on 20 May 1985 it has supported countless families in and around Colchester and north Essex during their most difficult times. However, over the last two years it has been more challenging for it to carry out its vital work. St Helena has averaged a deficit of £l million per year over the past two years due to rising demand, increasing costs, and real-terms cuts to its NHS funding. Similar to cases raised by other colleagues, only 27% of St Helena hospice’s income comes from our NHS, which means that 73% of the income needed to run it is raised through the local community. As is unfortunately common across the country, that income stream has faced its own difficulties due to the increased cost of living.
East Anglia’s Children’s Hospices also plays a hugely important role in caring for families and children in my local area. During 2022-2023 it cared for 532 life-threatened babies, children and young people, and delivered more than 72,000 hours of care and wellbeing support for families. However, every year EACH faces the ongoing challenge of generating 85% of its income from non-statutory sources. It receives only 15% of its income—about £2.7 million—from the NHS and local authorities, mainly on a year-by-year basis via grants and zero-based contracts. Having seen at first hand the impact that hospices have on local communities, and the fondness with which St Helena and EACH are thought of in Colchester and more widely in our region, I can see that it is essential that hospices all over our country are not allowed to fail. That is not only because outcomes for patients will be arguably worse, but because, as a recent Sue Ryder report shows, adequate funding for hospices is more cost-effective than replacing services with the NHS.
As a former Health Minister I want to urge some caution in calling for national solutions for commissioning. Of course we should look at addressing postcode lotteries wherever they exist, but in doing so we must remember that every area is different. The needs of our populations are different, and hospice provision in and of itself is different in every one of our constituencies. ICBs were set up to make local, holistic, system-wide decisions based on their populations’ needs and priorities, always putting at their heart the needs and outcomes of patients, but also looking at system costs, so that there is not that silo mentality in working, and ultimately at what is in the best interests—in terms of outcomes and value for money—for our NHS and the taxpayer. Having said that, I think there needs to be more consistent commissioning. ICBs should commission against service specification.
To conclude, I will make a more general observation: we are not very good at talking about death. Notwithstanding what I said about ICBs, there is a national role here. I would like to see the Government support a population approach to end of life care, involving more people in their care planning, promoting choice and dignity, and supporting community care alongside that. Many people would rather spend their last days at home around their loved ones, their pets and their families, if possible, than die in hospital. Supporting hospices and community services is a way of helping to keep people at home if that is their preference, with not just better outcomes for patients but ultimately better value for our NHS and the taxpayer. I close by thanking all those at St Helena Hospice and EACH for the amazing work they do.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for securing an excellent and important debate. We think of hospices as places where people go to die, but they are not; they are places where people go to live comfortably, supported and cared for while they are ill, until that moment of death and—for many of the families—beyond. I might not be the only MP in the Chamber for whom this debate has made me remember my mortality, but I think we would all agree that when we come to that time, we want to be looked after by kind, supportive staff who can give us the care and attention we need. Those staff should be able to look after patients and their families without worrying about how they will feed their own children. Rooms should be warm, and directors of hospices should be thinking about how they can support as many people as possible, not when they will have to switch off the heating or turn someone away.
Hospices across the UK provide care and support to 300,000 people every year. They are absolutely vital to our health and social care system, but unfortunately, they are facing serious financial challenges. It has now become a postcode lottery for many of our constituents.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I am listening to my hon. Friend’s impassioned speech, and the experience that she brings to this House is valuable. The brilliant Keech Hospice serves so many in Luton North. It does amazing work, not just on end of life care, but on vital bereavement support for everyone, including children. In the past year alone, Keech’s energy costs have increased by a quarter of a million pounds. That, combined with the cost of living crisis, puts financial pressures on fundraising, which makes up two thirds of its total funding. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need sustainable funding models for hospice care? Failure to provide that puts much-needed services at risk.
Mrs Hamilton
I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend says. We absolutely need those models. As I go through my speech, I will be agreeing with what she has just said.
John Taylor Hospice in my constituency, which is run by Birmingham Hospice, does unbelievably important work to support my constituents and their families in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale. The staff work day and night to make sure people are cared for while they are ill, and I could not be prouder to support them in this Chamber today. I must add that I have worked there in the past. Birmingham Hospice cares for almost 1,000 local people with a life-limiting illness every day. Last year, it cost more than £16 million to run its services, some 40% of which needs to be recovered through fundraising income. Over the past few years, the hospice has seen a significant increase in costs, including the price of energy, food and vital medicines, and a shortfall in funding for staff pay awards. At the same time, fundraising has declined across the hospice sector with the cost of living crisis hitting poorer areas like mine the hardest.
Birmingham Hospice is currently losing £200,000 a month. With inflationary costs and falling voluntary income, the only option to keep the hospice going is to reduce the services it provides. A reduced service will increase inequality across our city of Birmingham and the country. Sadly, more people will die in hospital or A&E as a result, when they could have had outstanding care at the hospice or at home with the support of the community team.
The hospice is dedicated to ensuring that outstanding care at the end of life is available to all, but it has recently been in the difficult position of having to make essential staff redundant to maintain financial security. That is not just happening in Birmingham; nationally, Hospice UK estimates that 100,000 people in the UK who could benefit from palliative care die without receiving it each year. Hospices play a huge role in alleviating pressure on our NHS, and they do not have the ability to reset their budgets on 1 April each year, as the NHS does. Instead, their deficits continue and the valuable care that they provide to local communities such as mine is at risk of being lost. I have worked in the health service all my adult life. When we speak about hospices, we rarely mention the vital role that they play in providing respite care and support to the family of someone who is ill.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her wonderful contribution to the debate. Many people want to stay at home—I have stayed with four people right through to their deaths at home—but hospices give a different care from hospitals. If you go into hospital, you might not get into the hospice. We have 10 beds in the most beautiful hospice, which is funded 71% from fundraising. If they are not in a hospice, and they do not have care at home—not everybody can do it at home; they might not have the family to provide the care they need—they can end up in a hospital for hours. Does my hon. Friend find that in her area? They can get triaged in an ambulance outside the hospital, and they do not get the palliative care and support, and their families do not get support—it is a completely different service. Do you agree that we should be looking for more hospice care, not less, but we should not be changing it to a hospital ward? It is a different atmosphere in a hospice. Do you find that is the case? That is not decrying hospitals, but hospital is not somewhere to die.
Mrs Hamilton
I absolutely agree with your sentiments and statement. As was said earlier, we need to move away from looking at individuals to look at population health and how we will support the local community. I will move on swiftly so that I can finish.
My constituency is the fifth poorest in the UK, and our communities are in some of the UK’s so-called left behind neighbourhoods. For places like mine, respite care is so important to ensure that carers get the break and support they need to keep them doing the incredible work that they do.
I am a nurse, and it breaks my heart that the NHS is in the worst state it has ever been in. Throughout the 14 years of this Tory Government, I have seen doctors striking, nurses striking, technicians striking, people queuing around the block for a GP appointment, people pulling out their own teeth, the highest waiting times in history, and complete disdain for the service that quite literally serves us from birth to death. We must have a national care service and we must properly invest in our NHS. It is no longer acceptable for hospices to rely on charitable donations to try to survive. Now more than ever, our hospices and our NHS need a Labour Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I gently remind the House that when people use the word “you”, they are referring to me, so please try to resist that.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton), and I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on securing the debate. I wish to highlight foremost the significant challenges and opportunities before us in the care sector across the United Kingdom. In Southport, Queenscourt Hospice stands as a pillar of community strength, with its Star Trek night walks, which have raised nearly £100,000, annual Christmas fairs and summer balls—and who could forget the annual Santa sprint that unites our community in support of its services? Queenscourt initiatives are vital.
It was a privilege to visit Queenscourt Hospice in 2022 and meet the dedicated nursing, operations and fundraising teams. I found their passion and commitment to serving Southport and the surrounding area truly inspiring, and I am committed to supporting their invaluable work. It is clear that the hard work of Debbie Pierce-Lawson and her team is paying off in Southport, and it is testament to the hospital’s embedded role in our community.
Similarly, my visit a few years ago to Claire House Children’s Hospice highlighted the immense dedication and heartfelt contribution made by staff and volunteers. Their commitment to providing care for every child is commendable. Their work brings indispensable comfort to affected children and their families during unimaginably difficult times, yet despite those immense and inspiring local efforts the recent Hospice UK briefing projects a £77 million deficit across the hospice sector for 2023-24.
Queenscourt Hospice, which needs nearly £3 million to operate each year, receives only 20% of that and has to raise the remaining amount through exceptionally hard fundraising work. That figure is not merely a statistic but a stark indication of the financial hurdles facing our hospice care system.
Hospices are cornerstones of our healthcare system, offering invaluable support to over 300,000 individuals annually. That support extends beyond patient care to providing relief and assistance to families during the most challenging times. Hospices’ remarkable efforts in fundraising underscore the community’s recognition of their vital role. However, the sector’s reliance on charitable income highlights the need for a more structured approach to funding.
It is heartening to see the Government’s commitment to palliative care, notably through the Health and Care Act 2022, which introduced a legal duty for integrated care boards to commission palliative care services. That is a positive step forward, ensuring that the needs of the local population are met. Nevertheless, despite those strides, the variability in funding across the country and escalating operational costs represent ongoing challenges.
I am proud of our Government’s record in supporting hospices in the broader NHS. However, I recognise that as the demand for palliative care increases, we must continue to evolve and support the system so that it remains sustainable for the future. The anticipated growth in palliative care needs, with an estimated 130,000 additional deaths annually by 2040, underscores the urgency for developing a sustainable funding model. Such a model would empower hospices to continue their work in partnership with the NHS, providing compassionate care and support.
As I participate in the debate, I firmly believe in the Government’s ability to address those challenges. I hope to hear that commitment from the Minister when she winds up the debate. By fostering a collaborative approach with the hospice sector, we can ensure that hospices in Southport and across the United Kingdom are not just sustained but supported to continue to provide critical services to those who need them.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I welcome the debate, because it allows us to pay tribute to the wonderful work that hospices do in all our constituencies across the country, while raising the peril that some of them are in, the insecurity they are facing and the fragile nature of their funding. I am mindful of your caveat on time, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will make just make two points, if I may.
The first point is about adult services for my constituents. For many years, those services have been provided by the Pembridge palliative care unit, which is an adult community-based specialist palliative care unit just over the border in North Kensington. It is a fantastic place—I have visited friends who have been dying there—and I am aware of its wide range of services. Those are—or at least were—not just in-patient care but telephone advice, community care nursing and therapy teams.
As I said, there was a wonderful in-patient unit; unfortunately there is not at the moment. The ICB is consulting on various options, some of which would see that unit reopen. It closed allegedly not because of funding but because the consultant left and it was not possible to recruit a consultant to fill the post. I would have some sympathy with that were it not for the fact that it closed in 2018 and we are still waiting for the NHS to provide a consultant so that we can reopen the service, which is exactly what all my constituents want.
I note that in the latest consultation, in which there are options to reopen, the NHS said:
“We have heard there is still a strong desire for the Pembridge in-patient unit to be reopened and that options from the public for how we could reopen the unit could be more widely considered than they have been to date.”
That is putting it somewhat mildly. It is an indication of the parlous state of some services around the country, despite the hugely high-quality service they provide.
The other issue is about children’s hospice services. Those for my constituency—in fact, for the whole north-west London ICB, which covers a population of 2 million people—comes from Shooting Star Children’s Hospices, which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned because it is based in her constituency. It wrote to me recently and said that it supports
“700 families living across Surrey, south-west London and north-west London. Our specialist care and support are completely free of charge to families and available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It includes specialist nursing in the community, symptom management and pain relief, overnight respite stays, end-of-life care, specialist bereavement care and a comprehensive range of therapies, groups, and clinics for the whole family.”
The majority of its funding—we have heard this from hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening—comes from fundraising; approximately a third is funded from statutory channels. Each £1 received from statutory channels necessitates the raising of an additional £2 to sustain its service. I cannot imagine that happening in many other areas. There are other examples of charitable funding, such as for air ambulances, but I am pleased that that is not the norm in the health service. The plea that Shooting Star Children’s Hospices makes is for
“properly funded paediatric palliative care across the UK”,
to
“create a level play field in terms of funding”.
What could possibly be unreasonable about that request or—I would rather say—demand?
On the back of that request, I attended—I think a number of hon. Members in the Chamber did—the recent meeting held here, which was organised by Together for Short Lives. I was incredibly impressed by it. At the meeting I met the chief executive of Shooting Star, Paul Farthing. At his request, I have written to the head of my local ICB to request, in the first instance, simply that it meets, discusses and get to know the services that are better offered.
One of the problems with the majority of funding coming from the voluntary sector through fundraising—I understand why that is important and we want it to continue, as it renews links with the communities—is that there is less of a connection with the statutory sector than there would be in other respects. ICBs need to work very closely with their local hospices, even if they are not based in the same geographical area, as is the case in my constituency. They jointly need to have a plan for how to go to the Government and persuade them that we need stable and ongoing funding, lasting more than one year and covering the impressive range of services that I have mentioned. Without that, a lot of services such as Pembridge will be in doubt.
A Member mentioned assisted dying, which we are debating next week. The two things are related but separate. We want the most compassionate and clearest services for people at the end of life. Part of that is ensuring properly funded hospice services, whether for adults or for children. I again thank the organisers of the debate, the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye and for Darlington, for bringing this matter to the House’s attention. I hope the Government are listening.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on their hard work to secure the debate, and on their work on the all-party parliamentary group. I led a Westminster Hall debate on this subject on 14 June 2023. I am pleased that we are having this debate, but disappointed that no further progress has been made on the problems we expressed then, given the problems that hon. Members are expressing this evening.
As has been said, the hospice sector does a remarkable job and plays a pivotal role in our health system, providing care and the support needed to those who watch their loved ones pass away, and wonderful care in those weeks until that point. That happened to me and many of my dear friends upon the passing of my office manager Sue Hall on 30 March 2023. She passed away at the age of 57 from lymphoma, leaving her husband Jerry and her daughters Phoebe and Rosie. She was cared for fabulously by the team at Mountbatten hospice in my constituency. The family and I were able to count on the support of the fantastic staff at that hospice, who not only provided the best care that Sue wanted, needed and deserved, but gave us the wraparound support during and after that period.
Like many hospices, Mountbatten provides 24/7 in-patient and community domiciliary care to Southampton and large parts of Hampshire. It supports around 1,000 families every day. Demand for its services is expected to rise by 40% in the next 18 months. It costs £11.5 million to run every year and relies on fundraising, which equates to around 70% of its total budget. NHS contracting represents around 30% of services delivered. However, the funding models in place are inadequate, with the ICB giving only a 2.4% uplift in the contracting of services, when the real rise in costs requires an 8% uplift. For 2025-26, the Hampshire ICB has once again said that there will be no uplift, which means that Mountbatten will need to find an extra £750,000 just to provide the same services that it does today.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Strengthening our local hospices takes pressure off our NHS. My hon. Friend makes a good point that the benefits of fairer funding are plain to see, yet some hospices get no public funding at all from the local NHS. One such hospice is Sidmouth Hospice at Home in my constituency. Dr Sarah Wollaston, formerly of this place and chair of the NHS Devon ICB, still needs to provide a detailed idea of what funding Sidmouth Hospice at Home can get. It does not receive a penny from the NHS in Devon. That is wrong. Does my hon. Friend agree that it cannot be right that some hospice services and charities get funded from integrated care boards—something we should be proud of—while others get nothing at all?
Paul Holmes
I agree. In Hampshire we are lucky that 30% of Mountbatten’s services are contracted by the NHS. The ICB—which is in special measures, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) said—is not doing a good enough job of providing those services. If a hospice wants to explore getting some of that funding from the national health service, it should be allowed to do so, while recognising the independence of spirit of many hospices that choose to go their own way. My hon. Friend is right to raise the work of the hospice in his constituency, and I hope that it will be able to acquire some ICB funding.
It will cost Mountbatten an extra £750,000 just to provide the same services, while the number of people it supports will rise by 200%. The Minister will say that this Government awarded another £1.5 billion for hospice services through ICBs. That is entirely welcome, and I congratulated her on her announcement in my debate last year. But I say now what I said in that debate: the ICBs are not passing on the money for the purposes set out. ICBs—particularly mine in Hampshire—are riding roughshod over the Government’s wishes and are exacerbating a problem in a system that already fails to take into account the varying nature of needs across different parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and I had a meeting last week with representatives from our ICB. I asked how much of that £1.5 billion had been awarded to the Hampshire ICB. They could not give an answer. I asked how much of that was allocated to hospices in the region. They could not give an answer. I say what I said last June to the Minister, who is doing an excellent job: that money was very welcome but I hope we can look at a better way of holding ICBs to account, to ensure that when the Government put hard-pressed money into our health system, ICBs deliver it to the frontline services for which it was intended. That is no different in Hampshire. The leadership of Hampshire ICB needs to look at that seriously.
Mountbatten also has to compete with the NHS for its workforce. It rightly chooses to pay and award its staff along the same pay guidelines as NHS staff. This year, that represented a 4.8% rise in costs, and will represent a further 5% next year. Again, I thank the Government for awarding an extra £450,000 to Mountbatten, but that will still leave a deficit of £1 million overall this year. It is right that it chooses to pay its staff adequately, but that will mean Mountbatten will have to lay off some of its workforce, harming outcomes for families in my constituency. That will be the case in the rest of the UK if other hospices have the same problem.
The funding instability—which in my case I blame on the ICB, which is leading a review into hospice care—seems entirely one-sided. It will end up costing the NHS more money, as hospitals will pick up the burden of care, and beds will be used by people who should be in hospices. We all know the impact that energy bills and covid had on the sector.
I do not mean to sound depressing to the House, but we must continue to look at this issue. The Government’s investment is extremely welcome, but we need more. I would like to hear from the Minister how the Government and the NHS nationally intend to work together to provide a sustainable long-term funding settlement for hospice care, while retaining that independence that hon. Members have outlined. We need the Minister to review how much money ICBs are passing on to hospices, and to take a stronger line in reviewing the role of ICBs and holding them to account if they are not giving that money to the frontline.
The Government, the hospice sector and the ICBs have a clear choice: a sustainable funding model for our hospices, or more pressure on an already stretched national health service. The hospice staff I have met care and want to deliver on the challenge that many of our constituents face across the United Kingdom, but they need a level playing field in order to provide that care. Let us help them do that and improve hospice care.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I thank Members for shortening their speeches. We still have another 15 people who wish to contribute.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate everyone who has spoken in the debate. The House has come together to highlight something that I am struggling with: when people are at their most vulnerable, they are having to beg for money to fund important services. That should not be the case, yet here we are with an NHS that is clearly not functioning and other services are also feeling the pain. The reorganisation of the NHS devolved powers to ICBs, but we must remember that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the structures function. That is not happening at the moment, and our constituents are losing out. A word that keeps echoing in my mind, rolling off our lips as it always does, is the NHS: the “national” health service. Yet we are hearing about a postcode lottery, where different areas have different experiences, with different ICBs funding to different tunes and where you live accounts for how you die. Surely, we are better than that? In the words of one clinician about the extraordinary provision at St Leonard’s Hospice in York:
“Having worked with people at the end of life through my career, I didn’t know care like that was possible.”
However, as with all hospices, if funding is not addressed, such care will not be possible.
It was this Parliament that inferred the duty, through the Health and Care Act 2022, to address the inequality in access to palliative and end of life care, so that everyone can have the best clinical and holistic support possible, if the right funding is stabilised and put in place. Currently, however, we know that many people—Hospice UK says one in four—are not accessing palliative care. That is 150,000 people every year who die without the support they require. That number is set to rise 25% by 2048 and, according to Marie Curie, by 13% in the next decade. This debate cannot just be about what happens now, but what happens in the future.
In York, the hospice ran an £800,000 deficit last year. The hospice at home funding has remained static for the past seven years, while demand has doubled and the ICB has provided just a 1.2% increase. Sue Ryder believes that the real cost increase over the past year was 10%. Hospice UK figures released say there has been an 11% increase for the payroll this year to around £130 million. Martin House, the local children’s hospice, costs £9.9 million to run. With a total income of £8.6 million, it had a £1.3 million deficit. Only 18% of its funding came from the statutory sources, £1.1 million came from the national children’s hospice grant and £700,000 came from the ICB. Hospice UK estimates a £77 million deficit for the financial year just past—the worst for 20 years.
As demand and costs are rising, the funding is not rising to match. As of 12 April 2024, St Leonard’s hospice in York did not know how much money it was getting from the ICB: left to carry all the risk and left to depend on its reserves, and that, of course, not guaranteed for the future. Martin House, which is also using its reserves to expand its services, knows that it will have only six months of reserves. It certainly does not know what is happening with its funding after this financial year.
The children’s sector, yes, has received a grant, but what comes next? We cannot just run our hospices by running marathons and running charity shops. It is driving inequality. In areas of greater deprivation, fundraising is even harder and therefore the hospices are getting even less money.
Ms Rimmer
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for securing the debate. It has been a wonderful and sincere debate, but does my hon. Friend agree that there should be more equality between care at home—hospice at home—and care at the hospice? There is no doubt that there is nothing better than care in a hospice—absolutely no doubt. I have nursed four members of my family at end of life, and getting clinical support at home when it was needed was always a problem—my brother had to search for morphine at night. Does she agree that staff are funded even less and are on the minimum wage?
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points and I will come on to the issue of hospice at home. We know it is absolutely vital that people can choose where they die. Not everyone wants to die in a clinical setting—indeed, a hospice is barely a clinical setting—but many choose to die at home and they should be able to receive the care they need. She is right. We must have integration with the rest of the NHS. A district nurse may not be able to push palliative care to the extent that a palliative care specialist would in providing pain relief and the support somebody needs at the end of life at home. We need it to be timely and we need to ensure it is fully funded. The Health and Social Care Committee found that when it visited Royal Trinity hospice, as part its assisted dying inquiry. The point was made that we need to ensure we have the training so that clinicians have the competencies and the confidence to administer the pain relief and the palliative care that is necessary, and to ensure that the service is available universally. It is not and that must be addressed.
In York, of the 1,000 people who benefited from St Leonard’s hospice last year, 50% received hospice care at home. That number will grow over time and we need to ensure those services are there as they are needed. Of course, we know that if people are not on that pathway they end up in the acute service. They are put through the trauma of A&E, costing the NHS goodness knows how much, and then they do not get the care they need. Trinity Hospice talked about what it was doing to divert people away from that pathway and into proper care, either at home or within its wider services. There is much still to secure on that front.
If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will raise just one more major point before I close, which relates to inequality. We know there is real inequality at the end of people’s lives. Some of it is based along socioeconomic lines, and some of it is emphasised within minority communities. We need to deal with that to ensure we have universal provision, address the death literacy of our nation, and ensure the support is there when it is needed. I am particularly concerned about the lack of comprehensive funding for our palliative care services.
I urge the Minister to look at funding staffing costs, which are 69% of all funding. It has been suggested by Marie Curie that 70% of funding come from the state, and I think that is about right. We can phase that in, but we need to ensure we address the inequality that is driven through the system. We need to put in the research that is needed, so there is better data on who is accessing care and who is not, and we need to ensure that we are pushing palliative care as far as we can. If we do not, and we debate assisted dying, I am worried that people will be fearful that they will not be able to access the care that could be possible should that service be properly funded. I really urge the Minister to make that a priority before that debate takes place. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will end on that point.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am going to try to protect everybody so that they can get in, so it is a seven-minute limit forthwith.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, not least for enabling me to reassure myself that I can still get out of my seat, despite my London marathon legs from yesterday—I had to find a way to get that in!
May I start with some positives? I do not want to steal the Minister’s thunder, but there has been some really good support for hospices in recent times. We heard about the covid support. The Government gave around £400 million to increase capacity and to enable patients to be discharged from hospital. We saw hospices benefiting from the Government’s energy bill relief scheme until April last year and, since then, the discount scheme until March this year. As we heard earlier, there has been an increase in the NHS England children’s hospice grant from £12 million in 2019-20 to £25 million in 2023-24. I believe that that has, since July last year, been committed through to 2024-25, albeit it is now allocated through ICBs rather than directly.
So why are hospices struggling? I think that the answer is best encapsulated in a recent report from the Health and Social Care Committee, which stated that funding for specialist palliative and end of life care was “insufficient and unsustainable” and was creating
“inequality in access to and quality of care.”
What does that mean for hospices in my constituency and across Cheshire? Let us take the Hospice of the Good Shepherd in Chester, which is just outside my constituency but serves many of my constituents. As its chief executive, Rhian Edwards, informed me, last year it delivered more than 2,000 hours of direct care per week, supporting 476 patients and their families. To do so, it used £4 million of its own charitable funds, with the ICB contributing £1 million. Over three years the ICB contribution has fallen from 22% to 20%, and is expected to fall further to 16% in the next financial year.
This is against a backdrop of running costs—80% of which are staff costs—shooting up, mainly as a consequence of the requirement to match pay awards for medics and nursing staff, welcome as they are for those workers. The impact is a forecast operating loss of just under £1 million for 2024-25, and there is a similar scenario in nine out of 10 hospices in the country. Rhian told me:
“although we’ve always struggled to balance our books, this level of deficit is feeling very different.”
Another example is St Luke’s hospice in Winsford, which has been providing palliative care since 1988. It has 162 members of staff, and 95% of the workforce live and work in Cheshire. It has 700 volunteers and 10 charity shops. At the heart of this incredible organisation is a charitable purpose, and it does amazing work, but only 12% of its income is received through the NHS and the ICB, one of the lowest percentages in support packages of this kind across the country. It costs £5 million to run St Luke’s, so it has to raise—I have worked this out—£8 a minute to keep its services going. Within the Cheshire and Merseyside region, it receives about £1 million less grant funding than a hospice of a similar size in Merseyside dealing with the same end of life care.
Welcome though the extra funding was during covid, the fundamental financial issues facing hospices have not gone away; they have simply been postponed. This financial year, for example, will see a £350,000 black hole in the finances of St Luke’s, not helped by a staggering 60% increase in its utility costs. Neil Wright, its chief executive, explained to me:
“As a charity, we have a fiduciary duty to balance the books. This means that without progressive investment of sustainable funding, hospices will have to reduce and eventually stop services over the coming years. This will then place 100% of the financial burden of EoL”
—end of life—
“care back onto the already overstretched NHS”.
So what can be done? Hospices such as St Luke’s are not looking for, or expecting, 100% funding; they just want a sensible, sustainable funding formula. At present, however, ICB funding does not reflect the true cost of clinical care. When it comes to sustainability, as other Members have said, we need multi-year contracts to give hospices the confidence to deliver their services and invest, grow and develop to meet the needs of their communities. We have the NHS long-term workforce plan, which is hugely welcome and, I believe, provides a real opportunity to assess—fully and rigorously—and deliver the palliative and end of life care services that are necessary to meet the growing demand over the coming years and decades.
It is also worth remembering that some people face greater barriers in accessing palliative care, including those who live alone, in poverty or with dementia, as well as those with learning disabilities. In the end, if we do not secure the long-term future of hospices, we will have created a false economy and a false reality. If we do, we will not only reduce pressure on NHS services and have fewer unplanned and potentially avoidable hospital admissions, but will ensure that we can deliver compassionate care for those coming to the end of their lives and for their families and loved ones, thus demonstrating that we are a society that values both a good life and a good end of life.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am a trustee of Harlington hospice, and have been for the past decade. I hope to stand down shortly, because we have recruited four excellent new trustees and I am terrified that someone might ask me to run a marathon or something like that.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Together with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), I did run the marathon yesterday —on behalf of St Giles hospice, for which I raised more than £3,000. May I invite the right hon. Member to join us in that endeavour next year? Let us not allow the opportunity to pass.
John McDonnell
I set myself up for that, didn’t I? I congratulate all those who did run, but running a marathon might well see me off.
Over the last year or two, our hospice has merged with the Michael Sobell sports centre. We now provide a bedded unit, daycare facilities, respite care—particularly for unpaid carers—and a hospice-at-home service. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said that debates such as this allowed us to pay tribute to organisations, and I certainly pay tribute to Harlington hospice. I pay particular tribute to the volunteers, including the chairs over recent years. I hope they will not mind my naming them: Brian Neighbour, who was formerly one of our local councillors, Carol Coventry and, now, Michael Breen. These volunteers give up their time and bring their professional skills to this work. We have a wonderful medical director, Ros Taylor, and an incredibly hard-working chief executive, Steve Curry. Their efforts provide the services and have enabled us to survive, but it has been tough. Like the hospices mentioned by a number of other Members, we have just had to lay off some staff. There is nothing tougher than having to lay off staff who are so dedicated.
The issue for us, as always—this has been reflected throughout the House today—is the need for core funding on a sustainable basis. We need something like a five-year plan that we could work to. I know that sounds a bit Stalinist, but sometimes they work; sometimes they do produce the tractors! We need consistency over a period. As Members on both sides of the House have said, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), if we could rely on staff funding from the state, that would lift the burden to a certain extent. We will continue the fantastic fundraising that is currently happening, but in a working-class community like mine, during a cost of living crisis, it is not that people do not want to give, but they do not have the resources to give. We have had a bit of a rough time now and again. A number of corporate organisations have helped us through, but even then, when they are looking at their margins during an economic recession, or when times get hard, there is a downturn for us as well. We just need the consistency of funding over a period that will enable us to build on our services.
At present our services are swamped, and the range of services is becoming more complex as well. We were providing a lymphoedema service at one point. The complexity of the millions with which we are dealing requires more specialists, and that in turn requires more funding. Although there have been percentage increases in NHS funding, they have gone nowhere near meeting the real costs that are challenging us at present. We have a good relationship with our ICB—we work with bids for contracts, and with other community organisations delivering on the ground—but we want consistency of approach.
We have organised a conference for 8 May. It is called “Death, Dying and all that Jazz!”, and it will bring together a range of clinicians and others, along with Hillingdon Hospital and other volunteering services, under the auspices of Harlington hospice. We will look at what we are undertaking, what is needed, and how we plan for the future. If the Minister would like to visit the conference or send representatives, we would welcome that. We want to engage in discussion. We are coming up to a general election, but I hope that this will not become a general election issue, because what we have seen in the House and in the work of the all-party parliamentary group, which I commend, shows that there is consensus on the core principles of the way forward.
If we could secure a long-term commitment on a cross-party basis, we could go back to our hospices, talk to our executives and trustees, congratulate them on what they are doing, and give an assurance that they will have a rock-solid financial base on which they can build, thereby allowing them to rise to the challenges in our communities.
My final point is about the demand that we face. Eight people die in hospital for every person who dies in a hospice, yet most of those eight people would prefer to die either at home or in a hospice. That is the challenge we face, and we have seen tonight that we have the wherewithal to meet that challenge, and ideas on how to do so.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
May I add my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for calling for this debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it? Above all, I thank my constituents, who have contacted me in great numbers to express their support for our hospice in Basingstoke, St Michael’s. That heartfelt support has been echoed by Members of all parties. We love our hospices; they have a special place in our constituencies, our communities and our lives.
It is really important that we take a moment to reflect on exactly what hospices are asking for, because there has been a slight variety in what hon. Members have said. It is as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said; I may not agree with him about having a five-year plan—that is too reminiscent of tractor production—but I agree that hospices are calling for consistency of funding. One of the many constituents who wrote to me talked about the need for a national plan to ensure that the right funding flows to hospices, and so that there are national measures to support integrated care boards with their commissioning decisions—we heard about that earlier. As a result of the Health and Care Act 2022, we also need to make sure that hospices have multi-year contracts, that they are paid the full cost of commissioned clinical services, and that they see the same uplift in payment that other parts of the NHS see. We know that that is not happening in Hampshire.
My constituents are not calling for hospices to be taken over by the NHS. That is a really important point to make. It would be the wrong way forward. The amazing hospice in my constituency, St Michael’s, together with Naomi House and Jacksplace, which my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) referred to and are in his constituency, provide support for more than 1,000 families a year in our area. They are amazing because of the people, and I thank all the staff, the volunteers and the people who help run the shops—they are an incredible army. The hospices are also amazing because they are fiercely independent charities and can, as a result of their independence, do things that the NHS finds it difficult to do “at pace”, as they now say. I give the example of the introduction of hospice at home in my constituency many years ago. It was done because there was a need in the constituency, not because that was set out by central Government or the NHS.
The other reason why we need to retain the fierce independence of our local hospices is that they involve the community. I want to mention the people I am joining on Saturday for the bluebell morning in Steventon, which is organised by Julian Pilcher. I am going there with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and others, because the walk raises thousands of pounds every year to support our local hospice. The hospice is part of our community —we help to shape it, and we absolutely help to fund it—but there needs to be a better balance in the way that our hospices are funded. The Health and Care Act 2022, which introduced the statutory duty on ICBs, forces that point. I hope that the Minister can help us understand how she will assist ICBs to do their job better, but also that she will look at the variance in funding. The hospice in my constituency receives a very small proportion of what some other hospices in Hampshire receive, and the disparity in funding is causing feels unfair, particularly when costs, especially wage costs, are increasing and there is an increase in demand.
I hope that the Minister can consider three points. First, how will she support the ICB to better plan for removing the enormous disparities in funding between hospices? Hospices’ needs are no different, although sometimes their fundraising capacity is a little different. More than 80% of my hospice’s funding comes from local fundraising, but how can we make sure that the NHS disparities are ironed out?
Secondly, how can we make sure that as funding moves from NHS England to local ICBs, funding streams such as the children’s hospice grant do not create administrative nightmares? My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester talked about that—about places like Naomi House having to negotiate with up to six ICBs to ensure that it continues to receive the same amount of funding.
Thirdly, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can touch on the situation following the introduction of the Health and Care Act 2022, because there needs to be more certainty in forward planning for hospices. There need to be multi-year contracts to provide that certainty, especially given the cost pressures that hospices face.
I draw my remarks to a close by giving additional thanks to all the organisations throughout my constituency and north Hampshire that help fund my local hospice, whether through the Sherfield Oaks golf day or the moonlight walk around Basingstoke. I thank our local furniture store and the six shops—the list goes on. People go above and beyond, giving their time, money and energy to make sure that St Michael’s hospice is at the heart of our community. I do not want to see that changed, but I want the Minister’s help to make sure that that fantastic organisation gets support from the NHS when it needs it, and certainty around funding.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), and for Darlington (Peter Gibson), on securing this important debate, with cross-party support. The debate is a time for us to thank all the people who work in hospices in our local communities.
Hospices have touched so many lives in all our constituencies. St Gemma’s hospice in Leeds serves my community and has a special place in my heart because my grandma, mum and auntie all received care there before passing away, and the staff did a fantastic job. It was 20 years ago last month that my mum passed away there. Looking at the St Gemma’s hospice Twitter feed this evening, I saw that a friend of mine, Liam Raftery, who was a fantastic musician in a Leeds band called The Latchicoes, passed away there at the age of just 30 in 2017. I did not realise that it would have been his 37th birthday yesterday until I saw the St Gemma’s hospice Twitter feed.
The work that hospices do touches all our lives, and they do a fantastic job under incredibly difficult circumstances. St Gemma’s cares for over 300 people every day, and around 2,000 patients each year, but as we have heard from various speakers tonight, funding is a huge issue. St Gemma’s funding from the NHS covers less than 30% of the total hospice needs, so we need core funding on a sustainable basis. St Gemma’s hospice is budgeting for a deficit of over £500,000 in this financial year, which is why it has had a fundraising drive online over the last 48 hours. If people donated to St Gemma’s hospice before 8 pm tonight, their donation would be matched—in other words, it would be doubled.
I was delighted to see that, due to the generosity of people in Leeds, the hospice more than exceeded its target of raising £200,000 in just 48 hours. That shows how valued the hospice is in our community, as well as the generosity of local people. When I last went to St Gemma’s hospice and met the chief executive Kerry Jackson and her team, one of the things they made clear, and are still making clear, was that fundraising drives in general are becoming harder and harder to do. That is because of the cost of living crisis. People want to give but they cannot necessarily give as much as they used to. The people who run and work at St Gemma’s hospice are clear that NHS funding is not sufficient. They say that it covers less than 30% of the total hospice needs, so we need to see a change.
People have mentioned the independence of hospices, and that is important. We cannot have a situation where the people working in and running hospices in some of the most stressful circumstances imaginable, at a crucial and painful time for those who are losing loved ones, are worrying not only about how to care for people in the last moments of their life but about funding.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend agree that the Government should provide an increased level of funding that is long-term sustainable to all children’s hospices, including Claire House and Zoe’s Place in Liverpool, West Derby, which provide magnificent and crucial support for everybody in West Derby and beyond who needs it?
Richard Burgon
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has spoken to me before about the hospices in Liverpool and how they serve the people of West Derby, and he is correct to say that sustainable, reliable and sufficient funding is needed—especially as we are seeing increased demand—if the hospices that Members on both sides of the Chamber have celebrated tonight are to continue to provide the service that is needed by the people in our communities.
I want to end by saying thank you to each and every person who works at St Gemma’s hospice in Leeds, to the team who work there day in, day out, and also to the people in Leeds for their generosity. Even in tough times, they are donating and raising money for St Gemma’s hospice. Long may it continue the fantastic work that it does, but we need to ensure that sufficient core funding is provided so that it can do that work more easily in the decades to come.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I want to take advantage of tonight’s debate to raise the specific issue of the North Devon hospice and its hospice to home service. When I last met its excellent chief executive, Stephen Roberts, last October, he flagged to me that the hospice was no longer in a position to continue its non-commissioned service after the end of this financial year. At the time, he wrote to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), detailing those concerns. I instantly phoned my hospital trust, because North Devon is home to the smallest hospital on the UK mainland and it already suffers with discharge issues and an overstretched A&E service.
In February when I met Dr Sarah Wollaston, the chair of the Devon integrated care board, I asked about the service and was assured that it was all fine and the money was being found. When this debate was announced —many thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for securing it—I contacted Stephen Roberts at the end of the recess and said that I would like to check that this was all okay. He told me that my email was timely because everything was not okay, despite having had endless meetings with the integrated care board. He asked me to share with the House tonight some of the email that he sent back to the integrated care board following a phone call with its new chief executive, in which he said:
“Thank you for your time yesterday. I thought it would be prudent to summarise in an email where we have got to as there is nothing on paper or email that corresponds to the discussions we had around your offer of £95k. As a summary as to where we stand today: North Devon Hospice’s Hospice to Home Service is dedicated to support palliative patients who are at the ‘end of life’ stage through: increasing care at home, reducing unplanned/avoidable hospital admissions, and expediting hospital discharges.”
He goes on to detail the 15 staff who deliver that vital service, which costs just £495,000 and which the North Devon Hospice charitable funds have covered for the last decade. He said:
“North Devon Hospice asked for funding support of £157,540 which represents the same level of commissioning support as our bedded unit and community nursing team receive. Devon ICB have stated that they are willing to provide £95k as a one off”
before the next commissioning review period. But he said that the hospice had to state in return:
“due to our year on year million-pound deficit, having funded the service for 10 years and propped up the cost of this service through cost management elsewhere in the organisation we are no longer able to support the service which is at its minimum establishment to be able to operate.”
The hospice has been advising the ICB of this for three years.
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend illustrates one of the biggest single challenges for hospice at home. Hospice at home relies on transport, which in an urban community can be delivered at a relatively small cost, but in a deeply rural constituency like hers, those costs need to be addressed and met in order to deliver that care. Does she agree that the funding models need to address the cost of transport and travel in rural constituencies delivering a hospice at home service?
Selaine Saxby
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. There are many elements of healthcare, but the rurality of constituencies like mine is not fully reflected in the funding settlements.
My hospice requested that the ICB find the additional £65,000 to get it through to the end of the year. The chief executive took this back to the board to see whether we could get that seven months of cover through. However, it has now been through a full board meeting and consultation, and this is where my email came in. He finished his email to the ICB by saying:
“I sincerely hope that the good faith you have asked of us extends to Devon ICB’s good faith in finding the extra £65k.”
The email that he sent to me at the end of the recess says that he met the ICB chief executive,
“and he asked for 8 more weeks to see if he can do something, no promises made. My Board met last night where we agreed to wait for his response before making any decisions on the service. Therefore, any pressure you can apply would be greatly appreciated. The headline is: ‘Has it really come to the point where we have to beg for £62k to stop 32 people dying in an Emergency Room?’”
That was four weeks ago, and the hospice has still heard nothing. Our ICB is also in special measures. I beg the Minister to intervene and see if we can help our much-loved hospice, as well as tackle the ever-growing issues we have with our integrated care board back home in Devon. The hospice to home service is hugely valued by families and ensures that their loved ones can spend their final days at home, not in hospital. It also helps by taking the pressure off North Devon’s much loved, very small hospital. As it says across the shops back home in North Devon for our hospice, “Your life is a story, and the ending matters.” I very much hope that there is a way to secure the future of this hospice to home service to ensure that we have many other happy endings.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for setting the scene so well, as well as all those who have made substantial contributions. Hon. and right hon. Members have been incredible in their joint efforts to support hospices across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I want to add my bit from a Northern Ireland perspective.
There will be no Member in this House who has not had some form of contact with hospice care, either through our roles as Members of Parliament or in a more personal nature, as many of us have. I will tell the House a quick story about that. We cannot talk about hospice care without acknowledging the level of care that is provided by the world- class staff in hospices. Every one of us knows that, having dealt with those who give that care. Having seen the work that they carry out and the compassion with which they do so, I know that it is certainly a calling, because money could not pay enough to deal with the emotional toll of this work.
I knew a lady who worked as an occupational therapist in the national health service, and we got on quite well. She went on holiday to Greece one September, and she came back and went to the hospice. She was not feeling well, and the doctor told her that she had only four weeks to live—she had cancer of the liver. I remember going to see her at the Marie Curie hospice care headquarters on Knock Road, Belfast; it was my first introduction to hospice care. I said to the girl on the desk, “Would you tell Anne that I came to speak to her?” And the lady said, “Just a minute, and I’ll go and see if she wants to speak to you.” I said, “No, don’t worry about that, because it’s not important—just tell her I called.” I realised that day that Marie Curie hospice care is incredible, having seen what it did for Anne and her family.
As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye, I believe that faith and family are important whenever our heart is breaking and our world is falling apart. The Marie Curie hospice in Belfast makes sure that people have faith to help them through those difficult times, which is important.
From offering light-hearted banter while helping people in embarrassing situations to being the scapegoat for anger or frustration, to being the last person to hold a person’s hand when their family do not make it in time, being a care giver in a hospice is more than a job. From the bottom of my heart, and from the bottom of all our hearts, I thank all those who do what most of us could not do—love and serve to people’s last breath, day in and day out. I thank every healthcare attendant, every nurse, every doctor, every porter and every pharmacist, and the entire team who provide the best end of life care and offer a support system to lost and grieving families.
John McDonnell
The shops that do the fundraising for our hospices have been mentioned, but an unmentioned group of heroes are the shop volunteers who provide a wonderful service in my constituency—a wonderful recycling service, as well—and funding for many of our hospices.
Jim Shannon
That is good to remember. I will mention the volunteers.
The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) is no longer here, but he mentioned a sponsored walk and encouraged the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) to be involved. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I could not run a marathon, and I probably could not walk it, but he and I could probably dander it—that is the third category. We are danderers. I could do 26 miles, but it would be at my own pace. I am sure everyone else would be on their way home whenever he and I crossed the line—that is a story for another day.
We cannot pay hospice workers enough, but we have a responsibility to ensure that there is enough money to pay them. I do not feel we are currently doing enough, as other Members have said very clearly. The consensus is that we all want to see them paid better, and we want to see the care continue.
Northern Ireland Hospice provides specialist palliative care for more than 4,000 infants, children and adults in Northern Ireland with life-limiting conditions. The charity, which includes the only children’s hospice in Northern Ireland, says that it faces a number of challenges,
“not least of which is the ever-growing cost of this service. Government funds approximately 30% of service costs”.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) spoke about Foyle hospice, which has to find 65% of its service costs. Well, every other hospice in Northern Ireland has to find 70%, relying on the
“goodwill and generosity of voluntary donations and other fundraising activities.”
Peter Gibson
One thing that has not yet been brought out in any of the speeches is the fact that a significant amount of the money that goes to our hospices through their fundraising and charitable fundraising comes in the form of legacy giving. That in itself, because of the size of estates and the value of properties, creates a postcode lottery. Is that part of the problem? Could we use this debate to highlight legacy giving to hospices?
Jim Shannon
I understand the issue that the hon. Gentleman highlights, and I will speak about donations.
The people of Northern Ireland are generous to a fault. Understanding Society data suggests that Londoners donate the most, with an annual average of £346 per donor. That is due to a handful of large donors, which I understand is the issue. People from Northern Ireland donate £344 a year to charities in all sectors, not just hospice care, and last week’s figures show that Northern Ireland donates more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Scotland, at £282 a year, and the south-east, at £270 a year, are the next highest donors. I am proud that we in Northern Ireland are givers, but this has allowed what is tantamount to an abdication of responsibility by those whose duty it is to see this care carried out.
We all support the Marie Curie coffee mornings. They are bun fests, which is not good for a diabetic. People make their donation and drink their tea or coffee. That is what it is about. It is not about what people get out of it; it is about what they give. To me, the Macmillan coffee mornings and Northern Ireland Hospice events should be about providing additional help, not providing the foundation of their funding. We and the Government must step up.
People do not have great disposable incomes, so the coffee mornings intended to raise money for a nurse raise less than half the amount needed to pay for a nurse’s pay increase. We can no longer rely on public generosity to make the difference, and I therefore believe that we must step up and see hospice care not as a charitable extra but as an integral part of the NHS. That is what it needs to be, otherwise we have failed.
I am ever mindful of the seven-minute time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker. If we cannot supply children’s hospice places with specialised staff, we are failing, and we cannot afford to accept failure. The Minister is a good lady, and she believes in hospices. I know she will respond positively, but I want to ascertain how we can do better for palliative care hospices, not in the next budget round but starting here and now. There is a consensus on wanting it to happen, and I believe the Minister and the Government should ensure that it does.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on securing this incredibly important debate.
Members have been so positive in talking about the contribution of their local hospices, which ought to be regarded as a very positive, uplifting thing, even though they sometimes have a negative association. When we speak about our hospices, we ought to reflect more on their huge positive contribution to the community. That is certainly the feeling I have had when visiting Bolton Hospice, Wigan and Leigh Hospice and Derian House Children’s Hospice. It is not just the institutions themselves but the staff, including the doctors, the nurses and the volunteers—so many people make a positive contribution right across the organisation. That really drives the fundraising; the vast majority of the hospice movement’s funding is from the charitable sector, with people giving of themselves because they believe in their local hospice. That is immensely important and we ought not to be challenging that relationship with the local community. That takes us immediately on to the other aspect of the funding: the part that local authorities and the NHS give.
When we are going through a difficult time in the economy, it is more difficult for people to give money. Some parts of the country are wealthier and perhaps find it easier to donate to the local hospice, whereas other parts of the country are poorer and perhaps have been hit harder in recent years. Covid and the lockdowns hugely disrupted the ability of hospices to fundraise. We hear of colleagues doing a marathon, skydiving or undertaking all sorts of other activities that so many people around the country do to contribute to their local hospice, but such things were not possible for such a long time. It takes a while for coffee mornings and so many other activities that hospices do to be organised again and for people to get back into that routine of coming along to support their local community events.
That is why it is especially important for national and local government, the NHS and, since 2022, when the Health and Care Act 2022 put them on a statutory footing, the integrated care boards to play their part—this is their responsibility. As was pointed out earlier, the ICBs not supporting the hospice movement in the way they ought to in the short term, because they are under immense financial pressures themselves, will create problems for the wider system. It will create problems for not only the hospices, but the local NHS if hospices cannot continue in the short, medium and longer-term to support their local communities.
A big question that has come out of this debate is about the NHS, which is immensely important, and something that is at the heart of the creation of the ICBs: the ability to have the right care for the community that is represented by the ICB. How do we bridge that divide between the NHS and that local responsibility of the ICB—how do we meet that challenge? Can the ICBs do this or does the Minister have to intervene?
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson), and indeed the Backbench Business Committee, for allowing us time to debate this issue. We have heard some powerful contributions today.
Any of us with friends or family who have gone through end of life care will know exactly how the hospice movement plays such an important part in ensuring that death is dignified and dealt with properly, and that the wider family considerations are at the heart of the way in which hospices support people in that position. This is about not just the bricks and mortar of those hospices, but their work in the community; what they do in people’s homes; how they offer domiciliary support; and how with a good plan, agreed between the various agencies of our local health services, death can be dignified and an experience that is entirely fitting, bearing in mind the obvious sensitivities that exist around this issue. We do not talk enough about death in modern society. We rightly talk a lot about sexuality and sex, but we seem to talk more about that than we do about death. The Victorians did it exactly the other way round, being obsessed with death and never talking about sex. We need to get the balance right and talk frankly about death.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington said, this evening is not a time to debate assisted dying—assisted suicide, as I would call it—but it is a time to talk not just about the invaluable contribution of hospices, but the future of our hospice movement and how we strike a balance between the need to maintain their independence, flexibility and character, which reflects the local community they serve, and the support that it is incumbent on the NHS and central Government to provide, especially in respect of commissioned clinical services. That is where the interplay comes between the independent voluntary sector and those vital statutory services—the clinical ones—that government has a duty to provide and the NHS has a duty to support.
I am particularly lucky as the local hospice that serves Swindon and the north and east of Wiltshire is situated almost next door to where I live in my constituency, in Wroughton. Prospect Hospice was founded in 1980, and has grown and thrived due to the generosity and good will of our local community. Some 30% of its income comes from fundraising appeals and activities. Another 31% comes from profit made by its charity shops, which exist throughout the length and breadth of our area. We have many in Swindon; in fact, a new one opened in one of our shopping centres only a few months ago that is already doing very well and serving its local community admirably. Some 11% of the income comes from legacy gifts. I am glad legacy gifts were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), because they are vital. Together with other investment income, the amount raised in those ways comes to about 75%, with about 25% coming from the statutory services provided by ICBs.
We have all talked about the pressure of inflation, which is a reality for Prospect Hospice as well. Costs have increased significantly and the sad challenge we have faced in our hospice is that we have had to halve the number of beds, from 12 to six, and close the day therapy unit. That unit was invaluable. We very much miss the volunteers who worked in it and the support it gave people at end of life. In common with other hospices, covid wreaked havoc on the fundraising ability of Prospect Hospice; last year, it was left with a shortfall of just over £1 million. With the best will in the world, it is getting very difficult to make up that shortfall. This debate is important not just for Prospect Hospice, but for Julia’s House, the children’s hospice serving Wiltshire and Dorset, based in Devizes, which I visit very often. I know the benefits for children who were my constituents.
In this debate, we are talking not just about fundraising efforts, but about the involvement of volunteers in the service. Such involvement brings huge fulfilment and allows many thousands of people to make a difference by offering their time and talent. None of us wants to lose that, but a sense of reality is needed on the funding of commissioned services. There is no doubt that the Government have moved in the right direction—we have moved leagues in the last 10 or so years. The support that the Government gave to the hospice movement during covid was admirable. The introduction of the statutory duty, which we saw for the first time in the Health and Care Act 2022, was a signal moment when the hospice movement came of age, and end of life and palliative care was recognised, quite rightly, as an integral part of the way in which we provide and commission healthcare in this country.
My local ICB has set up an end of life alliance, which is good. However, more work needs to be done to ensure that the coming together of services around patients—clients—results in an avoidance of duplication, rather than the other way around. We need an acknowledgment that without hospices, such as Prospect Hospice, we will fail thousands of people who have come to rely upon this invaluable service.
There is much more that I could say. I pray in aid the excellent submissions and remarks made by right hon. and hon. Friends and Members. We are making a unified clarion call that we want to see our hospice movement thrive. That cannot happen without the input of Government and local health services.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I welcome today’s debate on this very important issue. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on securing this excellent debate.
Everyone should receive appropriate and dignified care, personalised to their individual needs, as they approach the end of their life. Hospices are central to delivering that care, including LOROS hospice for adults, based in Leicester West, which provides care to my terminally ill adult constituents, and the fantastic Rainbows hospice for babies, children and young people, located in my Loughborough constituency.
Since becoming an MP, I have visited Rainbows hospice on a number of occasions and seen at first hand the professionalism and dedication of its staff, who provide the highest levels of care to around 300 of the estimated 1,739 children and young people with life-limiting conditions in Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland, as well as their families. Rainbows also cares for hundreds more babies, children and young people with serious and terminal conditions across the wider east midlands area, providing support at its hospice in Loughborough, as well as in local hospitals and at home.
Rainbows is particularly concerned about the access of children and families to round-the-clock end of life care at home, provided by nurses and supported by advice from consultant paediatricians specially trained in paediatric palliative medicine. I am told that only a third of local areas in England are meeting the required standards in this area. Rainbows has informed me that in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland there is no 24-hour end of life care available at home, other than that based on goodwill provision from the Diana team. Therefore, in October 2023 Rainbows launched its hospice at home service, which it provides jointly with community nursing teams. However, there are no paediatric palliative consultants across the east midlands and no funding available to support this essential service. As such, Rainbows is currently paying for remote support from a consultant in another region.
Rainbows also funds two clinical nursing specialists working at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. In addition, it provides paediatric palliative care single point of contact, which is a pilot and is currently funded by the Paediatric Palliative Care Network, although the future of this funding is not guaranteed. Furthermore, Rainbows provides end of life care, symptom control and short breaks at its hospice in Loughborough. Its therapists offer support in the hospital, and provide ongoing bereavement support to families.
I am told that in 2024-25 it will cost Rainbows £12.1 million to provide its services. Over the same period it will receive roughly £1.7 million in statutory funding, which works out to be around 14% of its costs—enough to keep it open for only seven weeks. It will also receive £99,000 from Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland integrated care board and £1.4 million from the children’s hospice grant for all five counties. This income totals £3.2 million, leaving a shortfall of £8.9 million, which Rainbows has to try to find itself.
Furthermore, although Rainbows has been told that it will receive the children’s hospice grant for 2024-25, the ICB has still not confirmed whether it will receive the funding in subsequent years. Together for Short Lives has also highlighted that, while ICBs and hospices are now clearer about their process for distributing the grant—thanks to the confirmation from the Government —it still remains unclear when and how hospices will receive the funding from ICBs and to what extent NHS England will hold ICBs to account in ensuring that the money is paid out. As a result, at the moment hospices do not have the reassurance of a long-term NHS funding plan, so I seek clarification from the Minister on those points.
Although Rainbows is fantastic at fundraising, its current position is simply not sustainable, particularly given that the number of children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions is increasing. If we restrict the services that existing hospices provide by not supporting them with adequate funding, the provision will have to be found elsewhere, and responsibility will likely fall on the state. I therefore encourage the Government and NHS England to accept Together for Short Lives’ recommendation to review children’s palliative care funding going forward and to fill the £295 million annual gap in NHS spending on children’s palliative care in 2024-25. This should either be met centrally by maintaining ringfenced NHS England funding beyond 2024-25, or by setting out a framework under which ICBs are required to provide sustainable funding.
If urgent action is not taken, I share Rainbows’ concerns that more seriously ill children and their families will be denied choice and control over their palliative and end of life care.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister not to change a single atom of LOROS hospice or Rainbows children’s hospice, because they both provide excellent care. However, I urge her please to work alongside them as much she can and to get the ICBs, in particular, to deliver on the funding that was mentioned earlier in the debate.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not take up too much of your time.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for organising and securing this very important debate; I am hugely grateful that they have done so. It is clear from the amount of people who have taken part in the debate that hospices are held in great affection not only in our hearts, but in the hearts of our constituents, both on the Isle of Wight and across the country. Clearly they are a comfort in times of extraordinary difficulty and death, not only for those who are dying but for their families. These are very difficult times, and hospices provide succour, professional support and, probably above all, love and comfort.
On the Island we have the Mountbatten hospice. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) spoke about Mountbatten. I will develop some of points he made and echo them. The Mountbatten hospice in Newport is one of our most cherished institutions on the Island. I thank all the people who work there and support it for the fantastic work that they do caring for people on the Isle of Wight. I pay special tribute to the head of our hospice, Nigel Hartley, one of the most impressive people we have on the Island and one of my favourite Islanders. He was a concert pianist before he started looking after people in the London Lighthouse clinic in the relatively early days of the AIDS pandemic. He learned to care for people at that time before moving eventually to the Island, and bringing a unique sense of occasionally eccentric but organised, highly competent and very loving leadership to that institution. We are hugely lucky to have somebody like Nigel.
On the hospice’s behalf, I will raise a few issues and get some clarity from the Minister. I know that I am not the only one saying that, but for Back Benchers there is clearly strength in numbers. Many of the issues that I will raise have been raised already, but I want to put them on the record. I do not want the NHS to take over hospices. We need to respect the charitable status of our hospices because it gives them strength. They are so directly related to and engaged in our communities, but we do need the NHS to pay its way in relation to our hospices. In the last two years, the Mountbatten hospices on the Isle of Wight and in Eastleigh have had cash increases from the NHS of under 2%, if I understand the figures correctly, and under 3%. Their cost increases have been much higher.
We are putting our hospices under very considerable financial pressure, so we are having to dig deeper into fundraising or look at ways of making cuts. That is not acceptable. We are not asking for the NHS to step in, but we are asking for the NHS to pay its way and, if it is using hospices, to give them sufficient funding. Otherwise, the burden of looking after the NHS’s responsibilities, for want of a better term, is falling heavily on folks in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and on the Island. We have our major fundraiser for the Isle of Wight Mountbatten hospice on 12 May. Walk the Wight is a fantastic event. Last year it raised £460,000, but running a hospice is expensive and when it is dealing with below-inflation increases from our ICB, that is problematic.
I will raise one other issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and I had two conversations with the ICB last week, one on the Isle of Wight Mountbatten hospice and the Eastleigh Mountbatten hospice, and the other a shared conversation with Hampshire colleagues about the work of the ICB. It is in special measures. We were told that somehow that was a very good thing. Clearly there is pressure on its expenditure and budget, and its management decisions in relation to that budget. I am concerned that when ICBs are in special measures, cutting funding to hospices—as opposed to acute services, which are hugely expensive—and potentially to primary care is seen as a quick win. Yet effective spending on primary care actually eases pressure on acute services, as does effective spending on hospices.
It is about the NHS paying its way; I am not talking about it taking over the system. Giving a little more funding—near inflation increases—to hospices enables them to perform a hugely important moral and medical duty not only to those who are dying but to their families. Hospices not only support people in the hospice; increasingly now my Mountbatten hospice—I suspect this the same for the hospice in Eastleigh—looks after people as they near death in their own homes.
On behalf of my hospice, I ask that we ensure that the ICB covering Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is doing its job effectively and properly. I think it fair to say, without being ungenerous towards those people, that some of us have concerns about some of the decisions being made. Can we ensure that the ICB is managing its affairs well and that, in so doing, it is giving support to hospices both in Eastleigh and in Newport and the Isle of Wight? Our hospice, the Mountbatten hospice, so badly needs it.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I note that Dorset is well represented, as my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) is also here.
There are few charities more cherished by people in West Dorset than Weldmar Hospicecare. The Weldmar hospice in Dorchester must be one of the most—if not the most—respected and cherished hospices in Dorset as a whole. Most of my constituents will have had a family member or known someone whom Weldmar has looked after at the end of their life. That is why the hospice is so dearly loved not just in Dorchester or West Dorset, but across the county. The Weldmar nurses looked after my aunt in her final days some 15 years ago, and I am eternally grateful to them for all that they did for her and continue to do for friends of people I know, not just in the Dorchester hospice but through the community nursing team.
Weldmar is Dorset’s largest independent charity, and it has provided specialist end of life care since 1994. Over the past three decades it has looked after 24,882 patients, both in the community and in its specialist in-patient unit in Dorchester. The care is free of charge, and last year alone 1,745 families benefited from Weldmar’s vital care and support. That is undoubtedly why the community feels so passionately about our hospice and, with it, the innovations and fundraising successes of the incredible Weldmar team. However, as is the case for many hospices, in order to sustain itself and keep its services running, Weldmar needs to raise £27,200 every single day, on top of its NHS income.
In January 2024 the APPG on hospice and end of life care published its “Government funding for hospices” report. It found that, despite statutory guidance,
“ICB commissioning of hospice services is currently not fit for purpose”,
and the value that the services provide individuals and the wider health system is “at risk.” The Government announced additional funding for hospices during the coronavirus pandemic, and in a Westminster Hall debate on 17 January this year my hon. Friend the Minister set out the wider financial support available to hospices, including the energy bills discount scheme, eligibility for a reduction in VAT from 20% to just 5%, and the £1.5 billion of additional funding that NHS England released in 2022 to provide integrated care boards with support for inflation.
It is my opinion that palliative and end of life care needs to be given much greater priority—as it has in many other areas—in the integrated care partnership strategy. We want to ensure not only that we sustain Weldmar and other provision long into the future, but that we consider and support more end of life care. Places such as Lyme Regis, where travel to a hospice is long, would greatly benefit from additional provision.
In summary, I am contributing to the debate so that it is known and understood that we in West Dorset cannot speak highly enough of our hospice; we value the Weldmar team so much. I ask the Minister and the Government to give consideration to the matters that we have been debating this evening.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson)—who is sat beside me—on securing this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). I start by thanking all those who work in hospices; they do a remarkable job, and we should be very grateful for all they do.
In 2003, when I was reporting for BBC South Today, I was sent to the official opening of Julia’s House in Corfe Mullen, Dorset. Little did I know that the first person I would meet there was my mother, who sadly died in 2019. Her instinct for caring and compassion drew her to that remarkable hospice for children like a moth to a flame. I was immediately struck by the wonderful environment that the dedicated staff had created: a desperately needed service to provide practical and emotional support to families caring for a child with a life-limiting or life-threatening condition was born.
Julia’s House is one of more than 200 adult and children hospices that care for and support about 3,000 patients a year. They work hand in hand with local health and care services, taking the pressure off the NHS. As we have heard, hospices are mainly funded through charity: on average, around two thirds of the income for adult services is raised through fundraising. Alarmingly, for children, that figure is four fifths. In 2022, for the first time, as we have heard, the Health and Care Act introduced a legal duty for integrated care boards to commission palliative care services that meet the needs of the local population. However, a recent report by the APPG on hospice and end of life care, co-chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington —again, we have heard this in the Chamber, but I make no apology for repeating what colleagues have said—found that despite that legal requirement, funding from ICBs varies significantly across the country.
Today, the sector is under significant financial pressure: Hospice UK estimates that the sector is on track for a £77 million deficit for the 2024 financial year. Nowhere is that pressure more real than at Julia’s House. Its chief executive, Martin Edwards, said that over 90% of its annual running costs were met by fundraising; the Government’s contribution remains low, at only 8%. That over-reliance on people’s generosity—which is enormous—will see Julia’s House face a budget deficit of £1 million this year. [Interruption.] If SNP Members could refrain, I would be grateful. This dire situation is exacerbated by the ending this year of a shared grant of £25 million from NHS England. At its two sites, Julia’s House cares for 176 families across Dorset and Wiltshire. Mr Edwards said that it was coping with children with more complex needs, requiring more staff and putting more pressure on budgets. The care provided is intensive, with a family being supported for up to five years following the death of a child.
As one might imagine, palliative care comes with all kinds of issues, not least medical, emotional and financial. Who do you turn to for help and advice? How does the patient wish to be cared for? Who supports the carer? This is where a remarkable charity, Lewis-Manning Hospice Care, comes into play. Its chief executive, Clare Gallie, told me that its team comes to the patient’s home and, in effect, responds to the needs of the patient and their family by signposting them to relevant services, from treatment to transport. Importantly, it is the need of the patient that is most significant: for example, if their wish is to die at home, everything possible is done to ensure that that happens. Importantly, this free service is proactive rather than reactive, anticipating what the patient and the family want, reducing crisis at the end of life, and saving the NHS a lot of money by freeing up GPs’ time and negating the need for a hospital. A pilot scheme being run in a part of Dorset has already saved the NHS £140,000 in April alone. Imagine if this scheme was rolled out across the country; it would save the NHS millions.
Let me conclude. There is no doubt that there is a need for more Government funding for hospices, independent—fiercely so—as they are, but the funding disparities, as we have heard from virtually every speaker, must be looked at. Yes, I hear the Government say that this is another call for money and there are many other demands, but well-funded hospice care would safeguard this very effective and necessary sector, which cannot live on charity alone, and nor should it.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on so ably leading this debate and setting the scene.
While it is important to recognise the great work done across the eastern region by East Anglia’s children’s hospices, in the Great Yarmouth and Waveney areas, as represented my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis) and me, there is at present a hospice vacuum. Throughout the rest of Suffolk and Norfolk, there are locally based hospices well embedded in and providing great services for their communities.
The good news is that plans are being carefully prepared to fill this vacuum and this void. A local partnership is evolving to build a local hospice led by St Elizabeth hospice, including the local NHS, councils, a community interest company, volunteers and fundraisers. For it to be successful, to open the hospice and then to run it, the national Government must join this partnership, and I hope my hon. Friend the Minister, who is currently not in her place, will in her summing up accept this invitation. The Waveney and Great Yarmouth areas desperately need a hospice. We have an ageing population and pockets of deprivation, and as Chris Whitty has highlighted, there are acute health inequalities in coastal communities that a hospice can help level out and remove.
As I have mentioned, a well-researched case for the hospice has now been prepared, though it is important to recognise the work done by so many over the years in supporting those in need of end of life care and their families—from the late Margaret Chadd, who founded East Coast hospice and had the vision of building a hospice on land bought at Gorleston, to Roberta Lovick, who founded the Louise Hamilton Centre, from which such great support is provided to patients with life-limiting conditions and their families; the James Paget University Hospital, where the Louise Hamilton Centre is based; and East Coast Community Healthcare, the Lowestoft-based community interest company that, in partnership with St Elizabeth, operates six specialist beds in Beccles Hospital, as well as providing care both in people’s homes and in care homes.
Building on the work of these local people and organisations, a framework is emerging through which a local hospice can be built. The cornerstone of this is, as we have heard, the Health and Care Act 2022, which sets out the legal requirement for ICBs to commission palliative and end of life care. The Norfolk and Waveney ICB has responded by carrying out a review of palliative and end of life care. This was completed last autumn, and it highlights the need for nine urgent and six medium to long-term actions. Last March, St Elizabeth hospice merged with East Coast hospice, and straightaway set about conducting a feasibility study into the viability of building up hospice facilities on the Gorleston site.
The study has just been completed, and the conclusion reached is that a hospice should be built in stages. Expressions of interest are now being invited from architects. That is an exciting landmark for which so many people have strived for many years. St Elizabeth is confident that it can successfully fundraise for a hospice capital appeal, but it is for the ongoing revenue cost of providing core clinical services for a full in-patient unit, as well as outreach community services, that national Government support is required. The Norfolk and Waveney ICB—indeed, all ICBs—need central Government support and a fundamental rebalancing of national policy, so that they can meet the projected growth in demand for palliative care.
It is good news that after so many false dawns over so many years we now have a coherent and well thought-through plan for filling the hospice void in the Waveney and Great Yarmouth area, but while we should be sanguine, we should also be realistic. We are not even at the starting point of the rest of England, as we have heard from other colleagues who have a hospice up and running—we do not. That is why the Government need to join the partnership that has evolved, and support Norfolk and Waveney ICB so that it can commission hospice services on a long-term, multi-year basis. I urge the Government to join us on that exciting journey.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is becoming a bit of a habit for me to be the warm-up act for the wind-ups, although I gather I will not get that honour this evening. It is a great privilege to speak in this debate, with heartfelt contributions from across the House, and I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on securing it.
Most of us hope we never need to experience hospices at first hand, but when we do experience them because a loved one needs their care and support, we realise how important and valuable they are. I am incredibly proud and privileged to have two exceptional hospices in my constituency. Mount Edgcumbe hospice, which is part of Cornwall Hospice Care, was opened in 1980 and was Cornwall’s first hospice. It has recently been rated as outstanding by the Care Quality Commission, which highlighted the caring and personal nature of the service provided by the staff, who are responsive to the needs of the patients. I did not need the CQC to tell me that. Indeed, my family and I know that first hand, because back in 2007 my mother died from cancer at Mount Edgcumbe hospice. She lost her second battle with breast cancer, and the care and support that we received as a family was outstanding. I place on record my huge thanks to them.
I am also greatly privileged to have Little Harbour, which is part of Children’s Hospice South West in my constituency. It opened in 2011, and its state-of-the-art facilities are some of the very best in any children’s hospice in the country. Having visited a number of times, I can testify that the atmosphere there is truly amazing, and one cannot help but be moved by the place. It supports children and young people up to the age of 21, including the youngest babies who need its care. The CQC praised the staff for their personalised care and support. That reinforces the important point that it is not just about the bricks and mortar or equipment that the hospices provide; it is the staff and volunteers who work there who make our hospices the amazing places they are.
We are lucky in mid-Cornwall to have those two excellent examples out of some 200 hospices across the country. Both are supported by amazing people—volunteers, fundraisers and donors—who play such an important part in ensuring that those hospices can continue. It is not just about the care that the hospices provide to the people who are sick; we have heard many times in the Chamber today about the wraparound care that hospices provide to families and friends, which is so important and valuable.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a moving and powerful speech, and he makes me recall my experience at Chestnut Tree House, which provides hospice care for children across Sussex. It is striving hard to meet all the demands on services. One group that we have not mentioned is those who the hospice may yet reach. It knows that many more families would benefit from its care, and it is working hard on that. Has my hon. Friend also found that in his constituency?
Steve Double
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; she makes precisely the point that I was coming to. It is clear that there will be a growing need for hospice care in our country. We feel that incredibly acutely in Cornwall; our elderly population has grown by more than 50% in the past 10 years. Cornwall is at the point where almost one in four of our population is over 70 years old. That proportion will only grow in the years ahead, and it will simply mean that there is more demand for hospice care in our country. That is why it is so important that hospice care is properly funded.
I believe that it is best for our hospices to stay in the independent sector as charities. They gain most of their support from the public; I have seen that time and again for the two hospices in my constituency. Being independent from the NHS gives them a special place in our communities. People feel a great connection to them. They feel that they have a personal stake in the work that hospices do, particularly if they engage in fundraising for them. I fear that that would be lost if hospices were effectively nationalised. It is so important for our hospices that we continue that situation.
However, the Government need to better recognise the important role that hospices play. We have heard several times about the postcode lottery for NHS funding for our hospices. I tell the Minister that we need to address that. Cornwall Hospice Care, I am told, has the second lowest funding of any hospice charity in the country. Just 9% of its funding comes from the NHS, which means that 91% is raised through fundraising, donations and legacies. That cannot be right. I am all for donations playing a significant part in the funding of hospices, but the NHS should step up, particularly in Cornwall, and provide more funding to our hospices. We need to look at regional variation. Funding must be based on need for hospice facilities in each region. I urge the Minister and the Government to look at what more can be done to provide a level playing field on NHS contributions to our hospices.
We have all heard that the past few years have been difficult for our hospices, with the growing pressure of rising costs and demand. One thing we could do for the hospice sector is provide more certainty about funding through multi-year funding settlements, so that hospices can plan far better, and at least know what funding is coming from the NHS. With that certainty, they could plan accordingly.
In summing up, I place on record my huge thanks to those in every hospice in our country for the incredible work that they do—to the paid staff, the volunteers and the fundraisers. They work so hard, and are so generous in providing this vital service to our communities, particularly the two hospices in my constituency. There has been real consensus across the House this evening. Although we value and celebrate all the work that hospices do, more needs to be done to provide them with fairer funding, so that they can continue to play a vital role for our communities.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I am humbled to be called in the debate. I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), and for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for bringing the debate to the House, as well as the Minister for sitting through the debate and showing amazing resilience during a long evening.
Members who have spoken in the debate fall into broadly two camps. First, there are those who have had personal experience of hospices through family members who have suffered and needed those facilities. Their speeches have come across amazingly, with real pathos and depth, and I commend all hon. Members who have spoken so personally about their journeys. Secondly, there are Members like me who have not had personal experience of hospices but recognise the importance of what they do. If I may, I will talk about two important hospices for my constituency.
Thames hospice—it was first known as Thames Valley hospice—was officially opened by Her Majesty the Queen in November 1987 on Hatch Lane in Windsor. It has been serving my constituents and others in Berkshire since that time, and has shown amazing strength of character in supporting so many people.
With the Minister in her place, I contend that, as we have heard numerous times, we need to refine the funding models for hospices. In my view, the NHS needs to cough up a bit more support, but this is also about timing. Thames hospice is awaiting its funding settlement for 2024-25 from the ICB, with barely two weeks to go, so the issue is how much can be funded by the taxpayer, and about being notified of funding up front. That is really important, because it means that hospices can plan ahead for the year.
Thames hospice, having provided care for all that time, was in 2017 granted planning permission to build a new £22 million, state-of-the-art facility on a brand-new 8 acre site by Bray lake, just outside Maidenhead in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. That is important, because through the ICB, it serves many constituents in the east of Berkshire, including in Bracknell. I know of many constituents who have had fantastic care there. In January 2019, work began on construction. I visited earlier last year, when the site had been built. It was incredible, with so many fantastic staff, a café and dedicated services.
Thames hospice supports about 2,500 patients and their loved ones annually with high-quality medical and emotional support. This is all about making people’s lives easier, and making sure that their remaining time on earth is as dignified as possible. We should not underestimate or put a price or value on that. That is why we have a responsibility to fund hospice care properly.
As for the future, by 2030, 15 million people in the UK will be over 65 years old. Also, the number of young people with life-limiting neurological conditions has increased by 64% in the last 10 years, and the incidence of cancer in people under the age of 50 rose by 79% between 1990 and 2019. We should think about that. Those are really serious figures, and they mean that the demand for hospice services is likely only to increase over time.
In the past year, costs at Thames hospice have increased by 9%, with no commensurate increase in Government funding. We have heard something similar from other hon. Members this evening. To put a figure on it, Thames hospice has to raise £38,000 every day to subsidise the costs of care. That will increase to more than £50,000 a day by 2030, based on a 4% increase, year on year—and that is without even considering investment for growth in the future. The picture is similar elsewhere. To put it in perspective, Thames hospice needs £18.5 million for 2,500 people every year. That is really stark. As I mentioned, Thames hospice is the end of life care provider for the Frimley integrated care board in east Berkshire. It is of direct relevance to my constituents. I cannot thank the staff and the directors at Thames hospice enough for what they do.
I want to mention Sebastian’s Action Trust in Crowthorne, which is important because it provides palliative care for children aged between zero and 18 and supports their families. A key part of the support that the brilliant Sebastian’s Action Trust provides is memory-making support for the families who use the facility. It also continues to support the families once the child goes to end of life care. Losing a child is devastating anyway, but the fact that Sebastian’s Action Trust provides such brilliant support to families, even after that life event, is remarkable.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
On the issue of funding for children’s palliative care, I am fortunate to have, in my neck of the woods in West Yorkshire, the Forget Me Not children’s hospice and the Kirkwood hospice. I also want to highlight the Together for Short Lives campaign ask, as other Members have done. The issue is not just sustainable funding, but surety of funding—a multi-year promise and confirmation of funding beyond ’24-25, so that children’s hospices can plan for the future, and continue caring for children with life-limiting illnesses and their families.
James Sunderland
I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention. As we know, palliative care is privately funded and not formally funded by the NHS. It cannot be right that such an important function is funded in a hand-to-mouth way. To prove that point, Sebastian’s Action Trust is to close its Crowthorne site, the Woodlands, later this year. A sale is expected in autumn 2024, because it cannot afford the care that it is giving to so many families, so it has to rationalise its estate and move elsewhere. In my humble view, the funding for the NHS, for our hospices and for palliative care is not enough.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the hospice movement, as all colleagues have done in this debate. Does he agree that every penny that the Government give to the hospice movement takes pressure off the national health service? Hospices are doing the job that, otherwise, the NHS would have to do. Will he join me in congratulating the Saint Francis hospice in the village Havering-atte-Bower in my constituency, which was established in 1975? It has for many years served people from the London Borough of Havering and the surrounding area. It is a magnificent organisation. The hospice movement does a fantastic job for the entire country, and it is time for the Government to do more.
James Sunderland
I commend all the staff in the Saint Francis hospice in Havering on what they do. It sounds remarkable. We have heard so many stories this evening of hospices and palliative care providers right across the country.
The message is clear: we need more funding. We must establish better funding models. We cannot rely so much on charities and donations. We must make sure that funding is provided up front. This is a life-and-death issue. Hospices take pressure off the NHS. The facilities at Thames hospice are state of the art; we can sweat the asset an awful lot more. Perhaps the underused capacity of hospices could sometimes be hired back to the NHS.
Peter Gibson
I want to make one final point in this final Back-Bencher contribution to the debate. Many people have called for multi-year funding settlements. That is not to make life easy for the hospices; it is just more sensible, so that they can plan into the future—sign leases, buy equipment, and train, recruit and retain staff. The request for multi-year funding settlements will allow them to put plans in place to provide the care that is needed.
James Sunderland
I thank my hon. Friend and I agree completely. Nobody can plan in a vacuum, so this is about more money, earlier money and the ability to plan so we know where the delta is.
I will conclude now. Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. We need more money, Minister, and I know you will give it to us.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on securing the debate and bringing this vital issue to the Floor of the House after a series of Westminster Hall and other debates.
In the context of the spring Budget, at the start of a new financial year and with a general election on the horizon, this is an incredibly timely debate. It also coincides with the publication of Hospice UK’s report, which estimates a deficit across the UK hospice sector of £77 million, and for Scotland of around £16 million, for the financial year 2023-24—perhaps the worst financial outturns for the sector in nearly 20 years. The same report suggests an 11% increase in payroll costs to hospices, representing around £130 million. People who work in hospices have every right to expect a decent competitive salary that allows them to ensure that their own households are safe and warm, but that is a challenge being driven by the wider cost of living crisis, which is itself having an effect on the hospices.
Heating, food, drink and other consumables are not discretionary expenditure. Hospices must run 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They have to maintain a comfortable temperature. They have to provide nutritious, high-quality food. All that comes at a time, as the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) just said, when the demand for such wonderful care has perhaps never been higher. People are living longer and dying at later ages. That means an ever-greater need for palliative care. The Office for National Statistics estimates that in Scotland an additional 10,000 people a year might be expected to seek access to palliative care by 2040.
We have heard some very moving individual testimonies from Members across the House. The hon. Members for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher), for West Dorset (Chris Loder) and for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) all spoke of personal experiences of the hospice movement. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) made some very worthwhile points about hospices being a place where people can really live the final days of their lives. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) has been very passionate about the issue for reasons he explained about his former chief of staff. We echo the condolences that have been paid.
I am incredibly grateful for the love and care shown to my good friend Melanie, who passed away in the Highland hospice just over a year ago. I was proud to be one of the runners yesterday in the London marathon in her memory and in aid of that hospice. I congratulate the hon. Members for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) and for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), who ran for their local hospices, and the hon. and learned Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who also took part in the debate and ran for other worthy causes. I understand that in a few weeks’ time, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) will take part in the 40-mile Keswick to Barrow walk through the Lake district in aid of St John’s hospice in Lancashire. I pay tribute to the work of the Marie Curie hospice in Glasgow, which has provided care at the end for other friends, particularly some I have known through the SNP. In recent weeks, close friends have had reason to be grateful to everyone at St Vincent’s hospice in Renfrewshire in very sad and difficult times.
Those personal experiences are what help to inspire the incredible generosity that allows the hospice movement to continue its work. As we have heard, around two thirds of adult hospice income comes from voluntary fundraising. At the same time, the Sue Ryder charity estimates that the hospice sector actively saves the NHS nearly £600 million a year by freeing up bed space, or even avoiding hospital admissions in the first place. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) gave some examples of exactly how that can work.
From all the evidence we have heard today, it seems that the current model for hospice funding is increasingly unsustainable. Some have even used the word “existential”. Healthcare is devolved, so it is not for the Scottish National party to determine how the Minister or her shadow on the Opposition Front Bench prioritise their spending decisions, but if the UK Government were to find new or additional funding for the hospice sector in England, that would have consequentials for the budget available to Scotland’s Government. The current 2024-25 budget for Scotland provides over £19.5 billion for NHS recovery, health and social care, which is a real-terms uplift despite the austerity we are facing.
The Scottish Government have also established a new strategy steering group to oversee the development and delivery of a new palliative and end of life care strategy and associated work programmes. That work aims to ensure that everyone in Scotland receives well co-ordinated, timely and high-quality palliative care, care around death, and bereavement support based on their needs and preferences, including support for families and carers, to ensure that Scotland is a place where people and communities can come together to support each other, take action and talk openly about planning ahead, serious illness, dying, death and bereavement.
There are other actions that the UK Government could take that would continue to help hospices across these islands. Energy costs remain stubbornly high, but the Government are bringing many of their energy support schemes to an end. As I said earlier, energy is a fixed cost for hospices, not an area in which savings can readily be made. In this context, the hon. Member for Darlington spoke about the situation of Ardgowan in Inverclyde. Many of the reforms to the energy market and energy price support that the SNP and others have called for would make a difference in the hospice sector, as in many other parts of the economy and society.
Regrettably, the Government’s approach to immigration is also having an impact. How many nurses, doctors and other specialists have arrived in the UK—some, perhaps, on small boats or by other irregular means—but have been denied the opportunity to work? How many more are not even coming in the first place now that the Government have decided that they cannot bring family members, or are massively increasing the costs and thresholds for visa applicants? How many might have come from Europe, or might have stayed, had it not been for Brexit? Every country in the world is having to face up to the legacy of covid and the impact of conflict in Ukraine and elsewhere, but the UK Government have been making deliberate policy choices in many of these areas that are exacerbating those challenges rather than mitigating them, and the impact of that could have long-term consequences.
If the hospice sector does have to make radical savings and scale back service provision, the costs of palliative care and supporting people at the end of life will still have to be met; they will just have to be met elsewhere, which could mean increased costs for the NHS, for social services or, worse still, for individual families and households—not just in financial terms, but in emotional and psychological terms—if they are denied that support at the end. People will always want to give and to raise funds for hospices, but if we want collectively to be able to rely on hospices to be there for individuals and families when they are needed most, we cannot expect the hospice movement simply to rely on the good will and efforts of voluntary fundraisers.
A number of important suggestions have been made during this debate, in the motion, and in the evidence given by hospices themselves and by the all-party parliamentary group about how the Government can put the sector on a more sustainable footing for the future. I hope that the Minister will be able respond positively, in the spirit of consensus that we have observed this evening, and that the Government will work with their counterparts and with service providers across the United Kingdom to ensure that the hospice sector is given the support that it needs so that everyone who works for hospices can focus on what they do best, and continue to provide love and care for those who need it at the end of their lives.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate. We have had a very thorough discussion over the past few hours, so let me start by thanking not only the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for us to debate this important issue—albeit a week later than most of us had expected—but the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for securing the debate; I congratulate them on their speeches.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher), for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), as well as the hon. Members for Colchester (Will Quince), for Southport (Damien Moore) and for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), the hon. and learned Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), the hon. Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and for Bolton West (Chris Green), the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), the hon. Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for West Dorset (Chris Loder), for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland)—not forgetting, of course, the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). I also congratulate all those who took part in the London marathon; I was not one of them.
Let me now turn to the subject that we are here to debate. End of life care is a subject that has touched the lives of most of us. It is a time when our loved ones, and the family and friends who surround them, can be at their most vulnerable and in need of the greatest support. Managed well, it can be a healing time for families to come together, but managed badly, it can leave deep and traumatic scars. I need only look at the experience of my family—the experience that I had during the deaths of my parents to know how this bears out. It was 30 years ago that I lost my mum to ovarian cancer—I was 19. Her final hours were spent at the end of an old Victorian ward with the curtain pulled around her, and she was in immense pain and suffering, which I remember vividly to this day. That was incredibly hard for our family to manage.
More recently, in 2022 I lost my dad following his own battle with cancer. Unlike my mum, he died at home, with my wife and I taking him in for the last few months of his life, and we were supported by a superb army of care staff. In fact, when the time came for my dad to decide whether he wanted to go to the local hospice, Willow Wood, or stay at home with us, the final words that he communicated to me and my wife were, “Stay here.” I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester about how we talk about death, how we deal with death and the end of life, and the fact that many people want dignified end of life services at home; we should do all we can to facilitate that.
In my dad’s case, the whole system worked. It came together in a way that, as I know from my constituency casework, it rarely does. The hospital, social services, Macmillan, Marie Curie, the GP, the pharmacy, the district nurses and Willow Wood hospice all worked together seamlessly, and my died passed away in comfort, peacefully and surrounded by those who loved him most in the world. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East and other Members that we have to get the end of life choice right for people, and hospice at home plays an important role in that.
The sharp contrast between my parents’ journeys emphasises to me, in a deeply personal way, just how impactful end of life care can be. For all of us, death should be about choice and what we want, and we should leave this planet with dignity. We talk about the integrated care boards, and the clue is in the name: they should be integrated, with both social care and other services, including hospice services. In my dad’s case, that worked, but as we have heard from Members across the House, in too many cases the integration just is not there yet. The Government have rightly devolved money to the ICBs for a specific purpose, but it is not being spent as we would want.
Hospices play such an important part in that deeply personal journey for hundreds of thousands of people and their families every year, right across the country. Working in partnership with existing local systems, hospices ensure that people receive the care that is most appropriate for them, considering all their needs. I pay particular tribute to one of my local hospices, Willow Wood hospice in Ashton, Tameside. The tireless work and dedication of its staff was a vital support when we were caring for my dad in his final days. Those staff showed hospice care at its best, and they have my immense gratitude for all that they continue to do. But they, like so many others, find themselves in a perilous financial position; Willow Wood faces a structural deficit of £750,000 this financial year. Without finding a way to plug the gap, its services will have to be reduced.
There is real pressure on all hospices to generate their own income, with Hospice UK estimating that as much as two thirds of income for adult hospices is generated through fundraising, with some, like Willow Wood, having to raise 80% of their funds themselves. Many hospices do incredible fundraising work, with armies of volunteers finding ever more ingenious ways to keep the money coming in, but with the incredibly hostile economic climate that hospices are finding themselves in, including as a result of energy costs, funds are being squeezed more than ever—[Interruption.] Someone put 50p in the meter; obviously the House cannot afford those costs now!
The sector as a whole is on track for a deficit of £77 million for the last financial year, the worst figures for two decades. As a result, hospices are starting to pare back some of their services. As we have heard, there is also a legal requirement placed on integrated care boards by the Health and Care Act 2022 to commission palliative care services in keeping with local need, and we need to ensure that that funding is passported down to the hospices where they need it. We know that delivery is far from consistent, leaving patients in some parts of the country without adequate services in their own community. The clear pressure on the sector shows no sign of letting up, because we are an ageing population and demands on hospice services are set to increase further, with Office for National Statistics data suggesting that a further 130,000 people will die each year in the UK by 2040.
It is clear that we need proper joined-up supportive policies for the hospice sector. We need to ensure that the money that the Government have ensured is there for the hospice sector gets down to where it needs it: at the hospices themselves. We need to focus on creating a health and care system that is genuinely joined up and has end of life care as part of the health and wellbeing policies for each and every one of us. This can no longer be the taboo subject it once was, and the hospice sector underpins so many care pathways that have a tangibly positive impact on patients and their families. End of life care matters. This current Government will have our support in ensuring that the hospice sector is protected and supported.
The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for securing this debate. The number of speeches this evening reflects the strength of feeling, and the support, for hospices across the country. As the Minister with oversight of end of life care, I share the passion of many hon. Members for hospices and for what they do, caring for people towards and at the end of life, providing respite for carers and supporting families both before and after the death of a loved one. Many hon. Members have rightly praised the work of the hospices that serve their constituents and made special mention of the extraordinary work of hospices for children and young people. I also thank the hospices for all they do, and for all they are doing right now, as their staff work around the clock.
Beyond that, I thank everyone who gives palliative and end of life care, as part of hospice teams but also working in the NHS. How you die, how your loved ones die or how you live towards the end of your life, matters. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) said so eloquently earlier this evening, and as all of us here this evening know, that is why palliative and end of life care matters. It matters when that care is provided by the NHS, as it is for the majority of people, and when it is provided by hospices. I emphasise that point, because there is sometimes a misunderstanding, which I have heard a few times this evening. The fact is that most palliative and end of life care is provided by the NHS, whether in hospitals, by primary care or through community trusts. Alongside and in addition to that, hospices do the wonderful work that they do. Recognising the importance of palliative and end of life care, we specified in the Health and Care Act 2022 that integrated care boards must commission these services to meet the needs of their populations.
Some hon. Members have argued this evening for hospice funding to be centralised, taken away from integrated care boards and, I assume, allocated by either NHS England or the Department of Health and Social Care. While I understand their motivation in making that call, I do not agree. We purposefully set up ICBs to understand the healthcare needs of our local communities, to plan and commission services to meet those needs and, in so doing, to reduce health disparities. Our communities and their needs, and the services they already have in place, are different, and rarely is a one-size-fits-all decision made in Westminster the right answer. I stand by a more localised approach, in which there is, of course, variation.
Another source of variation is historical. The hospice movement has grown organically, and the location of hospices has not been planned to meet demographic need, for instance. There are, therefore, inequalities in access to hospice services, especially for those living in rural and more deprived areas. This variation in access to hospice care has to be taken into account by ICBs in the decisions they must make to ensure that people have access to end of life care, whether or not they live in an area served by a hospice.
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the organic way in which our hospices have developed and emerged. Does she agree that our ICBs have the opportunity to use our hospices to address those shortfalls in certain communities by directing funding specifically to them to meet needs that have not previously been met?
Will the Minister further clarify one small point? She has made a clear distinction between NHS-provided care and hospice care, but there are many cases around the country where the NHS is funding, in full or in part, specific services from hospices. How would she distinguish between them? Is it NHS care or hospice care if it has been fully commissioned and fully funded by the NHS?
Helen Whately
I will pick up on a few of those points.
On the NHS providing palliative and end of life care, I have heard a misunderstanding in some speeches, both this evening and on other occasions, that all end of life and palliative care is provided by hospices. It is more mixed. Integrated care boards do, indeed, commission hospices to provide care, but hospices also provide care independently, and NHS services do so, too. These teams also work together collaboratively. That diversity is a strength.
In seeking to address inequalities, ICBs can look to hospices to do more in underserved areas, for instance. At other times it may be more appropriate for them to look to NHS services. It will vary by area, which is one reason why these decisions should be localised, rather than made by somebody sitting in my place saying, “This is how it should be done across the whole country.”
Although I do not agree with centralising hospice funding, I am working on the transparency and accountability of ICBs to their communities and hon. Members, as representatives. That is why I have regular meetings with NHS England leads on palliative and end of life care, and it is why I am pleased to have secured NHS England’s commitment to including palliative and end of life care in the topics discussed at its regular performance meetings with ICBs. It is also why I am pushing NHS England and ICBs to improve the data they collect on the access to and quality of palliative and end of life care.
NHS England has developed a palliative and end of life care data dashboard to help ICBs understand the needs of their populations and then address and track inequalities in access to end of life care. This is progress, but I want the transparency to go further so that we all have the data we need to assure ourselves that our ICBs are commissioning the care that our constituents need.
I have heard the calls for more funding for hospices and the stories of some fantastic fundraising efforts, from the “star trek” night walk and the “Santa sprint” to the magnificent marathon runners who have joined us in the Chamber tonight fresh from yesterday’s London marathon. I congratulate those who ran, and particularly those who did so on behalf of hospices, which is timely for this debate.
That said, I disagree with the hon. Member who said that people running a marathon for hospices is “sad”—it is not; it is a wonderful thing. It is a sign of the tremendous support that hospices have in our communities and that people are willing to choose to fund hospices, not just when the taxman comes along; they are choosing to have a hospice providing services to people in their area. It is a good thing because that fundraising gives hospices an independent funding stream, the freedom that goes with that to serve their communities as they see fit, and the strong ties with their communities and with all those people who fundraise for their hospices.
Caroline Ansell
My hon. Friend is so right in what she is saying. In my constituency of Eastbourne, people are not just prepared to run for the St Wilfrid’s Hospice, but they will walk over coals for it. Will she congratulate them on their outstanding work?
Helen Whately
I do congratulate those people on their fundraising efforts; although I hope their feet are all right!
As hon. Members know, the Government have provided dedicated additional funding to hospices; in the pandemic, when I played a part, we were helping them with energy bills and through the children’s hospice grant, which the NHS has confirmed will go to hospices for this financial year too.
Looking ahead, I fully appreciate the ask for longer-term certainty of funding—of course I understand that. However, funding for hospices, end of life care and many other things beyond the current financial year depend on a future spending review. I am sure that all hon. Members will understand that I cannot pre-empt such a review, and ICBs similarly will not know their funding until that review. Although committing funding beyond the spending review period is not in my power, I am pushing for our healthcare system to encourage and enable more advance planning by individuals to consider and set out what they want at the end of their life. Inevitably, some of us will die in hospital, and for some of us that will be the right place, but given a choice many people would rather die at home. We should all be setting out a plan that includes our preference of place of death and what sort of treatments we do and do not want. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and my fabulous health colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) said, we should talk more about death and plan for it.
To conclude, there are no easy answers to the questions raised this evening—there rarely are. I do not have a pot of money otherwise going unspent for hospices; neither do ICBs and nor does NHS England. I will, however, continue working with NHS England to ensure that palliative and end of life care is given the attention it deserves and needs so that it is considered important, just as we consider services that prolong life important, and that the NHS is held to account for doing that. I will continue to agree with hon. Members on the importance of hospices and the important work they do. I see this as a Minister, as a constituency MP and from my own family experience; I will never forget saying goodbye to my grandmother in a hospice near Yeovil, and I will always be grateful.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Sally-Ann Hart to wind up.
Sally-Ann Hart
I thank the members of the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate in this House, as well as all the Members who have spoken today and Hospice UK for their dedicated work and support. I especially thank St Michael’s Hospice and Demelza, their staff and all the volunteers, as well as local people for their donations and fundraising, especially during challenging economic times. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for all his long-standing hard work and advocacy on behalf of hospices and end of life care.
Members from across the House have spoken collectively on this important issue, with a passion and consensus that shows that the funding of hospices and palliative and end of life care is not a political issue. The Government do financially support hospices through ICBs, but funding models also require closer consideration, ensuring parity with the NHS while maintaining hospices’ independence and flexibility. The Minister has heard many similar themes, mainly surrounding certainty of funding, on a sustainable basis, and better collaboration between ICBs, the NHS and hospices. I thank her for her work, her consideration and listening to the debate. Extra Government funding via ICBs can improve a localised approach. We all call for more funding to be included in the spending review.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the postcode lottery of funding for hospices; and calls on integrated care boards to urgently address the funding for hospice-provided palliative care in their areas.
Business of the House (Today) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords relating to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill shall have been received.—(Aaron Bell.)
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Monday 22nd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 22 April 2024 - (22 Apr 2024)
22:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 237 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 41 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Under the Programme Order of 18 March, any message from the Lords in respect of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill may be considered forthwith, without any question put, and proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion no later than one hour after their commencement. A message has been received from the Lords that the Lords do not insist on an amendment to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose an amendment in lieu, to which they desire the agreement of the Commons, and they do not insist on another amendment to which the Commons have disagreed. The Lords amendment and the Government motion relating to it are available online and in the Vote Office.
Before we move to consideration of the Lords message received today, I can confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.
Lords message considered forthwith (Order, this day).
Clause 1
Introduction
The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3J.
It is a great pleasure to open the debate. I start by echoing and agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who started his speech during the previous debate, just a short number of hours ago, by agreeing with what the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), said about there being nothing new to say, just pitying that he then spent 40 minutes saying nothing new.
I do not intend to emulate what the shadow Minister did on that previous occasion, because it is clear that amendment 3J is almost identical to the previous amendments that we debated and that this House rejected just a short number of hours ago. The amendment is in two parts, inserting when Rwanda may be treated as a safe country and when Rwanda must cease to be treated as a safe country. The amendment is not necessary.
Turning to the amendment from the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I will make it clear once again that we will ratify the treaty only when all necessary implementation is in place. The implementation will be kept under review by the independent monitoring committee. Clause 9 of the Bill makes it clear when the Bill and its provisions come into force. Implementation continues at pace. I can confirm again that on 21 March the Rwandan Senate passed legislation ratifying the treaty. As I confirmed this afternoon, on 19 April—just last Friday—the Rwandan Parliament passed domestic legislation to implement its new asylum system.
In an attempt to reassure my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), let me say that, as we have made clear, if the monitoring committee were to raise any issues to the joint committee, standing members of the joint committee are senior officials of the Government of this country and the Government of Rwanda, and the Government will, of course, listen. I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that it will be up to the independent monitoring committee to raise issues at any point.
There is nothing new in this amendment. Such amendments have already been rejected. Enough is enough.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
For several months now, the Prime Minister has been ferociously attacking their lordships in the other place simply for doing their constitutional duty by seeking to revise and improve this Bill. Tonight, we see the evidence of why it is so important that they did just that.
I wish to put on the record my thanks to the noble Lord Browne for his tenacity in securing a significant concession—and it is a concession—which promises that Afghans in the UK who have put forward credible claims and evidence of a connection to Afghan specialist units will not be deported to Rwanda. This has not gone as far as we would want it to, but at least the Government, albeit begrudgingly, have inched towards doing the right thing by standing by some of those who so bravely stood by us in the face of the Taliban. We owe them a debt of gratitude and it is a great shame that the Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, first turned their back on those to whom we promised sanctity by cancelling flights from Pakistan. They then spent months resisting Lord Browne’s efforts to prevent these brave Afghans from being sent to Rwanda despite repeatedly being pressed to do so and to do the right thing by our armed forces, and now finally they are being dragged kicking and screaming to where we find ourselves this evening.
Even this afternoon, the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who is not in her place at the moment, was revealing. She raised in detail a case of her constituent who supported British efforts, but whose family were stuck in Afghanistan, yet the Minister could not even bring himself to reassure my hon. Friend that he would meet her or even look into the specifics of that case. That is why it will be so important for us to hold the Government to account on this concession, because it is so difficult to take what Ministers say at face value.
Turning now to the amendment in the name of Lord Anderson, I find it staggering that Ministers still have not conceded on this very basic point: that this House is not just trying to legislate that Rwanda is safe now—in other words that white is black and black is white—but that Rwanda is safe in perpetuity. The noble Lord Anderson was right when he said in the other place this evening that this is a post-truth Bill. We cannot possibly legislate for something that is in the lap of the gods.
I spoke earlier about the dangerous and turbulent world in which we live and how, at any point, the situation in Rwanda could change radically, just as it could in any other country.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am aware that the only consistent thing in the Labour leadership is its inconsistency. Will the shadow Minister confirm that in the past decade Rwanda was assumed to be so unsafe that the UN safely rehoused there 30,000 refugees from other countries?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am very glad that he asks about what has happened in the past decade. Let us not forget that, just six years ago, 11 refugees were shot dead by the Rwandan police for protesting about food shortages, as reported by the UN. I thank him for his intervention, because he makes the point clearly for me: six years ago, 11 refugees were shot dead.
Stephen Kinnock
The whole point of this is that we do not have a crystal ball. The evidence of what happened six years ago should clearly give us some cause for concern. All that this amendment seeks to do is create a position whereby the independent monitoring committee, handpicked by the Government, is able to advise the Home Secretary on laying a statement, which is absolutely fair enough.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I listened carefully to the intervention that referred to 30,000 refugees in the past decade. Is my hon. Friend aware that within the past 12 months the UK has accepted a refugee from Rwanda?
Stephen Kinnock
It was not just one refugee; many refugees are taken from Rwanda by this country, which begs the question how safe Rwanda can be. All that the amendment would do is trust but verify. It would put in place the kind of mechanism that is embedded in thousands of pieces of legislation that are on the statute book. I simply cannot understand why the Government cannot simply accept the amendment and enable the Home Secretary to lay a statement on whether Rwanda is safe or unsafe. That would provide important safeguards. It is not in any way a wrecking amendment; just like all the other amendments that the Government rejected, it would not prevent flights from taking off.
At his press conference this morning, the Prime Minister boasted about the progress that he has supposedly been making to stop the Tory small boats chaos. Yet as he stood at the lectern, it emerged that small boat crossings have increased by 24% compared with the same period last year. Next, he refused to give details about the operationalisation of the Rwanda scheme, saying that
“we will not be giving away sensitive operational detail which could hinder all the progress made to date”—
or so he thought. It subsequently emerged that one of his Ministers had left behind under some chairs in the front row a secret document entitled “Official Sensitive”, which included—wait for it—operational details of how the scheme will work. You simply could not make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yet another day of chaos, empty boasts, and shambolic incompetence.
To be fair to the Prime Minister, he made one point in his press conference that Labour did agree with. In response to a question from the media, he clearly stated that the test for the policy will not be whether a few “symbolic flights” take off, as his former friend the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the former Immigration Minister, said. In the Prime Minister’s words:
“Success is when the boats have been stopped.”
That is how he wants to be judged, and I assure the House that it is how Labour will judge him, and how the public will judge him too.
For two years, we have been urging the Prime Minister to stop the boasts and instead start stopping the Tory boats chaos. Sadly, he has chosen to ignore us on both fronts. Instead, we need Labour’s plan—[Interruption.]—to redirect the Rwanda money into a cross-border police unit to smash the criminal gangs upstream, and a returns and enforcement unit to remove those who have no right to be here, reversing the decline in removals that we have seen under this Government. Only Labour’s plan can fix our country’s broken asylum system—[Interruption.]—and only Labour’s plan can restore order at our border. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear it, but that is the reality of the situation. I hope that every Conservative Member will join me in the Division Lobby this evening.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It was going so well, and then it descended into a Second Reading diatribe from a Labour Opposition that have absolutely nothing to say about the serious challenge of immigration. They pretend that they will do what the Government are doing, only slightly better, but they do not really approach the level of events and the seriousness of the issue. We face a blank page on the other side of the House.
Let us deal briefly with the issue that we have left. I still think that there is strong merit in what their lordships say about not just the way in which we designate Rwanda to be a safe country but the parliamentary mechanism that we have to deal with things changing in the future, if they do. It seems to me that in the absence of the amendment there would be the need for further primary legislation in the future, which I do not think is a great place for the Government to end up in. However, in the context of where we are in the detailed consideration of Lords amendments, there comes a time when the unelected House has to cede authority to the elected House. I think we are now approaching that moment.
While I in no way resile from the merits of the argument, we need to look at the bigger picture, remember the balance that we have to strike and, frankly, think ahead to what future Governments there might end up being—hopefully not of a different complexion to our own. We need to strike a balance between both Houses. I judge that now is probably the time for us to—
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?
Sir Chris Bryant
Would not the right hon. and learned Member’s argument about whether their lordships should cave in have more weight if the policy had any mandate from the people? It was not mentioned in a general election. It was not in a manifesto. It is not the will of the people.
Sir Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman’s argument has merit, under the Salisbury-Addison convention, when it comes to the principle of a Bill. Their lordships have absolutely the leeway to deal with it in the way that they have on the basis that it was not in a manifesto—he is not wrong about that—but there is a more fundamental point about the way in which the balance between both Houses must be maintained.
This is the fourth round of ping-pong—I think the record is seven—on this short Bill. For the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill—a much lengthier Bill—we had only two rounds of ping-pong, because, in the end, the other House respected the primacy of this place. However reluctant and conflicted I feel about this issue, I think that we have reached that moment. That does not necessarily mean that I will vote against the Lords amendment, but I will consider whether I vote in favour of it on this occasion.
However, I do say this to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and to the Government: getting ourselves into the position of having four rounds of ping-pong on a Bill as short as this is not a great place to be, with respect to him. Had the Government made other concessions—as they have probably now done on the Afghan question, and as they did on the modern-day slavery question—perhaps we would not have had to wait this long, until this late hour, and goodness knows perhaps until a later hour, before making them. I remind my hon. Friends that Lords amendments are not about the principle of the Bill; they are about the detail of scrutiny. Given the spirit in which my right hon. and learned Friend has approached the amendments, it would have been wiser for us to reach this position slightly earlier, but that is the only criticism that I offer at this stage. The principle of the Bill is now settled, and the will of this House should prevail.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I rise again to put on the record the SNP’s opposition to this awful Bill. We do not support the state-sponsored people-trafficking Bill on Rwanda, and we will oppose it in any way we can.
I was quite disappointed to hear the Labour Lords caving on the Afghan amendment. If they think that this is some kind of concession, I have some magic beans to sell them—honestly, it is pathetic. Holly Bancroft, a journalist at The Independent who has done so much work to expose the weaknesses of the Government’s Afghan schemes, says:
“This review is already happening and is only for Afghans with links to specialist units. The Home Office is saying they won’t deport the Triples granted leave to remain in the UK by the MoD, who came here irregularly. The number of people in this situation will be very small.”
Before I came into the Chamber, I was phoned by Councillor Abdul Bostani of Glasgow Afghan United. He wanted to know what was happening in this place and what protections there will be for the Afghans he is constant contact with. He wants to know what happens to the journalists, the interpreters, the people who put their lives in danger to safeguard the UK’s mission in Afghanistan, and their children and families? He says: “Those people who the UK left behind, nobody is listening to them, nobody is replying. The safe and legal routes are not there.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I make this point because it is important and I want it recorded in Hansard. My constituent Trevor Young worked for the British Army in Afghanistan, alongside his comrade and friend, an Afghan who now happens to be in Pakistan because he had to leave Afghanistan after threats to him and his wife and children. The police have removed his phone, and he faces deportation from Pakistan back to Afghanistan. This is so important for my constituent. Minister, my constituent’s friend, an Afghan soldier, has been forgotten about by the British Government. I make a plea for him because he is not covered by the legislation.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the hon. Gentleman—he is quite right to point that out in the way that he has. It has been further reported in The Independent that an Afghan intelligence analyst who worked alongside members of the RAF has been threatened with removal to Rwanda. He says,
“I call on the prime minister and the government to stand by the promise they made during the fall of Kabul. If the legal ways, such as Arap and ACRS…were actually working, people like me wouldn’t have to wait for years just for a response and wouldn’t be forced into taking a small boat to come to the UK… Being in limbo is nothing but a waste of the UK’s resources. I have the skills to contribute to the UK’s community and the tax system, but I have to rely on Home Office help, because I cannot work.”
There are thousands of people in his position.
I have also an email from a person who emails me quite regularly. I do not know whether this person ever gets a response from the Afghan relocations and assistance policy email address that he emails, or from the other people who he copies in, but I see and read those emails when they come in. It is in tribute to Sayed, who is constantly seeking some safety, that I read this:
“You caused me to miss the evacuation flights. Why should I be in this situation. It is all because of you…I can’t endure it anymore. I am tired and I am faced with so many challenges. It happened several times today…that I had to stop myself with difficulty from crying in the middle of the street. Everyone was looking at me. I can’t endure it anymore.”
These are the people who have been left behind by this Bill, and have now been left behind by the Labour party, which would not press the amendment further.
I now turn to the one remaining amendment of all the amendments we have had. [Interruption.] I am sorry, am I boring Conservative Members? Do they want to pop back out to the Prime Minister’s office and have some drinks, instead of listening to the important cases being put in this debate? They care so little. What we are asking—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am just anxious that the hon. Lady addresses the amendment that is in front of us.
Alison Thewliss
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am addressing the amendment that is in front of us. Lords amendment 3J seeks a very small concession to Parliament: that this place should have some kind of scrutiny over whether Rwanda remains a safe country. Conservative Members were all about taking back control, but when it comes to scrutiny of the treaties and obligations we are signing up to, it is quite clear that they could not give a hoot. All that we are asking for—all that the Lords are asking for—in this amendment is some assurances, now and in the future, that there will be scrutiny of whether Rwanda is indeed a safe country. That is not asking too much.
The Government say that they will be ready to remove people in 10 to 12 weeks, and that Rwanda will be safe when the treaty is in force. I ask the Government this: will all the matters of implementation be in force in 10 to 12 weeks? Will the policies be in place in 10 to 12 weeks? Will the staff be in place in 10 to 12 weeks? Will the judges be in place in 10 to 12 weeks? Will the lawyers be in place in 10 to 12 weeks? Will the appeals system be in place in 10 to 12 weeks? Will all those things be there? Will the accommodation be there in 10 to 12 weeks—we know that that has already been sold off—and what airline company has the Government contracted with to remove people in 10 to 12 weeks? They have been extremely unclear about whether they even have an airline company. They have not told us that, and this House deserves to know, because we are not going to get the opportunity again to scrutinise the Government on whether or not the Rwanda treaty is actually being implemented.
The very least that this House should be able to do is check whether the Government and future Governments are fulfilling the obligations they have committed to carry out. We know that even when this treaty was being negotiated, Rwanda was engaging in refoulement. If that was happening when the treaty was being negotiated, is it still happening now? Can the Minister give any assurances that Rwanda is not refouling people right now? If he cannot come to the Dispatch Box and give that assurance, we should not be rejecting this Lords amendment and approving the Bill this evening.
This Bill has been very unusual in the number of Lords amendments we have had. I have never seen the like. I do not believe in the House of Lords—it is a principled position of the SNP not to send people to an unelected Chamber—but this Westminster system is broken when the supposed revising Chamber has been ignored throughout the entire process of this Bill. A revising Chamber is supposed be allowed to revise, yet this Government have ignored every single reasonable amendment the House of Lords has made. The Bill will be exactly the same as when it was introduced when it comes out of this process.
This elected House has absolutely no mandate for this Bill. It was in no manifesto, the Prime Minister does not have a mandate for it, and this House has no business approving it. I support the Lords in rejecting it. This Bill is not a deterrent. It has not been a deterrent, and nothing the Government have done has been a deterrent. It will not work. It will pile misery on to people who have already suffered incredible trauma, which the folk crowing on the Government Benches cannot even imagine. It does not happen in Scotland’s name, and we will vote against it at every opportunity we get.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3J.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
That concludes consideration of the Lords message received today relating to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. The House may be called upon to consider a further Lords message later today, if necessary. I am suspending the sitting to await any such message from the Lords. The Division bells will ring before the House resumes.
Petitions
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
I rise to present a petition, on behalf of my constituents, about sentencing and illegal knife possession. The petition has been led by Bernice Barfield, a devoted mother from my West Suffolk constituency whose son Harley was tragically stabbed to death in Haverhill last year. He was just 16. I thank Bernice for all her time and effort in campaigning in memory of her son.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of West Suffolk,
Declares that the rising incidence of illegal knife carrying in public poses a significant threat to public safety and calls for urgent intervention; further declares that such incidents contribute to an atmosphere of fear and insecurity in our communities; further that preventative measures are necessary to address this issue effectively; further that the petitioners are of the opinion that a mandatory prison sentence for those caught carrying a knife illegally in public, coupled with a mandatory 6-month knife awareness course for rehabilitation, will act as a deterrent to contribute to the reduction of knife-related crimes; and further that the rehabilitation program should aim to address the root causes of such behaviour and facilitate the offender's reintegration into society as law-abiding citizens.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider introducing measures which contribute to public safety and help address the root causes of illegal knife carrying, including introducing mandatory prison sentences for individuals caught carrying a knife illegally in public and implementing a mandatory 6-month knife awareness course for rehabilitation as part of the sentencing process.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002947]
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal, in particular my constituent Richard Gilmour, who was infected in 1974 through a blood transfusion. He has had to undergo multiple medical procedures since and says that he is lucky to still be alive. Like all those infected, he suffers chronic fatigue and other symptoms, and he deserves justice without further delay. The Government must act now.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Rutherglen and Hamilton West,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002957]
Food Poverty Strategy
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Exactly 10 years have passed since, in April 2014, an all-party parliamentary inquiry was launched to investigate hunger and food poverty in these islands. Led by the great Frank Field—now Lord Field of Birkenhead—who at that time was a distinguished Member of this House, the inquiry’s report contained a powerful rallying cry. It said:
“The simple but devastating fact that hunger stalks this country should confront each of the main political parties with a most basic and fundamental political challenge. With rising national income nobody could have predicted that in 2014 there would be a significant number of hungry people in Britain. But there are.”
In identifying the forces behind that hunger, the inquiry noted:
“Something fundamental is happening in advanced Western economies which throws into doubt the effectiveness of a national minimum below which no one is allowed to fall. It is the erosion of an effective national minimum that has led to the existence of hunger and the rise of the food bank movement in its wake.”
The fact that I will outline some of those same specific forces later in this debate, and the fact that the number of people having to use food banks has increased relentlessly since the inquiry published its report, is a shocking indictment of the UK Government’s response to hunger and food poverty over the past 10years. It is also a reminder of why an effective strategy is so necessary—to prevent yet another full decade of lengthening queues for food banks and rising levels of hunger.
The Government’s family resources survey recently found that between 2019-20 and 2022-23, household food insecurity increased for the UK as a whole from 8% to 10%. Larger families with children are particularly vulnerable to this form of injustice. A survey commissioned last year by Feeding Britain found that although 3% of households with no children reported accessing a food bank, that proportion increased to 6% among those with one child and 7% among those with two children. The highest proportion—13%—was found among those with three or more children. In a similar vein, adults living in a household with three or more children were almost four times as likely to report skipping meals every day because there was not enough money for food than those with one child, and almost six times as likely than those with no children.
The Minister will know that this injustice is felt by people both in and out of paid employment. Among members surveyed by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, the number relying on food banks increased between 2021 and 2023 from 7% to 17%. Those relying on friends and family have gone from 20% to 34%, and those eating less have gone from 35% to 57%. Of those surveyed, 80% are eating cheaper—unhealthier—meals, 55% have been worried about running out of food and 45% have skipped meals.
Even closer to home, the Minister may be aware that food bank usage among staff at the Department for Work and Pensions increased from 8% of those surveyed by the Public and Commercial Services Union in 2022 to 11% in 2023. Perhaps she could explain why so many staff working for the Department for Work and Pensions are only paid the national minimum wage. The Food Foundation’s recent survey showed that in January, 15% of UK households were experiencing food insecurity. Among households with children, 20% were experiencing food insecurity, and 24% of households of non-white ethnicity were food insecure—1.6 times more than households of white ethnicity. Of those in some kind of employment, 15% were food insecure.
Stark health inequalities are highly prevalent, particularly in diet-related poor health. The most deprived communities are affected disproportionately by much higher rates of food-related ill health and disease, from obesity to type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dental decay. Recent reports show an increase in hospital admissions for nutrient deficiencies. The data should ring alarm bells. The longevity of the cost of living crisis means that food insecurity has become the norm for many households who are unable to buy staple nutritious products. Anyone who volunteers for a food bank in Glasgow, like in any other asylum dispersal area, will tell of the need to assist those who seek sanctuary in the UK. Asylum seekers receive a payment of £45 a week—equivalent to what a youth trainee received 30 years ago.
How should the Government respond to those alarming figures? Fortunately, there are two recent precedents—from the Biden Administration in America and the Scottish Government under Humza Yousaf, both of whom have published strategies to eliminate hunger and food poverty within the coming years. A consistent thread running through both those strategies is a combination of specific policies to raise household income levels, improve access to nutritional support schemes and accelerate the development of innovative projects that bring affordable food to areas where people are struggling most. It is that threefold combination that I would like to propose to the Minister by way of an effective food poverty strategy that can eliminate the need for food banks in these islands by 2030.
First, the 2014 inquiry identified food bank usage as resulting from
“delays and errors in the processing and payment of benefits, the sometimes heavy-handed issuing of benefit sanctions…a sudden loss of earnings through reduced hours or unemployment, the absence of free school meals, the accumulation of problem debt or, for some, even a lost purse.”
It added:
“A further group of factors similarly exposes the vulnerability of many poor families. The poor are penalised for their poverty with a raft of disproportionate charges for basic utilities. They pay more for their energy through prepayment meters, are more likely to be charged to withdraw cash from their local machine, and often are unable to take advantage of the best mobile phone contracts—meaning they are likely to be just one bill away from needing to use a food bank.”
Today, around half of all households in receipt of universal credit are having an average of £60 a month deducted from their income, much of which is to repay the loans needed to cover the five-week delay at the beginning of a new claim. In my Glasgow South West constituency, almost a quarter of a million pounds per month was being deducted last year. At this stage, I would provide similar figures about the impact of the Government’s sanctions policy in Glasgow South West, but the Government decided last year that figures would no longer be made available to Members of this House on the amount of money being sanctioned in the constituencies that we represent. However, thanks to Dr David Webster at the University of Glasgow, we know that a total of 538,842 universal credit sanctions were imposed in the year ending October 2023, and 419,219 individual universal credit claimants received at least one sanction.
Food banks across these islands have identified those two policies as the two big recruiting sergeants for emergency food aid, so the first plank of a food poverty strategy must be to reform or get rid of those deductions and sanctions, which are applied so harshly as to leave people hungry. I would place the abolition of the two-child limit on social security payments in a similar category, as well as the introduction of a formal mechanism for advising the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the benefit levels that are required each year to safeguard all households from hunger and food poverty, and the payment of fair wages throughout the public sector and the economy as a whole so that a fair day’s work genuinely delivers a fair day’s pay to all. We need to end the scandal of those working in hospitality not being able to buy food for themselves. We need to end insecure work and guarantee workers their hours of work. We also need firm action against the poverty premium, which still results in poorer households missing out on the best and fairest deals for essential living costs.
Secondly, there are different programmes available specifically to make nutritious food available to people who are at risk of food poverty, but awareness and take-up of those programmes has never been as high as it could be. As such, can the Minister tell me whether the Government will undertake to work with all devolved Administrations and local authorities to ensure that they have the tools they need to automatically identify and register all eligible households for those programmes? That is something that featured heavily in the Biden strategy, and could extend much-needed help to hundreds of thousands of children across these islands.
Thirdly, I am proud to have set up the Good Food Scotland programme, which now runs seven affordable food larders and community shops across Glasgow, including those in Nitshill, Cardonald and Linthouse in my constituency. They serve 2,000 members with fresh, nutritious food at a low cost, helping to fill the gap between big supermarkets and food banks. That approach protects those members from food poverty with dignity and choice, and we expect to be running 10 across the city of Glasgow by the end of this year.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution on the importance of the need for a food strategy. He has highlighted the volunteers and groups across Glasgow that he works with; will he join me in also celebrating the volunteers in Midlothian who help to run the Mayfield and Easthouses Development Trust pantry, the Woodburn pantry, the Gorebridge Beacon pantry, the Newtongrange Development Trust pantry, the Steading community fridge in Rosewell, and the Food Facts Friends pantry and community fridge that I recently visited, along with the Midlothian food bank at Gorebridge parish church and various pantries run by Cyrenians across Midlothian, which all make such an amazing contribution?
Chris Stephens
I am glad to join my right hon. Friend in thanking his organisations in Midlothian. He will know, as I do, that the case studies from these organisations can be very illuminating, and I will mention one now.
Case studies from these projects show how much difference they can make. A couple using the Linthouse Larder used to do their weekly shop in Asda at a cost of £80 a week. Buying the same items in the Linthouse Larder has reduced their weekly shop to £30 a week—a saving of £50 a week. That helps many people in Glasgow South West and in the constituency of my right hon. Friend. Those are the kind of savings that can be made, and I want to thank all those community organisations in Glasgow South West and beyond, across these islands, who are tackling hunger and food poverty. On a bigger scale, and with the appropriate resources, these affordable food programmes could play an important part in eliminating food poverty across these islands.
I propose to the Minister that the Government commit as soon as possible to a cross-sector summit, with the aim of helping communities to secure the resources they need to deliver such programmes at the scale that will be necessary in the years ahead. In addition to that, much of the food required to sustain such programmes could be made available if the Government introduced the mandatory reporting of food waste and surplus in retailers’ supply chains—a measure that would trigger much-needed action by those retailers to ensure that edible surplus arising in the farms and factories that supply them was recycled for human consumption rather than put to waste. When Baroness Boycott proposed such a measure in the other place in 2021, the Government rejected the idea on the proviso that voluntary efforts within the food industry should first be given a chance. I would argue that, three years on, it is surely time to reconsider that idea with urgency.
It is nothing short of shameful to have to bring to this House yet again the issue of hunger as a form of injustice that continues to blight the lives of millions of people in the UK, exactly a decade after the launch of an all-party inquiry that gave the Government a set of proposals to make it a thing of the past. Just imagine a society where no one goes hungry; just imagine a society with a proper social security system; just imagine a society where work pays; and just imagine a society where food is accessible for all and at a fair price. That should be our rallying call. We cannot afford to let even more time slip by without a strategy to achieve that objective. With the numbers of hungry people continuing to rise, now more than ever we need to tackle this emergency, and I await with interest the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing this important debate on the potential merits of a food poverty strategy. I would like to start by saying that no one wants to see people struggling in our constituencies right across these islands, and I understand fully the passion that drives the contribution on these important subjects. I would like to add my voice to those of the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) in extending thanks to all those charities, and more broadly to institutions such as the Church that do lunches and so on. They not only provide food but are part of that cohesive societal network that helps people at times of need.
Food insecurity is highly complex—the hon. Gentleman explained very clearly how complex it is—covering not only my own Department but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Business and Trade, His Majesty’s Treasury and so on.
The annual statistics on incomes and living standards were published by my Department last month. They cover the year when the war in Ukraine and global supply chain pressures led to exceedingly high inflation, averaging 10% over the year. Food price inflation linked with the consumer prices index peaked during this time, reaching a high of 19.1% in March 2023. Thankfully, however, the latest figures show that it has dropped again, to about 4%, with upward forces bringing the rise in February and March to 0.2%, down from 1.1% since a similar period last year. According to statistics, food bank use during this period has remained relatively stable, although I agree that it is higher than any of us would want.
Since 2022-23, the period covered by these statistics, we have taken firm action to help families on the lowest incomes. We will spend about £306 billion in the coming financial year through the welfare system, including £138 billion on families and those of working age. The Government provided an unprecedented cost of living support package worth £96 billion during 2022-23 and 2023-24, including £20 billion for two rounds of cost of living payments targeted specifically at those who were struggling the most. That helped to shield people from the impact of inflation, preventing some 1.3 million households from falling into absolute poverty after housing costs. Since 2010 the Government have overseen significant falls in poverty, with 1.1 million fewer people in absolute low income after housing costs in 2022-23 than in 2009-10.
I am not suggesting for a minute that things have not been, and are not still, difficult for many. Food poverty is complex, as I have said, and it cannot be tackled through welfare alone. The levers for tackling this issue sit with a number of Government Departments, which is why we are not only working across Government to bring down food inflation, but meeting external anti-poverty stakeholders through our Departments and talking to other Departments about what more we can do. That includes encouraging retailers and those involved in local ecosystems.
Through regular engagement, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs continues to work with food businesses throughout the supply chain to explore a range of measures that they can take to ensure the availability of affordable food by, for instance, maintaining value ranges, price matching and price freezing. However—the hon. Gentleman would expect me to say this—it is not for the Government to tell retail outlets how to set their food prices, or to tell companies what to do. Retailers have introduced incentives for customers, such as reward cards offering small discounts, and a number of stores are offering meal deals either in-store or in their cafés. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, many use local or national groups to redistribute food at the end of the working day, and many interact with FareShare, among other charities.
Chris Stephens
A scandalous amount of food is being wasted and going to landfill, and I think we should do something about that. It is not a silver bullet, but will the Minister ask her colleagues in DEFRA to sit down with those of us who care passionately about this subject, and discuss addressing the fact that we have food poverty on one hand and a large amount of food waste on the other?
Jo Churchill
Funnily enough, earlier today I was talking to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), about exactly that issue. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there was no mandate three years ago, and I was discussing how the reporting and so on was going. We know that not only are there the benefits of redistribution for individuals but there is a significant environmental benefit for not putting that food in landfill and creating methane, so arguably there is a double win. When done sensibly, redistribution enables others to do the same as charities such as the Felix Project, which freezes food and makes it available to people.
The economy has turned a corner. Inflation has more than halved and is forecast to fall below 2% in 2024-25, while wages are rising in real terms and have done for the last consecutive nine months. Prices for food and non-alcoholic beverages rose by 12% in the year to March, easing for the 12th consecutive month. However, we recognise the financial challenges that many are still facing, which is why as inflation comes down to the 2% target we are continuing to provide support for the 2024-25 period. This includes uprating working-age benefits by 6.7%, well ahead of the current inflation rate, and uplifting the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile of local rents, which will benefit about 1.6 million private renters by, on average, £800 a year, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, alleviating financial pressures throughout the system for individuals.
Further, there is additional support for families, including free school meals, which are being claimed by some 2 million of the most disadvantaged pupils; the £40 million that the Department for Education has put into stimulating the breakfast clubs; and healthy food schemes, such as Healthy Start, which provide a nutritional safety net to more than 3 million children. I looked after the Healthy Start policy when I was at the Department of Health and Social Care, getting the uplift to £4.25 a week, so that pregnant women and children over one and under four receive £4.25 every week. For a child under one, it is £8.50 every week. This can be used to buy, or be put towards the cost of, fresh, frozen or tinned fruit and vegetables; fresh, dried and tinned pulses; milk and infant formula. I remember well meeting Daisy, who spoke to me very clearly about the difference it made having fresh produce, as the hon. Gentleman has already mentioned, come into her life and those of her children, and the nutritional benefit it gave them.
For those who still need extra help while inflation continues to fall, we are providing an additional £500 million to enable the extension of the household support fund for a further six months, including funding for the devolved Administrations through the Barnett formula, meaning local authorities in England will receive an additional £421 million to support local people, with the rest being distributed to the other nations. Independent charitable organisations do fantastic work that also helps in this space, whether they are our local churches or organisations providing lunches and community pantry schemes. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, they all help individuals and families when they are in need.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for giving way again; she is being extremely generous. One concern that has been reported to us is that the Department for Work and Pensions is no longer helping with food bank vouchers. Can she confirm that that is now departmental policy? That would be a very real concern for someone who is in difficulty, having a conversation with a work coach, for example, who is now being denied that food bank voucher or discussing that sort of support that someone in absolute poverty requires.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to put to bed completely the idea that there has been any change in our policy. We have always signposted that support. The only thing the DWP has done is brought in a new slip to replace the one used previously. There is no change to the existing policy, but the new slip allows us to improve our existing practices and to comply with our departmental responsibilities under GDPR. Our jobcentres continue to provide customers with guidance to find that additional support, including signposting to emergency food support where appropriate. We stand ready to help people when they are most in need.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the two-child policy. The latest statistic that we have for households in receipt of universal credit is that the majority of families—some 78%—have fewer than three children. Surely it is right that all families, whether in receipt of universal credit or not, should face the same financial choices when deciding whether to grow their family.
While our actions have shown that we remain committed to a strong welfare safety net—particularly during challenging economic times—we know that the best way we can help is through support to move into work. That approach is based on clear evidence on the role of full-time work in substantially reducing poverty. The latest statistics show that working-age adults in workless households were about seven times more likely to be in absolute poverty after housing costs. Children living in workless households were more than six times more likely to be in absolute poverty after housing costs than those in families where adults work. There are now over 1 million fewer workless households in the UK than in 2010—that is 680,000 fewer children growing up in a home where no one works. That is a cause for some gratitude.
There are more than 900,000 vacancies across the UK, and through our core job centre offer we are firmly supporting people to get into work. We support them with travel costs through the flexible support fund, with face-to-face time with work coaches, and help with interviews. The voluntary in-work progression offer is in all jobcentres across Britain, providing an estimated 1.6 million low-paid workers on universal credit with access to personalised work coaches.
We have also reduced the taper rate from 63p to 55p in the pound. We provide childcare costs, capped at £1,000 for a single child and more than £1,700 a month for larger families. We can even help with the advance.
To ensure that work pays, we have put the national living wage for people aged over 21 up by over 9.8% to £11.44 an hour, as the hon. Member mentioned. That makes sure that people are rewarded for the work they do, and it means an extra £1,800 for someone working full time. We are also providing a tax cut for 27 million people by further reducing the main rate of class 1 national insurance contributions.
Our focus continues to be on providing opportunities for people to be supported and to succeed in work, based on our firm belief that this is a sustainable way of tackling all forms of poverty. At the same time, we understand the challenges that people face, and we will continue to work across Government and party to ensure food security and that the broader welfare system will support those who need it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I wish to inform the House that the message to the Commons from the Lords is that the Lords do not insist on their amendment to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill to which the Commons disagreed.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carer’s Allowance
(7 months 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
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 640062 relating to Carer’s Allowance.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chair-personship, Ms Elliott. The petition was started by Alasdair Adam and has 13,914 signatures. It asks the Government to increase carer’s allowance to 35 hours a week at the minimum wage, and specifically to increase the amount of carer’s allowance to match pay for a full-time job. Unpaid carers eligible for carer’s allowance receive £76.75 a week to provide at least 35 hours of care to people in receipt of certain benefits, which is almost £300 less than what someone earning the national living wage would be entitled to. Many unpaid carers must give up work to provide care, and being a carer can also have a significant impact on wellbeing and lifestyle.
The Government responded:
“Carer’s Allowance is a benefit that provides some financial recognition that a carer may not be able to work full-time. It is part of a range of support based on individual needs, rather than a wage. The Government fully recognises the invaluable contribution that unpaid and family carers make in providing significant care and continuity of support to their loved ones. Unpaid carers play a vital role in the lives of their family and friends—and since 2010 we have increased Carer’s Allowance by almost £1200 a year.”
It is my honour to present this petition to highlight a grave concern that weighs heavily on the hearts of many across our nation. The inadequacy of carer’s allowance in the UK is a concern that affects the very fabric of our society. In a society that prides itself on compassion and support for those in need, it is disheartening to witness the struggles endured by countless caregivers who selflessly dedicate their lives to caring for loved ones. The carer’s allowance, intended to provide financial assistance to those unsung heroes, falls drastically short of meeting their needs.
First and foremost, let us acknowledge the monumental contributions of caregivers. They are the backbone of our communities, often sacrificing their livelihoods and personal aspirations to ensure the wellbeing of others. Their existence saves the taxpayer billions of pounds every year, yet despite their invaluable role, many caregivers find themselves living on the brink of poverty due to the inadequacy of carer’s allowance. One would be forgiven for thinking that carer’s allowance is some extra money for someone who pops in to check on an elderly neighbour. In the vast majority of cases, it is paid to someone who cares round the clock for a close relative.
During my research for this speech, I heard testimony from the petitioner Alasdair, as well as from carers Jacky and Katy from the We Care Campaign, which specifically advocates for unpaid carers. All three cared for close relatives—parents, a child and a partner respectively.
Alasdair spoke about the challenges of making ends meet in circumstances that are far from black and white. His carer’s allowance often needed to go on household items and supporting his father. Living month to month means that there is no money for unexpected outgoings.
Jacky told me about caring for her 28-year-old daughter. The role is 24/7. Although she is reluctant to use external carers, she is also prevented from drawing down direct payments to top up her carer’s allowance. Jacky’s money does not match that of her daughter’s personal independence payment, so she is often left without enough money for both of them to do things such as social activities and hobbies.
Katy cares for her husband who has motor neurone disease, plus her mother and mother-in-law who both have caring needs. Katy spoke of the challenge of making ends meet, surviving only because of her husband’s PIP and a small ill health-related pension. Despite caring for three people, Katy is allowed only one carer’s allowance payment as per the rules. The current allowance barely covers the basic cost of living, let alone the additional expenses incurred during the unpredictable challenges of caring for someone with disabilities or chronic illnesses.
From medical bills to specialised equipment and everyday essentials, the financial burden on caregivers is overwhelming. Many are forced to make impossible choices between putting food on the table and accessing services. Furthermore, the eligibility criteria for carer’s allowance are unduly restrictive, leaving out a significant proportion of caregivers who are equally deserving of support. The requirement for caregivers to provide at least 35 hours of care a week effectively excludes those who juggle caregiving responsibilities with part-time employment or other commitments. That arbitrary threshold denies assistance to individuals who are in dire need of financial relief. Perhaps the Minister will explain how the 35 hours of care criteria was arrived at.
The narrative surrounding carer’s allowance is often toxic, with carers being treated as undeserving at best and criminals at worst. The recent news coverage of people being fined or charged with benefit fraud because of accidental overpayments or honest mistakes, sometimes concerning as little as a few hundred pounds, throws a spotlight on it. Such action is neither fair nor proportional. Carer’s allowance is the lowest paid benefit of its kind. Those examples say something about the value put on carers and speak of a society and its Government that simply do not value care.
Support for carers should go well beyond carer’s allowance. Stakeholders such as care charities and think-tanks have told me of diminishing support for carers during recent years, citing the lack of availability of respite care and training opportunities as examples of a crumbling support network. It is suggested that any reform should centre on providing support for carers to remain in work where possible. That would involve financial support and flexibility in how carer’s allowance is paid to avoid a threshold cliff edge. In addition, the threshold needs to be raised and tied to the periodic uprating of any minimum or living wage.
Across the UK, 600 carers a day give up work without having a choice. In December 2022, Carers UK highlighted that the earnings limit for carer’s allowance is not keeping pace with the national living wage. It stated:
“Over the last four years, the number of hours carers have been able to work alongside receiving Carer’s Allowance has shrunk from just under 15 hours a week in 2019 to roughly 13 hours and 20 minutes from…April 2023. This represents a loss of 1 hour 40 minutes a week. Over a year this amounts to a loss of 12 days of paid work.”
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I congratulate my Petitions Committee colleague on presenting the petition so clearly. She talked about the carer’s allowance not meeting the costs. Is she aware, as I am from my constituents, that the cost of living crisis and things such as food prices going up are actually making that acutely difficult, perhaps more difficult now than it was a few years ago?
Christina Rees
My hon. Friend makes an important point, with which I completely agree. This debate can only highlight the plight of unpaid carers.
Although carers can work any amount of hours, they must not exceed the earnings limit, which effectively limits the hours that they can work. It is important to understand that the problem of in-work support is one of implementation, not legislation. Laws exist that provide the framework for support for carers in employment, but all too often we see examples where that support is simply not implemented properly at an employer level. That said, the policy for carer’s allowance needs to be far more inclusive; caring is not just about older people. The 21-hour rule on study is arbitrary and discriminatory. Financial support should be stronger, clearer and less at the discretion of grant decision makers. There is also no clarity on who is responsible for any policy failure at a civil service or a ministerial level; it is everyone and no one.
Work must be done to end the postcode lottery and level up the services available in poorer areas. There are stark inequalities across the different regions in how the carer’s assessment for young carers is delivered. There are huge disparities in whether or not a GP surgery provides information on support for carers, and there is a significant gap between the number of people who identify as carers and those registered as a carer with their GP.
We need to answer the question: what is carer’s allowance for? A recent survey reported that 48% of those in receipt of it say that it does not make the difference that it should. Any reforms must examine the level of carer’s allowance so that it better reflects the level of financial impact of caring responsibilities, increase the earnings limit and tie it to national living wage increases, and review the 21-hour study rule. We need to aggregate the total number of caring hours if someone is caring for more than one person, so that their allowance reflects accurately their caring responsibilities, and explore the option of a sliding scale of payments depending on the level of caring responsibilities, supporting those who wish to stay in work. The reforms must also modernise carer’s allowance processes to guard against accidental overpayments and treat honest mistakes compassionately, fairly and proportionately, and provide an additional payment for carers of state pension age. Such reforms would help to bridge the gap between the current state of things and how we might wish them to be.
Carer’s allowance fails to adequately address the long-term implications of caregiving for the mental and physical wellbeing of caregivers. The emotional toll of caring for a loved one can be profound, leading to increased stress, anxiety and burnout. Without sufficient support, caregivers risk their own health and wellbeing, perpetuating a cycle of hardship and suffering. We cannot turn a blind eye to the injustices faced by caregivers across our nation. It is incumbent on us as a society to rectify those inadequacies and provide meaningful support to those who dedicate their lives to caring for others.
Although I appreciate the difficulties and dangers of paying carers a minimum wage, we must demand a carer’s allowance that reflects the true value of caregiving. We need a fair and dignified allowance that alleviates financial hardship and recognises the invaluable contributions of caregivers to our society. Let us stand in solidarity with caregivers and advocate for meaningful change. I urge the Government and policymakers to reform carer’s allowance and reinvigorate all support to ensure that it serves its intended purpose of providing genuine help for those who need it most. Together we can build a more compassionate and inclusive society where caregivers are valued, respected and adequately supported.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on bringing the e-petition to the House and on her excellent speech. I agree with everything she said.
We should begin by looking at the big-picture issues that the carer’s allowance helps us to address—currently very inadequately. The first is the issue of social justice. Carers often work long hours in very difficult, trying circumstances, and they receive the lowest benefit of the lot. They are treated as if they do not matter. That has to change. We must change the value that we place on care in order to end income inequality.
Supporting care properly through the carer’s allowance would make a big difference as part of a proper social justice agenda, but it is about much more than that. It is about the link between care and the NHS. Carers do such a fantastic job. Their work helps the NHS and the taxpayer, saving them billions of pounds. Were it not for unpaid family carers or carers who receive the very limited allowance, the NHS would literally fall over. We must consider this debate about carer’s allowance in the context of social justice and the future of the NHS.
Another issue that I hope the Minister will look at is the link with the economic problems we are facing. We are told that the Department for Work and Pensions is looking at the need to help people to get back into work; well, there are a lot of people who cannot get back into work because they are caring. They would like to work more, but if they work more, they get penalised. This is clearly the issue of the day, and I know that the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), will address it. If the Government are worried about work incentives and making sure there are people to do the jobs we need, they should look at the level of the carer’s allowance and all the conditions and criteria around it. It is way overdue for reform.
I wanted to start by raising those general issues, before getting down into the basics, which the hon. Member for Neath rightly took us through. We need a complete review of the carer’s allowance, including the rate it is paid at, the conditions around it and how it relates to other benefits and issues. Let me give one or two examples.
One issue is age. As the hon. Lady said, people who are in education and are affected by the 21-hour rule cannot receive carer’s allowance. That discriminates against young people. Young carers arguably need support more than any other kind of carer. We need to look at the interaction with education, and I would even consider those below the age of 16, because some young carers are basically doing a full-time job as well as their GCSEs and studies.
We also need to look at carer’s allowance for people who are over the pension age. To give them credit, the Labour Government began to do that, but we need to take that further, because some pensioners work incredibly hard and do really stressful jobs but are ineligible for carer’s allowance. We urgently need a full-scale review of carer’s allowance.
On the overpayment issue, which is really worrying, there are two aspects that we have to address. One is the legacy: all the carer’s allowance that has apparently been overpaid and that the Government are looking to claw back. That is a big legacy issue that we need to look at, and I would like to ask the Minister some questions about it. It is clearly an issue that we all have to face up to and try to tackle.
There is then the issue of trying to stop the overpayments happening in the first place. I have seen a number of reports and parliamentary answers on this issue, but I have never quite nailed it down to satisfaction, so I let me ask the Minister some questions. How much money does the DWP believe has been overpaid in carer’s allowance and is yet to be clawed back from people? What is the figure and what is the debt? We have seen different amounts, but what is the cumulative total, going back however many years that the DWP is worried about? In other words, how big is this problem? Give us the size of it so that we can try to get a feel for it. How much is owed?
By how much were people being overpaid? I have seen figures from Carers UK and some parliamentary answers that suggests the vast bulk relates to people who were overpaid just a little bit—£2 a week—and because of the cliff edge they have to pay back the whole amount. If they have been overpaid by an average of £2 a week for a year, they are having to pay back the whole lot. The cliff-edge problem is creating a total injustice and everyone can see that on all sides. Let us have some more figures and transparency from the Government so that we can understand.
I hope the Minister can go into more detail—for example, in how many cases was the DWP aware that people were being overpaid and still did not alert them? We read in the press that the DWP is sometimes aware and, for whatever reason, does not notify people. There is something really wrong with trying to claim back money from someone who has been overpaid when the DWP was aware and they were not, and that only compounds the errors. We really need to understand some of this information—which I hope the Minister has at her fingertips—if we are to come to a view on dealing with the huge problem of the overpayments legacy. I do not think there is a single Member of this House or the other place who thinks it is right to pursue some of these overpayments with some of these people. It really beggars belief in many cases.
Finally, overpayments are still happening on a regular, systemic basis. Because of the cliff-edge problem that the hon. Member for Neath rightly touched on, it is happening by accident every single day. As the hon. Member mentioned, the Government were warned about this—after a National Audit Office report in 2019, they admitted it was a problem and said they were going to fix it—but here we are, and it has not been fixed and it has got worse. We need to understand how the Government are going to address this issue to ensure that the problem does not just get worse and keep reoccurring. We read that it is a terribly big IT system that will cost millions to fix, but why should carers be penalised because the Government cannot get their systems right? That does not seem right to me. The Government have to sort it out and, in the meantime, treat carers fairly.
I am keen to hear the contributions of others, and hope that we can come together on this issue and realise that carers are getting a raw deal, which is bad for inequality, bad for the NHS and bad for our economy. We urgently need not only a fix to deal with the problems we have at the moment but a long-term fix so that this is sorted out once and for all.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on the good way in which she opened this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Elliot.
The Work and Pensions Committee is taking a close interest in the discussions around carers, and I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) here; she has taken a lot of interest in this issue. I have a particular personal interest in the debate because my constituency accounts for the largest number of signatures on the petition—73—so I thought it was particularly important for me to be here.
As others have said, for the best part of two decades now the Work and Pensions Committee and its predecessors have been calling on the Government to reform carer’s allowance, including the rate at which it is paid. A 2008 Select Committee report, “Valuing and Supporting Carers”, concluded that carer’s allowance was “outdated” and
“should be radically overhauled at the earliest opportunity to recognise the contribution carers make”.
Well, that “earliest opportunity” still has not arrived. Challenges raised in that report remain unaddressed 16 years later.
We know that the Department has conducted research to support policy development on carer’s allowance. In the response to a 2019 Select Committee report, it promised to publish that research. It has never been published—we still have not seen it. The Select Committee is very much looking forward to hearing from the Minister about carer’s allowance on Wednesday. Will she tell us when the policy development will conclude and whether the research will finally be published, as promised in 2019?
As we have heard, carer’s allowance is paid at a weekly rate of £81.90, which is less than other income-replacement benefits—jobseekers’ allowance is nearly £10 a week more. In my Committee’s recent inquiry on benefit levels in the UK, we heard that carer’s allowance was paid at too low a rate and that as a result carers often had to cut back on food and were struggling to make ends meet.
Last month, in a one-off evidence session on carer’s allowance, we heard from Terry Kirton, a full-time carer for his father. He said, of caring and of receiving carer’s allowance:
“I am tired of struggling. I want to be able to look after my father. I want to make sure he does not have to go without things, and I would like to be able to have bit of a life myself without having to fight with my finances every day.”
I know the Minister has substantial experience of caring; does she recognise that the rate of carer’s allowance today is just not enough?
Terry is a registered nurse by profession. To retain his registration he would have to work a certain number of hours a week, but that would take him over the carer’s allowance earnings limit. It is impossible for him to maintain his registration and continue to receive carer’s allowance. To balance his caring role and his finances, he has had to leave the profession—to give up work altogether—and care for his father. He now just about survives on carer’s allowance.
That brings me to the second challenge: the earnings limit for carer’s allowance. In the same session of our Committee, we heard how the carer’s allowance earnings limit acts as a disincentive for carers who would like to work, either because they would be worse off financially should they lose carer’s allowance because of their work, or—this is the really big problem—due to fears that they would accidentally slip over the limit for carer’s allowance, giving rise to the overpayments we have just heard about. The earnings limit effectively traps carers only in low-paid work, whatever their skills or training.
The carer’s allowance earnings limit is not increased in line with the national minimum wage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath rightly told us, Carers UK has pointed out that the number of hours that a carer has been able to work at the national living wage while also receiving carer’s allowance has decreased over the last few years. Our report called on the Government to commit to uprating the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance annually. There should be a commitment to increase it every year.
A similar point was made in the 2019 report. In their response, the Government said:
“We will look at the findings from the research”—
to which I have referred—
“with an open mind, and would consider any changes to the earnings limit to be a priority.”
However, since then, nothing has happened. Will the Minister tell us today whether there are plans to review an increase on the earnings limit on the carer’s allowance, such as by linking increases each year with rises in the national living wage?
We have also heard that the earnings limit is just one of several eligibility restrictions. Another is the 21-hour rule, which prevents carers in full-time education— those attending 21 or more hours a week—from claiming carer’s allowance. Last month, Carers UK made the point to our Committee that a young adult carer has to
“choose between getting an education and qualifications and getting some financial support”.
They added:
“That is not right. It will affect people for the rest of their lives”.
Has the Department looked at the effect of that rule specifically on young and young adult carers, including on their opportunities later in life? The restriction on learning and caring is, we understand, being lifted in Scotland, with obvious advantages for young carers.
My final concern is overpayments, which we have touched on, and which have featured in recent news reports. It is not a new issue; our predecessor Committee published a report specifically on this issue in 2019. Data from the Department shows that in the year 2022-23, the Department was pursuing more than 30,000 overpayments of up to £2,000, and more than 7,000 payments of over £2,000, including 36 overpayments of over £20,000.
How has the Department allowed overpayments which, in some cases, clearly cover quite a few years, to accumulate? From real-time information from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Department knows what people are earning, and it can stop payment of carer’s allowance to those who are no longer eligible. Indeed, the Government’s response to the 2019 report confirmed that there is an automatic notification when weekly net pay exceeds the carer’s allowance earnings limit, yet the Department does nothing, instead allowing people to build up these huge overpayments, and then prosecuting them. Carrying on in that way is not right. I recognise that the Minister may not have the detailed data for 2023-24, as we have been given for ’22-23, but it would be helpful if she asked her officials to provide that to the Committee in the coming weeks. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response, and to her appearance before the Committee on Wednesday, when we will have an opportunity to explore these issues in further detail.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Elliott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on leading this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank my constituents who have signed the petition that we are debating today, which calls on the Government to increase the amount of carer’s allowance to match pay for a full-time job.
Unpaid carers provide vital support to those they care for, whether a family member, friend or neighbour, and they make a huge contribution to our society in general. It is therefore important that they are valued properly. The petition points out:
“Many unpaid carers have to give up work to provide care, and being a carer can also have a significant impact on carers’ wellbeing and lifestyle.”
Census data suggests there are around 5.7 million unpaid carers across the UK, but research from Carers UK in 2022 estimated that the true number of unpaid carers could be as high as 10.6 million. It is thought that one in seven people in the workplace in the UK are juggling work and care.
We know that many unpaid carers have faced enormous pressure on their personal finances as a result of the cost of living crisis, which has caused stress and anxiety for them, and many have been forced to cut back on essentials such as food and heating. Some have suffered extremely severe financial hardship. According to the Carers UK website, 44% of working-age adults who are providing care for 35 or more hours a week are living in poverty. Carers UK has highlighted research from Petrillo and Bennett that shows that unpaid carers in England and Wales contribute a staggering £445 million to the economy every day, or £162 billion per year. That is a huge amount of money, and as things stand unpaid carers can get £81.90 a week if they care for someone for at least 35 hours a week and that person receives certain benefits.
It is unsurprising that there are calls right across the country for a significant increase in the money that carers receive. The Carer Poverty Coalition, which was set up by Carers UK and is made up of over 130 national and local organisations who have come together to campaign to end poverty among carers, has said:
“The next Government must commission a full review into Carer’s Allowance and its eligibility rules to ensure that it adequately values and supports carers.”
The coalition says that such a review should include, among other things:
“Increasing the level of Carer’s Allowance, so that it better reflects the level of financial penalty carers incur...Exploring different payments for people providing 20, 35, 50+ hours of care, to take account of the intensity of caring…Provide an additional payment for carers of State Pension Age...Scrapping the 21 hour study rule”.
The 21-hour study rule prevents anyone who is studying for more than that amount of time a week from claiming carer’s allowance. Those are all very reasonable and important measures, and they should be part of any such review.
In particular, I call for an end to the cliff-edge situation that faces carers who are in paid employment. At the moment, someone can only receive carer’s allowance if they earn £151 a week or less after tax, national insurance and expenses. If they go over that amount, even by one penny, they lose their entire benefit entitlement. That is leading to a situation whereby there are carers who are unwittingly going over the limit and thus becoming ineligible to continue claiming the benefit. That is particularly the case right now, as the national minimum wage has gone up this month, so I urge carers to check their entitlement as a matter of urgency. I also ask the Minister to say what the Government are doing to ensure that all carers in paid employment are aware of this situation.
Written parliamentary questions that I tabled last week revealed that currently the Government are seeking to recover a total of 156,300 carer’s allowance overpayments. That is over 10,000 more than at roughly the same point last year when I asked for this information. The vast majority of those cases—more than 58%—are for amounts up to £1,000. Three hundred cases are for amounts over £20,000.
It is shameful that the Government have failed to get a grip on this situation over the last year. They are leaving increasing numbers of carers to face mounting debts without taking the necessary action to stop that. It was revealed in the press earlier this month that
“tens of thousands of unpaid carers who look after disabled, frail or ill relatives are being forced to repay huge sums of money to the Government and being threatened with criminal prosecution after they had unwittingly breached earnings rules by just a few pounds a week.”
Of course, there may be some cases of fraud, which always have to be investigated, but many, many of those cases will undoubtedly be the result of human error. Lots of people struggle to navigate the claims system, and many carers are under considerable pressure caring for someone they love. Some carers may also have their own medical issues to manage on top of their caring responsibilities, which adds pressure, causes stress and makes them vulnerable. I also remind the Minister that there are 7 million functionally illiterate adults in this country; for them, to navigate the system is nigh-on impossible.
The Government have said to me that they seek to recover money without causing excessive hardship, but the experience of many carers clearly shows that the opposite is true. There have been reports that the DWP has warned carers that they could face greater penalties if they appeal against fines, and Government officials have been accused of using “threatening and cruel” tactics in this regard. That is truly shameful, and I hope that the Minister will look into those allegations. There have also been reports of carers becoming
“severely depressed, suicidal and self-harming”,
due to the Government’s “abhorrent” approach, after they were ordered to pay back money after mistakenly breaching the earnings allowance. That is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. The social security system should be there to support people, not to cause them stress and push some to suicide.
It is also true that the sheer complexity of the claims system can lead carers into making honest mistakes. The judge in the case of a woman who was being prosecuted after being overpaid carer’s allowance when she took a part-time job on the minimum wage said that she had
“limited understanding of the offence…committed.”
The cliff edge of £151 can have the effect of providing a disincentive for carers to be in work or stay in work. That is in absolutely nobody’s interest at all. Aside from the financial support that such work provides, it gives people a sense of agency within their local community and a sense of identity, and it can be vital for people’s mental health and wellbeing. It is also important for people who are caring for people who might be approaching the end of their life, because when the person who they care for passes away they may want to re-engage with full-time employment, and it is much easier for someone to get work when they are already in work and when their skill level has been maintained.
Clearly, that is something that needs to be included in any review, as do the long waits that carers have reported experiencing when they contact the carer’s allowance unit by telephone for information about the benefit and how to make a claim. Labour has committed to reviewing the system of carer’s allowance, and we need this Government to make the same commitment as a matter of urgency. Along with that, they need to review the level of carer’s allowance. As things stand, too many carers are not getting the support that they need.
In summary, it is evident that there needs to be a large-scale review of carer’s allowance, and that the level of payments that unpaid carers receive needs to be increased. Work must be done to tackle the issue of overpayments. The Government should provide more staff to help clear the backlog, looking into possible overpayment cases, and to use those automated systems that are available. We need to see an end to the cliff edge that renders someone ineligible to qualify as soon as they go a penny over. Unpaid carers need to be recognised for the vitally important and selfless work that they do. They need to be supported and not punished for looking after their loved ones.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for leading this important debate. It really is an important debate, which provides an opportunity to recognise the invaluable contribution that millions of unpaid carers provide to their loved ones, to our society and to our economy. It is also an opportunity to note the continued failure of the carer’s allowance system to provide recompense for that.
I speak in support of some of the policy demands of the representatives of unpaid carers, including those set out by Carers UK, and to ask the Minister whether the Government will now commit to meeting those demands. If it is the case that they cannot do so, the country and the carer community will be looking to the Labour Front Bench come the next election.
Carers UK says that across the UK there are over 10.6 million people providing unpaid care. They are increasingly vulnerable to falling into poverty and financial difficulties. We have already heard that at least a third of carers are living in poverty. Those doing the longest hours are more likely to be struggling to make ends meet. Forty- four per cent of working-age adults who are providing unpaid care for more than 35 hours a week are in poverty, according to Carers UK. It is estimated that the value of unpaid care provided by carers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) indicated, is £162 billion per year in England and Wales. The ONS estimated that in my constituency there are over 10,000 carers providing 19 hours or less unpaid care—
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
Order. The debate may now continue until 7.55 pm, although that depends on there being no more votes, of course. I call Beth Winter to continue.
Beth Winter
Like many other Members here, I have lots of constituents who are carers and come to me for assistance. One constituent has been a carer for his wife for more than 40 years following her diagnosis of schizophrenia. He is now a pensioner with a low income, but that impacts significantly on his entitlement to carer’s allowance. Another constituent who cares for her grandfather had her carer’s allowance revoked, before we intervened, for exceeding the income threshold during a period of financial difficulty and mental health impact. The DWP confirmed that a payment should not have stopped and she received over £1,000 back. There is the issue of overpayment, but I also worry about how many carers may be being underpaid significantly without accessing support or advice. There is also a large proportion of people who do not claim the benefits that they are entitled to.
Only 71% of carer’s allowance claimants in 2023 were receiving a payment, and the remaining approximately 400,000 claimants met the conditions set out above but were not receiving the benefit due to the overlapping benefits rule—including nearly all pensioner carers, which hon. Members spoke about earlier. The e-petition asks that carer’s allowance be raised to the rate of 35 hours per week at the level of the national minimum wage. That would equate to £400 per week. The Government’s response says that carer’s allowance is
“a benefit that provides some financial recognition that a carer may not be able to work full-time.”
But should someone earn more than £151 per week, they lose all access to carer’s allowance; that is the cliff edge situation that others have mentioned today. That £151 is only around 13 hours of work at the adult national minimum wage, and the number of minimum wage hours that can be worked before hitting the threshold has declined in recent years. That is completely inadequate and unacceptable, and it is in need of urgent reform. That is why the Government must commit to improving the carer’s allowance.
I have previously spoken in the House about the Work and Pensions Committee’s call for an increased earnings limit and the introduction of a taper. Here today is the Chair of that Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who has spoken about the issue in much more detail. I have also said that the uprating of the carer’s allowance needs to be synchronised with the real living wage.
Carers UK has set out a number of demands ahead of the election. It calls for an increase in the earnings limit for carer’s allowance to the value of 21 hours per week at the national living wage rate and for that link to be defined in law, so that the ability of carers to earn is not eroded over time. That would take the earnings threshold to £240 from the current £151. It also calls for reform to the eligibility rules for the carer’s allowance, including ending the cliff edge, giving access to a tapered rate for those working more hours each week, enabling more than one person to receive the benefit if multiple people care for the same person, and extending the run-on payments for bereaved carers from eight to 12 weeks. Most importantly, Carers UK urges the Government to carry out a full review of the link between caring and poverty across the UK and to commission an independent inquiry to explore longer-term solutions to bringing more unpaid carers out of poverty.
The Carer Poverty Coalition says the carer’s allowance itself should be increased and I think that is vital, having spoken to many carers in my constituency. The current rate is undoubtedly a poverty payment, and the earnings threshold cliff edge makes a mockery of social justice. The reality is that many carers work full time as a carer and the state refuses to recognise that financial benefit to society, as well as the invaluable contribution that carers make. The idea of earning a minimum wage for a full-time job has long been accepted, and we should do the same for those people caring.
I want to comment more generally on the demonisation of people who receive social security benefits, which are an entitlement and a right. More recently, that demonisation was demonstrated by the Prime Minister’s comments about a “sick note culture”, which were dangerous and absolutely disgraceful and will do nothing except exacerbate the hardship that people experience. The demonisation and stigmatisation of claimants, including millions of carers, must stop. As an example, in my constituency of Cynon Valley, we have high rates of social security claimants, including people in receipt of carer’s allowance. [Interruption.]
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
Order. There is another Division. We will suspend for 15 minutes.
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
The sitting is resumed, and the debate can now continue until 8.20 pm. I call Beth Winter to continue.
Beth Winter
I have spoken about carer’s allowance being a poverty payment in need of fundamental reform. I want to conclude with a few general comments about social security and carers’ benefits and assistance. First, the demonisation of people in receipt of social security benefits, which are an entitlement, should stop. Only last week, we had Sunak talking about a “sick note culture”—language that is inflammatory, disgraceful and very dangerous. It will only exacerbate people’s hardship.
In Cynon Valley, high numbers of people are on social security benefits, including carer’s allowance. That is due to our industrial legacy—dirty work, with people inheriting significant ill health associated with the industry that they worked in. With the decimation of the industries, we have high rates of unemployment. Again, that has been compounded by the cost of living crisis, which is a political choice.
We need structural and transformational change when it comes to carers. We must ensure that everybody, regardless of their circumstances, is treated with respect and dignity, and that they receive the support they are entitled to. That should include a new national carers’ strategy. Apparently, we have not had a new one for 16 years, which I find quite shocking. Also, we could include being a carer as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, enhance flexible working and introduce a statutory right to breaks for people with caring responsibilities. In addition, we should ensure that social care receives sustainable and adequate funding, and that there is a joined-up approach between health and social care so that social care stops being seen as the weak relation in many regards.
Sustainable funding would ensure that people—both the carer themselves and the person receiving the care—could receive respite care and other support services. We should also explore things such as the minimum income guarantee and universal basic income. Without a doubt, however, the overwhelming evidence shows that, as a starting-point, carer’s allowance is in need of fundamental reform. Diolch yn fawr.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on leading it.
For years, many charities, campaigners and carers have called for wide-ranging reform of carer’s allowance. The petition that we are debating focuses specifically on how much carer’s allowance should offer carers, so I will begin my contribution by addressing the financial pressures that carers face.
Carers UK estimates that over a quarter of carers live in poverty, which rises to nearly half of those who care for someone for more than 35 hours a week. Often, people in receipt of carer’s allowance face particularly difficult financial situations. The poverty rate for people in receipt of carer’s allowance has doubled in the last decade and a survey by Carers UK shows that 45% of people receiving carer’s allowance struggle to make ends meet, which is a significant increase on the previous year.
The causes of financial difficulty for carers are frequently linked to their caring responsibilities. Of course, carers face additional costs, which are unavoidable, to keep the person whom they care for safe. Such costs can include vital but high-energy equipment, the costs of additional laundry and bathing needs, and transport costs for visits to medical appointments.
As we have already heard in the debate, carers also have a limited ability to earn an income. If they are in receipt of carer’s allowance, they can earn only £151 before losing that benefit. This month, the earnings threshold for claiming carer’s allowance increased below the national living wage, which means that carers on the lowest wages will have to cut back their hours to just over 13 hours a week or risk losing the benefit. For some, this will be the equivalent of losing 13 days of work a year, which is a substantial loss. In addition, as we have already heard but it bears repeating, there is an issue for carers in full-time education—young carers—because they lose eligibility for carer’s allowance when they study for more than 21 hours a week. Therefore, many young people are excluded from support.
Those eligibility requirements and others limit the support that carers can receive through carer’s allowance. Most importantly, however, around 34% of carers in receipt of carer’s allowance are still in poverty. Clearly, carer’s allowance is failing to give enough financial support to the people who provide unpaid care to others. It is ridiculous for the Government to claim in response to the petition that they
“recognise the invaluable contribution that unpaid and family carers make”,
given that so many carers clearly do not receive the support they need.
The petition that we are debating today focuses on the amount available for carers through carer’s allowance, but there are other issues that warrant our concern. A particularly worrying problem that we have already heard about is the recent reporting of overpayments of carer’s allowance and the subsequent repayment penalties. As we have heard, poor systems or poor processes at the Department of Work and Pensions have resulted in 145,000 current cases of overpayments to unpaid carers, with 12,000 of those being for sums greater than £5,000. As has been reported in the press recently, that has resulted in thousands of carers running up huge debts, being given criminal records, and being forced to sell their own homes when chased by the DWP over small mistakes that officials could have spotted years earlier. For example, George Henderson, the carer of his adult son John, who has a learning disability, was overpaid £110 and ended up being prosecuted for benefit fraud by the Department for Work and Pensions, despite the Department admitting that his was an innocent mistake. He was forced to sell his house and threatened monthly with jail. Then he tried to take his own life. Mr Henderson told The Mirror:
“One night I’d had a drink and I put a noose up in the loft…My girlfriend rang the Crisis team and I was under them for four months. They wouldn’t let me live alone. I lost four stone as I couldn’t eat, I look at photos from that time and you can see my ribcage.”
The repercussions of that time continue to affect Mr Henderson, and he is now waiting to undergo therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder. Sadly, there are many other carers like Mr Henderson. One carer told Carers UK:
“The whole process had my wife so stressed out that she at several points contemplated suicide. She couldn’t see an end to it and as it turned out we didn’t end up owing the DWP anything.”
Carers have described suffering an avalanche of utter stress due to the Government’s claiming back of these benefits. This is not about mistakes or misunderstandings by carers, as we have heard; this is about administrative failures at the DWP and harsh penalties for people whom the Government should be trying to support. There must be a change to the processing around carer’s allowance to alleviate the acute distress and financial hardship that overpayments can cause; otherwise, we will see many more serious headlines. It is reported that one in three unpaid carers has thought about killing themselves due to the emotional and financial strain they are under. That is disturbing. It is also disturbing that it is not known how many carers have already been driven to suicide, because caring status is not part of the data collected after such a death.
It is unacceptable, in my view, that the Government have let this mismanagement of carer’s allowance processes go on for so long. Both the Work and Pensions Committee and the National Audit Office warned of this situation five years ago, yet the number of overpayments today remains just as high. I am glad that Labour has committed to reviewing the system of carer’s allowance and would look to reform DWP policy on carer’s allowance but now that these issues are really being exposed, carers should not have to wait for a general election to see action. The Government must sort out the mess urgently so that unpaid carers are no longer penalised for the vital care they offer.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I will start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on bringing this debate to the Chamber, and on her excellent speech. I agree with her that carers are not only the backbone of society, but represent the best of us in the selflessness that they display. We should be championing them, and we know that is not happening.
Last week, many Members will have seen Oxfam’s report on carers, which was called “Valued”—a little bit of a contradiction, because it gives case study after case study where people are not valued, and shows how little people, and society as a whole, value carers. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) shared the costs that carers save society—it would cost £162 billion a year if we were actually able to pay carers. That is the cost they save.
I want to make a few points, many of which have already been made, on the lack of adequacy of carer’s allowance —as we have already heard, a quarter of those caring for loved ones are living in poverty—and on the issue of the rules: the cliff edge, the earnings limit, and the administration of those rules and the lack of common sense and compassion. I find that unforgivable, quite frankly.
I worked very closely with young carers in my public health days. As we have heard, given the Prime Minister’s statement in his speech last week about the mental health impact on so many young people, we might also have expected a message about the impact on young carers. Many of those caring for their parents or siblings are as young as eight or nine. It really is appalling.
I had a glimpse of being a carer: my mother had Alzheimer’s disease for 10 years, and I provided support to my stepfather, who cared for her during that time. We were not reliant on carer’s allowance, but we felt the strain, day in, day out, 24/7. This is a really significant gift that people are giving to their loved ones and society as a whole. We have heard how inadequate carer’s allowance is, at £81.90 a week—its lowest level, even compared with jobseeker’s allowance. Again, I refer Members the Select Committee’s report on benefits in the UK. We have the lowest level of out-of-work support since, I think, 1911, so carer’s allowance is even less than that in real terms. It is just appalling. We have been doing a mini-inquiry, and we have a follow-up session on Wednesday, which the Minister is attending. If she wants to hear about the experience of those caring for loved ones now, she should reflect on the evidence they gave a couple of weeks ago.
We have also heard about the Department for Work and Pensions’ appalling, draconian treatment of people—the utter lack of compassion shown to those who make, often, innocent mistakes and are then criminalised by the DWP. I feel quite ashamed, to be honest, that that is happening. As we have heard, the problem with overpayment is exacerbated by the unfair cliff edge and the administration of these ridiculous rules, which really need to be reformed.
I was contacted by a medical adviser, a retired GP who is providing medical advice to first-tier tribunals for PIP appeals, who also happens to be in receipt of carer’s allowance. This retired GP contacted me because she was concerned by the statement from the Department included in her bundle over the past six months, which said:
“Although (Ms X) has identified a high-level of personal restriction he/she is entitled to Carer’s Allowance. To be entitled to Carer’s Allowance a person must provide at least 35 hours of care to another disabled person each week. The tribunal may wish to explore this further.”
Although that might not look particularly threatening on its own, given the context of the other arguments that the Department is looking to put forward, it is basically saying: “How can you be caring for somebody if you’re also disabled?” That is what it is saying, and unfortunately that was also the gist of the Prime Minister’s speech last week—“If you’re genuinely in receipt of social security, of course we’ll support you. But there’s a question mark over how many and what proportion of people in receipt of social security are genuine.” That really gets to the core of this, and it makes me quite angry. Most people have worked and are doing the right thing. To imply that they are not genuine is an absolute disgrace.
In her response, I hope the Minister or her officials can explain why those sorts of statements would be included in a bundle to a medical adviser on the first-tier tribunal, which are questioning somebody who is caring for somebody else, and who also happens to be in receipt of disability benefits?
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on the way she introduced this important petitions debate, in which I am grateful to be able to speak as the SNP spokesperson for disabilities and the SNP carers champion.
I have had the pleasure of engaging with disabled people, their carers and carers organisations over the last number of years, and it really has been a privilege. My engagement with them stunned me at first, as I concentrated on the disabilities aspect of my role. I then went to a drop-in in Parliament and spent an hour and a half listening to carers, and became more involved on that side of things. Carers play such an invaluable role, and the impact they have on the lives of those they care for is almost unquantifiable. They show the best of humanity and are truly altruistic people who devote much or all of their time to others, but they are not properly recompensed by this Government.
Before I get into the cold numbers and economic arguments for increasing carer’s allowance, on a human level I want to pay tribute to carers right across the UK and thank them for all they do. Carers ought to finally get the recognition they deserve, as for too long they have been unsupported, exploited and taken for granted. The work of unpaid carers is what holds society together. According to Carers UK, there are an estimated 5.7 million people in the UK who provide unpaid care, accounting for 9% of the population. I want to say a special thanks to North Lanarkshire Carers Together, Lanarkshire Carers and NL Young Carers for all the help and support they give unpaid carers in Motherwell and Wishaw, and to all the other local organisations across the UK.
Each and every one of us can, and potentially will, become a carer or be cared for by someone at some point in our lives. None of us can predict the future. Circumstances change: before we know it, we may be caring for or receiving care from a loved one. Each year, around 4.3 million people become unpaid carers. That is 12,000 people a day. Unpaid carers’ support is worth a staggering £162 billion a year in the UK. Let me repeat that: £162 billion a year. According to the Carers Trust, the value of unpaid care is £12.8 billion per year in Scotland alone. The figures are huge, and the importance of unpaid carers in our economy is enormous, yet carers feel unsupported. Three in five are worried about living costs, 600 have to give up work every single day, and a quarter of carers have either “bad” or “very bad” mental health.
The enormous contribution of unpaid carers to the economy makes it all the more shocking that carers are under-supported in the UK. That was reflected in evidence given to the Work and Pensions Committee in March in a session on carer’s allowance. Representatives from Carers UK, Carers Scotland and the Centre for Social Justice all agreed that carer’s allowance is inadequate and each of the organisations took issue with the earnings limit. It was noted unanimously by those organisations that the UK lags behind comparable jurisdictions, most of which link the earnings limit to hours worked and not how much a person earns, thereby not confining people to low-wage work.
Ahead of today’s debate, a number of organisations were in touch with me to highlight the dire situation in which carers find themselves in much of the United Kingdom. The MND Association said that 90% of those who care for people with MND feel that the welfare benefits they receive do not meet their needs as carers. Meanwhile, in 2022, the MS Society, which is part of the Carer Poverty Coalition—this week is MS Awareness Week—conducted a report on the friends and family of those with MS and found that only 17% of respondents were in receipt of carer’s allowance.
The restrictive access to carer’s allowance, including the 21-hour study rule south of the border, is arbitrary and means that those who need support are missing out. The UK Government should follow Scotland’s lead by removing the 21-hour study rule and enacting measures like the Scottish young carer grant.
It is nonsensical that those who care for more than one person often miss out on carer’s allowance because the eligibility rules do not allow for caring hours to be combined cumulatively. Many carers who spend the equivalent of a full-time job caring cannot access carer’s allowance, which shows how broken the system is. The MS Society has outlined the horrendously low rate of carer’s allowance and the financial impact that that has on carers. Spread over 35 hours per week, the value of carer’s allowance equates to just £2.34 per hour, a whole £9 below the national minimum wage. That is horrendous. The current rate of carer’s allowance is totally exploitative.
The UK Government take advantage of the love that carers have for those they care for; they exploit their altruism and offer totally inadequate compensation in return. There is absolutely no recognition of how integral carers are to the functioning of society and the UK economy. It is essential that the UK Government increase the level of carer’s allowance to at least the minimum wage so that it better reflects the financial impact of caring responsibilities. I therefore support this important petition.
Coupled with the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which I supported and recently came into force, a move to increase carer’s allowance to the minimum wage would demonstrate that the invaluable work of carers is finally receiving some of the recognition it deserves from the UK Government, but more should be done. The Government must increase the earnings limit to ensure that carers can work and earn if they are able to and wish to. The rhetoric from this Government always focuses on getting people back into work and reducing economic inactivity, but they do not follow up their hollow talk by putting support mechanisms in place. Whether it is for disabled people or, as in this case, carers, there is workforce potential that is not being tapped into because of the lack of adequate support.
With the current levels of support, unpaid carers are particularly vulnerable to falling into poverty, not just because of the devastatingly inadequate rate of carer’s allowance but because of carers’ limited ability to earn an income and the additional costs they face, which they cannot cut back on without affecting the safety of the person they care for. Those include the costs of taking the person they care for to hospital, keeping their home at a safe minimum temperature, charging essential medical equipment for their loved one and doing extra laundry.
A perfect storm of lack of recognition, lack of proper financial support and risk of poverty while caring for a loved one leads to high levels of stress and can have a significant impact on the mental and physical health of the carer, seriously impinging on their own quality of life. In turn, that increases the carer’s own need for treatment, support and services in order to help them cope.
The SNP Scottish Government took action to mitigate the substandard level of carer’s allowance by introducing the carer’s allowance supplement in 2018. It is paid half-yearly and is £288.60 in 2024. Some might think that is a trifling amount, but for some carers it makes a huge difference. There is also a young carers package offering discounts and opportunities for all young carers aged 11 to 18. The Scottish Government fund Carers Trust Scotland to run the Scottish young carers festival to allow young carers to take a break.
Since launching the carer’s allowance supplement, the Scottish Government have made 920,000 payments, totalling around £255 million. In Scotland we would like to do more, but we are limited by the strict confines of budgetary constraints following cuts to the block grant. In an independent Scotland, more could be done to improve the lives of carers.
Despite that, the Scottish Government continue to recognise the huge contributions that carers make to society. In November 2023, we launched the carer support payment, the main Scottish social security benefit, which will replace carer’s allowance in Scotland. Scottish social security treats all claimants with dignity, fairness and respect. The carer support payment has been developed to deliver an improved service, designed with carer and support organisations to meet the needs of those who use it, and to provide links to wider services to help carers access the support to which they are entitled.
Working within a fixed “pocket money” budget, the Scottish Government have continuously tried to mitigate cruel Westminster policies in order to treat carers with the respect they deserve. The Scottish Government are totally committed to carers. They are investing £88.4 million a year in local carer support through local authority funding under the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016, and have provided £8 million a year for voluntary sector short breaks since 2022-23, enabling more people, including young carers, to take a break from caring.
Carer Positive, which works with employers in Scotland, was founded 10 years ago, and I am one of its members. I believe that MPs and MSPs should do all we can to promote that excellent scheme, which helps employers to do their bit for the carers they employ and gives good advice. It is time that the UK Government followed suit with some of these initiatives and showed carers the recognition they deserve, as well as giving them the financial support they need.
We have heard this afternoon of carers being harassed and penalised for overpayments made by DWP, adding insult to injury. Will the Minister look at that? Will she also commit to responding positively to the Work and Pensions Committee reports in a timely manner, and to stopping the cliff-edge situation that carers face with benefits?
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the shadow Work and Pensions team. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on securing this afternoon’s debate, and by thanking the thousands of people who signed the petition that triggered it. It does not surprise me that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) has the largest number of constituents in support of the petition, given the work he does as Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
As shadow Minister for Disabled People, I come into contact with a lot of unpaid carers. As a society, we should be incredibly grateful for everything they do. I pay tribute to them, and to the many organisations such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust that support them and stand up for their rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath said, carers are unsung heroes, providing care around the clock and saving the taxpayer quite literally billions of pounds, as many Members have pointed out. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham so eloquently put it—I know his Select Committee has been working on this—carers simply do not get enough money to survive.
As we have already heard, there are around 5.7 million unpaid carers in the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) pointed out, 72% are women, and 44% of those of working age who provide full-time care live in poverty. Carers should not be living—surviving—in poverty.
To be eligible for carer’s allowance, an individual must provide at least 35 hours of unpaid care per week, and the person they care for must be in receipt of certain benefits. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out, young carers in full-time education are not eligible for carer’s allowance. The main route to qualifying is now via personal independence payment—three words that strike fear into the hearts of many. I am sure everyone here will have heard PIP horror stories from their constituency casework. I could talk all afternoon and into the late evening about the problems with PIP, but I will leave that for another time. We have had many debates on it.
As others have said, this debate is especially timely given the recent stories we have seen in the press about carer’s allowance overpayment. Those in receipt of the benefit are allowed to have a second income from a job, but there is a strict limit on how much they can earn; currently it is £151 a week. If a carer’s income rises above that, by working a few extra hours, for instance, they forfeit the entire benefit. That results in overpayment, which the DWP then seeks to recover. Repayments can build up an incredible amount, because even if the weekly earnings limit is exceeded by as little as £1, claimants automatically become ineligible for the entire allowance. The Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham has rightly asked whether the Government can raise the earning limit. I hope the Minister will inform us of the Government’s thinking.
We have all seen recent examples in the press of people who have been forced to repay thousands after breaching the income threshold by as little as a few pounds a week. Just as disabled people and those with long-term illnesses often describe feeling demonised and humiliated by the benefits system, sadly so too do their carers. The Government need to urgently investigate the overpayment issue and outline what steps they are taking to ensure this does not happen in future, including by publishing their report in full. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) pointed out, some people are not receiving the benefits they are entitled to.
In order to ensure that unpaid carers are getting the support and recognition they deserve, we must look beyond the issue of carer’s allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) aptly pointed that out and shared her experiences of the strain put on families to provide essential support to their loved ones.
A Labour Government will transform social care for older people, children and disabled people. Alongside our 10-year plan for change and modernisation of the NHS, Labour will deliver a long-term plan for the reform of adult social care that will lead to a world-class national care service. Our fair deal for carers will ensure that both paid and unpaid carers are valued and supported. As set out in our new deal for working people, our priority will be care workers receiving the pay, conditions and training they need to provide great care and stay working in the sector. We will establish a new partnership with families who care for their loved ones to ensure that they do not put themselves at risk simply by looking after the people they love.
We will also support unpaid carers by introducing the right to flexible working and providing time away from work for caring responsibilities. We will join up services and support so that families do not have to battle their way around the system. We will give people in care homes a new legal right to see their loved ones.
I want to finish on something my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley tried a few times to say: we need to stop the dehumanisation of benefit claimants, such as those who access carer’s allowance who we all know add so much to this country.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. It is a pleasure to respond to what has been a slightly protracted, wide-ranging e-petition debate. I thank the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for introducing it with a characteristically thoughtful and wide-ranging speech, and I welcome Alasdair’s raising the issue.
This debate is welcome. It comes at a challenging time for our carers looking after their loved ones: we are post-covid and we face cost of living pressures due to the invasion of Ukraine. It is a challenging time for all of us, but most particularly our carers. I want, like many, to begin by paying tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across this country. Very thoughtful and personal contributions have been made by hon. Members, and I duly note the queries and challenges they have raised. I have much to say in response.
First, I know that people are concerned that the Government do not recognise and value the contributions made by carers every day in providing this significant care and continuity of support to family and friends, including pensioners and those with disabilities, but it is really important to put on record that that is not my perception. That is not how I want people to see this Government. I will do my best to make that clear to those watching.
The 2021 census indicates that around 5 million people in England and Wales may be doing some unpaid care, with many of us taking on that role at some point in our lives. Like other hon. Members, I see much of the work that is done by carers in my postbag, at events in my constituency, at carer’s rights days, or through engaging with my constituents in Mid Sussex. None of us is immune to the challenges of caring. Colleagues will know that this is of particular interest to me as a former carer and as part of a caring family. I pay tribute to all who do this daily. It is a difficult job—one that is the best and the worst in the world, in some ways. You will always be grateful that you have been there. It is precious and hard going in equal measure and I pay tribute to all those doing that.
Carers are fortunate enough to have some wonderful advocates. We have seen that both in the contributions of MPs to this debate and in organisations such as Carers UK, Carers Trust and the Learning and Work Institute, to name but three. Some of those have been mentioned already. I meet Carers UK regularly, and will be doing so again shortly. I was delighted that my officials were able to meet recently with a wonderful delegation of inspirational young carers who were part of Young Carers Action Day in March.
I also pay tribute to the hundreds of DWP staff, largely based in the north-west, who provide financial support to a million unpaid carers through the carer’s allowance, day in and day out. I want to make sure that our approach is one of always being happy to look at to mistakes or other issues and of always treating each case on its merits.
It would be misleading the House if I was not completely clear that this is a policy area that I have been hugely interested in, both as a Back Bencher through the work of the all-party parliamentary group and now as a Minister. I have been acutely interested in these matters, and I can be clear with the House that, since coming to this role, this is a matter that I have been examining. I genuinely welcome this debate.
I want to support those unpaid carers to do some of the paid work that they love, want to do and continue to do, something that they can balance alongside their commitments to their loved ones—the people who they are looking after. We have of course legislated to ensure that employees will be entitled to five days of unpaid care leave per year and will be supported through more flexible working in the workplace. I encourage employers listening to consider job design, have supportive conversations and be part of acknowledging this invaluable role. This is a community, employee and Government partnership.
Mims Davies
Yes, indeed. I was supportive of that myself, attending where possible to support that legislation going through. The Government absolutely welcome the cross-party work the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) did piloting that, and congratulations to her.
On the specific subject of the debate, we are spending record amounts to support unpaid carers. Real-terms expenditure for carer’s allowance is forecast to be £4.1 billion in 2024-25 and by 2028-29 the Government are forecast to spend over £4.5 billion a year on carer’s allowance. We spend another £685 million to support carers receiving universal credit through the carer element.
As mentioned today, patterns of care have changed significantly over the past decade. People are providing vital unpaid care to relatives and friends in a whole range of circumstances that work for all concerned, but I also recognise that none of this is easy. Nearly one million people now receive carer’s allowance, and the weekly rate increased this month to £81.90. That means that since 2010 it has increased from £53.90 to £81.90 a week, providing an additional £1,500 a year to carers through the carer’s allowance compared with 2010. Of course, there are additional amounts for carers in universal credit and other ways forward, and it is important that those watching and those who maybe have not had this conversation are aware of those and come forward to get the support they need. That also can be through the household support fund. We know that unexpected outgoings happen, and people should reach out through their local authority and through Barnett consequentials. I know that that has been an important support mechanism for carers.
The crux of the petition we have been debating is that we should turn carer’s allowance into a carer’s wage. It is important to emphasise that the carer’s allowance is not intended to be a replacement for a wage or a payment for services of caring, hence some of the issues rightly raised today. It is therefore not directly comparable to either the national minimum wage or the national living wage. The principal purpose of the carer’s allowance as it stands, and under successive Governments since 1976, is to provide a measure of financial support and recognition for people who are not able to work full time because of their caring responsibilities. I reiterate that I welcome the debate and the opportunity to review and understand these issues. Successive Governments have supported carers through allowances and benefits, as well as wider cross-Government actions, rather than paying people directly for the tasks they undertake in the way that an employer would.
Barbara Keeley
I want to raise something that has not been raised in the debate and ask the Minister a question. She refuted the point that the Government do not recognise the contribution of carers, but many carers believe that the Government should have, and are missing, a national carers strategy. Such a strategy was launched by the Labour Government, with the backing of our former Prime Ministers, and was ditched by the coalition Government after 2010. Much of what we have covered is about a range of issues that would be better solved with a cross-party ministerial commitment, going up to prime ministerial level, on a national carers strategy. An excellent campaigner, Katy Styles, who has been mentioned in this debate, runs the We Care Campaign for that very thing. It is a real black hole in the Government’s support for carers that there is no national carers strategy. Will the Minister address that?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) took us back nearly two decades to 2008, the year that he was Minister of State in the Department holding the welfare reform portfolio. This is not new; this is challenging. The hon. Lady makes an important point, to which I will try to reply in my wider remarks. When we discuss this issue at the Select Committee, I am keen to get to the crux of all the challenges, but that is too wide a subject for this debate.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) talked about benefit delays and the challenge of the long-standing principle that the carer’s allowance can being awarded only once a decision has been made to trigger a disability benefit to the person being cared for. Carer’s allowance can be backdated, however, to the date from which the disability is payable. I believe about 100,000 people are on PIP and the carer’s allowance. I hope that goes some way to answering her questions.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), with her characteristic approach, raised the work being done in Scotland. We will look fully and with interest at the evaluation of the changes that the Scottish Government make. At the DWP, we are supporting those changes, so we will engage on them. That also goes to the earlier point about looking and learning, which is exactly what we should do.
Many hon. Members spoke about young adult carers and the impact of study. We are engaging with the Department for Education and the cross-Government working group is meeting again soon. It is important that carers maintain links with the education system, so that they can receive part-time education and a carer’s allowance. We rightly recognise the aspirations of young carers to not only complete their studies and build a successful career, but be there for their loved one.
That is true not just for young carers: we need to ensure that carers understand that, while caring, they have developed amazing skills that an employer will find invaluable, such as managing finances, the resilience that has been spoken about today, dealing with crisis, organisation and planning, and that level of interpersonal skills. We need to ensure that our young people in particular get the financial support that they need while studying, so they can rightly progress into the career that they want.
On the latest data on overpayments, our most recent statistics are that carer’s allowance overpayments relating to earnings and employment represent about 2.1% of our £3.3 billion of carer’s allowance expenditure, which is approximately £70 million. I welcome the opportunity to discuss that further with the Select Committee later this week.
Sir Stephen Timms
Will the Minister respond specifically to my point about the Government’s response to the Select Committee report five years ago? Paragraph 20 says:
“The VEP Service receives the same information Universal Credit…receives from HMRC…A notification is automatically received by VEP when the weekly net pay exceeds the CA”—
carer’s allowance—
“earnings limit…The VEP Service then applies a series of…rules…to determine if a VEP Alert should be sent on to the CA Unit to action.”
It is puzzling that the Department knows when that is being overpaid, but seems not to be doing anything. Why is that?
Mims Davies
I was just coming on to overpayments and what has been in the press. I am not the Minister leading on the fraud side of the policy, but we will discuss that on Wednesday. I am keenly looking at it in the round and working with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a lot of interest, but there is always more to matters and more to discuss, although we should refrain from discussing individual cases.
Mims Davies
I will try to answer the point of the right hon. Member for East Ham. There is a need to balance the duty to recover overpayments with safeguards to manage repayments suitably. Claimants have a responsibility to ensure that they are entitled to benefits and to inform us about changes. We have improved customer communications to remind them of the importance of telling us about any earnings, including through the annual uprating letter.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford mentioned doing a couple of extra hours here and there. Where it can be balanced out using the process that the right hon. Member for East Ham mentioned, and where we can show a pattern, of course we will always respond to that. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about getting upstream of that, but the issue is the expenses that can be incurred; I am sure we will get into the weeds of that on Wednesday. He is right to say that there is a way of understanding that people may be in that situation, but there may be expenses too. I hope that gives him a partial answer.
Debbie Abrahams
Could the Minister respond to my query about medical advisers to first-tier tribunals, and the statements that are included in their bundles?
Mims Davies
I will take that point away. I am keen to explain more about the National Audit Office and the wider reports on Wednesday; it is quite complicated for this particular arena.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) made a point about the overlap of the carer’s allowance and the state pension—they are both paid as an income replacement benefit. The carer’s allowance replaces an income where the carer is not able to work full time due to their caring responsibilities, while the state pension replaces income in retirement. For that reason, they cannot be paid together to avoid duplicating the provision for the same need. However, if a carer’s state pension is less than the carer’s allowance, the state pension is paid and topped up with the carer’s allowance to the basic weekly rate.
Where a carer’s allowance cannot be paid, the person will keep an underlying entitlement to the benefit. That gives access to an additional amount for carers in pension credit of £45.60 a week, which is just under £2,400 a year. Around 100,000 carers receive that as part of their pension credit award. It is paid to recognise the additional contribution and the associated responsibilities, and means that lower-income pensioners with caring responsibilities can receive more than the lower-income receipts of pension credit. If a pensioner’s income is above the limit for pension credit, they may still be entitled to housing benefit. I would point them to the household support fund and the DWP’s help to claim service.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) raised a point about young carers. It is challenging to meet the objectives in this wide-ranging area, particularly for young carers and, as we have discussed, there are many objectives that we are trying to meet in different and individual circumstances. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley also mentioned the support from wonderful organisations such as Carers UK, and indeed our constituency offices, to help people to claim. There is now an easy-to-use online claims service for carer’s allowance. Some 90% of people claim that way, and nine out of 10 people are happy with the claims service.
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) spoke about earnings limits. I appreciate that carers are busy and there is a lot going on, but they are told about the earnings limit when they claim. They also get an annual uprating letter reminding them of any changes, and we use a text reminder. I would always ask carers to engage with us if there are any changes in circumstances. We have supported hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers receiving means-tested benefits through the cost of living support, as well as through support for their fuel bills. As I have said, it has been a difficult time.
The hon. Member for Neath rightly raised the 35-hour care threshold and asked how that was decided on. It dates back to 1976, when the carer’s allowance was introduced. At the time, 35 hours was the length of the average working week, and the view was that someone who was caring for 35 hours therefore could not be working full time. That was the basis on which the carer’s allowance support was introduced. She also rightly raised the delivery of carer’s assessments. I will ensure that Ministers in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are aware of her concerns.
The carers strategy was mentioned. The Government rightly support unpaid carers, and some of that was covered in the social care plan, “People at the Heart of Care”. Hopefully, I have spelt out today that there is a lot to look at.
The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham, mentioned the research. I have been looking specifically at that research, as well as the wider policy, in preparation for this debate. We are carefully considering the right time to publish that. I found it extremely helpful and enlightening; it is genuinely helping policy thought and development.
Before I close—I am certain I am over my time—I remind Members that for many carers doing work who receive universal credit, the 55% taper rate and any applicable work allowance will help ensure that people are better off in work. Ninety per cent of those receiving the UC carer element who are declaring earnings have a work allowance. Those with a disability or, indeed, a child might be in that situation.
I note the Opposition’s commitment to the reform of carer’s allowance. It is the first time that I had seen that, so it is pretty recent. Prior to that, there had been a focus around earnings rules. I will look at what others are promising, because as I said, some of this dates back to 1976, and some of it back more than 20 years. We have spoken about a mixed and challenging picture.
Vicky Foxcroft
I am really glad that the Minister has been re-promoted, which we forgot to mention. I am happy to send her all the stuff that the Opposition are looking to do. Of course, we are more than happy if the Conservatives want to pinch some more of our policies in the future.
Mims Davies
That was characteristically put; I thank the hon. Lady very much. The Work and Pensions Committee Chair made the point about having an open mind about this policy, and hopefully I have shown today that I very much have an open mind.
The Government appreciate that society relies on unpaid carers. It is the most challenging, fulfilling and difficult job, and we recognise the challenges that they face. We are helping carers to stay in paid work, but there is more to do, as I have spelt out. The opportunity to work with employers in a flexible labour market is appealing, and there is more to build on. We are spending record amounts on carer’s allowance and providing unpaid carers with the help and support they need and deserve. If they are not getting that, please do come and talk to us—our team are there to support them. We will keep carer’s allowance under review, as we do all benefits.
Christina Rees
It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. There is agreement among all speakers in this debate, including the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms); the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft); and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I thank them all for their valuable contributions.
I hope that the Minister, who is very magnanimous, will urge her Government to review and reform all aspects of carer’s allowance, as has been called for by the petitioner, Alasdair, and all speakers today. I say again how much I admire and respect all unpaid carers in the UK, and I thank them all from the bottom of my heart for what they do. I also thank the charities that support them. Carers are truly wonderful people and they deserve to be recognised, valued and better supported by this Government. I hope that this Government have listened today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 640062 relating to Carer’s Allowance.
Written Statements
Early Years Foundation Stage Safeguarding and Experience Based Routes: Update
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
Government are delivering a brighter future for Britain, with long-term economic security and opportunity: where hard work is always rewarded; where ambition and aspiration are celebrated; where young people get the skills they need to succeed in life and where families are supported.
We are rolling out the largest expansion of childcare and early education in England’s history. From this month, eligible working parents will access the first 15 hours of funded childcare each week for their two-year-olds. In September they will be able to access 15 hours each week for their nine-month-olds. From September 2025 all eligible parents will have access to 30 hours free childcare for children aged nine months all the way until they start school.
At the beginning of April, we exceeded our target of 150,000 children benefiting from the new two-year-old entitlement. As of today, this stands at over 195,000. By September 2025, the full rollout will be completed—saving parents an average of £6,900 per year.
With the action Government are taking, we will ensure that parents can benefit from more affordable childcare, making it easier to return to work or increase their hours.
Experience-based route (EBR) consultation
Last year, the Government consulted on proposed changes to the early years foundation stage (EYFS) statutory framework. This included the introduction of an “experience-based route” for early years staff who do not have the required full and relevant qualifications, but are otherwise experienced, competent and responsible, to work within the staff-child ratios. This proposal received strong support as a means to help childcare providers make the best use of the skills and experience of the workforce so that they can deliver on the childcare expansion, and in its response to the consultation the Department noted its intention to develop this route.
Today 22 April we launched a technical consultation setting out the Department’s proposals on how the experience-based route could work in practice, ensuring that high-quality education and care is maintained. The consultation asks questions on the proposed decision-making model, eligibility criteria, and process requirements.
We know that to deliver the commitments announced at spring Budget 2023, the early years workforce will require additional staff. Our strategy to support the workforce is clear—to enable providers to better utilise the skills of their existing workforce, to attract talented staff into the sector and maximise the skills pipeline into the early years workforce.
Safeguarding consultation launch
The safety of children is our utmost priority and we continually monitor and review safeguarding requirements for early years settings to make sure children are kept as safe as possible. As the early education and childcare sector expands, we want to continue to support early years practitioners to deliver high-quality and safe provision to millions of children each day.
Today 22 April, we launched a consultation on proposals to deliver changes to the safeguarding requirements in the EYFS statutory framework. This is the framework that sets the standards that all early years providers must meet to ensure that children learn, develop well and are kept healthy and safe. The safeguarding proposals have been informed by extensive engagement with providers, health professionals, sector stakeholders and safeguarding experts, and using lessons learned from previous incidents.
I have seen first-hand the excellent practices that providers have in place to keep children safe. Many are already carrying out what we are proposing in the consultation in their settings. It is my intention to ensure that all practitioners have the knowledge and support they need to deliver the safest, highest-quality early education and childcare provision possible.
Through both consultations, we hope to hear from as many people and organisations as possible so we can gather a broad range of views to help the Government reach well-informed and fair decisions.
[HCWS420]
Energy Prices Act 2022: Energy Scheme Expenditure
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
I am tabling this statement to update hon. Members under the Energy Prices Act 2022, in line with the requirement under that Act for quarterly reporting to Parliament on expenditure incurred under it. £ million a) Expenditure incurred between 1 April and 30 June 2023 a) Expenditure incurred between 1 July and 30 September 2023 b) Cumulative expenditure incurred to 30 September 2023 Energy Bills Support Scheme GB and NI 3 0 11,873 Energy Bills Support Scheme Alternative Funding 2 3 262 Energy Price Guarantee GB and NI 2,307 58 23,364 Domestic Alternative Fuel Payment (27) (3) 589 Energy Bills Relief Scheme GB and NI 1,856 108 7,522 Energy Bills Discount Scheme GB and NI 25 89 114 Energy Bills Discount Scheme Heat Networks GB and NI 1 15 16 Non-domestic Alternative Fuel Payment 5 (5) 62 Heat Networks Alternative Dispute Resolution Bodies 0.2 0 0.2
This is the third report on energy scheme expenditure under section 14 of the Act and covers the quarters from 1 April to 30 June 2023, and from 1 July to 30 September 2023.
Energy prices are volatile and changes will affect the outturn cost of the schemes. The Government have prioritised support for those most in need, while ensuring that we act in a fiscally responsible way.
Since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine caused energy bills to rise, the Government have stepped in with more than £40 billion of financial support. Over £43 billion was spent between October 2022 and September 2023, the most ever provided to subsidise household bills in UK history. This was in part funded through taxing energy producers’ excess profits, with the Government’s windfall tax on producers expected to raise over £26 billion by March 2029.1
Government support schemes covered nearly half of household energy bills between October 2022 and June 2023, saving households £1,500 on average.2
Future costs
Forecasts of FY23-24 (1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024) expenditure for the energy schemes were published by the Office for Budget Responsibility on 22 November 2023 as part of the autumn statement 2023. The forecasts provided were: £4.3 billion for the energy price guarantee, including prepayment meter levelisation; and £0.6 billion for non-domestic energy support, including energy bills relief scheme, energy bills discount scheme and energy bills discount scheme heat network support.
The costs in FY23-24 for other energy support schemes are expected to be net cash returns from suppliers and local authorities. This includes the energy bills support scheme, energy bills support scheme alternative funding, the domestic alternative fuel payment, and the non-domestic alternative fuel payment.
Separately, the forecast for heat networks alternative dispute resolution bodies funding is £0.2 million.
All forecasts are provided on an accruals basis. Ongoing work on the reconciliation of scheme costs may impact FY23-24 and FY24-25 forecasts.
To note:
Figures for expenditure incurred are on a cash basis. This includes payments made by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to energy suppliers, local authorities and other scheme operators.
Where the Department has received net cash back from energy suppliers or local authorities as part of the reconciliation of energy schemes, this is shown by a negative cash figure.
Some expenditure incurred in FY23-24 may relate to FY22-23. Therefore, forecasts for FY23-24 may be lower than expenditure incurred in FY23-24.
The energy bills support scheme in Great Britain was not made under the powers conferred by the Energy Prices Act 2022, but it is included for completeness.
Heat networks alternative dispute resolution bodies funding utilises the power conferred by section 13 of the Energy Prices Act 2022. This funding is separate from the energy bills discount scheme heat network support.
Administrative costs are not included in figures.
1 DESNZ, Press Release, 8 June 2023
2 Hansard, 13 November 2023, https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-11-07/284
[HCWS421]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. I do not think that is very likely at the moment.
Data Protection and Digital Information Bill
Monday 22nd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 View all Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 30-VI Sixth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (18 Apr 2024)
Lord Lucas
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 199, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. In so doing, I declare an interest as the principal proprietor of the Good Schools Guide; we make a lot of use of cookies on our website.
I am completely in favour of what the Government are doing in this part of the Bill as an attempt to reduce cookie consent pollution. It is a tiresome system that we all go through at the moment. The fact that it is tiresome means that, most of the time, we just click on it automatically rather than going through to the details. In a way, it is self-defeating. What the Government are trying to do will very much improve the quality of people’s response to cookies and will make them more aware, in situations where they are asked for consent, that this is important.
However—this will be the request at the end of my speech—between Committee and Report, I would really like to sit down with any noble Lords who are interested and are representatives of the relevant industry to discuss how we should deal with cookies that relate to supporting advertisement delivery. A lot of the web relies on advertisements for the revenue to support itself. By and large, for a lot of sites that you are not asked to pay but from which you get a lot of value, that value is supported by advertising. As a website, if you are going to charge someone for delivering advertising, you have to be able to prove that the advertisement has been delivered and to tell them something about the person to whom you are delivering it. In this process, you are not interested in having individual information. What you want is collective information; you want to know that you have delivered 24,000 copies of this advertisement and know what the audience looks like. You absolutely do not want to end up with personal information.
Within that envelope—absolutely excluding the sorts of cookies that chase you around the internet saying, “Do you want a deckchair?”, just because you bought one two days ago—this is a vital part of the way the internet works at the moment. In Amendments 199 to 201, I suggest ways in which the clauses could be adapted to make sure that that use of cookies—as I say, it does not involve the sharing of personal information; it very much involves collective information—is allowed to continue uninterrupted.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My apologies to the noble Lord but his microphone does not seem to be working. I wonder whether he could speak more clearly.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
It is but I do not think it is working. I do not know whether anybody else is having problems with it.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Okay. It does not quite reach me up here; I could sit down if that would be helpful.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
No, carry on.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I will try to line up with it better. Amendments 202 to 205 flag concerns with proposed new Regulation 6B, which sets out to remove cookie banners automatically when the technology is available. The concerns very much relate to that last phrase: “when the technology is available”. How will this work? How is it to be managed? There is only a thin layer of controls on the Government in the way that they will use these new powers; it is also unclear how this will affect consumers and advertisers. There could be some far-reaching effects here. We just do not know.
I am looking for, and hope the Government will agree to, wide consultation because, on something such as this, it is never true that everybody knows everything. You want to put the consultation out to a lot of different people with a lot of different experiences of how to use the net to make sure that what you are doing will have the sort of effects that you want. I want to see proper, thoroughgoing impact assessments, including of the impact on competition and on the economic health of participants in the net. I would like to see a real analysis of the readiness of the technology, not just an assumption that, because somebody likes it, it will work, but a real, critical look at whether the technology is actually up to what it is hoped it will do, and proper testing, so that, in giving the Government the carte blanche that they have asked for with these clauses, we do not end up letting ourselves in for a disaster.
As I said, most of all, I am looking for a meeting between now and Report, so that I can go through these things in detail, and we can really understand the Government’s position on these matters and, if necessary, discuss them further on Report. I beg to move.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to which I am pleased to have added my name. I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading, but I understand from other Members of the Grand Committee that an occasional guest appearance and a different voice are welcome.
I declare an interest, as set out in the register, as a director of RSMB Ltd, a company specialising in the methodology of audience measurement, cross-media measurement and data integration. More fully, I am nominated and remunerated by the advertising group Havas, which owns the company jointly with Kantar Media.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so clearly set out in his introduction, these simple and uncontroversial amendments would bring greater clarity and certainty to the key measurement of users, readers and audiences of digital websites and platforms. By including the measurement of aggregate audiences online in the list of cookies that would not require specific consent, these amendments would protect and enhance the interests of both consumers and businesses: consumers because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, with the maintenance of advertising revenue funding, websites that provide news, entertainment and a wealth of other services would otherwise cost those consumers much more in subscriptions; and businesses, as through the quality of anonymised, aggregated data, they can build better offers to consumers and advertisers, as well as increase their financial resilience.
The Minister brings profound knowledge and understanding of this field, so he well knows how important the digital advertising market is and how innovative and respected UK companies are in the global industry. That applies not only to the websites, platforms and advertisers but to the research, quality audit and measurement companies specialising in this area. These amendments would support this growing and productive high-tech data, research and measurement sector in reinforcing its world-leading position.
As in so many industries and sectors of the economy, long-term stability is vital to rapidly evolving digital markets. Including these amendments in the Bill, rather than relying on secondary legislation and regulation to flesh out details in the future, will enhance that stability.
Likewise, the amendments relating to the implementation of centralised opt-out controls are intended also to promote that long-term stability, as well bringing enhanced transparency and scrutiny. The interests of consumers and businesses are not in conflict with each other in relation to audience measurement and data quality. They are constructively interactive.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 109 makes changes to the regulations relating to the use of cookies, which, on the face of it, clarify and expand the PEC regulations. Some of the amendments seem benign enough, adding useful flexibility and much-needed clarity; others give the Secretary of State pretty wide-sweeping powers.
Taking a look at new Regulation 6A(1)(a), for example, a future Secretary of State will be able to add new exceptions to the cookie consent requirements. The regulation will also enable variations and omissions. All the Secretary of State would need to do is “consult” the commissioner and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate—so they will be left with some fairly wide powers and opportunities.
Before turning to Amendment 202 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I want to quickly respond to Amendments 199, 200 and 201, from the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Clement-Jones, and very ably supported by my noble friend Lord Chandos. These seek to introduce an additional exemption for cookies used for the purposes of non-intrusive audience measurement and ad performance, both of which are obviously very important to publishers, who need to understand how their websites are used and ensure that advertising is delivering revenue. It is famously hard to predict how successful advertising is; you are never quite sure whether the adverts are hitting home, but this sort of data is critical to that activity.
As noted by others, the Bill currently contains an exemption for cookies used solely for statistical purposes. It may be that the Minister is able to provide comfort to the publishing sector that audience measurement and ad performance are both areas that fall within this new exemption. If he cannot do that today, I hope he will be able to come back to interested colleagues in writing or, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested, hold further discussions on this ahead of Report.
We had a number of significant debates during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill regarding the fragility of the publishing sector. Newspapers, sectoral magazines and other sources fulfil a valuable role and we should seek to nurture that as far as is practical.
Amendment 202 in the name of my noble friend is another means of trying to support publishers by probing the potential consequences of the Government’s proposals around centralised cookie controls. Some users may happily accept cookies from the websites of trusted organisations, such as news sources that they use regularly, but generally decline cookies from other websites due to privacy concerns. I would like to know from the Minister how this nuance would be reflected if automatic preferencing is rolled out.
Organisations have also raised competition concerns. The number of mainstream internet browsers is incredibly small and they are operated by firms likely to be designated as having strategic market status under the digital markets Bill. If this legislation establishes a system that makes these browsers some kind of cookie gatekeeper, does that not risk amplifying existing competition barriers in digital markets, rather than bringing them down?
Our amendment would remove provisions around automatic cookie consent. Amendment 203 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, proposes a different option, providing a straightforward means for users to override their general preference when using specific websites. That is an interesting alternative, and we need to listen carefully to the Minister’s reply because it gets to the heart of the issue. The noble Lord’s Amendment 204 would also be important, ensuring broader consultation before statutory instruments were brought forward under new Regulation 6B.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I do not know how unusual this is, but we are on the same page across both sides of the Committee.
First, having signed the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I express my support for the first batch, Amendments 199 to 201, which are strongly supported by the Advertising Association and the Interactive Advertising Bureau for obvious reasons. The noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Bassam, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, have expressed why they are fundamental to advertising on the internet. Audience measurement is an important function, for media owners in particular, to determine the consumption of content and to price advertising space for advertisers.
I understand that the department, DSIT, has conceded that most of the use cases for audience measurement fit within the term “statistical purposes”. It is this area of performance that is so important. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, seemed to indicate, we may be within touching distance of agreement on that, but the Minister needs to be explicit about it so that the industry understands what the intent behind that clause really is. As a number of noble Lords have said, this is a specific and targeted exemption for audience measurement and performance cookies that limits the consent exemption for those purposes and, as such, should definitely be supported. I very much hope that, if the Minister cannot give the necessary assurance now, then, as a number of noble Lords have said, he will engage in further discussions.
Amendments 203, which I have signed, and 205 are extremely important too. Amendment 203, picked up clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is potentially important; it could save an awful lot of aggravation for users on the internet. It is potentially game-changing given that, when we approach the same site—even Google—we have to keep clicking the cookie. I very much hope the Minister will see the sense in that because, if we are changing the EC regulations, we need to do something sensible and useful like that. It might even give the Bill a good name.
As all noble Lords have rightly said, the Secretary of State needs to think about the implementation of the regulations and what they will affect. Amendment 202 is fundamental and badly needed. You need only look at the list of those who are absolutely concerned about the centralisation of cookies: the Internet Advertising Bureau, the Advertising Association, the Data & Marketing Association, the Market Research Society, the News Media Association, the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, the Association of Online Publishers and the Professional Publishers Association. I hope that the Government are in listening mode and will listen to their concerns.
As the PPA says, centralising cookie consent with browsers could cause consumers far more harm than good. The Secretary of State’s powers would override cookie consent relationships between individuals and specialist publishers, which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, talked about in particular. As the PPA says, in all likelihood a significant number of internet users would not consent to cookies from the browser but would consent to cookies on the websites of publishers that they know and trust. If the Secretary of State were to use this power to enforce cookie centralisation, many publishing businesses would be forced to present consumers with paywalls in order to be financially sustainable. As the PPA says, this would lead to consumers missing the opportunity to access high-quality publishing content without having to pay a fee.
The PPA has made an extremely good case. This would amplify existing barriers to competition in the digital market. There are provisions in the DMCC Bill that would give powers to the CMA to address any problems, such as enforced data sharing from platforms to publishers, but centralising cookie consent would completely undermine the objectives of that legislation. It is clear that this Bill should be amended to withdraw the provisions giving the Secretary of State the power to introduce these centralised cookie controls. I very much hope that the Minister will have second thoughts, given the weight of opinion and the impact that the Secretary of State’s powers would have.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, if the Committee will indulge me, I was a little late arriving for the introduction to this group of amendments by my noble friend Lord Lucas, but I heard most of what he said and I will speak briefly. I am quite sympathetic to the arguments about the exemption being too tightly drawn and the advantage that this is likely to give the likes of Google and Meta in the advertising ecology. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, a range of different trade bodies have raised concerns about this, certainly with me.
From my perspective, the other point of interest that I want to flag is that the Communications and Digital Committee is currently doing an inquiry into the future of news. As part of the evidence that we have taken in that inquiry, one of our witnesses from the news industry raised their concerns about a lack of joined-up thinking, as they described it, within government when it comes to various different bits of legislation in which there are measures that are inadvertently detrimental to the news or publishing industry because there has been no proper understanding or recognition of how the digital news environment is now so interconnected. Something like this, on cookies, could have quite a profound effect on the news and publishing industry, which we know is reliant on advertising and is increasingly feeling the pinch because the value that it gets from digital advertising is being squeezed all the time. I just wanted to reinforce the point, for the benefit of my noble friend the Minister, that concern about this is widespread and real.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to make my first foray at the Dispatch Box on this Bill in what has been an interesting Committee stage thus far. I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for tabling these amendments and other noble Lords who have signed and spoken to them in support.
Many people are irritated by repetitive pop-ups that appear on websites seeking consent for cookies and other similar technologies. The current cookie rules apply to all organisations placing cookies on a person’s device. Rather than engaging with these banners, people will select “accept all” so that they can access the webpage as quickly as possible. We want users to be able to make more meaningful choices over their privacy. One way in which web users may be able to reduce the number of consent pop-up banners that they see is by using automated consent management technology.
New Regulation 6B, which Amendment 202 seeks to remove, is important as it will allow the Secretary of State to require relevant technologies to meet certain standards or specifications, thereby ensuring that individuals using this technology have effective control over their privacy when they are online. Amendment 203 seeks to amend Regulation 6B by making it clear that consents given on individual websites should override any prior choices made using automated technology. However, this could pre-empt the outcome of consultation with relevant sectors, civil society and regulators on the design of any new regulations. I fear that this amendment could have the effect of encouraging the continued use of consent banners, may not reduce the overall number of pop-up banners and could increase the risk of influencing consumers to give up more personal data than they intended.
We feel that Amendments 204 and 205 are unnecessary and duplicate existing requirements and standard practice. There is already a requirement in new Regulation 6B to consult. We have engaged extensively with stakeholders on this Bill and will continue to do so in the context of using any of the new regulation-making powers linked to these clauses. Our engagement so far has highlighted the complexity of the ecosystem and the range of impacts on different interest groups. We will continue to consider these impacts carefully when considering whether to use the new regulation-making powers. Impact assessments are generally required for all interventions of a regulatory nature that affect the private sector, civil society organisations and public services.
The Government have taken powers in the Bill to remove consent requirements for other purposes if the evidence supports it while recognising that this is a complex and technical market. The Government will therefore continue to engage fully with all players before introducing any new exemptions or deciding to set standards for the market.
The new power in Regulation 6B recognises that there is a range of different stakeholder interests that would need to be considered before making regulations. The Secretary of State must consult the Information Commissioner, the Competition and Markets Authority and any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate. While browser-based or centralised consent options have been discussed as a possible solution, nothing in the Bill mandates them. The regulation-making power, which follows the affirmative resolution procedure, would allow the Secretary of State to set standards of design that will be key to ensuring that the regulations can move with technology.
Amendments 199 and 200 would permit the storage of information or accessing information stored on a person’s connected device, including the internet of things, to enable the organisation to generate audience measurement information. This proposed new exemption does not explain what data would need to be gathered to meet the objective of the amendment and is potentially broad in its application. For example, if it permitted activities such as tracking and profiling, it may not be appropriate to permit it without the consent of web users.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am interested in the Minister’s point about the flexibility the Government see in this clause, but I am not sure who in the end has the responsibility to lead on that flexibility. Will it come from the commissioner or be driven by the Secretary of State’s considerations? The consultation duties seem very dependent on the commissioner’s view and I am not sure at what stage the Secretary of State would want to intervene to ensure that they have got this bit right. That is very important, because the balance is quite sophisticated.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister used the expression “when the evidence emerges”, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, in another context last week. I would have thought that these organisations know what they are about, and they have provided some pretty comprehensive evidence about the impact on their businesses. Is that not a pretty good reason for the Government to think that they might not have this set of provisions entirely right, quite apart from the other aspects of this group of amendments? If that evidence is not enough—I read out the list of organisations—the Government are more or less saying that they will not accept any evidence.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their interventions. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, there is a trifecta of decision-making between the Secretary of State, the ICO and the organisations all working together. That is why there is a consultation requirement before using the power. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, it is a question of your point of view; we feel that we have done stakeholder engagement and believe that we have got the balance right between the needs of organisations—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Will the Minister write and unpack exactly what the balance of opinion was? We are talking about pretty crucial stuff here. It is not always a question just of numbers; it is quite often a question of weighting the arguments. The Minister should write to us and tell us how they came to that conclusion, because the case was clearly being made during the consultation, but the Government have effectively ignored it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
In this tripartite geography that the noble Lord described, the power—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am not a gambling man. It is an interesting term. The Minister is suggesting that power rests equally among those three elements but it does not. The Secretary of State is the all-powerful being and the commissioner is there to ensure that regulation works effectively. How will this operate in practice? There is no advisory body here; it is the Secretary of State having a discussion with the commissioner and then, on the balance of some of the consultation information that comes in, making a decision. That will not enable the sector, the market and those providers to be engaged.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I thank noble Lords for those further points requesting clarification. On how we have come to this decision, I am happy to write to all noble Lords in the Committee. The noble Lord went in an interesting direction because, in the context of the rest of the Bill, so many of the amendments have been about protecting private users, but the noble Lord seems to be swaying more in favour of the advertisers here.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is all about the relative importance and the weighting. Maybe that is a good illustration of where the Government are not getting their weighting correct for the beginning and this part of the Bill.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point. We are working with industry and will continue to do so. For the benefit of the Committee, we are, as I said, happy to write and explain the points of view, including those from Data: A New Direction. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, power ultimately lies with Parliament via the affirmative resolution procedure for the Secretary of State power.
I will go back to the amendments we were discussing. This regulation applies to complex and technical markets. The very reason we have taken a delegated power is so that the new exemptions can be carefully created in consultation with all affected stakeholders. As I explained, the Bill includes a requirement to consult the Information Commissioner, the Competition and Markets Authority and any other relevant stakeholders, which would include trade associations and consumers or web users.
Amendment 201 would widen the application of the “strictly necessary” exemption. Currently, it applies only to those purposes essential to provide the service requested by the user. Amendment 201 would extend this exemption so that it applies to the purposes considered essential to the website owner. We do not think this would be desirable, as it would reduce a user’s control over their privacy in a way that they might not expect.
For the reasons I have set out—and once again reaffirming the commitment to write to noble Lords on how the weighting was worked out—I hope my noble friend and the noble Baroness will not press their amendments.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. I can promise all Members that there will be thematic meetings between Committee and Report.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance from my noble friend.
On the first amendments, clearly, we are dealing with something that is quite tricky and technical. My noble friend sees these amendments in a different light to me. It is possible that my drafting may be imperfect; that has never happened before, of course, but there is always a first time. Therefore, I seek an opportunity to look at this issue in detail. It is absolutely not my objective to engage the objections; this is something where my noble friend’s objections are valid. My amendment is not intended in any way to allow tracking or profiling. If I am wording things imperfectly or imagining something that just cannot be achieved in practice, the best way to deal with these matters would be to hammer them out in a technical discussion, not in Committee. I would happily look to an opportunity to do that between Committee and Report.
When it comes to new Regulation 6B and its ramifications, as the debate has gone on, I have found myself favouring more and more the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. This is an uncontrolled bit of power that we are looking to give the Government, with some serious implications. It should not be done. We should wait until the technology is available and then do something when we can really take our time to look at the options. Again, this is something that we will have a chance to talk through.
It is really important that, in doing what seems to be convenient—as my noble friend put it, it is about getting rid of an irritation and making the whole process of giving permission much more effective; I am absolutely with him on that—we make sure that we are not letting ourselves in for some greater dangers. I personally want to make sure of that. The oldies among us—most of us, I suspect—will remember when Google said, “Don’t be evil”. I wish that it had kept to that.
For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Viscount Camrose
“(1A) In regulation 5C of the PEC Regulations (personal data breach: enforcement)—(a) in paragraph (4)(f), for “from the service of the notice of intent” substitute “beginning when the notice of intent is served”, and(b) in paragraph (5), for “21 days of receipt of the notice of intent” substitute “the period of 21 days beginning when the notice of intent is received”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the language of regulation 5C of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 so it is consistent with language used in new provisions inserted into those Regulations by clause 116 of the Bill.
“(iii) after the third subparagraph insert—“This paragraph is to be interpreted in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No. 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits.”, and” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the rules of interpretation in Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 (rules of interpretation regarding periods of time etc) to apply to Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) No 611/2013 on the measures applicable to the notification of personal data breaches.
Viscount Camrose
“Emergency alerts: interpretation of time periodsIn regulation 16A of the PEC Regulations (emergency alerts), in paragraph (6), for the words from “7 days” to “paragraph (3)(b)” substitute “the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which the time period specified by the relevant public authority pursuant to paragraph (3)(b) expires”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts a description of a period of time in regulation 16A(6) of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 to clarify that the day on which the time period specified under regulation 26A(3)(b) expires (which triggers the 7 day period mentioned in regulation 16A) is included in the 7 days.
Lord Leong
“Prohibition on unsolicited calls regarding personal injury claims(1) The PEC Regulations are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 21 (calls for direct marketing purposes), in paragraph (6), leave out “or 21B” and insert “21B or 22A”.(3) In regulation 22 (use of electronic mail for direct marketing purposes), after paragraph (4) insert—“(5) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a case falling within regulation 22A.”(4) After regulation 22 insert—“22A Unsolicited calls and use of electronic mail by claims management companies for personal injury claims(1) A person must not—(a) use, nor instigate the use of, a public electronic communications service for the purpose of making unsolicited telephone calls for direct marketing, and(b) transmit, nor instigate the transmission of, unsolicited communications for the purpose of direct marketing by means of electronic mail or otherwise,if the conditions in subsection (2) are met.(2) The conditions are that—(a) the person making or instigating the call or transmitting or instigating the use of electronic mail—(i) is acting on behalf of a claims management service, or(ii) does so with a view to providing information to a claims management service, and(c) the purpose of the call or the electronic mail is to engage a consumer in commencing a claim for a personal injury. (3) In this regulation—“claims management service” has the meaning given by section 419A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;“unsolicited” means an approach which has not been specifically requested, even if a person has consented to receive marketing information;“claim for a personal injury” means proceedings in which there is a claim for damages in respect of personal injuries to the claimant or any other person or in respect of a person’s death, and“personal injuries” includes any disease and any impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition.””Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to implement an outright ban on cold calling and spam texts from claims management companies for personal injury claims. Claims management companies would only be allowed to contact people about personal injury claims if they have specifically requested to be contacted about a potential claim.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch: Amendments 209 to 211 and 215.
It is estimated that a staggering 134 million personal injury compensation calls and texts have been made and sent in the UK in the past 12 months. YouGov research shows that more than 20 million people were contacted by companies touting for business through injury compensation claims. Personally, I have had more than my fair share, so I suppose I must declare an interest in this issue.
However, unsolicited calls are more than just a modern-day nuisance. If people have suffered an accident, they can be reminded of the trauma. People’s hopes of compensation can be raised cynically and unrealistically in order to encourage them to share personal financial information that can then be used to scam them out of their money. Research shows strong emotional responses to these calls. People are left feeling angry, anxious, disgusted and upset. That is hardly a surprise when they are being pestered in their own homes or on their own phones.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 208A. I declare my interest as a solicitor but not one who has been directly involved with personal injury claims. This is an area of particular specialism that requires particular expertise and experience for it to be carried out to the best advantages of those who seek that help.
Looking back, I am concerned that this matter has been raised, in different fora, on a number of occasions. For instance, in 2016, the Telephone Preference Scheme opt-out was discussed when it was removed from the control of Ofcom to that of the ICO. At that point, there was a great opportunity for this matter to be dealt with. Indeed, a number of organisations, including personal injury lawyers, the Motor Accident Solicitors Society and others, said that it was vital to carry this out and that cold calling should be ended because of the pressures it placed on an awful lot of very vulnerable people.
Since 2016, things have got worse in one respect—although, perhaps, they are a little less bad in respect of telephone calling. It is a little while now since I was last told that I had just had a major accident in my car as I was sitting enjoying a glass of wine and not having such worries in my mind. Telephone cold calling seems to have diminished but pressures through social media contact, various scams and so on have increased dramatically. I have been told this by a number of my legal colleagues.
In 2023, the Government produced the UK’s Fraud Strategy. As I am sure noble Lords will know, when it was published, it specifically pursued the question of extending the ban on cold calling to personal injury cases; that was very important and included all servers. So, unless there is some relationship already in place—something where that is a defence, as it were, here—and a voluntary willingness on the part of those who suffer from personal injuries to be contacted by an organisation with which they already have a relationship, this is something that we should pursue very strongly indeed.
Although it is correct that the legal profession, and perhaps other professions, are banned from this procedure, on a regulatory or disciplinary basis, some of my colleagues in the profession are, in some cases, susceptible to financial and commercial challenges through these organisations, such that they would become—sometimes, almost inadvertently—part of the process. Therefore, I hope that, in passing such an amendment, we would give a clear sign to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society that it underlines yet again that these practices are not acceptable to those members of the profession.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 208A. I am a recovering solicitor. Many moons ago, I gave public affairs advice to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which is a fine organisation. I very much support its call and this amendment on that basis. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on his introduction to this amendment; he and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, made a terrific case.
APIL took the trouble to commission research from YouGov, which showed that 38% of UK adults had received a cold call or text while 86% had a strong emotional response and were left feeling annoyed, angry, anxious, disgusted or upset. Therefore, the YouGov research reveals that almost all those who received a call supported a total ban on personal injury cold calls and text messages.
There is little for me to add but I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is not with us—she has just exited the Room, which is unhappy timing because, in looking back at some of the discussions we have had in the House, I was about to quote her. During Report stage in the Lords on the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, when she was a Minister, she told us:
“We know that cold calls continue and understand that more needs to be done truly to eradicate this problem. We have already committed to ban cold calls relating to pensions, and are minded to bring forward similar action in relation to the claims management industry. I have asked officials to consider the evidence for implementing a cold-calling ban in relation to claims management activities, and I am pleased to say that the Government are working through the detail of a ban on cold calling by claims management companies. There are complex issues to work through, including those relating, for example, to EU directives”;
of course, we do not have those any more. She went on to say:
“We would therefore like time to consider this important issue properly, and propose bringing forward a government amendment in the other place to meet the concerns of this House”.—[Official Report, 24/10/17; col. 861.]
How much time do the Government need? Talk about unfinished business. I know it is slightly unfair as you can unearth almost anything in Hansard but the fact is that this is bull’s eye. It is absolutely spot on on the part of APIL to have found this. I thought for one delirious minute that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was going to stand up and say, “Yes, I plead guilty. We never pursued this”.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I have texted the noble Baroness asking her to return as soon as possible so that she can listen to the noble Lord’s wise words.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am not going to carry on much longer. I know that that will be a grave disappointment but it makes the case, I think, that it is high time that the Government did something in this area. It is clearly hugely unpopular. We need to make sure that Amendment 208A is passed. If not now, when?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for tabling Amendment 208A and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for moving it. This amendment would insert new Regulation 22A into the privacy and electronic communications regulations and would prohibit via email or text unsolicited approaches encouraging people to commence personal injury claims sent by, or on behalf of, claims management companies.
The Government agree that people should not receive unsolicited emails and texts from claims management companies encouraging them to make personal injury claims. I assure noble Lords that this is already unlawful under the existing regulations. Regulation 22(2) prohibits the sending of all unsolicited electronic communications direct marketing approaches—including, but not limited to, texts and emails—unless the recipient has previously consented to receiving the communication. Regulation 21A already bans live calling by claims management companies.
In the past year, the Information Commissioner has issued fines of more than £1.1 million to companies that have not adhered to the direct marketing rules. Clause 117 considerably increases the financial penalties that can be imposed for breaches of the rules, providing a further deterrent to rogue claims management and direct marketing organisations.
Amendments 211 and 215 relate to Clause 116 so I will address them together. Amendment 211 seeks to confirm that a provider of a public electronic communications service or network is not required to intercept or examine the content of any communication in order to comply with the new duty introduced by Clause 116. I assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that the duty is a duty to share information only. It merely requires providers to share any information that they already hold or gather through routine business activities and which may indicate suspicious unlawful direct marketing on their networks; it does not empower, authorise or compel a communications provider to intercept messages or listen to phone calls.
Should a communications provider become aware of information through its routine business activities that indicates that unlawful direct marketing activity may be taking place on its service or network, this duty simply requires it to share that information with the Information Commissioner. For example, a communications provider may receive complaints from its subscribers who have received numerous unsolicited direct marketing communications from a specific organisation. We know from the public consultation that people want action taken against nuisance calls and spam, and this duty will support that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, especially the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Clement-Jones, who have kindly supported this amendment.
I shall just make two points. The first is that “unlawful” is just not good enough. People are still carrying on making these cold calls. Sometimes we have to listen to experts. The Law Society says that they are banned from making cold calls, and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers is asking for a ban. Sometimes, as politicians, we need to listen to people who perhaps know more than we do. If they are asking for it, it is basically because they need this clarified. I hope that the Minister will look at this again.
As for Amendments 211 and 215, perhaps the Minister could share with me the detail of the various points just made about the sharing data with various other stakeholders. If he could write to us or share it with us, that would satisfy our position.
On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the introduction of soft opt-in for political parties and campaigners, whose activity is governed by other regulation.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 209, I will also speak to Amendment 210, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding his support.
These amendments return to the major debate that we had on day 2 in Committee regarding direct marketing for the use of democratic engagement. It is fair to say that no-one was convinced by the Minister’s arguments about why that relaxation of the rules for political parties was necessary. We will no doubt return to that issue on Report, so I shall not repeat the arguments here. Meanwhile, Clause 113 leads into the democratic engagement provisions in the Bill and provides a soft opt-in for the use of electronic mail for direct marketing for charitable, political or other non-commercial activities when the data has been collected for other purposes.
As we made clear in the previous debate, we have not asked for these more relaxed rules about political electronic marketing. We believe that these provisions take us fundamentally in the wrong direction, acting against the interests of the electorate and risking damaging the already fragile level of trust between politicians and voters. However, we support extending the soft opt-in for charities and other non-commercial organisations. This is a measure that many charities have supported.
Of course, we want to encourage campaigning by charitable organisations to raise awareness of the critical issues of the day and encourage healthy debate, so extending their opportunities to use electronic marketing for this purpose could produce a healthy boost for civic engagement. This is what our amendments are hoping to achieve.
Therefore, our Amendments 209 and 210 would amend the wording of Clause 113 to remove the relaxation of the rules specifically for political parties and close the loophole by which some political parties may try to negate the provisions by describing themselves as non-commercial entities. We believe that this is the right way forward. Ideally, these amendments would be combined with the removal of the democratic engagement provisions in Clause 114 that we have already debated.
I hope noble Lords will see the sense of these proposals and that the Minister will agree to take these amendments away and rethink the whole proposition of Clauses 113 and 114. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, tracking the provenance of Clause 113 has been a very interesting exercise. If we think that Clause 114 is pretty politically motivated, Clause 113 is likewise. These rules relating to the fact that political parties cannot avail themselves of the soft opt-in provision have been there since 2005. The Information Commissioner issued guidance on political campaigning, and it was brought within the rules. Subsequently, there has been a ruling in a tribunal case which confirmed that: the SNP was issued with an enforcement notice and the information tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Conservative Party was fined in 2021 for sending emails to people who did not ask for them. Then, lo and behold, there was a Conservative Party submission to the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee in 2020, and that submission has been repeated on a number of occasions. I have been trying to track how many times the submission has been made by the Conservative Party. The submission makes it quite clear that there is frustration in the Conservative Party. I have the written evidence here. It says:
“We have a number of concerns about the Information Commissioner’s draft code”—
as it then was: it is now a full code—
“on the use of data for political campaigning. In the interests of transparency, I enclose a copy of the response that the Conservative Party sent to the consultation. I … particularly flag the potential chilling effect on long-standing practices of MPs and councillors from engaging with their local constituents”.
Now, exactly as the noble Baroness has said, I do not think there is any call from other political parties to change the rules. I have not seen any submissions from any other political party, so I would very much like to know why the Government have decided to favour the Conservative Party in these circumstances by changing the rules. It seems rather peculiar.
The guidance for personal data in political campaigning, which I read while preparing for this debate, seems to be admirably clear. It is quite long, but it is admirably clear, and I congratulate the ICO on tiptoeing through the tulips rather successfully. However, the fact is that we have very clear guidance and a very clear situation, and I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that we are wholly in favour of charities being able to avail themselves of the new provisions, but allowing political parties to do so is a bridge too far and, on that basis, I very much support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for Amendments 209 and 210, which would amend Clause 113 by removing electronic communications sent by political parties from the scope of the soft opt-in direct marketing rule. A similar rule to this already exists for commercial organisations so that they can message customers who have previously purchased goods or services about similar products without their express consent. However, the rule does not apply if a customer has opted out of receiving direct marketing material.
The Government consider that similar rules should apply to non-commercial organisations. Clause 113 therefore allows political parties, charities and other non-commercial organisations that have collected contact details from people who have expressed an interest in their objectives to send them direct marketing material without their express consent. If people do not want to receive political messaging, we have included several privacy safeguards around the soft opt-in measure that allow people to easily opt out of receiving further communications.
Support for a political party’s objectives could be demonstrated, for example, through a person’s attendance at a party conference or other event, or via a donation made to the party. In these circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable for the party to reach out to that person again with direct marketing material, provided that the individual has not objected to receiving it. I reassure the Committee that no partisan advantage is intended via these measures.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, perhaps the Minister could elucidate exactly what is meant by “supporting the party’s objectives”. For instance, if we had a high street petition, would that be sufficient to grab their email address and start communicating with them?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I suppose it would depend on the petition and who was raising it. If it were a petition raised or an activity supported by a particular party, that would indicate grounds for a soft opt-in, but of course anyone choosing not to receive these things could opt out either at the time or later, on receipt of the first item of material.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
So what the Minister is saying is that the solicitor, if you like, who is asking you to sign this petition does not have to say, “Do you mind if I use your email address or if we communicate with you in future?” The person who is signing has to say, “By the way, I may support this local campaign or petition, but you’re not going to send me any emails”. People need to beware, do they not?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Indeed. Many such petitions are of course initiated by charitable organisations or other not-for-profits and they would equally benefit from the soft opt-in rule, but anyone under any of those circumstances who wished not to receive those communications could opt out either at the time or on receipt of the first communication on becoming aware that they were due to receive these. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments in relation to these provisions.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for digging and delving into the background of all this. That is helpful because, all the way through our previous debate, we kept saying, “We don’t understand why these provisions are here”. When the Minister in the Commons was challenged, he said, “We have no intention of using this; it’s just a general power that might be there for anyone to use”, but the noble Lord has put the lie to all that. It is clear that only one party wants to pursue this issue: the Conservative Party.
The Minister said that there is no partisan objective or reason for this but, to be honest, I do not know how he can say that. If only one party wants it and no one else does, then only one party is going to implement it. Without going over the whole of the previous debate, I think a lot of people felt that we as political parties have a lot to do to improve our relationships with the electorate and be seen to represent them on an honest and authentic basis.
This goes in the opposite direction. It is almost collecting data for one purpose and using it for a different one. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Minister discussed the example of collecting information on a street stall; we have all done that a bit, in that you can put very generalised questions on a questionnaire which could then be used for all sorts of purposes.
Viscount Camrose
Member's explanatory statement
The amendment in my name to insert a new clause after clause 108 will apply the rules of interpretation in Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 to the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. This amendment adjusts the language of new regulation 26A(3) of those Regulations to ensure that Article 3 is able to apply.
Member's explanatory statement
The amendment in my name to insert a new clause after clause 108 will apply the rules of interpretation in Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 to the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. This amendment adjusts the language of new regulation 26B(4) of the 2003 Regulations to ensure that Article 3 is able to apply.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the language of new regulation 26B(5) of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 to ensure that Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 is able to apply to it and also makes a small change to when the 21 day period starts.
Viscount Camrose
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name to insert a new clause after clause 124.
Viscount Camrose
“Time periods: the eIDAS Regulation and the EITSET Regulations(1) In Chapter 1 of the eIDAS Regulation (general provisions), after Article 3 insert—“Article 3APeriods of timeReferences in this Regulation to a period expressed in hours, days, months or years are to be interpreted in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No. 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits.”(2) The Electronic Identification and Trust Services for Electronic Transactions Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/696) are amended as follows.(3) In regulation 2 (interpretation), at the end insert—“(3) References in these regulations to a period expressed in days or years are to be interpreted in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No. 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits.”(4) In Schedule 1 (monetary penalties)—(a) in paragraph 4(f), for the words from “a period” to the end substitute “the period of 21 days beginning when the notice of intent is served”,(b) in paragraph 5, for the words from “a period” to the end substitute “the period of 21 days beginning when the notice of intent is received”, and(c) in paragraph 6, for the words from “a period” to the end substitute “the period of 21 days beginning when the notice of intent is served”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the rules of interpretation in Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 (rules of interpretation regarding periods of time etc) to apply to Regulation (EU) No. 910/2014 on electronic identification and trust services and to the Electronic Identification and Trust Services for Electronic Transactions Regulations 2016.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I also submit that Schedule 11 should not stand part of the Bill. I note the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, which seek to temper the impact of these powers, but they do not go far enough. To have these clauses in a Bill labelled “data protection” contradicts its very title. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Kamall, for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is detained elsewhere but he asked that I raise a number of his concerns. I am grateful for his experience, as I am for the legal opinion provided by Dan Squires KC and Aidan Wills of Matrix Chambers.
The provisions create new powers for the DWP to obtain information about the bank accounts of people who receive benefit payments by requiring financial institutions to monitor customers’ accounts, to identify cases that merit further consideration and to establish whether the relevant benefits are being, or have been, paid in accordance with the law. Paragraph 2(1) of proposed new Schedule 3B makes it clear that the information that can be requested is very wide indeed, although it is not specified.
Schedule 11 also sets out provisions that would allow the DWP to issue account information notices; those AINs would apply to any account into which benefits will be, are being or have been paid within the past year, as well as to any account linked to such an account. The account holder may be a person who is entitled to the benefit or a person who receives the payment on their behalf, such as a parent, partner or carer. It may also include a joint account holder or, where housing benefit is paid direct, a landlord and all their related accounts.
All benefits, both those that are means tested and those that are not—child tax credit, the state pension, personal independence payments, the disability living allowance, working tax credit, universal credit and the employment and support allowance—are in scope. Counsel’s advice is that it is
“reasonable to assume that AINs will be issued on a rolling basis to most financial institutions which provide banking services and, in order to comply, financial institutions would need to subject most, if not all, of their account holders to algorithmic surveillance”.
Counsel also found that an AIN being issued to a particular financial institution would almost certainly be secret, to avoid tipping off account holders, and that the criteria triggering a search would also be kept confidential.
The Social Security Administration Act 1992 already contains powers for the Secretary of State to compel banks and others to provide information in order to ascertain whether a benefit is being paid correctly, as well as to prevent, detect and secure evidence of benefit fraud—that is to say, the DWP already has these powers if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that fraud is taking place. What is proposed is that the DWP no longer has to have a suspicion of wrongdoing but can survey vast swathes of the UK population without their knowledge in order proactively to surface cases that may or may not merit further consideration.
The legal opinion is also pretty damning on whether the powers contravene Article 8 on the possibility of extremely private information—such as on political allegiance and sexuality—being accessed, and it is equally damning on both the practicalities and the lack of oversight. If the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, had been with us, he would have made the following points. First, this is a power to collect highly sensitive personal information in bulk. Such powers exist under the Investigatory Powers Act but are attended by an array of statutory safeguards, ranging from authorisation of the original warrant, which must be approved by an independent judicial commissioner, and checks on the level of material requested to other issues such as record keeping, retention, dissemination and destruction, error reporting and a right to reply to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Few, if any, of these safeguards exist in the Schedule 11 power.
Secondly, the full extent and significance of the power will be apparent only once there is a code of practice. However, there is no draft code of practice and no commitment to produce one; there is merely a discretion. This is in sharp contrast to the Investigatory Powers Act, where key excerpts were made available in advance of Committee in both Houses. The impact of Schedule 11 on privacy is arguably much greater, yet we have seen no draft code of practice—indeed, we cannot be sure that a code of practice will be issued at all.
Finally, Schedule 11 contrasts with HMRC’s much more limited power to access information and documents for the purpose of checking a taxpayer’s tax position or collecting a tax debt. Under paragraph 4A of Schedule 36 to the Finance Act 2008, HMRC has been able to authorise a financial information notice on an individual, but not on a bulk basis. An FIN, unlike an AIN, must name the taxpayer to whom it relates. The most recent corporate report records that only 647 FINs were issued in the year to March 2023—an insignificant number in relation to the proposals in front of us. I hope that, when he responds, the Minister will be able to explain why investigating tax fraud is so carefully and narrowly constructed, whereas the DWP measures that will impact many more millions of people, a significant proportion of whom do not even receive benefits, are so broad.
On the day I tabled my amendments, I received an email from a woman who cares for her adult son with complex needs. She has a bank account to receive his benefits, from which she pays for his care. Under the terms of the Government’s proposal, all her bank accounts would be connected to his payments and therefore open to monitoring. Caring for an adult child is a heavy burden for a parent. Many parents do it with a love-filled grace that is humbling to witness, but it is a task that is out of season with the life that most of us live and all of us expect, in which children grow up, leave home and, as our strength wanes, come to our aid. It is also a service that the Government—and, by extension, all the rest of us—rely on.
In 2023, the University of Sheffield and Carers UK estimated that unpaid care, largely from family members, saved UK plc a whopping £162 billion a year, dwarfing the £120 million the Government expect to retrieve by these measures. It is nothing less than cruel to make a claimant or carer anxious, let alone homeless. But, if I cannot appeal to the Government’s compassion, I hope they will consider this: some who have contacted me suggested that they would no longer be prepared to continue to hold accounts on behalf of others; others suggested that their landlords would not be prepared to let them rent; and one said that their mental health had already suffered at the prospect. How many families need to put caring responsibilities back on the state, how many landlords need to make people on benefits homeless and how many people need to seek support from mental health services before the advertised gains are eroded?
For the life of me, I cannot work out whether these measures are intended to hurt or whether a focus on the shiny prospect of AI to sort out the DWP’s problems led incrementally to this place. Whichever it is, the measures are cruel to a degree that should worry us all. In a later group of amendments, we will discuss the capacity for technological systems to malfunction. Horizon might be top of mind, but Nationwide, McDonald’s, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Greggs, 999, air traffic control and public bodies, including the NHS and DWP, have all experienced technology failures where service provision suffered.
I am not against technology—we live in a world organised by technological systems—but introducing a system that may impact the finances of up to 40% of the UK’s population, including the most vulnerable, the poorest and the oldest, without checks and balances and, indeed, while downgrading the protections on automated decision-making, is dangerous.
Can the Minister can tell the Committee what plans the DWP has for when things go wrong, when people have benefits stopped and their children go hungry because the computer says no? Can he tell us how it will prevent a repeat of the hounding of so-called fraudulent payments, as is currently being reported in relation to the carer’s allowance, until people lose homes, jobs and mental health as a result of overpayments? In many cases, they were the department’s own fault and, in one case, involved as little as 30p a week. What has the department learned from a similar Australian scheme that, over 12 months, resulted in 1 million additional welfare payments being stopped, often without warning and notified by text with no human to complain to? That scheme dissipated as it became unworkable.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to support that tour de force from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I do not need to repeat it but, to summarise, I completely agree with the opinion from Matrix Chambers that, in addition to its immorality, this provision is in contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on respect for private and family life—relating to correspondence in particular. It is not necessary or proportionate, as we have heard. It is discriminatory and, for the purposes of the convention, is not in accordance with law. Once more, as we have heard, promising the possibility of guidance in future is no substitute for properly confining a power of this kind. Instead, the power is breathtaking in its scope and in its intrusive nature over the most sensitive financial and other personal information that could be gleaned this way.
It is an intrusion and an indignity as the breaches of privacy are not just for vulnerable people who are on benefits—not only non-means-tested benefits but means-tested benefits too. They are also an intrusion on the financial privacy of those who have linked accounts, whether they are a family member who is helping out by way of paying carers, landlords and so on or a family member who gives a small gift to a vulnerable person on benefits. Perhaps that is the Government’s intention—I do not know—but it is breathtaking in its sweep and in the number of citizens and people in this country who will be caught up in it. That is what makes it disproportionate and not in accordance with law relying on hypothetical guidance.
The discriminatory aspect cannot be emphasised enough. There are, broadly speaking, two categories of people for these purposes in these islands: those who earn, have inherited or otherwise have enough wealth to come within the scope of HMRC and who should pay tax and not avoid it—that is, not defraud other taxpayers and the country as a whole; and those who are on benefits, whether means-tested or universal. Neither category of humanity should be exempt from fraud but nor should there be a discriminatory approach to policing any potential fraud. Why is it that, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, we have this breathtaking snooper’s charter for those on benefits but a much more targeted approach to those who should be paying taxes? That discrimination cannot be justified.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
What is the difference between the trawl in looking at people who are seeking to avoid tax, which is not a crime, and in looking at those who are possibly mis-stating the extent of their assets? In the noble Baroness’s view, how is the surveillance different in terms of this Bill?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It is not just my view. It was put very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and, as I recall, is outlined in the legal opinion. HMRC’s powers are more targeted and have more safeguards.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
When the noble Baroness says, “more targeted”, is what way are they more targeted? That is what I would like to know.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
They relate to individual people by name, not whole sweeps of people who have done nothing wrong but get a particular benefit.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
What I am advocating to the Committee is that, in terms of our approach in this country to everyone in either category—or to people who are sometimes in both categories because they are, for example, entitled to some universal benefits but none the less must pay tax on their earnings, inheritance or whatever—the appropriate approach is a targeted approach beginning with at least some reasonable suspicion that a person’s financial matters are a cause for concern. Once there is reasonable suspicion—not even hard proof—because of their activities, that should be the trigger for an intrusion into their affairs. We have had that approach to privacy in this country for a very long time; it is the approach that, broadly speaking, is entrenched in Article 8 of the convention. Even if one does not like human rights conventions, it is none the less a tradition that people in this country—not just lawyers—have long understood.
Further, and in reference to the remarks attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich—who is not in his place, which is the reason why I am also risking being sensible—it is absolutely flabbergasting that there are greater checks and balances for investigating matters of national security than for investigating what could be minor benefit fraud. An example is the allegation that the person giving a Christmas present to their pensioner relative or their relative who is not able to work should trigger a response in the algorithm that this is somebody who should no longer be worthy of the benefit or who, worse still, should face criminality or even potential incarceration.
I cannot say how horrified I am that the Government should have proceeded with a measure of this kind even as we still learn about the extent of the injustice perpetrated on the postmasters. After what we are just beginning to understand about the postmasters, I cannot understand why the Government would allow this kind of discriminatory intrusion to be turbocharged by AI and inflict the potential for the same type of injustice—not just for a limited cohort of people who were unfortunate enough to be serving their communities by working as postmasters—on millions of people in the United Kingdom.
This is what Committee on a Bill is for. I will therefore calm myself in the knowledge and belief—and certainly the hope—that, in his response, the Minister will at least offer to meet with Members of the Committee who have put their names to the clause stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and with campaigners and experts to hear a little about the detail of the concerns and to compare this provision with the other provisions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, suggested in relation to national security, or indeed for tax fraud. Nobody is suggesting that fraud should be perpetrated with impunity, but we must learn from the mistakes of injustices already perpetrated. They are perpetrated because of blanket trust in the authorities and AI and a lack of checks and balances. There were plenty of humans in the loop at the Post Office, but that is not enough. This is a sweeping power that will lead only to intrusion, discrimination and the worst kind of injustice. In the meantime, before that moment even comes, millions of people will live in fear.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I will address, first, the exclusion of Clause 128 and, secondly, Amendment 219 in my name.
I spoke at Second Reading to oppose Clause 128. I was a little too late to put my name to the clause stand part notice in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Anderson. I would therefore like to address a few things relating to that before I move on.
This clause creates two kinds of citizen: those who are entitled to financial privacy and others who are not entitled to any privacy, just because they happen to be poor, old, sick, disabled, infirm and unfortunate. Hopefully, the Minister can explain the rationale for creating this form of discrimination. This discrimination will particularly affect women, because a lot of women receive social security benefits, and people of colour, who are generally paid poorly and often have to rely upon universal credit and other benefits to make ends meet. Hopefully the Minister will also be able to tell us how this squares with the levelling-up agenda. Certainly this clause does not really provide any fairness at all.
I have received lots of emails and letters and met individuals who are very concerned, as earlier speakers articulated, that they will be made homeless because their landlords will not want their bank accounts to be put under surveillance. What assessment have the Government made of the impact that this clause may have on future homelessness?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendment to which I have added my name, with other noble Lords here today, and also to some of the other amendments in the group. I find it interesting having to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. Quite often we disagree on issues, and we are probably coming at this from different angles, but actually we have come to the same conclusion.
Noble Lords will know of my concerns raised at earlier stages about automated decision-making. We have to ensure that there is always human intervention but, even when there is human intervention, things can go seriously wrong. When I first saw this proposal for mass trawling of bank accounts, I have to say that the first thought that came into my mind was, “This is Big Brother”, so I was not surprised when I received an email and a briefing from Big Brother Watch. I thank Big Brother Watch for its point. I will quickly dip into some of the points made by Big Brother Watch. There are many more points.
People may find it interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and I are speaking on this amendment from different angles. Let me be quite clear: I am a classical liberal. Some people call me a libertarian. I believe in a smaller state and government doing less, but there has to be a state to help those who cannot help themselves and people who have fallen on hard times. For some people, that is all they have. They have only the state benefit. There are no local community organisations or civil society organisations to help them, and therefore you have to accept that role for the state.
Those people are quite often the most vulnerable, the least represented and unable to speak up for themselves. I do not want to patronise them, but quite often you find that. When I saw this, I thought, “First of all, this is going to force third-party organisations to trawl”—I use the term advisedly—“customers’ accounts in search of matching accounts”. When we talk about those third-party organisations, we are talking about banks, landlords and a number of other organisations that have some financial relationship with those individuals. Some estimates put it at approximately 40% of the population who could be vulnerable to being trawled.
I am also worried about the precedent that this sets. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, talked about this in a different way. He would perhaps like this power to be extended. I do not want this power at all. I do not want it to be extended to others. I just do not want it at all.
I also worry about what this surveillance power does to the presumption of innocence. Are we just trawling everyone’s accounts in the hope that they will be found guilty? While I do not always agree with the Information Commissioner’s Office, we should note that it does not view these powers as proportionate.
One general concern that a number of noble Lords have is about AI and, in particular, the transparency of datasets and algorithms. We would want to know, even if we do not understand the algorithm itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I discussed in a debate on earlier amendments, what these algorithms are supposed to be doing and what they are looking for in trawling people’s bank accounts.
There are some precedents to this. We see from financial institutions’ suspicious activity reports that they have a very high false hit rate. I have a friend who is a magistrate, who told me that she heard a case about a family who wanted to get back access to their bank account. She felt that they were under suspicion because of their ethnicity or faith, and said to the bank, “You have not made a clear case for why we should freeze this account. This family has suffered because they are not able to access their bank account”. Think about that mistake being repeated over and over with false positives from this data. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was right to remind us that this is all against the background of the Horizon scandal. Even when people intervene, do they speak up enough to make sure that the victims are heard or does it need an ITV drama to raise these issues?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Although we probably come from very different positions on the role of the state, I agree with virtually everything that he said. I apologise for popping up at this late stage of proceedings on the Bill but, as someone with a long-standing concern about social security matters, I was shocked by the inclusion of these powers and want to add my support to those opposing them and, should this opposition prove unsuccessful, to the very sensible set of recommendations made by my noble friend Lady Sherlock.
The Child Poverty Action Group, of which I am honorary president, and Z2K warn that the stakes are high for claimants, as getting caught up in an error and fraud investigation can lead to the wrongful suspension and/or termination of their benefits. They give some horrendous examples of where this has happened. I will read just one: “A claimant with severe mental health problems whose main carer had recently passed away had his UC suspended in October 2023 by the UC case review when he was unable to obtain and upload bank statements on request. The suspension continued for four months and he was unable to pay for food, electricity or heating. When he was referred for benefits advice and his welfare rights adviser contacted the UC case review team, she was told that claims under review are randomly chosen and they are not targeted in any way”. This is someone with mental health problems left without any money; this could become the norm under this proposal.
The briefing from the CPAG and Z2K also cites the perspective of Changing Realities—families with experience in claiming low-income benefits. One warns that
“it will put folk off claiming altogether”.
I always remember, when I worked at the CPAG, getting a phone call from a woman who started by saying, “Please don’t think I’m a scrounger”. I am afraid that is still very much how people often feel about claiming benefits. Treating all social security recipients as potentially fraudulent can but increase the stigma associated with claiming. Amendment 219 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sikka is highly pertinent here. The point has already been made, but how would we feel if we knew that our bank accounts could well be scrutinised for potential tax evasion? I realise that I should declare an interest: as a pensioner, ultimately my bank account will be trawled, but that is down the line. Underlying this is a double standard that has operated year after year in social security and tax fraud.
The CPAG and Z2K also warn that some of the most marginalised people in our society could get caught up in these speculative searches. Given this, can the Minister explain why—I believe this is still the case—there is no equalities impact assessment for these provisions? Disabled people’s organisations are very worried about the likely implications for their members, such as in the case of disabled people who set up bank accounts to pay for their social care. They warn of the potential mental health impact as existing mental distress and trauma could be exacerbated by the knowledge that they are under surveillance—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
The Government state that they
“are confident that the power is proportionate and would operate in a way that it only brings in data on DWP claimants, and specifically those claimants where there is a reasonable suspicion that something is wrong within their claim”.
Given the evidence of people already being wrongfully targeted for fraud and the strongly expressed view of organisations such as Justice, as well as the Information Commissioner, that the measures are disproportionate and therefore arguably unlawful, can the Minister say on what evidence that confidence is based? Given this confidence, I hope that the Government will accept without demur Amendments 220 to 222 in the next group from my noble friend Lady Sherlock.
Picking up what my noble friend Lord Sikka said, what is the breakdown between suspected fraud and error? It is not helpful that they are always talked about as though they are one and the same thing. The Government have argued that one reason the power is necessary is to provide the tools to enable the DWP to
“minimise the impact of genuine mistakes that can lead to debt”.
Try telling that to recipients of carer’s allowance who have been charged with fraud as a result of genuine mistakes relating to the earnings threshold. The fact that the DWP already has the information and power it needs to act to ensure that debts do not accrue in this situation, yet in countless cases has not used it until the point where very large sums may be owing, does not instil confidence, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
On Amendment 303, which relates to Amendment 230, one of the criticisms of these provisions has been the lack of consultation. Has the Social Security Advisory Committee been consulted? If so, what was its response; if not, why not?
In conclusion, I support the opposition to Clause 128 and Schedule 11 standing part of the Bill, but so long as they do stand part, I hope very much that the Minister will take seriously the amendments in the name of my noble friend in this group and the next two.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I was also too late to put my name to these stand part notices for Clause 128 and Schedule 11. There must have been a stampede towards the Public Bill Office, meaning that some of us failed to make it.
At Second Reading, I described Clause 128 as “draconian”. Having dug into the subject further, I think that was an understatement. Data protection is a rather dry subject and, as the debates throughout this Committee stage have shown, it does not generate a lot of excitement. We data protection enthusiasts are a fairly select group, but it is nice to see a few new faces here today.
The Bill runs to 289 pages and is called the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Nothing in that name suggests that around 20 pages of it relate, in effect, to giving the Government unlimited access to the bank accounts of large swathes of the population without suspicion of any wrongdoing—20 pages is larger than many Bills. I wonder what the reaction in this Committee and the other place might have been if those 20 pages had been introduced as a stand-alone Bill—called, perhaps, the government right to access bank account information Bill. I suspect that we might have had a few more people in this Room. It feels as if this draconian clause is being hidden in the depths of a Bill that the Government perhaps felt would not generate much interest. It is particularly concerning that it was dropped into the Bill at the last minute in the other place and has not, therefore, received scrutiny there either. This sort of draconian power deserves much more scrutiny than on day 6 in Committee in the Moses Room.
I hope that my desire to stamp out fraud is well known—indeed, I think I can probably describe myself as rather boring on the subject—so I have a lot of sympathy for the Government’s underlying intention here. However, a right to require banks to carry out suspicionless surveillance over the bank accounts of anybody who receives pretty much any kind of benefit, directly or indirectly, is a huge intrusion into privacy and feels completely disproportionate. Others have covered the detail eloquently, so I just want to ask a number of questions of the Minister—I see that we have had a viscount swap at this stage.
I have been trying to work out exactly which accounts could be covered by this requirement. Schedule 11 is not the easiest document to read. It seems clear that if, for example, I am a landlord receiving rent directly from the benefit system on behalf of a tenant, the account of mine that receives the money would be covered, as would any other account in my name. However, would it also catch, for example, a joint account with my wife? I think it would. Would it catch a business account or an account for a charity where I am a signatory, a director or a trustee? I am not sure from reading it, I am afraid. Can the noble Minister clarify that?
Once received, the information provided by the banks may be used
“for the purposes of, or for any purposes connected with, the exercise of departmental functions”.
That seems extremely broad, and I cannot find anything at all setting out for how long the information can be retained. Again, can the Minister clarify that?
As well as being a data protection enthusiast, I am also an impact assessment nerd. I have been trying to work out from the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill—without much success—how much money the Government anticipate recovering as a result of these proposed rights, as well as the cost to the banks, the department and any other parties in carrying out these orders. The impact assessment is rather impenetrable—I cannot find anything in it that covers these costs—so I would be grateful if the Minister could say what they are and on what assumptions those numbers are based.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, mentioned unintended consequences. I echo his points: this is really important. Putting additional onerous obligations on banks may make them decide that it is too difficult to provide accounts to those in receipt of benefits. Access to bank accounts for vulnerable people is already an issue, and any incentive to make that worse is a real problem. As the noble Lord pointed out, we have a good example of that with PEPs. All of us have, I suspect, experienced finding it at least difficult to open an account. Some of us have had accounts refused or even closed simply because we have made it difficult for the banks to act for us. The same risk applies to landlords. Why would a landlord want to receive money from housing benefits directly when it will mean that all of his bank accounts and linked accounts will be looked at? He will simply say no. We are therefore reducing the pool of potential accommodation available to housing benefit claimants.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Most of what needed to be said has been said excellently and clearly by the other speakers. I have just three specific questions that I urge the Minister to answer. However, an important point of context needs to be made first on the opposition of the finance industry to these proposals. It is clear and unambiguous. It could be thought that the finance industry just does not want to bothered and does not care about fraud, but in fact it is making the point that the Government have failed to come up with an overall fraud strategy. This is just a one-off idea thrown up. Some bright spark thought, “Well, we could put this into the Bill. We’ve always wanted to have this sort of overweening power. Let’s shove it in here and hope no one notices”. We need a proper fraud strategy, as other speakers have said. We lose a lot of money to fraud, so none of us are against appropriate measures to deal with it, but this is a one-off, completely ill-timed and ill-thought-out addition to the state’s powers.
I turn to my three questions. First, I have no doubt that the Minister has a predisposition to oppose the state being able to interfere in our private information—I do not doubt that that is his starting point in these discussions. The problem with this proposal is that there is no way of ring-fencing the information required for the purposes of the DWP from all the other information that is disclosed by looking at someone’s bank account. Their whole life can be laid out in their bank account and other statements. You cannot ring-fence the necessary information. This is a widespread, total intrusion into people’s privacy. Does the Minister accept that there is no way of ring-fencing the information required for the purposes of the DWP from all the other information that is available from looking at someone’s bank account?
Secondly, I have several times heard the Minister discuss improving take-up of pension credit. Does he believe that this will encourage people to claim the pension credit to which they are entitled? It will clearly discourage them. Has this been properly assessed? We know that one big reason why people do not claim pension credit is the state’s intrusion into their private affairs. People do not like it. For some people, seeing an extension of the state’s ability to intrude into their private affairs will discourage them from applying. As I say, the Minister has rhetorically encouraged people to claim their pension credit; in practice, this proposal will discourage people. Does he accept that?
Thirdly, we have three debates on this issue and I think this question may arise more in the next group, but I will ask it now, so that I can come back and ask it again later. People have referred to claimants, but this also covers the state pension. It is possible to defraud the state pension, but it is nevertheless an income. Pension or income—whatever you call it; I do not think we should get too hung up on the vocabulary—it is paid as a right and people are entitled to these benefits.
One of the other theories about our state system is about identical benefits. Some people, like me, who have never been contracted out of the state scheme, have a full state pension, but a lot of people were contracted out into private schemes and personal pensions. Now, because I have that state pension, the state can intrude into my bank account. The state is paying me the pension; it can look at my bank account under these provisions.
However, if my pension were payable by Legal & General Assurance Society or the BP pension fund, they would not have the right to demand access to my bank accounts. I am just pointing out that we would react in horror if this Act gave power to the BP pension fund to trawl through my bank accounts. We would react in horror if we were giving power to Legal & General Assurance Society to go through my bank accounts, yet the Government believe that the state should have this overweening power. Does the Minister accept that and does he think that it is wrong?
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I speak as someone who was a Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions back in 2017. I well remember, when I was in charge of fraud and benefit, when we had a new addition to my team. I felt very strongly about this area because, when I first started as a Minister there, I was incredibly shocked by the level of fraud. Someone talked about having a fraud strategy, but this area is very complex. In the years since then, we have learned that the greatest incidence of fraud is people misstating their assets. Everybody in the Room will know that it is important that you must have only a certain amount of assets to claim benefits, whatever your situation, unless they are not means-tested or are disability benefits.
In 2017, the Treasury ran a controlled pilot. I do not know the details of how it was run, but I saw the results and they were extraordinary. The pilot was at one bank, using the powers they already had, for those who may be avoiding tax—which of course is not a crime—to see whether there was an issue with regard to benefit claimants misstating the extent of their assets when claiming. The extraordinary thing was that they found that between 25,000 and 30,000 at that one bank alone were misstating their assets.
So we know that there is a real problem here, and we know that fraud itself has gone up and up. We are unable to calculate all fraud in the system because, under the legacy system, we found it difficult to check the degree of housing benefit and so on. Maybe it is easier now under universal credit—I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us that it is—to check people in receipt of benefits who claim to be living alone when they are not.
This is a very nuanced area, but all I can say is that we knew we had a major problem with people misstating their assets. We had to deal with that, but we could not do so without working out how to do so with care, bearing in mind all the issues that noble Lords have raised today about doing it in a proportionate way, in a way that does not conflict with human rights in a way that does not become mass surveillance for everyone. We should bear in mind that since 2011 taxpayers, the people actually funding the benefits system, including some benefit claimants themselves, have had their bank accounts checked to make sure that they are not avoiding tax, which is not a crime—I am talking not about evasion but about avoiding—while fraud in the benefits system is a crime.
We need to be quite careful. Some of the things that have been said today conflating this issue with Horizon are wrong. I have been reading the so-called facts that some of these lobbyists have written about how the clause is disproportionate and unfair and goes too far in terms of people’s privacy. The Department for Work and Pensions works tirelessly to try to do the right thing in the right way. This has not been thrown into the Bill at the last minute as if we have just dreamed it up. That discovery was seven years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, may laugh, but I do not see the relevance of an awful lot of what he was saying—about the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, and so on—to what we are discussing now.
The reality is that benefit fraud is a serious offence, depriving those who need it most of vital support. A lot of people have come up with cases of very difficult situations that people have to live through. Those are the people we want to support but, frankly, the bill at DWP for this one year is £290 billion. When I was there in 2019, it was £190 billion. We cannot afford to put up with benefit fraud, so we have developed this carefully constructed measure, which needs to be thought through with care. I am sure my noble friend will be able to answer a lot of the questions that have quite rightly been asked today in Committee.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The noble Baroness mentioned lobby groups that say the clause is disproportionate. The Information Commissioner has questioned the proportionality of this measure. Does she consider the Information Commissioner a lobby group?
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
No. With respect, I am talking about Justice, which I think referenced 40 organisations. There was no list of what those organisations are in the information it sent me. There is also Big Brother Watch and many others.
I just think that everyone needs to take, if I may use the word, a proportionate approach to this. We are talking about tackling a really serious offence. I think all noble Lords agree that we have to tackle fraud but I am sure, and hope, that my noble friend can reassure everybody. The current powers that the DWP has to ensure benefit correctness are mostly over 20 years old. Over that time, fraud has evolved and become increasingly sophisticated. The system currently relies on self-verification for many factors, and that is one of the issues. I know it would sound so much better if people could find another way to check whether someone is being honest about their assets, but the problem is that a lot of this is to do with self-verification.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The suggestion was made that this was carefully thought out and part of a long-term plan. Can the noble Baroness therefore explain why it was introduced into the Bill at such a late stage in going through the Commons, such that it did not receive any worthwhile consideration at all there?
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
I am sure my noble friend the Minister can talk about the particular timing of why it went into this Bill. Certainly in my time at DWP, the difficulty we had was finding the right Bill that we could add it to. This is one of the things that is really hard about being a Minister: you cannot just say, “This is something we have to do”. You have to find a route—like finding a route to market—to include a measure in a Bill that is relevant. This Bill is entirely relevant in terms of where we are now on data collection. The Minister and his team were right to choose this particular Bill.
I could go on.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
I am sorry; I have spent a lot of time listening to others, and a lot of it has been slightly interesting to listen to, I have to say.
The measure will not enable the DWP to access any accounts, and the DWP will not be able to use this measure to check what claimants are spending. The DWP can request information only where there is a link between the DWP, the third party and the benefit claimant or recipient of a payment, and will receive only minimum information on those cases where potential fraud and error are signalled. Once received, the DWP will look at each case individually through its business-as-usual processes and by using existing powers. That work will carefully be undertaken by a human and no automated decisions will be made. That is a really interesting and important point in terms of this measure. I now turn to my noble friend.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, but could she point out where those restrictions actually are in the Bill? It says that an account information notice can include
“the names of the holders … other specified information relating to the holders … and … such further information in connection with those accounts as may be specified”.
It basically allows the DWP to ask for any information relating to those accounts. I do not see the restrictions that she has just spoken about.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
It is important that my noble friend answers that question. The point is that if we find—I am sorry, I still speak as if I am involved with it, which I am not, but I promise noble Lords that I have spent so much time in this area. If the DWP finds that there is a link that needs pursuing then that obviously has to be opened up to some degree to find what is going on. Remember, the most important thing about this is that the right people get the right benefits. That is what the Government are trying to achieve.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I note that the DWP has been passed a parcel by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—and I am not at all surprised. I am sure it will be extremely grateful to have the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, riding to its defence today as well. Also, attendance at this debate demonstrates the sheer importance of this clause.
We on these Benches have made no secret that this is a bad Bill—but this is the worst clause in it, and that is saying something. It has caused civil society organisations and disability and welfare charities to rise as one against it, including organisations as disparate as UK Finance, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the ICO itself. They have gone into print to say that, for this measure to be deemed a necessary and proportionate interference in people’s private lives, to be in accordance with the law and to satisfy relevant data protection requirements, legislative measures must be drafted sufficiently tightly—et cetera. They have issued a number of warnings about this. For a regulator to go into print is extremely unusual.
Of course, we also have Big Brother Watch and the Child Poverty Action Group—I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—the National Survivor User Network, Disability Rights UK, the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We have all received a huge number of briefings on this. This demonstrates the strong feelings, and the speeches today have demonstrated the strong feelings on this subject as well.
There have been a number of memorable phrases that noble Lords have used during their speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, referred to a “government fishing expedition”. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, called it “breathtaking in its scope”. I particularly appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, who said, “What happened to innocence?” In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, this is not “nuanced”: this is “Do you require suspicion or do you not?” That seems to me to be the essence of this.
I was in two minds about what the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said. I absolutely agree with him that we need to attack the fat cats as much as we attack those who are much less advantaged. He said, more or less, “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”. The trouble is that I do not like the sauce. That was the problem with that particular argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about stigma. I absolutely agree. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, more or less apologised for using the word “draconian” at Second Reading, but I thought the word “overreach” was extremely appropriate.
We have heard some powerful speeches against Clause 128. It is absolutely clear that it was slipped into the Bill alongside 239 other amendments on Report in the Commons. I apologise to the Committee, but clearly I need to add a number of points as well, simply to put on record what these Benches feel about this particular clause. It would introduce new powers, as we have heard, to force banks to monitor all bank accounts to find welfare recipients and people linked to those payments. We have heard that that potentially includes landlords and anyone who triggers potential fraud indicators, such as frequent travel or savings over a certain amount. We have seen that the impact assessment indicates that the Government’s intention is to “initially”—that is a weasel word—use the power in relation to universal credit, pension credit and employment support allowance. We have also heard that it could be applied to a much wider range of benefits, including pensions. The Government’s stated intent is to use the power in relation to bank accounts in the first instance, but the drafting is not limited to those organisations.
Of course, everyone shares the intent to make sure that fraudulent uses of public money are dealt with, but the point made throughout this debate is that the Government already have power to review the bank statements of welfare fraud suspects. Under current rules, the DWP is able to request bank account holders’ bank transaction details on a case-by-case basis if there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud. That is the whole point. There are already multiple powers for this purpose, but I will not go through them because they were mentioned by other noble Lords.
This power would obviously amend the Social Security Administration Act to allow the DWP to access the personal data of welfare recipients by requiring the third party served with a notice, such as a bank or building society, to conduct mass monitoring without suspicion of fraudulent activity, as noble Lords have pointed out. Once issued, an account information notice requires the receiver to give the Secretary of State the names of the holders of the accounts. In order to do this, the bank would have to process the data of all bank account holders and run automated surveillance scanning for benefit recipients, as we have heard.
New paragraph 2(1)(b) states that an account information notice requires,
“other specified information relating to the holders of those accounts”,
and new paragraph 2(1)(c) refers to other connected information, “as may be specified”. This vague definition would allow an incredibly broad scope of information to be requested. The point is that the Government already have the power to investigate where there is suspicion of fraud. Indeed, the recently trumpeted prosecution of a number of individuals in respect of fraud amounting to £53.9 million demonstrates that. The headlines are in the Government’s own press release:
“Fraudsters behind £53.9 million benefits scam brought to justice in country’s largest benefit fraud case”.
So what is the DWP doing? It is not saying, “We’ve got the powers. We’ve found this amount of fraud”. No, it is saying, “We need far more power”. Why? There is absolutely no justification for that. No explanation is provided for how these new surveillance powers will be able to differentiate between different kinds of intentional fraud and accidental error.
We have heard about the possibility and probability of automated decision-making being needed here. I do not know what the Minister will say about that, but, if there will not be automated decision-making—that is concerning enough—if the DWP chooses to make these decisions through human intervention the scale of the operation will require a team so large that this will be an incredibly expensive endeavour, defeating the money-saving mandate underpinning this proposed new power, although, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, we do not know from any impact assessment what the Government expect to gain from this power.
It is wholly inappropriate for the Government to order private banks, building societies and other societies and financial services to conduct mass algorithmic suspicionless surveillance and reporting of their account holders on behalf of the state in pursuit of these policy aims. It would be dangerous for everyone if the Government reversed the presumption of innocence. This level of financial intrusion and monitoring affecting millions of people is highly likely to result in serious mistakes and sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.
This level of auditing and insight into people’s private lives is a frightening level of government overreach, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, more so for some of the most marginalised in society. This will allow disproportionate and intrusive surveillance of people in the welfare system. In its impact statement, the DWP says it will ensure that data will be
“transferred, received and stored safely”.
That is in contrast to the department’s track record of data security, particularly considering that it was recently reprimanded by the ICO for data leaks so serious that they were reported to risk the lives of survivors of domestic abuse. With no limitations set around the type of data the DWP can access, the impact could be even more obscure.
We have heard about the legal advice obtained by Big Brother Watch. It is clear that, on the basis that,
“the purpose of the new proposed powers is to carry out monitoring of bank accounts”
and that an account information notice can be issued
“where there are no ‘reasonable grounds’ for believing a particular individual has engaged in benefit fraud or has made any mistake in claiming benefits”,
this clause is defective. It also says that
“financial institutions would need to subject most if not all of their accountholders to algorithmic surveillance”;
that this measure
“will be used not just in relation to detection of fraud but also error”;
and that this measure
“would not be anchored in or constrained by anything like the same legal and regulatory framework”
as the Investigatory Powers Act. It concludes:
“The exercise of the financial surveillance/monitoring powers contained in the DPDIB, as currently envisaged, is likely to breach the Article 8 rights of the holders of bank accounts subject to such monitoring”
in order to comply. It is clear that we should scrap this clause in its entirety.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Sikka for introducing their amendments. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will speak to Amendments 223, 299, 302 and 303 in my name. I should probably say at this point that I am late to this party but, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I am not a data protection specialist, I am afraid. However, I am a social security nerd, so I am here for this bit right now.
Since this is the first part of the Bill on DWP powers to tackle fraud, I need to add my little statement on the “fraud is bad” move. Fraud is a problem and has been getting worse across this Government. There have been scandals in procurement, of which the infamous PPE contracts are just one example. There is tax due that goes unpaid at scale and, in social security, the percentage of benefit expenditure lost to fraud has been rising under this Government. However, as my honourable friends made clear in the Commons, a Labour Government would take fraud seriously and pursue all those who seek to take money fraudulently or illegally from the state. They would also focus on helping people to avoid inadvertent overpayments rather than just waiting for them to make mistakes then coming down hard on them at that point. This should not need saying but, in some of the discussions on this Bill elsewhere, there has been a tendency to frame the debates rather along the lines of a classical fallacy: “Fraud is really bad. This will tackle fraud. Therefore, this must be really good”. I know that we are fortunate that in the Minister we have someone who is able to have a much more nuanced debate. I look forward to having exchanges in a way that recognises the important role of this House in scrutinising the powers that the Executive want to take unto themselves, which is exactly what Committees in the House of Lords do so well.
Scrutiny particularly matters here because, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend Lord Davies pointed out, all these amendments—more than 200 amendments, 38 new clauses and two new schedules—were introduced on Report in the Commons. My honourable friend Chris Bryant tried to recommit the Bill so that the Commons could discuss it, but the Government refused. The interesting thing is that in their anti-fraud plan back in May 2022, the Government announced that they planned to boost the DWP’s powers to get information from third parties when parliamentary time allowed. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a fair point that departments have to wait for the right Bill to come along in order to use it, but the Government have known about this since 2022. They have had two years to draft the amendments, so although they might have had to wait for the Bill to come along, that does not seem a good enough reason for them to have waited until Report in the Commons to deposit them into the process. I hope the Minister will be able to explain the reasons for that.
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and others have asked some important questions about the scale on which these powers will be used; I am going to come back to that in our debate on the next group. It is hard to know the scale from the information we have so far, but DWP clearly does know, or has a sense of it, because paragraph 85 of the impact assessment states:
“Using our model to estimate volumes of hits for this measure, over the 10-year appraisal period, internal analysis has estimated that in total there will be an additional 74,000 prosecution cases, 2,500 custodial sentences and 23,000 applications for legal aid”.
It has modelled the volume of matching hits that would require investigation. Can the Minister tell the Committee what that number is? Also, what assurance can he give us that DWP has the resources to investigate that number of hits in a timely manner?
Paragraph 2 of new Schedule 3B says that the account information notices can only cover data going back a year and that they must be done in the week before they are given to DWP. Is there any time limit on how long DWP has to act on the results that have been handed over to it?
I turn now to the amendments in my name. Some of them are quite detailed because these powers are astonishingly wide and it is not at all clear how they could be used. I have deliberately tabled a series of amendments—in three groups in order to make sure that we have a chance to go into detail—to try to get information out of the Government and find out what this is about.
Amendment 223 is a minor probing amendment that would delete paragraph 3(1) of new Schedule 3B, which Schedule 11 to the Bill would insert into the 1992 Act. I will not rehearse it here but can the Minister explain what that provision is for and what its limits are? Neither I nor the people I have spoken to in financial services can understand why it is needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others mentioned the fact that the Information Commissioner said he could not provide to Parliament his assurance that this measure is proportionate. My other amendments in this group are therefore designed to try to understand the impacts better. Amendment 302 would prevent these new powers coming into force automatically, while Amendment 303 would require the Secretary of State to fulfil several requirements before laying regulations to commence the powers. Amendment 299 is a minor consequential amendment. The effect of this is that the Secretary of State would have to issue a call for evidence, to inform the creation of the first code of practice, and consult relevant bodies. They would also have to lay before Parliament statements on key issues, of which I will highlight two.
The first would say whether and how AI will be used in exercising these powers, as well as how those proposals will take account of protected characteristics; this was touched on by my noble friend Lady Lister and others. That benefits often engage protected characteristics is in the nature of social security. Sickness and disability benefits engage disability, obviously; pensions engage age; benefits relating to children may engage age and also indirectly engage sex; and so on. The National Audit Office has warned that machine learning risks bias towards certain vulnerable groups and people with protected characteristics. So, what external governance or oversight is there to ensure that, once data are collected on the scale envisaged here, we do not end up with a mass breach of equality law?
The second issue I want to highlight concerns the provision that will be made to ensure that individuals subject to investigation do not experience hardship during it or lasting detriment afterwards. Given the comments of my noble friend Lady Lister about the cases from CPAG, can the Minister say whether a claimant’s benefits will be kept in payment while they are investigated following the data that are surfaced as a result of these trawls?
I am concerned that, given the potential scale of hits, a claimant who had, say, inadvertently breached the capital limit but then found themselves at the back of a long queue to be investigated could find themselves ending up paying back really large sums. The Minister will be aware of the recent media coverage, which others have mentioned, of how the DWP is treating people who were overpaid the carer’s allowance, a benefit that gives £81.90 a week to people providing at least 35 hours a week of unpaid care. It is a cliff-edge benefit—if your net earnings are under £150 a week, you get the lot; if they are over it, you get nothing—so a small rise in the minimum wage or a change in tax thresholds or rates can be enough to make someone entirely ineligible overnight, even if nothing changes in their circumstances.
As my noble friend Lady Lister said, apparently, DWP’s IT systems can flag when a carer’s income breaches the threshold but it does not necessarily do that, allowing them then to rack up potentially thousands of pounds’ worth of overpayments. The Guardian has investigated this issue; I shall mention two cases that it offered. First, an unpaid carer with a part-time charity job unknowingly breached the threshold by an average of £4.40 a week—£58 in total—caused by the automatic uprating of the national minimum wage. Because that left her not eligible for anything, she ended up being told to repay £1,715, including a civil penalty.
In the second example, a woman caring for her husband with dementia and Parkinson’s was told to repay nearly £4,000 for inadvertently exceeding the earnings threshold by calculating earnings from her zero-hours job on a monthly basis, as she thought the rules required, rather than a four-weekly basis, which they actually do; the rules around allowable costs and earnings are quite complicated. Crucially, according to the Guardian, she was told that, if she appealed, it could cost her even more. The Guardian quotes from a DWP letter telling her that, if she challenged the repayment order,
“the entire claim from the date it started will be looked at, which could potentially result in the overpayment increasing”.
Is that standard practice? Is DWP currently acting on all the alerts it receives of overpayments? If these powers are switched on, what safeguards will there be when that happens to protect millions of people from ending up paying back years of overpayments that DWP could have prevented?
Before embarking on investigations on this scale, we need to understand more about how this measure will work. We have had some excellent questions in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and others; I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken today. I have been made well aware of the strong views expressed about this measure in Committee. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for her kind remarks. She is right: I take all these matters extremely seriously. I have listened carefully to all the speeches, although I might not agree with them. Many questions have been asked. I will attempt to cover them all, of course; I doubt that I will be able to but I assure noble Lords that it is likely that a long letter will be required after this. Obviously, I will reflect on all the speeches made in Committee today.
I start by talking about the timing of the introduction of this measure. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said that the measure was introduced, in her words, “on the late side”. As she alluded to, the DWP published the Fraud Plan in May 2022, where it outlined a number of new powers that it would seek to secure when parliamentary time allowed. In answer to her question and others, in the parliamentary time available, the DWP has prioritised our key third-party data-gathering measure, which will help it tackle one of the largest causes of fraud and error in the welfare system. We will not sit back and ignore an opportunity to bring down these unacceptable losses and better protect taxpayers’ money. I will expand on all of that later in my remarks.
Before attending to the themes raised and addressing the amendments, it is important to set out the context for the power for which we are legislating. Fraud is a serious and damaging UK-wide issue, accounting for more than 40% of all crime. To be fair, many speeches alluded to that. The welfare system is also a target for fraudsters, and we are seeing increasingly sophisticated attacks occur on a scale that we have not seen in the past. We all have our own experiences at home of fraudsters who try completely different methods, not linked to the benefits system at all, to try to gain money through ill-gotten uses and methods.
In 2022-23, the DWP paid out more than £230 billion in benefits and payments to people across Great Britain. I very much took note of the figure that my noble friend Lady Buscombe raised. I say to the Committee that this figure is forecast to rise to nearly £300 billion by 2024-25, in quite short order, so this is a really serious issue to address. However, more than £8 billion has been overpaid in each of the past three years because of deliberate fraud against the state or because genuine errors have been made.
To assist the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to whose speech I listened carefully, fraud, not error, is the biggest cause of welfare overpayments, totalling £6.4 billion of the £8.3 billion overpaid last year. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, also asked about the figures. These losses are largely because people are intentionally and knowingly taking money that they are not entitled to. This is not organised fraud either; the vast majority comes from individuals who are not entitled to the money. We cannot underestimate the lengths to which some will go in order to take money they are not entitled to or promote ways to defraud us to a wider audience. This new legislation is not just about protecting the taxpayer; it will help those who make genuine mistakes in their claim, and our swift action will avoid them building up large overpayments.
Some people have said that the department has the powers that it needs to fight fraud and error—I think that was alluded to even today. However, some of the current powers that we have to ensure benefit correctness are over 20 years old—a point that I think my noble friend Lady Buscombe made. In this time, fraud has evolved and become increasingly sophisticated and we must keep pace with the fraudsters. It is for this reason that the Government are bringing these new third-party data powers, as set out, as said earlier, in the fraud plan.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I apologise for interrupting, but can the Minister show us in the Bill where those restrictions on the information that can be requested reside? As I read it, as I mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, paragraph 2(1) of new Schedule 3B, as inserted by Schedule 11 of the Bill, is pretty wide when it refers to
“names of holders … other specified information relating to the holders … and … such further information in connection with those accounts as may be specified”.
So it appears that the DWP can ask for whatever it wants, rather than what the Minister just described.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That is a fair challenge and I will certainly be coming on to that. I have in my speech some remarks and a much more limited reassurance for the noble Lord.
It is only when there is a signal of potential fraud or error that the DWP may undertake a further review, using our business-as-usual processes and existing powers—an important point. DWP will not share any personal information with third parties under this power, and only very limited data on accounts that indicate a potential risk of fraud or error will be shared with DWP in order to identify a claimant on our system. As I said earlier, I will say more about the limited aspects of this later in my remarks.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but will he be coming on to explain what these signals are? He is almost coming to a mid-point between innocence and suspicion called “signals”—is this a new concept in law? What are we talking about and where in all of Schedule 11 is the word “signal”?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
If the noble Lord will allow me, I would like to make some progress and I hope that this will come out in terms of what we may be seeking on a limited basis.
The first third parties that we will designate will be banks and other financial institutions, as the Committee is aware. We know that they hold existing data that will help to independently verify key eligibility factors for benefits.
This clause does not give DWP access to any bank accounts—a very important point—nor will it allow DWP to monitor how people spend their money or to receive sensitive information, such as medical records or data on opinions or beliefs.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, mentioned—I want to try to answer one of her questions—this power cannot be used to suspend someone’s benefit. Cases that are flagged must be reviewed under existing processes and powers—business as usual, which I mentioned earlier—to determine whether incorrect payments are being made.
Our approach is not new. HMRC has long been using powers to request data at scale from banks on all taxpayers under Schedule 23 to the Finance Act 2011. Our approach carries similar safeguards. Tax fraud is no different from welfare fraud and should be treated similarly. This was a key point that the Prime Minister made only on Friday when he committed to bring DWP’s fraud and error powers more in line with those of HMRC. This is one clear area where we are seeking to do this.
This allows me to go on to very important points about safeguards. Not all the cases found through this power will be fraud. Some will be errors which the power will help to correct, preventing overpayment debt building up. Some cases may also have legitimate reasons for seemingly not meeting eligibility requirements, for example where claimants have certain compensation payments that are disregarded for benefit eligibility rules. In those cases, no further action will be taken. Our robust business-as-usual processes will ensure that all cases are dealt with appropriately.
Another question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on safeguards was to do with the legislation. A key safeguard is that we cannot approach any third party either; there must be a three-way relationship with the department, the claimant and the third party. This safeguard will narrow the use of this power substantially and ensure that it is used proportionately, as these three-way relationships are limited, meaning that data cannot be gathered at scale from just any source for any purpose. Any third party we will want to get data from will need to be designated in affirmative regulations that noble Lords will have an opportunity to scrutinise. These regulations will be accompanied by a code of practice. We will be bringing that forward, and we will consult on the code before presenting it to Parliament—which answers a question raised by, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
The power also ensures that we can request only very limited data on benefit recipients. I think this addresses a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. We must work with key third parties to define what is shared, but our expectation is that this would be a name and date of birth or a unique payment number, along with the eligibility criteria someone has matched against: for example, a benefit claimant who has more savings than the benefit rules would normally allow.
Outside controls will apply here, too. DWP already handles vast amounts of data, including personal data, and must adhere to the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
On the point, which again was raised during this debate, about the remarks made by the Information Commissioner’s Office and its updated report on this measure, published as Committee started and which the Committee may be aware of, I was pleased to see that the commissioner now acknowledges that the third-party data measure is in pursuit of a legitimate aim, stating:
“I understand and recognise the scale of the problem with benefit fraud and error that government is seeking to address and accept that the measure is in pursuit of a legitimate aim. I am not aware of any alternative, less intrusive, means of achieving the government’s stated policy intent based on their analysis”.
I think that is a significant point to make, and it is a point with which I very strongly agree.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
It is also worth pointing out that the paragraph I quoted follows immediately on that. That is the qualification that I quoted.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes, I am aware of that. I think the noble Lord was alluding to the point about proportionality. I listened carefully and took note of that, but do not entirely agree with it. I hope that I can provide further reassurances, if not now then in the coming days and weeks. The point is that there is no other reasonable way to independently verify claimants’ eligibility for the payment that they are receiving.
I turn to the amendments raised, starting with the stand part notice from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who is not in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. They and my noble friend Lord Kamall, who is not in his place, interestingly, all made their case for removing the clause, of which I am well aware. However, for the reasons that I just set out, this clause should stand part of the Bill.
In raising her questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made some comparisons with HMRC. There are appropriate safeguards in place for this data-gathering power, which will be included in the code of practice. The safeguards for this measure will be equivalent to those in place for the similar HMRC power which Parliament approved in the Finance Act 2011.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
When might we see the code of practice? It would be extremely helpful to see it before Report, as that might short-cut some of these discussions.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will need to get back to the noble Lord on that, but perhaps can reassure him that it is already being worked on. You can imagine that, because of the sensitivity of these powers, we are working very carefully on this and making sure that it will be fit for purpose.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Can we see the draft code of practice before Report?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That is part of the answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which I think is a fair point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked about the code of practice and what steps my department will take to ensure transparency and accountability in the exercise of these powers if they are implemented. In the primary legislation, we will make provision to publish the code of practice, which will set out general guidance on how the third-party data power will work, as I have mentioned. We will develop the code of practice with relevant third parties and it will be consulted on publicly before being laid in Parliament. We will explain what the expectation is for data holders and ensure full compliance for the DWP. This will provide assurance that we will operate transparently and mirror the approach that we have taken with other DWP powers. Any changes to the code of practice, other than minor changes, will also be done in consultation with stakeholders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, stated that the power was too broad and the gist of one of her questions was that there is no need for all these benefits to be in scope. As the noble Baroness has demonstrated, there is a wide range of benefits and therefore potential avenues for fraudsters to seek to exploit or for error to creep in. That is why it is important that the power enables the department to respond proactively, as new fraud risks emerge.
That said, as the noble Baroness knows, the power will not be exercisable in all the benefits that she listed, such as child benefit, because the legislation is drafted in such a way that it could reasonably be exercised only in relation to benefits for which the Secretary of State is responsible. I reassure the Committee that using Section 121DA of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is a consistent approach that we take to defining benefits in this way to safeguard all existing legislation and account for a benefit being, for example, renamed or amended. It should be stressed that the listing of a benefit does not mean that this power can or will be exercised upon it. The conditions in the third-party data legislation must still apply, and therefore not all benefits will be subject to this measure. That is a very important point.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I would be convinced about the Government’s intentions, and would not press this amendment at the next stage, if the Minister can name just one big accounting firm which since 2010, as a result of a court judgment that said it was selling unlawful tax avoidance schemes, has been investigated, fined or prosecuted. If he can give me such an example then I will be convinced that the Government are seriously tackling tax fraud and its enablers.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord has set me quite a challenge at the Dispatch Box. It is out of scope of today’s session but, having said that, I will reflect on his question afterwards.
I am aware that time is marching on. My noble friend Lord Kamall asked about burdens on banks. We believe that the burdens on banks will be relatively low.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, made a number of points; I may have to write to her to expand on what I am about to say. Removing the requirement for third parties to provide legible copies of information means that DWP could receive the information but there is a risk that the information is not usable; that is my answer to her points. This could limit the data that DWP receives and prevent us utilising the power in full, which could in turn impact the savings due to be realised from this important measure.
I turn to the final amendments in this group, which were raised by the noble Baroness. They would place requirements on the Secretary of State to issue statements in the House and consult on the code of practice. We will talk more about the code of practice later on in this debate, and I have already made clear my firm opinions on it: we will take it forward and are already working on it. There will be a consultation that will, of course, allow anybody with an interest in this to give their views.
I turn to the number of statements that must be made in the House regarding the practical use of the measures before powers can commence, such as the role that artificial intelligence will play or assurances on any outsourcing of subsequent investigations. This is an important point to make and was raised by other Peers. I want to make it clear that this measure will be rolled out carefully and slowly through a “test and learn” approach from 2025, in conjunction with key third parties. To make these statements in the House would pre-empt the crucial “test and learn” period. I say again that discussions with the third parties are deep and detailed and we are already making progress; this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the link with banks and third parties.
Importantly, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that we will not make any automated decisions off the back of this power; this was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The final decision must and will always involve a human being—a human agent in these cases—and any signals of potential fraud or error will be looked at comprehensively. I am grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lady Buscombe on this matter.
I know that I have not answered a number of questions. Perhaps I can do so in our debate on another group; otherwise, I certainly wish to answer them fully in a letter. I hope that I have explained clearly, from our perspective, why this power is so important; why it is the right power to take; and how we have carefully designed it, and continue to design it, with the key safeguards in mind. I strongly value the input from all those who have contributed today but I remain unconvinced that the proposed amendments are necessary and strengthen the power beyond the clear safeguards I have set out. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her opposition to Clause 128.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I may have missed something, but can I just check that the Minister will deal with the matter of signals, which he mentioned at the beginning of his response? Will he deal with where that phrase comes from, what they are, whether they will be in the code, et cetera? There are a lot of questions around that. Does it amount to actual suspicion?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Absolutely; I am keen to make sure that I answer on that. It may be possible to do so in the next group but, if not, I will certainly do so in the form of a precise letter—added to the larger letter that I suspect is coming the noble Lord’s way.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
A number of pensioner groups are watching these proceedings. I have received some messages. They are asking, “When is the Minister going to answer the questions asked about the operation of the surveillance of recipients of the state pension, especially those who have foreign accounts?” I assume that the Minister will clarify that in any subsequent letter to me.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Absolutely; the noble Lord will know that I have not managed to answer all the questions. I have tried to bring in everybody on this important and serious debate. The answers will be forthcoming.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
I thank my noble friend very much for all the explanation that he has given thus far. I just want to add a word that has not been mentioned: deterrent. One of the reasons why the Government have sought to introduce this in the Bill, I believe, is that it is hugely important that we are much more thoughtful about what will stop people doing the wrong thing. It has become an old-fashioned word but, from a legal, practical and moral standpoint, does my noble friend agree that this is a practical deterrent to make sure that people do the right thing?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Is it not one of the dangers that this is a deterrent to people claiming these benefits?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I have a response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about signals. The signal is where the criteria or rules for benefit eligibility appear not to be met, and Parliament will have agreed those rules.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, the Committee will be grateful to hear, I hope, that I will not try to capture such a rich conversation. I thank the Minister for his careful listening and consideration. I will read carefully what was said at the Dispatch Box and what is about to be said during our discussion on the next two groupings because, without seeing all that in the round, I cannot truthfully say whether the questions asked by noble Lords have been answered.
I share a little of the concern that I can see agitating the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the words “signals”, “criteria” and “codes”, which are not promised in the Bill but are suddenly appearing. Indeed, the Minister will remember that, in a private meeting, we talked about how those criteria might be gamed and, therefore, how detailed they could possibly be. There may still be some differences of opinion, and possibly differences of practice, that need to be worked out.
Of course, for now, I will not press my opposition to Clause 128 standing part. I welcome further conversation between now and Report but, I have to say, I lost count of the number of times noble Lords have said “proportionate” in this debate and how many times the issues of scope, sweeping powers and so on were stated by some very expert people—both in and outside of this Room, not simply noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, mentioned a pilot but I seem to remember that some of the outcomes on equality in that pilot got lost in translation. Perhaps it would be good to find out exactly what the pilot did and did not reveal—that is, not just the things that the department would like to reveal but some of the things that were not tested.
I do not doubt the personal integrity of the Minister in the slightest but I am unsure about the idea that the “test and learn” approach has no boundaries around it in the Bill. It is like saying, “Trust us. We test and learn, and all those powers exist”. With that, I will withdraw my stand part notice on Clause 128, but we have quite a lot of questions still to answer in our discussions on the next group of amendments and beyond.
Baroness Sherlock
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, alongside others to paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 in the name of Baroness Sherlock, would reframe the Secretary of State’s power to give account information notices, making clear that the power should only be used in cases where there is suspicion that benefits are not being paid in accordance with enactments and rules of law relating to those benefits.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to the other amendments in my name, which are designed to dig further into exactly what the Government plan to do with these powers. Amendments 220 to 222 are probing amendments which seek to establish what would happen if the powers to give account information notices were used only where there is suspicion that benefits are not being paid as the law intends. I will try to use this to find out exactly what will happen with the signal that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has been referring to.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I intervene very briefly. I thank my noble friend who, with her usual forensic clarity, identified some really important points. The last one in particular is very worrying. I have a question. It may be that I misheard what the Minister said in response to the last set of amendments. I thought I heard him say that child benefit would not be included, but it appears to have been on the list that was given to my noble friend. Of course, the point is partly that it is administered by HMRC, but it has replaced child tax allowances, so it should be treated in the same way as a tax allowance when it comes to this purpose—so I hope that I heard the Minister correctly and that child benefit will not be included.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, in relation to the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, she mentioned “personal” accounts. I would like to double-check that business accounts, charitable accounts and other accounts that have one’s name or one’s partner’s name on, or are connected, do not go on ad infinitum.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Because of the way the amendments are grouped, I have the opportunity to repeat my questions. The first one is relatively straightforward. Does the Minister accept that introducing these provisions—obviously we are talking about Amendment 234 on pensions—will discourage people from claiming pension credit? Despite all the efforts of the Government to encourage people to claim pension credit, clearly this will discourage them. Have the Government made any effort to estimate what impact this will have? Obviously, it is a very difficult task, but have they thought about it and does the Minister accept that it will have a deterrent effect.
My second question relates to the issue I have already raised. The state pension or state pension equivalent is paid by the state, by a pension fund or by a personal pension provider. Does the Minister think it odd that there is a difference in treatment? Everyone is receiving their pension from the state, but with a person who receives their pension from a private pension scheme or personal pension provider there is not the same right to look at their bank accounts in relation to those benefits. Now I am not advocating that as a solution. The question is: does this not indicate the illogicality and extent of the Government’s powers over some people’s incomes that they do not have over other types of income? To me, particularly when it comes to the payment of a pension—a benefit paid as of right—this discontinuity points to the extent of the Government’s overreach.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I must begin by joining the general applause for the characteristic tour de force from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I was having a flashback because it was the noble Baroness in debate on what is now the Pension Schemes Act 2021 who taught me how to cope with Committee stage very kindly a long time ago —and we are very used to that. I rise briefly to address this group, but I start by saying in relation to the last group that I entirely agree with the proposition that Clause 128 should not stand part: the spying clause should not be part of the Bill.
I have a couple of points to make on the amendments in this group, one of which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the last group and is about protecting the Government from themselves. The amendments put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, are probing. However, if we were to restrict the Government’s use of these powers, they might end up at a vaguely manageable scale. It is worth raising that point when we look at these groups.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak on this group, but another question occurs to me. We have been assuming throughout this that we are talking about requests of information to banks, but the Bill actually says that:
“The Secretary of State may give an account information notice to a person of a prescribed description”.
Could the Minister explain what that is?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I would of course much prefer Clause 128 not to stand part, but we were just privileged by a master class from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. She talked about these being probing amendments, but I do not think that I have seen a schedule so expertly sliced and diced before. If those are probing, they are pretty lethal. I agree with so many of those elements. If we are to have provisions, those are the kinds of additions that we would want and the questions that we would want to ask about them. I very much hope that the Minister has lots of answers, especially for the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, but also for the other noble lords who have spoken.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the debate on this group has focused largely on the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, regarding using powers only where there is a suspicion of fraud, making provisions so that information collected can be used only for the narrow purpose of determining overpayment, removing pension-age benefits from the scope of the powers and requiring approval from Parliament before the power can be used on specific working-age benefits.
I was going to go over the reason behind these measures once again, but I will not delay the Committee on why we are bringing them forward. I believe I did that at some length in the previous group, so I am going to turn to the amendments raised.
Narrowing these powers as suggested by the noble Baroness, with Amendments 220, 221, 222 and 222A, will leave us exposed to those who are deliberately aiming to defraud the welfare system and undermine the policy intent of this measure. In fact, taken together, these amendments would render the power unworkable and ineffective.
To restrict the power to cases where DWP already has a suspicion of fraud, as suggested by the noble Baroness, would defeat the purpose of this measure. The intent is to enable us to use data from third parties to independently check that benefit eligibility rules are being complied with. We use data from other sources to do this already. For example, we use data from HMRC to verify earnings in UC and check that the benefit eligibility rules are being complied with. Parliament has determined that, to be eligible for a benefit, certain rules and requirements must be met, and the Government have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent responsibly. Therefore, the DWP should be able to utilise information from third parties to discharge that duty. This is an appropriate and proportionate response to a significant fraud and error challenge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also proposed that the power should be restricted such that it would not apply to persons who hold an account into which a benefit is paid on behalf of someone who cannot manage their own financial affairs—such persons are referred to as “appointees”. An appointee is a person who may be appointed by the Secretary of State to act on behalf of the benefit customer. Usually, the appointee becomes legally responsible for acting on the customer’s behalf in all matters related to the claim. It is also made clear to the appointee, in the documents that they sign, that we may get information about them or the person they are acting for from other parties, or for any other purposes that the law allows, to check the information they provide.
Under our proposed legislation, it is right to say that there may be some people who are not themselves benefit claimants but who have given a person permission to pay benefits into their bank account, who may be picked up in the data returned by third parties. Under the noble Baroness’s amendment, we would not be able to gather data on appointees, which would make the power unworkable, because third parties would not be able to distinguish between an individual managing their own benefit and an appointee. It also assumes that no fraud or error can occur in these cases, which is definitely wrong. I assure the noble Baroness that we handle such cases regularly and have robust existing processes for identifying appointees on our own database and for carefully handling cases of this nature.
The noble Baroness would also like to see the power—
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Rather than asking all my questions at the end—I only have four—I will try to get answers as we go. On the appointees, I think that the Minister has just said that the reason the Government need these powers is that some appointees will have their benefit money paid into their own account, not into a separate second account, so that therefore needs to be the case. I am very happy to reword this amendment to make that clear. I was talking specifically about the linking arrangements; the amendment does not talk about excluding appointee accounts. It specifically says that accounts that are linked to an account into which the benefit is paid are not there. I am happy to reframe that in a way that defines it—I am sure we can find a way around this—but does the Minister accept the principle behind this: that, if there is a separate account that, say, I hold for a child who is there, this should not give a reason to look into my own accounts? Or is he saying that the Government want to look into my own accounts, or business accounts, or family accounts as well? Which is it?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The Government do wish to have that power. I should make it clear that an appointee could be a claimant as well, so there is a dual issue. It is important that we retain that power, to be sure that we cover the whole ground. But I will reflect on the noble Baroness’s point.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
There were a number of questions on the other group that related specifically to people’s willingness to take these roles on and what the unintended consequence of putting appointees and carers in this position might be for the DWP, with people saying, “Actually, not me, then”.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. I may be able to give her further reassurances in a letter because, on the one hand, we do want the power to be able to cover the ground. On the other hand, there are necessary protections that we must put in place. So further reassurances probably need to be given. There is that balance to be struck, but I hope I can continue to do that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
If I may pursue this, I am not sure I heard the Minister’s answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—or maybe I did. If it was a charitable bank account, a business account or anything else, I think the Minister said that it would be subject to that scrutiny as well. Once someone acts for a carer, all of their bank accounts could be scrutinised—surely that is ridiculously unfair.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am not sure I agree with that. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness, as I tried to on the previous group. Using our test and learn process, which is already under way working closely with the banks, bringing them along with us and them bringing us along with them—there is a good relationship there—we are working through these important matters.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is important, as is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Again, it is important to give those reassurances. They will be forthcoming, and that is all part of our test and learn process, which I hope provides some reassurance.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I want to be absolutely clear on this point, because I am still not totally sure I am—I raised this the first time around on the last group. If I, as a landlord, have been paid rent as housing benefit directly, my accounts are caught. If I am a trustee of a charity and a cosignatory on a bank account, is the Minister saying that that charity’s account will be caught or not? I want to be absolutely crystal clear on that.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
This is part of the filtering discussions that are already taking place at the moment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Under the terms of the Bill, would this allow that to be caught?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes it would. Landlords are in scope. We will filter this through in terms of the business as usual. If we receive any information—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Given that, has the department done an assessment of the likely impact on landlords being willing to take people on housing benefit? It is already an issue that landlords are reluctant to take housing benefit recipients, but, with this, I could see the market completely freezing for people on benefit.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I clearly cannot go far enough today, but, because this is important and we are in Committee, I need to give some further reassurances on where we are in the process in terms of filtering. If I may conclude my remarks, I will finish this particular point. This is all part of the test and learn, and I give some reassurance that we are working through these important issues in relation to appointees and landlords.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
It is precisely as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said on the last group—this is a massive net. It feels as though this is so experimental that there is no certainty about how it will operate, and the powers are so broad that anything could be subject to it. It sounds extremely dangerous, and it is no wonder that everybody is so concerned.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I do not agree with that. We have done quite a lot of business together across the Chamber. That is a slightly sweeping issue, because I have given some reassurance that we are already working with the third parties to make sure that we have robust processes in place. For instance, when we are talking about landlords, while it is possible that a landlord’s account may be matched under the measure, only minimum information will be provided by the third parties to enable my department to identify an individual within our own database. With all the data received, we will make further inquiries only where appropriate and where the information is relevant to the benefit claim. This is already part of our business-as-usual processes.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but, throughout these two groups, he has, in a sense, introduced wholly new concepts. We have “test and learn”, “filtering”—which sounds extraordinary—and “signals” but none seem to be in the black letter of the schedule, nor in the rest of the Bill. We have a set of intentions and we are meant to trust what the DWP is doing with these powers. Does the Minister not recognise that the Committee is clearly concerned about this? It needs tying down, whether we need to start from scratch and get rid of the clause or take on board the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. The uncertainty around this is massive.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I ask the Minister for clarification. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about the number of individuals; I guess it may be 24 million or 25 million. However, from what the Minister has said, the number of bank accounts subject to surveillance would be far greater than that. For example, I receive a state pension and am also a trustee of a small not-for-profit organisation; from what the Minister said, I would be caught, as would that organisation. Landlords and many others could possibly be added. It seems that the number of bank accounts would be far greater than the number of individuals. When he provides the data, can the Minister estimate how many bank accounts and transactions there might be?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I will add to that the issue of overseas bank accounts. I cannot see how the British Government can apply this measure to them. Will this not push people to go to overseas bank accounts? Or will the Government try to pursue them through challenger banks—including multiple accounts from one person who may have one original, normal current account here?
Baroness Kidron (CB)
How many accounts of “signalling” already exist in the current backlog in the business-as-usual version? What kind of investment will it take when you supercharge these powers and get many more tens of thousands of signals?
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I will add to the Minister’s grief. He has talked a number of times about the limited information that will be provided to the DWP, but that is not what the Bill says. The Bill refers to
“such further information in connection with those accounts as may be specified”.
There is no limitation in the Bill to the information that the DWP can request from the bank—assuming that it is a bank, after my previous question. I am struggling to understand how we get from that to “limited”.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Right. A number of questions have been asked. I am not sure that I can give too much more clarity—only that I will go back to what I said on the first group in terms of the limited nature of what we are trying to do. I was very clear about its limited nature, I think.
This leads on to the numbers that noble Lords are asking me about. Of course, I cannot give that figure, as we do not honestly know it. Until we move forward on bringing the measure in, we will not know it. What is certain is that we need this power to be able to gain the limited data that we need. When we receive the data, it may be the case that we need to follow up. I am sure that we will not need to follow up in the vast majority of cases but we must have this power.
To the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I say this: this measure is for UK accounts only. I hope that that is also helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
This is the problem. We have been talking about limited information, a limited nature and the limited things that we will look at, but that is not what the Bill says. We need to think seriously about how we should limit the rights in the Bill to match the requirements of the DWP. At the moment, there seems to be a huge gap.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That point is very much noted. I will certainly take it back. Clearly, we need to provide greater reassurance on the limits and scope, as well as on what we are trying to do. I regret that I am not able to give those answers in full to the Committee now but I hope that, today, I have already taken us further forward than we were before we started. That is quite an important point to make.
I shall touch on the benefits that are in scope of this measure, a point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I think the noble Baroness wishes to restrict the power to working-age benefits, but pension-age benefits are not immune to fraud and error—I wanted to address that—and it is our duty to ensure that these benefits are paid correctly and in line with the benefit eligibility rules that Parliament has previously agreed. Every payment that the DWP makes has eligibility criteria to it. Parliament has considered these criteria in the passage of the relevant social security legislation, and the Government have a responsibility to check that payments are being made in line with those rules so that taxpayers’ money is spent responsibly.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Pension benefits other than pension credit have eligibility criteria attached, but I do not know any eligibility criteria applying to pensions that you could discover from someone’s bank account.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The example that the noble Lord will be aware of links to what the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, was saying about some pensioners who have moved abroad but, for whatever reason, have not told us that they have done so and continue to receive the uprating. The figure for the fraud aspect—or it could be error—linked to state pensions is £100 million.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Presumably the DWP already knows the address of the bank account to which an overseas pension is being paid. Why does it need to know any more?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My understanding is that it needs to have these powers to be able to cover the ground properly. I say again that these powers are limited, and whatever comes from the data that is requested from the third parties will end up being, we hope, limited. Even then, it may not be used by us because there is no need to do so.
The power covers all relevant benefits, grants and other payments set out in paragraph 16 of new Schedule 3B to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, as inserted by Schedule 11 to the Bill. To remove pension-age payments from the scope of the power would significantly undermine our power to tackle fraud and error where it occurs. Pension-age payments are not immune to fraud and error, as I have mentioned. I will give an example of that. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether people would be notified of their bank accounts being accessed.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Before the Minister moves on, I asked specifically about child benefit. Could he please answer that?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I know that I said earlier that child benefit was not included. I will clarify that child benefit is not a benefit for which the DWP is responsible or has any functionality for. This measure will be exercised by the DWP Secretary of State, and we cannot use this power for that benefit.
I was in the middle of answering a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will finish this answer, if I may. The DWP personal information charter lists banks and financial institutions, and other parties, among the parties with which DWP may share data and from which we may receive data. It also lists checking accuracy and preventing and detecting fraud among the purposes for which we may share or receive information.
A claimant will not be notified if their account details have been returned to DWP by a third party as that could alert fraudsters to the criteria, enabling them to evade detection—I think that is a valid point—but they will be notified if a DWP agent determines that a review is required as a result of the information provided by the third party. That notification will be done through the business-as-usual processes.
Moving on to defining working-age payments in legislation, which relates to the final amendment in this group, Amendment 235, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, it would require the Government to specify in regulations the working-age benefits with which this power could be used. As she demonstrated, there is a wide range of benefits and therefore potential avenues for fraudsters to seek or exploit or for error to creep in. That is why it is important that the power enables the department to respond proactively as new fraud risks emerge.
That said, as the noble Baroness knows, the power will not be exercisable in all the benefits she listed—I took note of her long list—such as child benefit, which we have just mentioned, because the legislation is drafted in such a way that it could reasonably be exercised in relation to benefits for which the Secretary of State is responsible. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the Committee that in the first instance, we plan to use this with universal credit, employment and support allowance—ESA, pension credit and housing benefit. That is the way forward.
There may be a number of questions that I have not addressed, but I hope that I have continued to make the case for why this measure is so important and our aim to tackle fraud and error. I continue to make the case that it is proportionate and that proportionate safeguards are in place. With that, I hope the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Will people with power of attorney over the account of someone who receives a benefit also be caught up in all this? That is another vulnerable group, so this could be extensive and quite worrying. Secondly, I am concerned by the Minister’s answers on this group. They have made me feel somewhat more strongly than I did when giving my response on the previous group, so I feel I should put that on the record.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
That is understood. I know that I need to provide further reassurances. Attorneys are included for the reasons that I set out for appointees.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the time to try to answer the questions. I know that we have given him a hard time, but I thank him for responding so graciously.
He did not take the opportunity to explain the process simply to the Committee. It may be that it is too difficult to explain simply or that, in fact, he can explain what they intend to do, but the powers allow them to do something much wider than that. It would be helpful if he could reflect before he writes as to how best to frame this. I think I heard him trying to say to the Committee that people think that more information is being handed over than will in fact be handed over. If that is the case, it would be helpful if he could spell that out because that would at least begin to help people understand better what is going on.
Secondly, in responding to me, the Minister focused, understandably, on the content of the amendments. I was trying to explain that the reason they are probing is that it is quite hard to get a handle on this. It is a big, sprawly thing, and I am trying to find a way of nailing some jelly to the table; I am trying to find ways of containing it. I still do not know which benefits the Government can use the powers over and which ones they intend to. It is a great step forward to know where they are going to start; that is really helpful. I am also grateful for the clarity, whether people are happy or not, that the Government intend to use the powers on the state pension and make that clear because that was not the impression given in the House of Commons when the matter was debated there. That is a helpful piece of clarity for the Committee and the wider community.
I know this is hard; fraud is difficult. A case was mentioned where an organised fraud gang stole more than £50 million in social security benefits. I know it is hard, and I know it is hard for the DWP to understand precisely where these things will lead when you begin to go there. I understand that if it is too boxed in, it makes it difficult to be able to follow where the fraudsters go, who are often one step ahead of the Government. I get all of that, but there is a risk that when it has spread so widely, the level of concern gets to the point that it will not be as publicly acceptable as the Minister thinks it is. I ask him to take the opportunity, when he goes back to the department, to talk to colleagues and think about what kind of assurances the Government could try to find a way of giving to people, either staging processes or government oversight. I ask him to think about that because the kinds of concerns he has heard here will only increase as the powers start to unfold.
In the next group of amendments, which I think will now be discussed on Wednesday, I want to dig further into the question of who the data and account notice can be given to and what criteria will be used. That will be another chance to flush out some things, so I give notice now that I would like the Minister to look into those areas next. I am grateful for his efforts and to all Members of the Committee who have explored this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Deaths of Members
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the deaths of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on Sunday 14 April and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, on Saturday 20 April. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baronesses’ families and friends.
Medical Student Places
Baroness Merron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made on plans to increase the number of medical student places in England.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, we are on track to meet the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan and aim to double the number of medical school places in England from 7,500 to 15,000 places a year by 2031-32. We have allocated 205 additional medical school places and provisionally allocated 350 more for the 2024-25 and 2025-26 academic years respectively. In 2020, the Government completed an expansion in the number of medical school places in England from 7,500 per year, a 25% increase.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, may I start by saying on behalf of these Benches that we wish to express our deep condolences on the sad passing of Baroness Gardner of Parkes and our colleague Baroness Massey? May their memories be for a blessing.
Ministers recently advised the Office for Students that only 350 additional places for trainee doctors would be funded in 2025-26. On the basis that, at this rate, it will take over 21 years to meet the Government’s promise to double the number of medical training places, what assessment has been made of the effect this will have on medical schools, which had in fact been told to plan for considerably greater numbers? Where does this leave the Government’s promise to double medical places by 2031?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I would like to follow the noble Baroness’s tribute to Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Baroness Massey. I also pay tribute to the late Doug Hoyle, an outstanding north-west MP and an outstanding public servant.
We remain committed to the long-term workforce plan’s target to double the number of medical school places by 2031 and are in fact ahead of schedule. The planned expansion is not uniform in each year; it increases substantially in later years. The timeline allows for new and existing medical schools to build the physical and teaching capacity needed, and to develop curricula and receive General Medical Council approvals where needed.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, may I add my condolences to those who have spoken on the loss of Baroness Massey and, in particular, Baroness Gardner, who shared an office with us in this building? She will be greatly missed. Long may their memories live, and may they rest in peace.
I declare my interest with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. While the increased number of places at medical schools is welcome, does this take account of the large number of people who are expected to retire in the next five to 10 years—especially GPs—and are currently only in their 50s?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. She is right to point out that certain GPs in their 50s retire, but the Government are committed to increasing the number of GPs. As I indicated in my Answer, there is a substantial number of younger new GPs in the pipeline.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I associate these Benches with the condolences to the families of the noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner and Lady Massey. The Government, in their response to a Guardian article that queried the student numbers, said that numbers will be increasing “exponentially until 2031”. Exponentially is an impressive adverb that is sometimes used to mean something that is fast and getting faster. It also has a more precise meaning, and there is a formula. Will the Minister share the formula being used between now and 2031, so that we can see how many places will be allocated each year?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I do not have a formula in my briefing pack, but I will ask that question and refer the answer back to the noble Lord. I would also point out not to believe everything that you read in the Guardian.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that, out of every three sixth formers who wish to become a doctor, only one will find a medical school place? Is that not a tragic loss, at a time when we are really short of doctors? At the other end of the spectrum, we also know that the number of doctors who work in the NHS once qualified is going down. Against that background, surely, we should have another look at our forecasts and the provision we make for more medical school places.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
In my initial Answer, I pointed out that the Government are increasing the number of medical school places, but he raises an important point. If he has any specific cases of students not getting a place and lets me know about them, I will look into them.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is not responsible for the crisis we are facing in the health service, but we have had 13 years of cuts in training for doctors. Does he not accept that it was a major mistake not to recruit more doctors and make available more places in universities to train the number of doctors we need?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point about the number of doctors, but I fear I am repeating myself. The Government have laid out in their long-term NHS workforce plan that we will have a significant increase in the number of doctors—from 7,500 each year, in five new medical schools. So that may have been the case in the past, but it will not be in the future through to 2030-31.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the training of doctors requires expansion of resources in pre-clinical years and particularly clinical years. It also requires expansion of foundation year one and the useless foundation year two, which are clinical years in which they train in hospitals and GP practices. What are the Government doing to finance both the clinical years and the foundations years?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
One of the reasons why we cannot accelerate the training of doctors in GP practices, for example, is capacity. That is why the Government have funded five new training hospitals. The noble Lord is absolutely right, but it is about capacity and that is why we are ramping it up, and it will increase in time as outlined in my initial Answer.
Baroness Kingsmill (Lab)
We need to keep the doctors we already have, not just the ones we are training for the future. Does the Minister know how many doctors are leaving the country and going to places such as Australia?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
Every year, approximately 4% of all doctors registered with the General Medical Council—roughly 300,000 doctors on the register—relinquish their licence to practise. The vast majority go on to work in the NHS after completing their foundation programme training. GMC analysis shows that 93% of doctors enter speciality or GP training and are working as a doctor in the UK within three years of completing the foundation programme. The noble Baroness refers to Australia specifically. It is my understanding that for a newly qualified doctor who has spent several years working hard to qualify, it is quite an attractive place to practise as a doctor, but they do come back to the United Kingdom.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, last year it was reported that 25% of doctors drop out after two years’ foundation training. After five years, the drop-out rate in total is 40%. So increasing the number of students is not the answer, or any part of it. Is not the crucial thing to ensure that young doctors are encouraged to remain in training? That may mean more care in selecting them in the first place, but it also means making it better for them while they are training.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
Student drop-out is not unique to the medical sector. My noble friend is absolutely right: it is very important that, before students decide to take on a lengthy medical course, they decide whether it is right for them.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, despite the myriad problems faced by the Betsi Cadwaladr health department in north-west Wales, perhaps my noble friend would join me in congratulating Bangor University on opening a new medical school. The first cohort of students will start in September this year.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My noble friend is an advocate for everything Wales. Of course, I will do exactly that: congratulations all round.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard about trained medical staff going to work overseas. We are also very familiar, of course, with the other end of the discussion. Many trained medical staff come from overseas to work in our country, to the great benefit of the health service. Surely, the answer to both those challenges has to be for us to train and retain medical staff in this country, neither exporting them somewhere else nor being entirely dependent on imports from somewhere else.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. That is why the long-term workforce plan commits to improving retention by improving the culture and leadership to ensure that up to 130,000 fewer staff will leave the NHS over the next 15 years. But the noble Lord is absolutely right: doctors from overseas, trained in third-world countries and elsewhere, come to our country and, as the noble Baroness said earlier, also go to attractive places such as Australia. As I say, young people like to experiment with other countries but do come back. It is also a testament to the NHS that so many foreign-trained doctors decide to practise here.
Fur: Import and Sale
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are taking steps to ban the import and sale of fur.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register. Fur farming is banned in the UK, and there are already import restrictions, which means that some skin and fur products may not be legally imported. In Our Action Plan for Animal Welfare, Defra committed to explore further potential action in relation to the import of fur from abroad, but we have continued to build our evidence base, including commissioning a report from our Animal Welfare Committee.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The action plan to which the Minister refers was produced in June 2021, nearly three years ago. Knowing that we are a nation of animal lovers and that the number of animals killed for fur is estimated worldwide at 130 million, most of them kept in appalling conditions and suffering mental and physical distress, why on earth cannot the Government bring a popular Bill, for a change, to this House, so that it can vote for something happily—instead of the Rwanda Bill, for example?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, there is a good news story on this, because the volume of fur that is imported and exported has fallen by 50% in the past five years. In the action plan for animal welfare, Defra committed to explore potential action in relation to the import of fur from abroad. The call for evidence that Defra published in 2021 was a key step in delivering that commitment. A summary of the replies received should be published in due course; in the meantime, we are continuing to build our evidence base on the fur sector, which will be used to inform any future action on the fur trade. We have also commissioned a report from our expert Animal Welfare Committee, which I mentioned earlier, on what constitutes responsible sourcing in the fur industry. This report will support our understanding of the fur industry and help to inform our next steps.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the import of fur is unnecessary. The killing of Canadian bears for their pelts is still used to make bearskin headgear for the Grenadier Guards at Buckingham Palace. These come at a minimum cost of £650 each. The MoD orders between 50 and 100 bearskins each year. In 2020, the MoD stated that the quality of alternative material did not match natural fur. Surely, the Minister would agree that it is time for this unnecessary practice to be discontinued without delay.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, the wearing of bearskins by the Guards division is a matter for the Ministry of Defence. We are continuing to build our evidence base on the fur sector, which will be used to inform the future of the fur trade, and we will continue to share this evidence with other government departments, including the Ministry of Defence.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, what has happened to joined-up government? Is not this a matter for environmental and welfare considerations, and are they and the Ministry of Defence to be completely separated? I would suggest not. On the wider question, I am delighted by the progress that is being made, but could my noble friend speed it up a bit? I want to be alive when something really happens.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My noble friend is in very robust form, and I can see will be for many years ahead. I commit to providing a response to the consultation and the wider other brief as soon as I can.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, surely the Minister would agree that, in light of the new legislation that is coming in on the banning of the import of shark-fins and the progress of the Government-backed Private Member’s Bill on banning cruel puppy imports, the trade measures, such as a total ban on the import of fur and foie gras, which also safeguard animal welfare standards, should have equal priority. That is clearly not the case at the moment.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The Government made it clear in their manifesto commitment that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. The UK is rightly proud of the animal welfare standards that underpin our high-quality produce. Imports into the UK must comply with our existing import requirements, such as meeting the United Kingdom’s slaughter standards.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, what assessment has my noble friend the Minister made of the UK’s role in the global fur trade and of the volume of the import and export trade in animal fur and fur products over the past five years?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question. Between 2017 and 2019, the UK imported around £61 million-worth of fur or fur-based products and we exported around £35 million of fur and fur-based goods. The majority of these were for apparel and clothing. In the period since then—the latest report was in 2023—the volume and the numbers have exactly halved.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, the RSPCA has stated that one-quarter of children aged 10 to 18 have witnessed animal abuse videos online. What action are the Government taking to tackle the increase in this content? What education are we providing to children on the importance of animal welfare?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank my noble friend. I was not aware of those statistics from the RSPCA, but they sound very concerning and it is a matter that the Government will be taking very seriously. As for the content, I will refer my noble friend to the Home Office, because it sounds highly inappropriate for children to be watching that. I will take the issue of education back to my department.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, last week in the Grand Committee, the noble Lord and I were agreeing about the importance of biosecurity and the threat presented to human and animal health—indeed, One Health. During Covid 19, we saw huge numbers slaughtered on mink farms because of the risk of transmission. Does the Minister agree that the fur farms that keep animals in such dreadful conditions as my noble friend referred to present a threat to the security of all of us, in terms of the transmission of zoonoses? If we were to ban the imports, we would actually be making the world safer for all of us by helping to discourage those farms from continuing and presenting the biosecurity threat that they do.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very good point. We have been in discussions with our colleagues in Europe about these issues over the period. I can assure the House that there is no current risk, or the risk is assessed as extremely low, in terms of any transfer of diseases across from Europe. I know that where they do get outbreaks, they go to a policy of cull straightaway.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, a year ago the Government staged a U-turn on the promise to ban fur imports. We do not know the reason for that, but we do know that, as we have heard mentioned, in April 2021 there was a call for evidence and the Government received 30,000 replies. Since then, we have heard nothing, so will the Minister say when that evidence, the 30,000 responses to the call for evidence, will be released?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the numbers there. As I said earlier, I do not have an exact date for that response, but I am pressing for it to come out as soon as possible.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, what are the arguments for not banning fur products coming into the country? It does not seem to me that there is any important reason why we should not ban them. I think the vast majority of the public would support that move. What arguments are the Government putting forward for not banning them?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am not in a position to go into that level of detail right now, so I will write to him.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether his department has done any analysis of the source of fur from animals? What I mean by that is when animals are killed for fur, what percentage are killed specifically for fur; what percentage are killed for something else, such as meat, and the fur is a by-product; and what percentage are killed to control an animal population?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I am not aware of any analysis on that, but I will look into it and take it back to the department.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I asked this specific Question three years ago. I have not had an answer in those three years and I do not like the Answer today. Is it any wonder that I get so annoyed with this Government? Please, bring us back a proper answer on this.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I am distressed that we are causing the noble Baroness so much discomfort—that is certainly not the intention of the Government nor, indeed, my department at Defra. As I stated, I do take a personal interest in this; I have attended a number of meetings on it over the last month or so and I am endeavouring to get a response shortly, which I hope will satisfy the noble Baroness.
International Mother Earth Day
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to mark International Mother Earth Day, and to fulfil the United Kingdom’s commitments set out in their White Paper on International Development, published in November 2023 (CP 975).
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has previously attended UN events to mark International Mother Earth Day, recognising that development, nature and climate are interconnected. We are progressing our White Paper commitments, helping to end extreme poverty and address climate change and biodiversity loss. The UK ensured that nature remained central to the international agenda at COP 28, announcing £576 million to halt forest loss and protect nature. Our £11.6 billion international climate finance commitment includes £3 billion to protect, restore and sustainably manage nature.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, on International Mother Earth Day, which falls today, I welcome the Government’s White Paper commitment to protect forests, land and natural resources. Can my noble friend please give a couple of significant practical examples of where the Government will assist those countries in sub-Saharan Africa that are facing substantial desertification and illegal practices on mineral extraction?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Protecting natural resources in sub-Saharan Africa continues to be a focus for the United Kingdom. Our support includes the Investments in Forest and Sustainable Land Use program. This is mobilising private investment into forest protection, restoration and sustainable land use. Its highly successful first phase, which ran from 2017 to 2024, operated in eastern, west and central Africa. Our Biodiverse Landscapes Fund aims to reduce poverty and protect and restore biodiversity in environmentally critical landscapes, including the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area and areas in Madagascar and the western Congo Basin. There are many other examples but those are two, to answer my noble friend’s point.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, given the importance of deforestation as far as climate is concerned, can the Minister celebrate Earth Day by publishing this week the Schedule 17 forest risk due diligence regulations? He assured the House before Easter that they would be published shortly, so why not this week?
Lord Benyon (Con)
This forest risk commodities regulation is a good news story and the UK has been pushing for it. The publication of the statutory instrument is imminent and the House will be able to debate it. The UK will be one of the countries at the forefront of introducing sensible, well consulted regulations that will protect forests by making sure that supply chains are rigorously enforced.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, given the decision last week in Scotland, where I live, for Green Party Ministers to ditch their target on climate change, and the concerns raised by the head of the Climate Change Committee that the UK is less ambitious on climate than it had been, does the Minister agree that emerging economies need the UK to be reliable and dependable in planning for climate alleviation policies? It is why I asked the Minister in a debate in January whether the climate finance that he announced and referred to was new money. Subsequently, independent analysis has suggested £2 billion pounds of that has been recycled. What is the point of making announcements when they are reneged on, or indeed when the funding given is recycled?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am sorry but I cannot take that. The £11.6 billion, one of the largest commitments by a country, is absolutely solid. If the noble Lord wants me to be completely frank, I suspect that our spending on climate finances is probably nearer to £15 billion or £16 billion if I take into account other things that other countries calculate as international climate finance. The noble Lord really cannot say that we are somehow reneging on this. The Prime Minister and the Government are absolutely committed to this, and we should be proud that we are a country that has halved our greenhouse gas emissions and that we are the fastest reducer of greenhouse gas emissions of any country in the G7.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the extractive industries. The UN 2021 report recognised that extractive industries have the potential to drive growth and reduce poverty in developing countries, yet it also recognised that most of those developing countries are locked into patterns of primary product exportation specialisation. That constitutes a barrier to long-term economic growth. One of the UN’s calls for action was to systematically include civil society and vulnerable groups affected by the green transition—including women and indigenous populations—in the design, implementation and monitoring of all extractive operations. What are this Government doing to ensure that this call for action applies, and that we involve those people who are most directly affected?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely agree with the noble Lord. At recent COPs, particularly the CBD in Montreal 14 months ago, we spent a lot of time talking to representatives of local communities and indigenous peoples, to make sure that we are making this relevant to them. If the noble Lord wants one example, I will mention digital sequence information, which is potentially a £100 billion a year new nature fund, where the money will go direct to local communities and indigenous people. It is an example of the priority we are making them, to make sure that they are part of the conversation.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The scale of the cost of servicing debt for emerging economies was highlighted at the World Economic Forum last week. Are His Majesty’s Government open to pursuing debt swaps as a way of allowing climate-vulnerable countries to implement the very necessary adaptation to combat the damaging effects of climate change that are all too obvious?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that debt holds back countries in a completely unfair way, particularly those which are most vulnerable, and we are committed to improving the international debt system. We are pushing for improvements to the G20 common framework, and we use our position in official creditor committees to help to return countries to debt sustainability. One example I would give her is that we in the UK pioneered the climate resilient debt clauses, which pause debt repayments when a developing country is hit by a disaster. I am delighted that France and three other countries have followed suit, and that this is now becoming an established form of debt alleviation.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, in the White Paper we are talking about, there is a short but quite good section on working with the Commonwealth. Given that security goes with development—there is no development, let alone green development, without reasonable security and political stability—would the Minister remind the authors of this aspect, particularly as the Chinese are now actively undermining the security of numerous Commonwealth countries? The Solomon Islands is a good example of the latest one, but there are many others. Should we not have this aspect of the whole development question rather higher in the agenda than we seem to have it now?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend raises a really important issue in the run up to CHOGM, where we want to show that we are using the Commonwealth in an effective way, in supporting small island developing states in particular to manage the adaptation to climate change. It is being held in Samoa, so his point is absolutely right. On Friday of last week, I was in Cyprus at the Commonwealth Ocean Ministers Meeting. You cannot sit and listen to the representative from Tuvalu without understanding the importance of this to them. It is an existential threat, and the work we are doing on SIDS this year in the run up to CHOGM, and in the future, shows that it is an absolute priority, and the Commonwealth is an excellent way of supporting so many of them.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
The Minister recognises the importance of indigenous land management for environmental benefit. Can he comment on why upland farmers in the UK are so mistreated by the SFI as it is currently set out?
Lord Benyon (Con)
That is quite a leap from the Pacific but I will try to answer the noble Earl. He should look at the amendments that have been made to the SFI recently, which have been broadly welcomed by upland farmers. Where there was an actual or perceived discrepancy between lowland and upland farming, that has been addressed. It is vital that we maintain a vibrant upland farming community, which is absolutely the Government’s intention. Our grant schemes—the sustainable farming incentive, Countryside Stewardship and the farming in protected landscapes fund—show that these are people who matter to us, our landscape and the future of farming in this country.
Paying Polluters: UN Report
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Ladyton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Nations Special Rapporteur report on Paying polluters: the catastrophic consequences of investor-State dispute settlement for climate and environment action and human rights, published on 13 July 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms offer investors an independent means of legal redress to seek compensation following a breach of international investment agreements. The report notes that, outside the UK, investors have brought ISDS claims against climate change measures; however, the UK has not faced a successful ISDS claim. On 22 February we announced withdrawal from the energy charter treaty, to avoid remaining in a treaty not aligned with our energy security and net-zero ambitions.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, on 7 December we had a debate on a Motion moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on Latin America. In the context of our trade deal with Colombia, my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, raised the issue of the inherent manifold injustices of the ISDS. The Minister responding to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, wrote in response:
“ISDS is an effective means of resolving … disputes”,
and the Government are
“content with the standard of protection”
provided. So it is surprising that none of the free trade deals concluded since Brexit contains an ISDS—and the absence of one is an explicit goal of our negotiations for a UK-Canada deal. What is the Government’s view of an ISDS as a means of resolving disputes? If they have shifted their view, what are they doing to ensure that their new approach is reflected in trade with Colombia?
Lord Callanan (Con)
This is a complicated area. Of course, these treaties are bilateral, and they also help to protect the investments of UK companies investing in other overseas territories. However, the UK’s investment policy is designed to protect the UK’s right to regulate in the public interest, and so far we have been successful in that, in that we have not seen any successful claims against us.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights has said that the ISDS mechanism incentivises investor irresponsibility. Currently there is a case of a UK-listed company using the ISDS in Colombia in a way that undermines the fundamental interests and rights of the Wayuu indigenous people. As penholder at the UN for the Colombia peace process, what are His Majesty’s Government doing to discourage such activity?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I cannot comment on cases that are currently ongoing, but we will certainly bear her comments in mind when we consider our policy on this matter.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, with fossil fuel and mining industries already having won more than $100 billion in awards and at least 175 treaty-based ISDS cases closed or pending that are directly related to environmental measures, does the Minister agree that foreign investors are using the dispute settlement process to seek exorbitant compensation from states that seek to strengthen their environmental protection? What actions are the Government taking with partners and allies on the international stage to try to find solutions to these problems?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Earl is probably aware, there are discussions in the OECD at the moment about the use of these clauses. As I said, we are responsible for the ones that we have signed, recognised and arbitrated against, and we very carefully ensure that these clauses protect our right to regulate in these circumstances on energy and climate change matters. The success of that has meant that we have seen no successful claims against the UK.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, while we will of course hear a lot about the importance of investor confidence, it is as important to ensure that Governments, particularly of less affluent and more vulnerable nations, are able to fulfil their climate commitments. It is estimated that those Governments fulfilling their commitments under the Paris Agreement might be liable to pay up to $340 billion in future cases under this system. Can the Minister tell us the Government’s assessment of what the impact of this system will be on limiting the increase in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is using the generality to refer to the specific. ISDS clauses are very useful in a whole range of different areas. I accept her point that there is some evidence of their misuse in the case of energy and climate change policies, and we will work with international partners to see how this can be mitigated. We are very careful to make sure that the ones to which we agree preserve our right to regulate. Other countries take their own decisions, of course.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, many developing countries are handicapped by clauses in foreign direct investment agreements—sometimes called stabilisation clauses—that forbid the hearing of disputes in local courts. As a result, local courts’ lawyers are unable to develop the expertise or necessary institutional structure to combat corporate power. What steps are the Government taking to ban the inclusion of such clauses in FDI agreements, at least for UK companies?
Lord Callanan (Con)
All such agreements are different. Many rely on international arbitration panels that are appointed by the complainant company and the defendant company with an independent chairman. We are very careful in how we regulate these matters and which clauses we agree to. As I said earlier, we will work with other countries to look at their particular disputes as well.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Is the Minister aware that one of the concerns around ISDS is that it is a secret process, as opposed to a multilateral judicial process that is more transparent? Given the fact that ISDS can be used against small emerging economies and deliberately facilitated by legal funds based in the UK, what discussions have the Government had with our legal community to ensure that ISDS is not just about protecting UK interests and that the legal community in the UK is not using it strategically against emerging economies that do not have the capacity and secret processes to defend themselves?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said, ISDS clauses work both ways. They also seek to protect the interests of UK companies investing in other overseas economies. Any state that wishes to regulate against the interest has to prove that it is being transparent and fair, not discriminating against foreign investors, et cetera. All these criteria are used to make judgments about whether cases will proceed.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
We discussed ISDS arrangements in the context of the CPTPP Bill recently, and a number of noble Members expressed concern about the impact on environmental standards. The response from the Government Front Bench was, “Not to worry; it won’t be used in this way”. That is clearly not the case with Colombia. It has faced at least 21 cases under the ISDS process, mainly for mining companies and mainly questioning the effect on the country’s environmental standards. Given the pressure that Colombia is under in its transition to full democracy and peace, would the money that it inevitably has to spend on defending these cases, and in some instances paying damages, be better spent on maintaining the peace process?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sure it would, but we are responsible for what clauses we agree to in the UK. We always protect our right to regulate, and we seek not to take actions that are arbitrary or discriminatory against foreign companies. Ultimately, it is a question of what clauses Colombia agrees to, what criteria it uses and how it will be arbitrated, so it is a difficult question to answer.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that when we were both in the European Parliament we used to debate the issue of ISDS, and that one of the reasons that ISDS was asked for by investors was to ensure they had confidence, particularly when there was no confidence in the local legal system. The other side of that is that big companies were perceived to get preferential treatment in being able to go to the ISDS process, rather than through the legal system. We have to look at the trade-offs, and maybe one of the things that my noble friend’s department could look at is the impact of not including ISDS agreements and how much that would affect outward or inward investment in these countries.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a powerful point; of course, it works both ways. We want to protect the interests of UK companies, which sometimes operate in very hostile, non-democratic countries with unclear or murky legal systems. By the same token, we need billions of pounds of investment into the UK—we are the top European destination for inward investment—to help us in our energy and climate change transition, so it is important as well that we demonstrate that we are liberal and open to companies investing here in the UK. These clauses help to deliver that, but they need to be structured in the right manner, transparent and liberal.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it may be helpful for me to explain to the House how we expect business to run today. As noble Lords will know, we are expecting a further message from the Commons on the safety of Rwanda Bill this afternoon. We will interrupt business before the House to consider that message.
Before setting out the process for today, I acknowledge the frustration that noble Lords have felt—I have been at the brunt of that as well—that there was less-than-adequate notice of this and that it is scheduled to take place on the first day of Passover. I can assure noble Lords that this was very carefully considered, and as the Government Chief Whip, I take my duties to this House as a whole, and to the usual channels in particular, extremely seriously. I can also assure the House that it remains my intention to facilitate government business collaboratively, with the agreement of the usual channels.
With regard to how business will run today, ultimately we were also at the mercy of scheduling in the other House. The plan remains to start Committee on the leasehold Bill after Oral Questions, and we will then pause proceedings on that Bill once we are ready to commence consideration of the Commons message on Rwanda. Once the message has been received, we will place a message on the annunciator signalling the beginning of a 30-minute window to table amendments on Motions. Once that closes, we will start debate on that Bill as soon as all the relevant paperwork is ready. The usual channels have agreed that this will not be before 6 pm, and my best guess is that it will be around 7 pm, but that depends on many factors and it could be earlier or later. If we are ready to start proceedings on Rwanda before 7.30 pm, we will consider the Commons message before debate on the QSD in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. If it is not ready until later, we will take the QSD before considering the Rwanda Bill. If there is time, we will resume Committee on the leasehold Bill until the usual rising time of about 10 pm. If further rounds of ping-pong are required on the Rwanda Bill, we will sit to take them this evening, and those could well take place after 10 pm.
I thank all noble Lords in advance for their patience. We will ensure that we place details of the first round and any subsequent rounds that are needed on the annunciator as soon as possible. The Government Whips’ Office would be happy to assist further with any questions. I also thank the administration and particularly the catering staff, who have already made swift provision for services beyond 10 pm should noble Lords and staff need them.
Pet Abduction Bill
Monday 22nd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pet Abduction Act 2024 View all Pet Abduction Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 19 April 2024 - (19 Apr 2024)
Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill
Monday 22nd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Act 2024 View all Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 19 April 2024 - (19 Apr 2024)
Zoological Society of London (Leases) Bill
Monday 22nd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Zoological Society of London (Leases) Act 2024 View all Zoological Society of London (Leases) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 19 April 2024 - (19 Apr 2024)
Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill [HL]
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Douglas-Miller
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 February and 4 March be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the first two instruments). Considered in Grand Committee on 18 April.
Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill [HL]
Monday 22nd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill and that no noble Lords have indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill
Monday 22nd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead 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: HL Bill 50-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (19 Apr 2024)
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to start Committee stage of this long-awaited Bill. I understand that it is not correct protocol to reiterate Second Reading speeches in Committee, so I shall not do that, but I believe that there are some long-standing unanswered questions relating to the Bill. Though we will probe some of them through our amendments, it is disappointing and unhelpful to reach this stage without some of those issues being clarified. If the Minister can comment, either in her early responses in Committee, or as the Bill proceeds, it would be helpful.
I hope we do not have to reach Report before we know, for example, the outcome of the consultation on ground rent; whether the Government have given up on their proposals to scrap leasehold as a tenure for flats; how the Government propose to help freehold homeowners who find themselves trapped in what have become known as fleecehold charges for estate management, an issue raised powerfully by the Law Commission again in its recent briefing; whether the Government intend to use the Bill to put right some of the building safety issues around qualifying and non-qualifying leases, including those relating to buildings under 11 metres in height, which undoubtedly would have been better addressed by the Building Safety Act but were excluded; and why proposals for a regulator of property agents—supported across this House, and discussed again just last week—continue to be resisted. We would be grateful for clarification from the Minister on the commencement date of the provisions in the Bill, as she has indicated in a written response to my noble friend Lord Kennedy that it will not be until 2026.
It is worth opening this group by talking about the news reports over the weekend. We learned from the Times that the costly regime of ground rent will continue for a further 20 years. Although those ground rents may be capped at £250, we have not had any official announcement on that yet.
The amendments in this group relate directly to the ban that was introduced on Report in the Commons; it was added in late so it was not able to be properly scrutinised there. So our main question is: when exactly will the Government do what was reported over the weekend? Will they amend the Bill at an even later stage, with even less opportunity to scrutinise?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I want to raise a slightly different point from the one raised by the noble Baroness, who is worried that there are loopholes in the schedule. My concern is slightly different, in that the schedule currently bans a form of lease that is actually beneficial. I refer to an arrangement called Home for Life, which has been operating for some time and is based on somebody who is over 60 selling their home. Homewise, which operates Home for Life, then buys the property to which the person moves and grants them a lifetime lease. That enables them to vacate a large family home, gives them the security of the home they move to and, in many cases, releases a sum of money that enables them to expand their income.
There are a number of exemptions under the schedule; this scheme is not one of them. This is, in fact, contrary to what the Government said when they consulted on this a few years ago, when they made it absolutely clear that they would exempt these leases. I quote from paragraph 252 of the Government’s response to a consultation document, Implementing Reforms to the Leasehold System in England:
“It is not the intention of the policy to affect lease-based financial products (home reversion plans—equity release, home purchase plans—lifetime leases and Islamic/Sharia compliant finance), so long as they do not provide a loophole from which to evade the ban. For both home reversion and home purchase plans the provider acquires the freehold and the consumer has a non-assignable lifetime lease. Because these leases are not assignable to another party there is no risk of such leasehold houses coming onto the open market”.
They concluded:
“We will provide an exemption from the ban for these financial products”.
The product I have just mentioned falls squarely within the terms of the exemption that I just read out, but I am afraid it is caught by the Bill as it now stands. I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to say that this is an unintentional capture of a worthwhile type of lease and that the Government will provide the necessary amendment downstream so that Home for Life can continue to provide a worthwhile service, which I do not think is a loophole of the kind described by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is really very important. It has been a long time since Second Reading, so I think it is worth reiterating some of the fundamentals that we hope it will achieve.
The first is that this is obviously a huge opportunity to reform the leasehold/freehold property rights and relationships. That is certainly one of the key aspects that we on these Benches will pursue with vigour. It is also an opportunity to tackle the huge omissions in the Building Safety Act to provide remedies for those leaseholders and tenants living in blocks of flats that are under 11 metres or five storeys. As we have all through the debates and discussions on the Fire Safety Act, the Building Safety Act and the levelling-up Act, we on these Benches will continue to pursue the safety of leaseholders and tenants in those blocks of flats, because that is the right thing to do.
On these amendments, we on these Benches acknowledge that there will, of course, be areas in the leasehold/freehold arrangement where the abolition of leasehold impinges on other important rights, so we accept that there will be examples where an exception is justifiably made. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is absolutely right to probe the reasons for these exceptions, in this group and in the following group, and has drawn attention to them individually. For example, the noble Baroness drew attention to a situation where the developer has a head lease and has yet to build out to the development. She asked the pertinent question of what happens if leasehold is going to be abolished for houses. Where does that fit in with a development that is ongoing that will be developed under the terms of a leasehold? That is not explained either in the Bill or in the Explanatory Notes.
We on these Benches understand the importance of this for historic estates that are now owned by the National Trust in England, Wales and Scotland. The purpose of the leases in those instances ought to be protected, because the overwhelming responsibility is the protection of our national heritage. That makes good sense. However, although the schedule provides details of which properties are eligible for what was described as “permitted leases” under the tribunal certification, what is not clear in either the clauses or the schedule, or in the Explanatory Notes, is what criteria the Government are using to enable some leaseholds to be described as permitted. Can the Minister provide the reasons for the choices made by the Government in determining permitted leases in Schedule 1? This is important because the legislation will be challenged in the future. It is therefore vital that, before we get to Report, we understand the reasons, as well as the purpose, behind the tribunal certification. Perhaps the Minister can provide the details of the regulations that are to be provided to the tribunal for making those decisions.
The two examples used by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, relating to retirement housing and homes for life, strike me as being very important in our discussions. Those of us who have been involved in leasehold, and in the debate about leasehold and some of the criticisms of the way in which leasehold is implemented in practice, have been astonished by the way in which some retirement housing service charges have risen exponentially, without, it seems, any recourse to an explanation or a reduction. It is important to understand, for both homes for life and retirement housing—one of which is referred to in the schedule and the other which is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham has said—how protections will be provided for these very important areas of housing in order to provide protection for the leaseholders in these arrangements.
We support the probing amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and look forward to the detailed response, I hope, from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open Committee on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. Before turning to the debate on the amendments that have been tabled, it would be remiss of me if I did not take this opportunity to thank those Peers who have engaged with the Bill and those who have long championed the rights of leaseholders. I also thank colleagues from the Law Commission, without whose advice much of this vital legislation may not have been possible.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend for that undertaking, but I remind her that the Government said:
“We will provide an exemption”,
for these types of scheme.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have noted that.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, also brought up the issue of the exempting of retirement houses. Retirement houses do not stand alone; they are usually part of a wider scheme with extensive communal facilities and packages of support care and hospitality services. A lease can help to organise the relationship between the two parties, with the home owner and provider managing the development in properties such as these. We think this justifies an exemption from the ban.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor Stevenage, also brought up the commencement day for this Bill. The letter that we wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, explained that it is a complex Bill, and there will be complexities as we roll out the Bill after Royal Assent. However, I think we did put in that that commencement is likely to be 2025-26, not 2026.
I want to reassure noble Lords that there is a power in the Bill, should evidence of any abuse emerge, to tighten definitions further or remove exemptions entirely if there is evidence that a stricter approach is necessary. With these assurances in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree not to press her amendment at this stage. In this group—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, she referenced in the early part of her response the number of houses that were likely to be developed under circumstances where a lease had already been granted before the commencement of this Bill. Is she able to give the Committee a ballpark figure of the number of houses that would be caught up in this situation?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am not prepared to give any ballpark figures from the Dispatch Box, but I will look into it and let the noble Baroness know. I apologise that I do not have that figure with me today.
Before I finish on this group, I have government Amendment 8, which makes minor clarificatory changes to the definition of shared ownership leases permitted under the leasehold house ban to clarify its intent. The amendment adds a further condition to permitted shared ownership leases, confirming that where a shared ownership leaseholder has acquired 100% of the equity in the house, they will then be transferred the freehold of the house at no extra cost. This brings the definition into line with government funding programmes and definitions elsewhere in the Bill. I look forward to hearing—
The Earl of Devon (CB)
Just to return to the National Trust exemption, are the Government satisfied that there are no other institutions similar to the National Trust that have similar obligations of heritage maintenance, will be impacted by these provisions and should also possibly be exempted? If there are, how would they be able to grant long leases on property that needs to be maintained for heritage purposes?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We have been working with the stakeholders for many months, if not years, on this. If the noble Earl looks in the schedule of exemptions, I think he will find everybody that wanted to be there. We have agreed to put them there, but if he has any particular group in mind, I would like to hear about it, please.
Government Amendment 8 is also relevant to the following group of amendments, so perhaps we could take that into consideration on the next group. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing from noble Lords about how they think these measures can be improved as we move through the Bill. I ask that the clause stand part and that the amendments are not moved.
Lord Khan of Burnley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other similar amendments in my name, probe each of the categories of “permitted leases”.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to these probing amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. This group of amendments further relates to different parts of Schedule 1, which provides details of permitted lease categories where self-certification applies in relation to the Clause 1 ban on new leases of houses, which the Government added to the Bill on Report in the Commons. The purported ban on new leasehold houses does not actually ban all new leasehold houses—a point that my noble friend eloquently made during the opening group. It is imperative that, through the probing amendments in this group, we emphasise that this ban appears to be a weak ban.
Each of the amendments in this group refers to a different type of exemption or permitted lease: Amendment 5 relates to leases agreed before commencement; Amendment 6 refers to shared ownership leases; Amendment 9 relates to home finance plan leases; Amendment 10 refers to extended leases; Amendment 11 looks into agricultural leases—paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 details the permitted lease definition for agricultural leases as
“a lease where the house is comprised in … (a) an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 which is held under a tenancy to which that Act applies, or … (b) a farm business tenancy within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancies Act”.
Without wishing to lengthen the debate on this issue, since many points were picked up by my noble friend, can I ask the Minister opposite to let the Committee know how many current leases fit these categories of permitted leases? Do the Government expect it to stay the same going forward, especially for shared ownership? How many permitted leases do the Minister and the Government envisage over the next 10 years, for example, to which these categories will apply?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 7 in my name, which deals with shared ownership—one of the issues touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Khan. Shared ownership was developed in the 1980s and I claim some paternal responsibility for it. It was a route into affordable homes, and there are now some 200,000 shared owners.
There is a risk that shared owners will fall between the cracks between conventional leaseholders and those who rent. The Government are doing a lot for the conventional leaseholder. Under the Renters (Reform) Bill, they plan to do a lot for the conventional renter, and as I said, there is a risk of shared owners falling between the cracks. If one looks, for example, at the New Homes Ombudsman Service, which I greatly welcome, and the new homes quality code under it, the protection does not extend to affordable homes—namely, those sold under a shared-ownership scheme.
The reason for this amendment is a report, which I am sure my noble friend has seen, from the Select Committee in another place published on 26 March entitled Shared Ownership. The crucial thing to remember about this is that it was published after the Bill left the other place. Therefore, these are comments on the Bill as we see it today. I will briefly quote from three relevant paragraphs from that report.
Paragraph 80 states:
“When we asked Baroness Penn about this issue”—
shared ownership—
“she told us that the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill are intended to make it easier for those on the old form of the lease to extend when needed. However, Shared Ownership Resources have said that shared owners will not benefit from the leasehold enfranchisement reforms included in the Bill, as, as assured tenants, they do not have statutory rights to leasehold enfranchisement”.
I hope my noble friend can assure me that shared owners do have the right referred to in that statement—the right to enfranchise—and that the fact they are technically assured tenants does not mean they are precluded from the rights in the Bill. Paragraph 92 reaffirms that point:
“We also believe that it is unacceptable that shared owners do not have the same statutory right to leasehold extension as other leaseholders”.
My final quote is from paragraph 94:
“Finally, the Government should ensure that any legislation passing through Parliament which has provisions to reduce the cost of, and simplify, the process of leasehold extension (for example, as in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill) also applies to leaseholders in shared ownership properties, so that shared owners have the same statutory right to leasehold extensions as all other leaseholders”.
It is clear from those quotes from the recent report that the Select Committee holds serious doubts about the entitlement of shared owners to some of the rights in the Bill.
Shared-ownership leases are often complex. Leases on flats, for example, with multiple sub-lessees with different rights and responsibilities, can add further complexity. It is worth mentioning that shared owners are liable for all legal and other administrative costs of superior leaseholders and freeholders, although they only own, for example, 50% of the property. As a result, they can be paying more in service charges than other people in the block, simply because they have that extra relationship with the registered provider as well as the freeholder.
When a shared-ownership owner, for example, extends the lease and the property is valued, they pay 100% of the legal costs, although they only own 50% of the property. The explanatory notes to the Bill state, on page 8, paragraph 20:
“The Bill also gives shared ownership leaseholders the right to a lease extension for 990 years”.
However, the registered provider—the shared ownership’s immediate landlord—may have only a short-term interest in the lease as a head lessee or a sublessee. So, what happens when the shared-ownership leaseholder exercises the right, but the registered holder says, “I’m very sorry but I don’t have 990 years available; I only have a short lease”? Is there an obligation in the Bill for that registered provider to get a long lease, which, in turn, is passed on to the shared owner?
Turning to Condition C in the Bill, which my probing amendment addresses, I wonder whether this precludes certain shared owners from the right to a lease extension. Paragraph 6(6), on page 136, states:
“Condition C: the lease allows for the tenant’s share in the house to reach 100%”.
However, some shared-ownership leases have caps. They have caps at 80% in a designated protected area, and a cap of 75% in older persons shared ownership. So, are these groups excluded, or does paragraph 6(2) come into play, which says that the Secretary of State can exclude Condition C if the lease is of a description he has specified? Again, I would be grateful for an assurance on this.
My final point, which was also raised by the Select Committee, is that there is a broader risk of a two-tier market in shared-ownership leases following the changes in lease terms as part of the affordable homes programme.
My noble friend the Minister may want to reply to this in a letter, but shared owners want an assurance that their entitlements have been properly take on board during the Bill’s drafting, particularly against the background of the Select Committee report that I have just referred to, which makes it clear that there are anxieties that the interests of shared owners are not adequately reflected in the Bill.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, there are two elements of this category of permitted leases that are worthy of further exploration. One—on which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has gone into great detail, questioning how it will work—relates to shared ownership. The second is to do with agricultural leases.
I would like the Minister to explain, first, why agricultural leases cannot be subject to tribunal certification, rather than the current self-certification process. There does not seem to be a reason why that does not occur under the first element of permitted leases.
There are other issues, such as shared ownership and self-certification, that are not necessarily covered in the details the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, went into, but which are very important. I would like to understand how self-certification will be subject to challenge, what the process is and how such situations can be resolved. Will it be a costly process? If so, granting permitted leases for shared ownership, and agricultural leases, becomes an expensive legal minefield for those caught up in it.
So, I would like to understand why agricultural leases are not in the first set of certifications for permitted leases, and how challenges can be resolved. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for Amendments 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan, for speaking to those amendments to Part 2 of Schedule 1. These amendments would remove exemptions to the ban on the grant of new leases on houses.
As I stated when addressing Amendments 1 to 4, the Government are aware that certain housing or financial products which support home ownership rely on granting a lease. We have therefore consulted extensively on scenarios where this may be justified. For example, shared ownership, a vital home-ownership product, relies on the use of a lease. We cannot surely be saying that the thousands of new shared ownership houses built each year should not be sold any longer. Equally, we cannot say that the use of home purchase plans—including, for example, through use of Islamic finance, a vital option for the purchase of houses for those who cannot, for faith-based reasons, apply for an interest-charging mortgage—should not be allowed, or that owners of existing leasehold houses cannot extend their leases.
For any of the exceptions in Part 2 of the schedule, including shared ownership, home finance plans, lease extensions, agricultural tenancies, or contracts on leases agreed pre commencement, it should be clear and unambiguous to consumers buying these that they are getting a lease on a house, and why that lease is needed. Because of this, the Government will not require these types of leases to obtain tribunal certification. However, again, we have taken powers in the Bill to adjust the definition if there is evidence of abuse, or to move permitted leases into Part 1 of the schedule, should there be a need for tribunal involvement. The Government will continue to monitor market behaviour and act accordingly.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, asked for some more details of these groups of homes or products. On exempting shared ownership, I should say that shared ownership is one of the Government’s key affordable housing products, which helps consumers to get on to the property ladder. Consumers purchase shares in the property over time through the payment of rent to a provider, and a lease facilitates this arrangement between the two parties. The Bill therefore permits the grant of new shared ownership leases on houses.
When we go to financial products, the Bill includes an exemption to the ban on new leasehold houses for lease-based financial products, as I said, which can help people to buy a home or release equity from it. Here a lease is required because a third-party provider acquires a freehold on the consumer’s behalf as part of the financing of the purchase. Ownership is required by two parties and is best facilitated via a lease.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, asked about agricultural tenancies. Farm businesses and agricultural landlords negotiate the length of a tenure to suit their business needs, and it is intended that this should continue, as longer-term leases can help to ensure that farmers have security to invest in their businesses over time. The Bill makes it clear that agricultural tenancies will be the permitted lease for the purposes of the ban on new leases of houses, and explicit exemption is provided in the Bill for tenancies that fall under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 or the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995.
We are exempting lease extensions when a home owner extends their lease; often the original lease is surrendered and a new one granted in its place. While this is technically a new lease, the homeowner remains the leaseholder of the same property. Therefore, we believe that this should be treated as an existing rather than new lease, and warrants an exemption. In practice, we envisage that most leaseholders will purchase their freehold, where they are able to do so.
We are exempting agreements for lease. These AFLs are a contract between the prospective leaseholder and landlord to enter into a lease in the future. Where an AFL was agreed prior to commencement of the Bill, it is right that this contract should be honoured, and the lease granted. For this reason, an AFL entered into prior to the commencement of the ban will be treated as a permitted lease, as both parties have agreed on the terms of the lease and are aware that they will be entering into a lease. A tribunal certificate and a warning notice are not therefore required, we believe.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am enormously grateful for the assurances that my noble friend has given. Will the Government respond to the Select Committee report on shared ownership before Report? It raises some important issues which I touched on and it would be nice to have the Government’s response before Report.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am not aware of the timescale for that, but I will make some inquiries and come back to my noble friend.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to what was a very interesting debate. I always appreciate the breadth and depth of expert knowledge from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, in particular. He talked about the rights of shareholders and what they are entitled to, and it is important that he finished by talking about the response to the Select Committee report on shared ownership. I appreciate also the probing of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, alongside myself, on the definition of agricultural leases but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
(a) allows for the tenant to acquire the freehold of the house (if the landlord has the freehold), or(b) provides that the terms of the lease which make the lease a shared ownership lease cease to have effect (if the landlord does not have the freehold),without the payment of further consideration.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the definition of a shared ownership lease so that it includes the case where a tenant has the right to acquire the freehold. This is in line with the definition being inserted into the LRA 1967 by paragraph 13 of Schedule 8 to the Bill.
“Report on providing leaseholders in flats with a share of the freehold(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report outlining legislative options to ensure that all qualifying tenants in newly-constructed residential properties containing two or more flats have a proportionate share of the freehold of their property.(2) The report must be laid before Parliament within three months of the commencement of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report outlining legislative options to provide leaseholders in flats with a share of the freehold.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, just before I move my amendment, I should say that I omitted to thank the Minister for her collaborative approach to the Bill in advance of it coming before the Committee. I now do so and rectify that omission. I also thank the Law Commission, as she did, and the many groups that have a leasehold interest and met us in recent weeks. I hope the Committee will forgive me for not mentioning that earlier on.
Amendment 12 requires the Secretary of State to publish a report outlining legislative options to provide leaseholders in flats with a share of the freehold. I shall resist the temptation to go over the ground again of why the Government did not include flats in their ban on new leases, although it would be helpful to know from the Minister what level of consideration was given to enacting the recommendations of the Law Commission in full in regard to this matter, particularly as it was the stated intention of the Secretary of State—that is what he wanted to do. There has been a commitment to this ban on leasehold at least since 2017. One would think that there has been plenty of time to get the work done. Indeed, the Law Commission has done much of the heavy lifting on what would be needed.
Our later amendments seek to determine the Government’s appetite to move in due course to a more widespread system of commonhold as the default tenure. The successful adoption and implementation of this in other jurisdictions has been well debated and discussed in your Lordships’ House. It is certainly the clear intent of my party to move as quickly as possible to that tenure. However, that would be a policy decision, as distinct from the implementation of the Law Commission’s recommendations, and would necessarily have to follow the legal scheme that those recommendations would introduce. As that is not proposed in the Bill but follows the Secretary of State’s intent to do away with the archaic system of leasehold altogether, there is a strong case to make a start with a transitional regime.
The introduction of a mandatory share of freehold in all new blocks of flats, as proposed in our amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, alongside the requirement to establish and operate an RMC—a right to manage company—with each leaseholder given a share, would be a sensible staging post on a path towards a commonhold future. It would make conversion to commonhold at a later date a far simpler process. We urge the Government to accept these amendments as they would ensure that we have started on the path to confining leasehold to the dustbin of history, which is where we believe it belongs, and would make it clear that the Bill is not ruling in one set of homes and home owners to the ban and ruling out another. That other is affecting by far the greatest number of leaseholders, with 70% of leaseholders occupying flats. To be clear, this 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 the lease and a share of the freehold. It would ensure, in effect, 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 the freehold.
The advantage of having a default share in the freehold is that it would give the leaseholder a direct say on what happens in their building, as is the case with those who have already been collectively enfranchised. It would also provide additional valuable rights, such as the right to a long lease extension on the basis of a peppercorn rent; in other words, the rights that will be accorded to existing leaseholders but without the cost of paying a premium to the freeholder that is still required to exercise that modified right.
We know that flat owners having a share of the freehold can cause tensions; for example, in agreeing how to proceed on crucial decisions, such as whether to cover the cost 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. That is why we propose mandatory RMCs on new blocks of flats as a corollary to the new clause.
Labour is unequivocal about the fact that commonhold is a preferable tenure to leasehold, in that it gives the benefits of freehold ownership to the 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. It is vital that if commonhold is to be the default tenure, it is enacted fully and properly, with full account of the Law Commission recommendations.
We have not sought to persuade the Government to incorporate any subset of the Law Commission commonhold recommendations into the Bill, but we need to reform the legal regime for commonhold in one go. Labour is committed to doing so if the British people give us the opportunity to serve after the next general election. In the meantime, it would be good to give current leaseholders a share in the management of their properties. I beg to move.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I do not want to rehearse the reasons why I think that a mandatory share of the freehold is necessary, in the way that the noble Baroness laid out. I want to speak more to the contact that I have had with so many different groups and individuals who feel that they are trapped in their leasehold.
The number one thing that comes up is, of course, service charge abuse. Which? did a study in 2011 which suggested that 700 million service charges had been overcharged. The market for that has grown now to 6.7 billion, so we can only assume that this overcharging has grown along with it.
The challenge becomes: how do we make this market fair? How do we make sure that these abuses are washed away? That is to give the people paying the bills control, and not to lock them into the monopoly that leaseholders are currently locked into. Ultimately, the answer would be commonhold, but while commonhold is not on the table, we need to look at a share of the freehold. It should be mandatory, and it should happen straightaway. The noble Baroness laid out very eloquently the benefits that this would give to leaseholders.
We must understand that leaseholders do not want a landlord; that is why they have left the private rented sector—to avoid landlords. These amendments should stand. They really give leaseholders what they want. I have tabled an amendment which asks the Government to retain the power to bring forward a share of the freehold on new flats. That is the most important thing going on here.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches far prefer a move to commonhold. The journey towards commonhold is a solution to the leasehold/freehold issue.
I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, have proposed a share of freehold as a route towards commonhold as being the ideal solution, as recommended by the detailed report from the Law Commission in 2020. However, it is only a small step, and it is an option that is already being exercised by some flat owners.
It seems to me that the disadvantage of share of freehold is that, in practice, it will be possible only for blocks of flats with a small number of units. Where there is a large number of units in a single block, it would be very difficult to have a share of freehold for some but not others. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, think.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington for their amendments.
Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within three months of the commencement of the Act, into the legislative options for mandating that new-build flats be sold to leaseholders with a proportionate share of the freehold. We appreciate the benefits that share-of-freehold arrangements have over ordinary leasehold arrangements with third-party landlords, which is why we are making it simpler and cheaper for leaseholders of flats to enfranchise collectively and, therefore, achieve share-of-freehold arrangements. However, the commonhold framework has already been designed as the optimal legal vehicle for the collective ownership of flats. As such, the Government want to see the widespread take-up of commonhold, and for it to be the future preferred tenure for owners of flats, rather than share of freehold.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asked why the legal framework was so complex. We need to determine precisely what property the mandate is applied to, exemptions, the processes for phased developments, the enforcement of developer liabilities for remedial works and so on. We would also need to prescribe the constitution for resident management companies—since they are presently unregulated—and to consider how the management functions are to be exercised by such companies, resident participation in decision-making, and the procedures and jurisdictions for dispute resolution. It is a complex issue, but one that we are working on—the Law Commission has worked on it for us for a number of years—and we feel that it is important that we continue with moving to commonhold rather than mandate share of freehold.
We understand the desire to offer leaseholders a share of freehold in the interim between leasehold and commonhold while the Government consider the Law Commission report and work on commonhold. However, we do not believe that mandating share-of-freehold sales would be a simple and quick undertaking. We also have concerns about using share of freehold across the whole housing market. It is not an optimum product for managing all types of shared properties, such as large and complex buildings—as we have heard—or buildings with extensive shared spaces. That is why the Government are committed to commonhold instead. We would prefer to work on one widespread take-up of a new tenure, and for that new tenure to be commonhold.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will ask for some clarification, then. The policy was originally announced in 2017. The Law Commission did a great deal of work on what needed to be done to enact commonhold, and yet it is not in this Bill. The Minister has just reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to move to commonhold, so can she say how much longer it will take to get us to a situation where we have it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I reiterate that the Government remain absolutely committed to widespread take-up of commonhold for flats. We have reviewed the Law Commissioners’ recommendations to reinvigorate commonhold as a workable alternative to leasehold, and I can assure noble Lords that we will set out next steps in due course.
Amendment 15B from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington would require mandatory share-of-freehold arrangements to be made for block of flats in instances where flats are subject to long leases or collective enfranchisement. I thank him for this amendment and for his interest in this specific instance. We are aware of the interest in this and appreciate the desire to ensure that more leaseholders can obtain control or ownership of their building. Although we understand the benefits that share-of-freehold arrangements can have over ordinary leasehold arrangements with third-party landlords, we are also conscious that mandating share-of-freehold sales on new builds would require a complex legal framework to be constructed and to accommodate the mandate. As I have said, we do not believe that mandating share of freehold would be a quick or easy fix for leaseholders. The Government consider that the best option, as I have also said before, is to continue to work towards the widespread use of commonhold in future, rather than mandating share of freehold.
My noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington was particularly keen on service charges. The Government will bring forward, through this Bill, a number of measures to require landlords to provide further information to leaseholders on a very proactive basis and to increase the transparency of their service charges and administration charges, as well as providing more information to leaseholders on a reactive basis. Those measures include the introduction of a standardised service charge demand form to standardise the information that freeholders are required to provide to leaseholders. We will mandate the provision of an annual report that sets out key information of importance to leaseholders. We will compel landlords to provide more relevant information to leaseholders on request. We will ensure that service charge accounts are provided within six months of the end of the previous accounting period that they cover, regardless of the lease terms, and this will be subject to a number of exemptions. We will require freeholders to proactively disclose—
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister let me know how many of the 121 recommendations that the Law Commission made around commonhold will be adopted?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
All I can say to my noble friend is that that is exactly what the Government are working on and that further details will come forward in due course.
A number of things in this Bill will affect the transparency and accountability of freeholders to leaseholders, particularly on service charges, which is the one thing that my noble friend brought up. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness and my noble friend will not press their amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I found it a bit of a frustrating debate in many ways. As I said, this policy was announced in 2017; we have had a very detailed Law Commission review and endless discussions in this House about how we move to commonhold. In a sense, my amendment was set out to probe whether we could have some route map towards commonhold, and this might be a first step towards that, to provide leaseholders with at least a share of freehold with a view to moving towards commonhold in the future. It seems that the Government want neither to set out what their route map to commonhold is or what the steps on it might be, nor to give us a timescale for that route map towards commonhold. Now we are faced with an indefinite timescale to get there and a Bill which could have enacted it but has not. I wonder how much longer we will have to wait. The seven years we have already waited is quite long enough.
It has been frustrating to unlock that but worth probing the Government’s intentions. I am grateful for the reassurance that commonhold is still the aim, but I would like to know how long it will take. However, in view of the discussions here today, I will for the moment withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
“Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002: commonhold threshold(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must make regulations to amend the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to lower the threshold of supportive eligible leaseholders needed to enter into a commonhold to 50%.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to legislate for conversions from leasehold to commonhold where 50% of eligible leaseholders in a building support the conversion, rather than 100% as it currently stands, in line with the recommendation from the Law Commission.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this amendment is on commonhold. I was pleased to hear the Minister emphasise that the Government intend to ensure that commonhold becomes the norm, although it was unfortunate that the phrase that followed was “in due course”.
This conversation about leasehold reform has been going on for a very long time. I accept that it is complex and that that there are competing financial interests. I accept that it will be difficult to find a route to ensuring that leaseholders become commonholders. However, the legal work has been done by the extensive and authoritative report from the Law Commission, The Future of Home Ownership, which was published in July 2020. The commission published three massive reports—one of them is over 800 pages. Therefore, the Government have at their disposal the combined thoughts of the Law Commission on how home ownership should be extended to leaseholders, and it has explained how that is done in a straightforward way.
The amendment in my name presses the Government to legislate for conversions to commonhold where only 50% of eligible leaseholders in a building support the conversion—rather than having it at 100%, which is obviously a barrier to commonhold ownership—and is in line with the recommendation from the Law Commission.
Everyone in the Committee will be well aware that the leasehold/freehold arrangement is very unusual in western European countries. The historic norm in the rest of western Europe is the equivalent of commonhold; that is how people who live in flats organise their affairs. It was introduced in England and Wales in 2002 but, for various reasons explained by the Law Commission, it has not taken off as an alternative to leasehold.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 14. First, I apologise that I was away for Second Reading; I confess that I would probably have made a rather frustrated and angry speech at the Bill’s limitations and the waste of a chance to end leasehold once and for all. However, I come here today in a more conciliatory mood with, I hope, a constructive proposal to create a sunset clause on all new leasehold flats that would allow the Government five years to resolve any outstanding issues for present leaseholders. Because of a time limit, there would be light at the end of the tunnel, and all the rhetoric from the Government and the Opposition condemning leasehold as a feudal, unfair tenure could be turned into a concrete outcome, with no room for broken promises.
There is nothing unreasonable or radical about the amendment. The Conservative Party’s 2019 manifesto promised to enact a
“ban on the sale of new leasehold homes”—
and note that the wording was “homes”, not “houses”—and the majority of leasehold homes are flats. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, pointed out, 70% of them are. We know that it is precisely in relation to flats where the real abuse occurs, where the real money is made by third parties in exploitative extraction, and where the majority are denied control of their own finances and lives. That is where this scandal lies.
What is more, the number of leasehold flats is increasing exponentially, whereas the proportion of new-build houses sold as leasehold is falling dramatically, from a 15% high in 2016 to a meagre 1% of all leaseholds in December 2022. Yet the Bill avoids the main problem, and I am hoping that this amendment will give us a way out, and that now is the time to do it. Banning new leasehold houses is not enough and does not, in my opinion, despite what the Minister assured us, uphold the manifesto commitment. The amendment would allow the Government to honour their promise but without doing it in a rush.
Not to be partisan, I was delighted when the shadow Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, pledged to scrap leasehold tenure within Labour’s first 100 days in office, but this appears to have been slightly rescinded or fudged. This is therefore an amendment for all sides, to ensure there is cross-party consensus that we will absolutely name the date by which leasehold will have gone—what Michael Gove, the Secretary of State, has called an “indefensible” system of tenure. As far as I can see, everyone, cross-party, agrees with that. If not now, when? This is the first piece of legislation tackling leasehold tenure for new and existing homes in 22 years, outside of building safety. Another opportunity to move against this iniquitous regime may not come around any time soon; it might take another 22 years.
I am keen to learn the lessons of history, because back in 1995, the late Frank Dobson, then the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, and Nick Raynsford, then the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, brought out an excellent pamphlet entitled An End to Feudalism: Labour’s New Leasehold Reform Programme. It noted:
“Over recent decades the weaknesses and injustices inherent in the British leasehold system have become increasingly highlighted, but reform has been a long time coming”.
It was promised that reform would come under that Government, but reform has sadly been an even longer time coming because, despite a promise to use the 2002 leasehold Bill to sunset any new leasehold buildings, this was reneged on.
This failure to use legislation 22 years ago to resolve the situation means that over 2 million further leasehold properties have been created—the very debt traps that have caused so much misery for so many. Are we just going to allow this Bill to pass, knowing that we will create more leasehold flats, and therefore more problems and more debt traps ahead? As Sebastian O’Kelly from the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership bluntly put it to MPs:
“You’re out of step with the rest of the world, so stop creating more leaseholds”.
I was delighted to hear the Minister assure us that nobody wants this, but I want that promise to be written down rather than just stated.
I stress that the amendment is not trying to dictate how this should be done. Rather, it would give the elected Government of the day, whoever that is, the space and flexibility to decide on whatever schemes are appropriate to ensure that third-party investors—the rentiers—are no longer permitted to interfere in what will be, I hope, a thriving sector of flats throughout the UK.
The amendment is not prescriptive, as I have said. Commonhold is not even mentioned directly, even though I agree with all those who have said that it is best suited to deliver ownership and management of residential flats for the future. The main point is to set a sunset clause to ensure that, whichever party is in government, there are no more broken promises and that the “in due course” we heard about earlier has an end date. What is more, the amendment, via proposed new subsection (3)(c) and (d), would ensure that existing leaseholders are not left behind. In a way, what is not to like?
However, it is difficult to know exactly who or what I am arguing against, because I am not quite sure that I even understand why this could not have been done in this legislation. The answer has not been forthcoming. I want to look at just a couple of objections.
In this Chamber, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, explained from the Dispatch Box earlier this year that reforming leasehold for flats is “inherently more complicated” than for houses, as they required an arrangement to “facilitate management” of the buildings. Surely the “it’s complicated” defence is a red herring. There have been endless consultations and commissions, and decades-worth of academic and policy research, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, pointed out. We have had the Law Commission, with its 121 recommendations. An expert advisory group, the Commonhold Council, was launched in May 2021 by the Government precisely to prepare home owners and the market for widespread uptake of a collective form of home ownership. So, as the former Housing Minister, Rachel Maclean, told the other place at Second Reading:
“All the work has already been done”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/23; col. 676.]
For the remaining complexities, this amendment would give Parliament one more term as a reasonable timeframe to work at any outstanding issues—for example, around the complications of shared ownership, which we heard about earlier.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I do not have an amendment in this group, but it is almost therapeutic when your Lordships’ House is asked to consider a rare Bill such as this, where, instead of the Government seeking to do something really quite nasty, they are merely failing to do the best possible thing that they could.
The amendments in this group reveal that the Government have failed to bring in any proposals to replace leasehold ownership of residential property with commonhold ownership. It is obvious that there is a political consensus—at least on this side of the Chamber and partly on the other side—that commonhold should be the main model of ownership for multi-unit residential properties. However, 20 years since commonhold was first introduced, and four years since the Law Commission published legislative proposals to enable more widespread adoption of commonhold, it looks as though this Government have chosen to leave this issue to the next Government to sort out. That might be the best thing—I do not know—but, quite honestly, this Government have had the option, even in this Bill, to do the right thing.
Housing is part of survival: it is a human right and you have to get it right. It is time to end the commodification of housing by international finance and to end the feudal model of land ownership, which facilitates developers extracting as much money as possible from home owners while providing little or no value in return. Forgive me, I should have declared an interest as a leaseholder.
I would like to ask the Minister some questions; others have probably asked these questions before, but I just want to be specific and get clear answers. When do the Government expect the Commonhold Council to complete its work on the implementation of commonhold for new housing supply? When do they expect the completion of the work on conversion to commonhold? Why is it taking so long?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will make a brief intervention to support the thinking behind Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We all understand the disappointment that it has not been possible to make progress with commonhold in this Parliament. We all understand that it would be impossible to try to retrofit commonhold into the existing legislation. One thing we have learned over the last two parliamentary Sessions is that the capacity of the department to produce legislation that does not need wholesale amendment as it goes through is limited. We all bear the scars of the levelling-up Bill.
We have also seen the number of government amendments that have already been tabled to this Bill. What ought to happen, and I wonder whether my noble friend would smile on this, is that at the beginning of the next Session, a draft Bill should be published on commonhold. That would enable us to iron out all the wrinkles and expedite the passage of an eventual commonhold Bill when it came forward. There is all-party agreement that we need to make progress with commonhold, so urgent work now on producing a draft Bill is time that would not be wasted. It would mean that early in the next Session of Parliament we could produce a draft Bill—we have the Law Commission’s work, which we could build on—and iron out all the wrinkles. Then, when the actual Bill came forward, we would be spared, I hope, the raft of government amendments. I exempt my noble friend on the Front Bench from responsibility for this; it would be a faster destination.
By way of comment, what has happened to draft Bills? When did we last see a draft Bill? If you look at the Cabinet Office’s recommendation, I think in 2022 it said that they should be part of a normal legislative programme; there should be a number of Bills produced in draft, which we can get our teeth into. All my experience as chairman of the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee is that when you have a draft Bill, the actual Bill goes through much more quickly. Again, my noble friend has no responsibility for the legislative programme, but I think we need to spend more time as a Parliament looking at draft Bills rather than at Bills that have been drafted in haste, and then having to cope with a whole range of government amendments.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I too was unable to speak at Second Reading, and I apologise for that. However, I was able to attend much of the debate and to listen to a number of your Lordships’ speeches. I noted the numerous times in which leasehold tenure was described as “feudal”; we have heard this many times today. It is used as a pejorative term, which I do not strictly agree with, being a feudal Member of your Lordships’ feudal House, serving our feudal sovereign. It seems a somewhat discriminatory term to use. I also note that not all feudal rights are bad; we laud the Magna Carta, the right to trial by jury, and the rights of habeas corpus, all of which are essential feudal rights. I would hazard that leasehold tenure is similarly a feudal right that we should be particularly proud of, like your Lordships’ feudal House.
That said, I realise that the days of leasehold are numbered, but we should not remove such an important element of our residential housing market without ensuring that there are at least adequate alternatives that are fit for purpose. There currently are not. I believe it a mistake to dismantle leasehold tenure without ensuring that the commonhold alternative is fit for purpose.
Here I note my interests: in 2003, as a junior property barrister, I was a contributing author to a handbook on the exciting new tenure of commonhold. Since then, and despite our best hopes, the book has sold barely a copy, and I understand that commonhold has been adopted by hardly anyone. In 2015, and again more recently, the Law Commission has explored the shortcomings of commonhold, and has, as we have heard, identified numerous ways in which the law could be amended to make it better. I believe the Government are therefore wrong not to have grasped the nettle and made commonhold fit for purpose at the same time as, if not before, introducing this piece of legislation.
For this reason, I support the probing amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, with respect to the publication of a commonhold strategy. Without that viable alternative, I am particularly concerned that the leasehold reforms will have the unfortunate effect of decreasing the available housing stock, and will drive up the price of housing, which will decrease the number of homes that are affordable. I note my interests as a member of the Devon Housing Commission, ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which is exploring why there is so little housing available in the county for people who actually live there.
I have a question for the Minister: have the Government sought to measure the likely impact of the Bill on the availability of new housing, and the willingness of freeholders to make land available for development?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have a number of interests to declare: first, as a leaseholder, secondly, as chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and, thirdly, as a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd.
I spoke at Second Reading and I am sure that, as we go through these few days in Committee, we will largely agree with each other that there is a major problem. We all want to see leasehold reform and commonhold reform. Everybody backs it. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, back it. The problem is that we are not doing anything about it. That is the shame here.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, absolutely takes us forward. She includes a day to end leasehold flats, which would deliver that Tory party manifesto commitment. We should all back her if, as I hope, she divides the House at the next stage. Her amendment would deliver the Tory party manifesto commitment, but will the Government support it? Of course not. We know that. We all agree in these debates, but what we will get from the Government Front Bench is, “When parliamentary time allows”, “The next steps will follow in due course”, “We are keeping it under review”, or “We will get back to you”. That is the problem.
This is a golden opportunity that the Government have completely failed to deal with. We have sat here for years. I have asked question after question. I have been assured, “It is coming” or “Don’t worry, don’t ask questions, we are going to sort it all out”. Yet here we are and what do we get? A Bill that delivers very little. On the point about service charges and transparency, I can assure the Government Front Bench that if a leaseholder has problems with the service charge, they know they have problems. What they want from the Government are the tools to sort them out. The Government have not delivered that. They can give more transparency—great, but we need the tools for the job and they are not doing that for us.
This is very frustrating. I think we will have lots of agreement but very little action. I hope that, when we get to Report, a number of amendments will be passed and many members of the Government will support us in delivering the commitments that their party made to leaseholders at the last general election. The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in particular, are really good, giving an absolutely clear cut-off date.
My noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage asked the Government to set out their strategy for commonhold. What is it? I hope they can tell us. The current strategy seems to be, “We will get back to you. We know it is important, but we can’t do anything about it at the moment—sorry”. That is just not good enough. There are lots of great amendments here, but we need some action from the Government. I hope that, when we get to the next stage, we will divide the House many times. Where we have got to at the moment is just not good enough.
In 1880 Henry Broadhurst was elected as the Member of Parliament for Stoke-upon-Trent. He was then elected as a Member of Parliament for Nottingham West. He raised the problems of leasehold in the other place. We are still talking about them today. He was elected in 1880, and we have still made only limited progress. It is about time we made some progress here. We want more transparency and we want the Government to deliver their commitments. We want commonhold, and we want it now.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I agree fundamentally with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and with what other noble Lords have said with regard to the desirability of a transition to commonhold. I say that because, apart from anything else, conventional leasehold has clearly got itself an extremely bad press. Like it or not, that is something we have to take account of. However, although it is poorly regarded among leaseholders, it happens to be the commercial preference and the model on which a great deal of leaseholder and freeholder value rests. We have to be a bit careful about that.
My interest here is very much about consumer protection. I do not want us to enter a brave new world in which the existing leasehold situation is seen as in any way second class. Comments are made about the evils of monetisation of the management process, but I think that is a slightly different issue. I do not see that as intrinsic in the tenure. I see that as an abuse, a lack of transparency and another area in which consumer protection has not operated.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I forgot to mention earlier how much I support the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I think the last draft Bill we had here was the Modern Slavery Act. There was a draft Bill and a Joint Committee of both Houses on it. The work of that committee ironed out all the wrinkles; we got a much better Act of Parliament, and it had a much easier passage through both Houses. The committee was able to look at the issues and deal with them, which was really important.
It would be lovely to hear the Minister say that we will have a draft Bill for commonhold. Again, that would really help us. We could have a Joint Committee of both Houses that could take evidence and work through all the problems. Then, when we got the proper Bill, we would get it much more smoothly and easily through this House and the other House.
I suspect we will not get that, but it is the way forward. Having more draft legislation enables us to sort things out. The Law Commission has worked on the two other Bills we need. We would benefit from having draft Bill committees. It would be much easier for the Government and for everybody to get stuff through and to deal with the problems we all want to solve.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for introducing this group of amendments. It has been a fantastic, constructive debate, with some excellent points made across the Committee. I do not want to repeat the arguments, but I will speak particularly to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, which many noble Lords have spoken about. I remind the Committee that this amendment would require the Government to set out a strategy for making commonhold the preferred alternative to leasehold, as recommended by the Law Commission in its report, Reinvigorating Commonhold: the Alternative to Leasehold Ownership.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, are both important. They all point towards a particular focus: that commonhold should be the future. We should help the move towards commonhold; it is overdue. The Government have had 14 years to deliver and have broken their promises to leaseholders, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark. Let me remind the Committee that an incoming Labour Government would be left to pick up the pieces should we have the opportunity to serve.
On these Benches, our commitment, as reiterated by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is to have comprehensive leasehold reform, and this has not changed. We will bring forward ambitious legislation to enact all the Law Commission’s remaining recommendations at the earliest opportunity if we are privileged enough to serve.
The important point made by my noble friend Lord Kennedy about not having a strategy is why, on these Benches, we have brought forward an amendment asking for a strategy as part of this Bill. It has been so long; commonhold was introduced in 2002 as a way of enabling the freehold ownership of flats and avoiding the shortcomings of leasehold ownership. However, fewer than 20 commonhold developments have been established since the commonhold legislation came into force. Flats in England and Wales continue to be owned, almost inevitably, on a leasehold basis.
Unlike practice in most other countries across the world, flat owners in England and Wales continue to hold leasehold interests that will expire at some point in the future, and landlords make the key decisions about the management and costs of their buildings. Commonhold enables flats to be owned on a freehold basis, so that owners’ interests can last for ever and gives decision-making powers to home owners.
The Law Commission published its final report in July 2020, in which it makes numerous recommendations that seek to make commonhold not only a workable but a preferred form of home ownership to residential leasehold. Its recommendations include measures designed to make it easier for leaseholders to convert to common- hold and gain greater control over their properties; to enable commonhold to be used for larger, mixed-use developments that accommodate not only residential properties but shops, restaurants and leisure facilities; and to allow shared ownership leases to be included within commonhold. The recommendations would give owners a greater say in how the costs of running their commonhold are met, and ensure they have sufficient funds for future repairs and emergency work. They would provide owners with flexibility to change the commonhold’s rules, while improving the protections available to those affected by the change.
I ask the Government whether they disagree with the benefits I have just outlined? If they do not, why are they not doing this? That is the fundamental question from this debate that numerous noble Lords have alluded to. There was clearly some appetite for it a few years ago, so why are they not doing this? Have the Government changed their mind or are they just not brave enough to do it?
In May 2021, the Government had even established a Commonhold Council as a partnership of industry, leaseholders and government that would prepare home owners and the market for the widespread take-up of commonhold. I ask the Minister what has happened to that council. When did it last meet and how often does it meet?
It is widely accepted that, in terms of this Bill, we will not have commonhold brought in now. However, there is still much miscommunication around commonhold in the industry. There needs to be more education and an awareness campaign. As contributions have highlighted today, commonhold is so much easier. You do not have complex laws; you talk to one another and work problems and disputes out. You have meetings and laws are prescribed so that it is easy for people to know what to do at each step of the way. There are things that could be done with commonhold in this Bill to strengthen it and pave the way to commonhold happening en masse. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor would help the Government ensure that there is a strategy in this Bill and fulfil their manifesto promise, as mentioned previously. I commend the amendment in the name of my noble friend, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 13 concerns the conversion of existing leasehold buildings to commonhold. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for raising this important subject. In future, the Government would like to see widespread use of commonhold for new and existing buildings, empowering consumers to fully own, control and manage their buildings. Reforming the route through which existing leaseholders in England and Wales can convert to commonhold will be a crucial stepping stone on this path to commonhold. The Government welcome the Law Commission’s excellent work on this subject, and continue to consider its recommendations in this space.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I forgot to declare my interest as a leaseholder. I feel as though I might have to declare an interest to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, as a serf, or at least somebody who is rather pleased that democracy has allowed me to move from that particular interest.
In her response, the Minister said that all this change needs to be managed. In response to my amendment, she said there should not be a ban without due consideration. Fine, but this was a sunset clause in five years; it is hardly rushing it. The endless contributions that have been made suggest that this has been talked about for a very long time. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made the point that we can all go back. This sort of response, saying that we need to go slowly and that it needs to be managed, makes it seem a little unclear as to what the Government are responding to. Nobody here is exactly rushing through.
Also, can I have some clarification on the idea of a danger to the supply of new homes? I was glad that the Minister responded to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, saying that there does not appear to be any evidence of that, but she said we had to be careful about a ban without due consideration. She herself said that it could damage the supply of new homes, and to be honest I think that is an unjustified threat—although not by the Minister. I keep hearing this: “If we rush this through, nobody will ever build a flat again. We have a housing crisis; what are we going to do?” I know the developers are saying that, but I was interested in the fact that Lendlease is one of those saying that this may disrupt building supply, but actually it seems to be building away and thriving, with massive developments in Australia, where it is from and where, indeed, there is a form of commonhold of which Lendlease was supportive. It is not going to stop the development of houses. We can build, build, build—just not build, build, build leaseholds, surely.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My response to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, was a response on commonhold. My response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was more about the fact that her amendment would just ban the sale of leasehold, which I suggest would give an uncertainty to the market.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
Maybe my noble friend the Minister can give us some detail on the Government’s new-found support for commonhold. It would be easier not to move my amendment if I had some idea of the progress of the Government’s thinking, the timetable and how they intend to increase the adoption of commonhold, because that would make my amendment largely unnecessary.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. As I have said, we are working on it, we are working on further changes and we will come back in due course.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
If I can just probe the Minister on the answer she gave me, that the Commonhold Council met in September, can I just confirm that she is chairing that Commonhold Council? The government website still has the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. As the Commonhold Council advises the Government, what advice did it give in relation to the plan for commonhold? Surely it was not, “Take your time”, was it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not have that detail with me, but I will make sure the noble Lord gets it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the Government have a strategy for commonhold?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes. The noble Lord knows, and I have said it enough times at this Dispatch Box, that the Government fully support commonhold. It is a matter of getting through the complexities and ensuring that it is delivered in a safe, secure way for the future.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
It is good to hear that they have a strategy; maybe the Minister can explain to the Committee what the strategy is. All I see at the moment is that there is a lot of support for commonhold—everyone is committed to it and wants to bring it in in due course—but I would like to see some sort of timeline. When are we going to get it? They will have had this report from the Law Commission for four years in July. Where is the plan? If they had a plan they could set out for the Committee, I am sure they would get a lot of support from us here, but the worry is that we will be sitting here in another four years. What is the plan from the Government?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I am sorry, but I asked a couple of questions there and I am hoping for a response.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry, but I have made it very clear that the Government are fully in support. I am trying to remember whether it was 219 or 120, but large numbers of amendments were required to be put into place to ensure that, while we have commonhold in this country now, it can be delivered across all our leasehold flats. We do not have the time on this Bill to do that amount of legal work, and that is why we are not promising it at present, but we want to get as far along that journey to commonhold as we possibly can within the Bill.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
But we are not, are we? That is the whole point. We are not getting anywhere, just making commitments and promises with no timescale, no plan, nothing. That is the problem and why we are getting so frustrated here. They have had the Law Commission report for four years. What have they been doing for the last four years?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Working on getting towards commonhold, which is what the Government want for this sector.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
The noble Baroness will obviously know this really well, then: how many more years do we need before we get a Bill to deliver this?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not think I have anything further to add.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 13 in my name was to encourage a debate on commonhold and the route to achieving it, and in that it has been successful. I am pleased about that and thank all noble Lords for their involvement. It has been a long time since the first legislative proposal was made to abolish leasehold. I think it was in the Liberal Government of 1906, so we are going back a long way.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I do not think that that was a legislative proposal—I was very careful in the words I used. What this debate has achieved is that it is very clear across the Committee that there is overwhelming support for the move to commonhold. That is very positive. The next achievement is that it has brought forward three different ways, or perhaps four, in which the Government can move. One is a draft Bill, which seems to me to be a very interesting proposal and one that again I think would get support across the House, because the move to commonhold is complex. I and everybody else who has spoken accept that, so let us find a way of working together to achieve that common end.
The second proposal was a “Let’s get something done” type of proposal for a sunset clause. If nothing else happens, let us adopt that. The third proposal, from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, was similar to a draft Bill: to get the Government to agree a draft strategy. Unfortunately, the Minister used the phrase “in due course” a number of times. The trouble with “in due course” is that the due course can go on for a very long time, as it has already. Some of us are concerned to enable all existing leaseholders to achieve commonhold and be part of home ownership. The party opposite always talks about that, so you would think it is in its interest to push it. That is why it is very disappointing to hear the Minister say “in due course” and, “We are considering the recommendations of the Law Commission”, which was four years ago now.
Finally, we have heard from various Members on the Labour Benches that, if they ever have the privilege to serve—that is the phrase they are using—this will happen quickly. I look forward to maybe 2025 when we might see whether the Minister will bring forward a proposal for a draft Bill on commonhold or whether somebody from the Labour Benches will do so, in which case we will make progress. We on these Benches will hold both parties to account if they fail to do that at the earliest possible moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(ca) in section 23 (agreements excluding or modifying rights of tenant), in subsection (2)(b), omit the words from “or any provision” to “or any part of it”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent a landlord and tenant agreeing to a restriction on the tenant making a repeated enfranchisement or extension claim.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, to be clear, the Bill already removes the automatic 12-month bar on leaseholders that stops them making another enfranchisement claim, should an earlier claim have been withdrawn. My Amendment 16 supplements this by removing the right for a voluntary 12-month agreement to be made between parties to restrict further enfranchisement claims for a leasehold house. Removing the ability for a voluntary 12-month restriction makes sure leaseholders are not put under undue pressure to withhold their claims. This is an important protection for leaseholders and makes it clear that they can make fresh claims as needed.
I look forward to hearing from noble Lords as to how they think that our enfranchisement reforms can be further improved. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, our Amendment 17 would enable the Secretary of State—or, in Wales, Welsh Ministers—to change the description of premises that are excluded from collective enfranchisement rights. Such a change would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for all his time in discussing the Bill with me, and I acknowledge his expertise in this area.
Clause 28, which our amendment targets, makes changes to the non-residential limit for collective enfranchisement claims. At present, Section 4(1) of the 1993 Act excludes from the right to enfranchise buildings in which 25 % or more of the internal floor area, excluding the common parts, can be occupied or are intended to be occupied for non-residential use. The clause increases that non-residential use percentage to 50%. We welcome the change, which enacts recommendation 38 of the Law Commission’s final report on leasehold enfranchisement and was supported by the National Leasehold Campaign, among others.
Of course, if the purpose of the non-residential limit is to confine enfranchisement to predominantly residential blocks, the Law Commission determined that the existing 25% limit does not achieve that purpose. There is a significant amount of evidence that, instead, it regularly prevents leaseholders from undertaking collective freehold acquisitions because a sizeable proportion of buildings fall slightly above it and that 25% is a significant bar to the ability of leaseholders to undertake a collective freehold acquisition. The Law Commission further argued that
“the arbitrary nature of the limit makes the bar to enfranchisement a source of considerable frustration for many leaseholders”.
We accept that there is no easy or non-arbitrary way in which to determine where that bar should be. However, it is the stated intention of the Bill to bring as many leaseholders as possible into enfranchisement, and it is therefore questionable as to whether limits under 50% would feel inherently fair. We would hope that a 50% non-residential limit would mean that the number of genuine cases excluded would be small and would remove the opportunity for developers to play the system, because only a genuine split between commercial and residential would apply.
Our main concern on this clause is that there is no flexibility built into it, and we are keen to probe whether a review after a period of time to determine whether the non-residential policy as set out is working in practice could be undertaken, or another mechanism used, so that changes for the limit in respect of collective enfranchisement rights do not require primary legislation but can be enacted through regulations. Enacting small but necessary changes that may occur in relation to the Government’s proposed limit—for example, whether that relates to individual cases that fall just above the limit, or a change in the criteria on using internal floor area to determine the rights, or changing altogether the criteria on which the limit is based—may need alternative mechanisms to resorting to future primary legislation. That is the purpose of our amendment.
I will comment briefly on the other amendments in this group. We understand the reasons for the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Thurlow, and look forward to hearing the comments of the Minister on those amendments. In relation to the Question on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, to be put by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, we understand the Church position as a landholder, but we feel it would go against the spirit of increasing the enfranchisement through the Bill to retain the 25% limit.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 17A. I am sorry that I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I should also say that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who is unavoidably detained, has added her name to that amendment. We therefore have her support as well. Amendment 17A is directed at Clause 28 on mixed-use premises with substantial proportions of business and residential tenants. Currently, collective enfranchisement and lease renewal is not permitted where more than 25% of the premises are business premises. That figure is going to be changed to 50%, thereby making it easier for residential tenants to go down the collective enfranchisement route.
That will introduce management issues—I do not say that they are necessarily problems, but they are certainly management issues. The Bill proposes that, if 50% of the occupants are residential, that will be enough. That will mean that, unless more than half of the building is occupied by business premises, all residential tenants will be entitled to be enfranchised. That will create issues for management and, in particular, problems where some of those residential tenants are overseas companies. We know that there are increasing numbers of those, particularly in London.
Mixed-use buildings pose greater management challenges than purely residential ones. Freeholders need to be responsive and active property managers. Business tenants require swift responses so that they can manage their businesses. If they want changes to the premises and so on, they need their landlord’s consent so that they can go ahead. If there are difficulties with obtaining that consent because, for example, some—or possibly a large number—of the residential tenants are overseas companies, then one can see how unattractive such premises will become as business premises for the business occupiers.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I will speak in support of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester, who is unable to be in his place today and who has asked me to speak to his opposition that Clause 28 stand part of the Bill. This is linked to a similar stand-part debate, in the name of my right reverend friend, relating to Clause 47, to be debated later in Committee.
I declare my interest as a beneficiary, as is my diocese, of the Church Commissioners. I thank the Minister for her engagement with the charities affected by the legislation so far: the Church Commissioners, John Lyon’s Charity, Portal Trust, Campden Charities, Merchant Taylors’ Boone’s Charity, Dulwich Estate and the London Diocesan Fund. I hope she will continue to engage with my right reverend friend to find an amicable solution.
The Church Commissioners for England are the freeholders of the Hyde Park Estate. If we are looking back a long way, the Church can look back longer than most. The Church has had a long relationship with that part of London, starting in 1550 when the Bishop of London was granted the manor. The first leases were granted in 1795, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners became responsible for the estate in 1868. Like the other charities mentioned, the Church Commissioners have long relationships with their estate. The money generated from the estate beyond the local is used for the betterment of the whole of our society, by the levelling up of communities and the lowest income parishes across the country, including in the diocese of Derby.
Like the other charity freeholders of large estates, the Church Commissioners manage the whole area, focusing not only on the residential properties themselves but on the whole environment, for those who live in, work on and visit the area. Their freehold ownership includes approximately 100 commercial units on the estate, where independent cafés, specialist boutiques and restaurants are mixed alongside amenities for local residents. This by no means affects the Church Commissioners alone; other large freeholders across London and beyond use their mixed freeholdings to ensure that areas have what local residents need, such as a dry cleaners, a pub, a hardware store—I could go on.
I thank the Minister for her letter to my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester, received today. However, concerns remain that Clause 28 threatens the ability of freeholders in large estate areas to ensure mixed areas that have all the amenities that people need. If the threshold for collective enfranchisement and the right to manage claims is lowered so that more mixed blocks can initiate a claim, there is a risk of the degeneration of these areas. There is no guarantee that newly enfranchised blocks will have the wherewithal or even the desire to maintain the make-up of the estate area. Leaseholders may not even live permanently in the area, may be foreign-owned companies or may have no active stake in the community. What need would these companies or corporations have to ensure the maintenance of a community? My right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester said at Second Reading of this Bill that:
“We would lose all the shops that really matter to those who live perhaps not just in that block, but”—[Official Report, 27/3/24; col. 737.]
in the locality.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, which would mean that right to manage and collective enfranchisement rule changes would apply only where 50% of the leaseholders are permanent residents in a block, would certainly be a step in the right direction. At least there would be a guarantee that those managing mixed blocks would have an active stake in maintaining community resources, including shops. Could the Minister tell us whether the Government could make proposals to ensure that great estate areas, such as the Hyde Park Estate and others, are not adversely affected? Nobody wants to see local shops, amenities and community hubs closing as an unintended consequence of the Bill.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I turn to my Amendment 18 in this group. I begin by declaring my interests as both the owner of two buy-to-let investment flats and the occupier of a flat, all on leases. I stand to benefit under the Bill in both situations, which is quite patently wrong.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby for articulating my amendment with greater ability than I can. I want to turn specifically to mixed-use buildings and the proposal to move from a 25% threshold for enfranchisement to 50%, and build on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. Mine is a straightforward proposal: simply that lessees who are not occupiers living there as their primary residence should not benefit from the great wealth transfer that is going to take place through the enfranchisement process. It cannot be an intended consequence of the Bill.
My amendment requires that at least 50% of leaseholders should satisfy the residence occupancy condition for any collective enfranchisement to apply. I remind the Committee that I am thinking of mixed-use buildings. A very complex management expertise is required in looking after mixed-use buildings; the skills are not the same for commercial property as for residential property, and the scope for mistakes and delay is huge. The potential to improve and curate an environment through single ownership of an expansive area has been very clearly described. To expect such behaviour to continue responsibly is almost impossible under the Bill as it stands.
We have also heard that, in London and the south-east, some 50% of tenants are not residents but foreign nationals living elsewhere, with ownership registered abroad. Are they taxpayers? This group often do not want to be identified. They shroud their property in ownership interests in offshore companies, as we have heard. They are very slow to respond, doing so from time to time, let alone to offer up money when required. If the Government do not agree that 50% of leaseholders in a block should be permanent residents, can I have an informed estimate on how many billions of pounds is expected to be paid in compensation to this cohort of wealthy foreign nationals, should they pursue this new enfranchisement entitlement?
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a long-standing leaseholder of some 30 years. I have been a leaseholder in apartment blocks in London, Kent and Somerset, and a right-to-manage director in two apartment blocks.
I support His Majesty’s Government’s Clause 28, which seeks to raise the non- residential limit on collective enfranchisement claims from 25% to 50%, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I consequentially oppose the proposal of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to vote against Clause 28.
Your Lordships have heard how giving more say to leaseholders in mixed blocks of residential and commercial units would be a bad idea and negatively impact on investment and the effective running of these blocks. It has been said that reform would only help some foreign leaseholders and investors and would result in fewer homes being built. That is far from the case. I have lived in two blocks of mixed developments: one was controlled by a residents’ right-to-manage company, with a NatWest bank in the basement, and another contained a number of commercial units and was 100% controlled by the freeholder. I can say categorically that the right-to-manage block was run better and with cheaper service charges. The freeholder-run block exploited the residents, cross-subsidising the commercial units at their expense and giving them no effective say over how the block was run. I point out to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that the difference was that the RTM block was actually run by the residents, who were managing their own money, whereas the freeholder block was run by a managing company and the freeholders were profligate with the use of residents’ cash.
Let us be frank: maintaining the 25% cap is about the freeholders retaining control and not about fairness or efficiency. If anyone lives or invests in a flat in a block, they should have a say over how it is run. For that reason, I oppose the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Sandhurst, which would restrict enfranchisement and further strengthen the position of freeholders by limiting the number of leaseholders who can vote on and manage their own blocks of residents. RTM directors are perfectly capable of managing mixed blocks of developments.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to this group, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, mentioned my name, although I have not yet spoken. He represents one viewpoint and the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Sandhurst, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester represent another. They are often portrayed as being mutually exclusive but, in property terms, that is not necessarily the case. Clearly, there are perfectly good managers who look after not only their residential tenants but their commercial tenants, and there are some are rotten managers. Some are good corporates while others are rotten—some are good resident management operations while others are pretty poor—so it is very difficult to make a standard rule for them all.
If one looks at the large urban estates across London, it is evident that there is a clear sense of purpose in trying to preserve the value, appearance and general amenity represented by the running of that estate. That inevitably comes at a cost, but I hope that that helps not only the commercial activities but the amenity of the residents.
Let us look at what happens if things start going wrong and getting fragmented. First, there becomes a distinction, if one is not very careful, between the purposes of long-term management in the view of the residents and the purposes of long-term management in the view of the commercial operator or landlord. Under the purposes of this Bill, if the enfranchisement of a 50% commercial ownership block goes ahead, there will be an enforced leaseback to the original freehold owner. Straightaway, you have an enforced leaseholder, whose business model was not quite hypothecated on that basis, who is none the less obliged to take it on but does not need to have the primary amenity and visual appeal functions that might be relevant to the residents.
I have seen that happen in historic high streets, where ownership has become fragmented in this way. We tend to find that when a shop becomes vacant, and if there are difficulties in the letting market, it will be let to a charity shop, a slot machine operator, a tanning shop, or some other type of operator, because the person who has it needs to move it on quickly. There is not that fat on the bone associated with having the larger estate, nor is there the fat on the bone to take on some assignee, as I have had to deal with in the past, who really runs a rather low-grade sort of business but is well funded. Therefore, you have to work out whether you can afford to fight an appeal, or fight a case, on an assignment of a lease in order to see off that person and their particular trade. If you cannot, there is a general deterioration of the area. It might be a fast-food takeaway that opens late at night; the police might be around every now and again; there might be people congregating there because it is late at night, and that sort of thing affects residents. If one is not careful, things like emptying bins and delivery of incoming goods to a retail operation can start being operated at times that are not that helpful to the interest of residents, who once might have been part of this overall concern. I can see both sides of this, and we have to be careful not to make standard rules about things where the decision is much more nuanced and difficult. It really depends on where one is starting from, the circumstances, and everything else.
As I said earlier, my interest is in consumer protection. I do not want to see degraded environments; I want to see environments that are lively and looked after and where everybody has confidence in them being managed. Fragmented management very seldom achieves that. The issue is about management being a slightly different issue to ownership. It is a big issue that we need to address, because it will not be dealt with by a local authority. That has no function there. Beyond the planning functions of a change of use, or licensing for some premises that needs it, it has very few powers of control. If overarching control is needed, and there may be an argument that ecclesiastical, heritage or possibly other environments do need it, we should very careful that we are not chucking out that baby with the bathwater and ending up with a slow process of attrition that suits nobody and ends up degrading the value not only of the freeholders, who can look after themselves by and large, but of the area and its appeal, which is ultimately to the detriment of residents. I do not want to go down that road without being clear about what we are doing, and making sure that there is some way we can pick up on processes of deterioration before they take root.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, this is my first intervention today—I spoke at Second Reading. I regret that this is yet another Bill that was heralded with robust rhetoric from the Secretary of State which has now come face to face with reality. I regret that some of that reality is from those with vested interests and therefore we are getting a watered-down Bill. We certainly believe on these Benches that it is a missed opportunity.
I turn to the group of amendments on enfranchisement. We on these Benches support the Government in Amendment 16. We need to see as many restrictions as possible on leaseholders’ ability to enfranchise removed by the Bill. After all, they have bought a home and should be able to extend their lease and buy their freeholds in a way that is easy and affordable, to use the Government’s own words.
It is perhaps no surprise that we also support Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, in so far as it would allow the Secretary of State to give more leaseholders rights to collective enfranchisement, and we note the detail of the noble Baroness’s reasons. However, the power cannot and must not be used to narrow the qualifying criteria or to exclude more leaseholders from freehold purchase. We are pleased that it would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as this includes public consultation and the involvement of both Houses.
However, we know that cohorts of leaseholders will still not even qualify to buy their freehold under the Bill. For example, MPs in the Public Bill Committee in January heard from experts and campaigners that there really is a problem with leaseholders in mixed-use buildings—from our debate today, I would say we have a problem with mixed-use buildings that needs to be sorted out. The Government are admirably using the Bill to try to liberate leaseholders in mixed-use blocks by, as we have said, moving the 25% rule on non-residential premises to 50% and introducing mandatory leasebacks on commercial space to slash the cost of collective enfranchisement, but—and I find this strange—they have not lifted the restrictive regulations in the 1993 Act that mean that shared services, such as a plant room, would disqualify leaseholders from buying out their freehold. Apparently, there is even a regulation stipulating that the mere existence of pipes, cables or other fixed installations connecting residential and commercial premises in a mixed-use building would block leaseholders from buying their freedom. That means that many leaseholders who would otherwise stand to benefit from the changes on mixed use will be blocked from securing collective enfranchisement and being in control of their buildings. I ask the Minister whether we can discuss this aspect before Report.
Turning to what I will call the three “tricky” amendments, I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, wisely hedged her bets on these. I suspect that it is because, like me, she knows that the intentions of the noble Lords speaking on them are based on good experience and a genuine wish to see the measures agreed, but she worries whether, in fact, they are just another means of putting commercial interests before residential interests and not getting that balance right.
Instinctively, like the noble Lord, Lord Truscott—I was relieved when he made his comments—we oppose these three amendments, because in our view they seek to row back. But I have listened attentively to what has been said and I am completely changing what I was going to say: I genuinely believe that there are some serious areas that need looking at. There is much experience in the Committee, but I am concerned that we have been subject to special pleadings.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the descriptions that have been put forward—the right reverend Prelate described these thriving communities, which sounded idyllic, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, talked about making sure that we understood that there might be some bad players but that there are also some very enlightened players—made it sound as though this is really just a question of having the right people in charge, whereas I think it is a systemic problem.
One of the reasons why I am anxious about this is that although it is always nicer to have friendly, non-rip-off freeholders—that is genuinely a positive thing—we should not be grateful that we are not being ripped off in the homes that we live in. The system problem is that people lack autonomy and control over where they live and their destiny. I just throw in that a successful community depends on people retaining their autonomy rather than being grateful that they are being looked after.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, pointed out is incredibly important; the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, also made an excellent speech laying some of this out. There are thriving communities with mixed-use abilities all over the world that do not use leasehold. We are now getting to a point where we are saying, “If we don’t have leasehold here, we’ll never have a local swimming pool and there will be no community centres. What will happen to all the shops?” That is mythological. Although I agree that one needs to look at the complexities, and I for one am actually all for nuance in relation to this and not just blunderbussing away, we should also stop myth-building about the wonders of the system, when in fact the reason why we want enfranchisement in the first place is that when our citizens buy a house they should have control over it. It is their home, and they can work collectively on building the community. At the moment they are denied that, which is why we are trying to tackle the problem of leasehold in the first instance.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I start by thanking especially the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for Amendment 17, which seeks to amend the description of premises that are excluded from collective enfranchisement rights, where leaseholders would otherwise qualify. I know the amendment is well intentioned, with the aim that there is flexibility to amend the description of exceptions without new primary legislation. The amendment introduces a broad power for Ministers to change fundamental elements of the structure of the regime, which are substantive areas of policy. The Government are already making changes to primary legislation by increasing the non-residential limit from 25% to 50%, following extensive consultation, which is right and proper. The powers in this amendment would affect the very core of the regime and how it is structured rather than amending mere procedural changes.
To make sure that stakeholders have certainty as to how the law will work in practice, changes to the fundamental structure of the statutory regime should be clear and stable. Although the intention behind the amendment is noble, the Government are not able to accept it as it is not proportionate or reasonable for the proper functioning of the regime. It would be a sweeping power to change the fundamental structure of the enfranchisement regime after it has been approved by Parliament.
This amendment would introduce uncertainty into the new system, meaning that both leaseholders and landlords would need to second-guess whether changes may be made at relatively short notice, introducing volatility to the regime. This could potentially lead to undesirable outcomes, such as undermining confidence in long-term investment decisions for mixed use-premises, or lead to irregular design of floor-space in anticipation of future changes. I want to make it clear that the Law Commission has spent years considering qualifying criteria and assessed different options in its consultation process before putting forward its recommendations to increase the non-residential threshold to 50%.
The amendment could also remove rights of leaseholders or landlords in a disproportionate way and create unnecessary uncertainty and divergence likely to complicate the overall regime, with consequential effects on the behaviour of different stakeholders in different ways. Therefore, I hope that I have convinced the noble Baroness that the amendment is not proportionate, and that it is not moved.
I thank my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for Amendment 17A, which would exclude long leases held by overseas companies from being qualifying tenants for the purpose of collective enfranchisement. The Government’s aim is to improve leasehold as a tenure and address the historic imbalance of power between freeholders and leaseholders. The Bill does not confer different rights on leaseholders by how their leases are held. The Government do not think that implementing such a definition, in respect of which leaseholders have rights and which do not, is workable or desirable.
Amending the definition of a qualifying tenant for collective enfranchisement will make it harder for other leaseholders in a building to meet the numbers required to enfranchise, should they so wish. Attempting to restrict some leaseholders may well disenfranchise others, meaning that many leaseholders up and down the country could lose the opportunity to exercise their rights. Furthermore, it would remove the existing rights of some leaseholders and complicate the system overall, contrary to the aims of the Government.
I understand that the intention of the amendment may be to safeguard against circumstances in which non-resident or overseas companies do not take an active interest in the management of a building or are slow to respond. However, we expect that most multi-occupancy buildings will be managed by professional management companies on behalf of freeholders, as they are now.
I thank my noble friend again for the amendment, but I cannot accept it because it runs contrary to the aims of the Government and may restrict leaseholders’ rights. I therefore hope that he is content not to move his amendment.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby for speaking on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, with whom I have had a number of meetings about this issue. I am happy if the right reverend Prelate takes back the fact that I will continue that discussion if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester so wishes.
I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his clause stand part notice. Clause 28 increases the non-residential limit for the collective enfranchisement claims to proceed in mixed-use buildings from 25% to 50%. The clause implements a Law Commission recommendation that has been subject to comprehensive consultation by the Law Commission and the department. I note the right reverend Prelate’s and my noble friend’s concerns, which have been raised through various consultations with freeholders and landlords.
The Bill’s impact assessment considers the impact of increasing the non-residential limit for collective enfranchisement claims, including the potential impact on freeholders, high streets and businesses. The increase to 50% strikes a fair and proportionate balance and will ensure that leaseholders are not unfairly prevented from claiming the right to manage in respect to buildings that are majority residential. It protects the freeholders and commercial leaseholders in buildings that are majority commercial. Freeholders can also protect their commercial interests by taking a leaseback of the commercial unit, securing their interest with a 999-year leaseback at a peppercorn rent.
We recognise the importance of the responsibility of building management and, as I have said, would expect that those who exercise their right to take over their buildings will employ professional managing agents—ensuring that the building is managed with the appropriate expertise, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, about the issues that he is aware of.
The Government consider that this increase is proportionate, and I ask the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend to support Clause 28 standing part of the Bill.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for Amendment 18, which seeks to apply a residency test to the collective enfranchisement claims in buildings with more than 25% non-residential floorspace. As we have discussed, Clause 28 amends the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 to increase the non-residential limit for collective enfranchisement claims from 25% to 50%.
Clause 28 implements a Law Commission recommendation that seeks to broaden access to collective enfranchisement for leaseholders living in mixed-use buildings where the non-residential elements constitute up to 50% of the floorspace. The existing qualifying criteria require leaseholders representing at least 50% of the flats in a building to participate in a collective enfranchisement claim. When combined with these existing criteria, the noble Lord’s amendment would allow claims only in mixed-use buildings with more than 25% non-residential floorspace, where at least 25% of the flats are owner-occupied.
For leaseholders in mixed-use buildings where less than 25% of the flats are owner-occupied but more than 25% of the floorspace is non-residential, this new clause would have the effect of removing all the benefit of Clause 28. This would leave leaseholders unable to collectively buy the freehold of their building because of how their neighbours chose to use their properties. It would also complicate all claims in buildings with over 25% non-residential floorspace, as participating leaseholders would be required to demonstrate that they are owner-occupiers. This could lead to claims taking longer and costing more, and would provide freeholders with another opportunity to frustrate leaseholders’ right to buy their freehold. This is counter to the Government’s aims in this area to broaden access to collective freehold ownership for all leaseholders, and to simplify, not complicate, the system leaseholders use to do so.
Lord Gascoigne
“(ea) any combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reflect provision that has come into force since the Bill was introduced.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, before I start, I declare that my wife is an employee at the Crown Estate, as set out in the register of ministerial interests.
Government Amendments 19 to 22, in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, are consequential on the repeal of the right for public authorities to block freehold acquisition and lease extension claims of houses for the purposes of redevelopment. This relates to Section 28 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Removing this blocker will allow more leaseholders to enfranchise.
The power to block enfranchisement was given to authorities named on a list in the same section of the Act. The list of authorities is, however, used for wider purposes. For example, the list may be used by separate legislation when a lease has reached its end and expired. When this happens, the listed public authorities could apply to the courts to seek possession, for the purposes of redevelopment. These amendments preserve the list and its use for wider current law, as it is moved into Clauses 29 and 38 of the Bill.
Government Amendments 25, 30 to 40, and 49 are also in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott. Government Amendment 32 addresses the enfranchisement valuation procedure regarding “chained” leases—that is where successive long leases of a house are treated as one single long lease. The amendment makes it clear that the exception for market rack-rent leases will apply only where the leaseholder’s current lease is a market rack-rent lease. It will not matter whether a previous lease was a market rent lease. This will protect leaseholders and mean that in the case of chained leases, where a previous lease might have been granted for no, or low, premium, freeholders will be prevented from unfairly gaining through the new valuation scheme.
Government Amendment 39 clarifies the rules on which lease to consider when valuing a lease comprising a chain of leases—treated as one single lease—where one of them was granted for a high rent and low, or no, premium. The amendment states that it is the most recent lease that should be looked at. This will determine whether the ground rent cap should apply in the enfranchisement valuation. This will protect leaseholders and mean that in the case of chained leases, where a previous lease might have been granted for a high ground rent, but for little or no premium, freeholders will be prevented from unfairly gaining through the new valuation scheme.
Government Amendments 25, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 40 are minor amendments that will tidy up the Bill by aligning two different sets of terminology, used to mean the same thing, across the Bill. This will help to avoid any potential for confusion and has no material impact on the valuation provisions in the Bill.
Government Amendment 30 is a minor amendment to Schedule 4. As currently drafted, the Bill would incorrectly require a valuation of a freehold for a lease extension. We are fixing this to align with the new valuation scheme, so that a lease extension will require a valuation of a notional lease. This will ensure that the provision works for lease extensions as intended. This amendment does not change the scope or effect of Assumption 3 in Schedule 4; it simply makes sure that it is phrased correctly.
Government Amendment 49 is a minor correction of a grammatical error in Clause 41 so that it refers to the appropriate tribunal. In this case, the appropriate tribunal can make orders regarding the new right for intermediate landlords to commute—that is, reduce—the rent they pay following lease extensions and ground rent buyout claims by their tenants.
Turning to government Amendments 50, 51, 52, 53 and 56 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, as noble Lords are aware, whenever making new legislation, it is of the utmost importance that we review any consequential amendments required to be made, including to other Acts of Parliament. We have therefore conducted a thorough review of how the reforms brought forward in this Bill will require necessary changes. The following amendments focus specifically on consequential changes resulting from Part 2 of the Bill.
Government Amendment 52 is a minor and technical amendment which reflects the movement of material from Section 175 of the Housing Act 1985 into the new Section 7A of the 1967 Act. The amendment preserves a part of the current law which deals with a number of exemptions for the valuation of a freehold acquisition under Section 9(1) of the 1967 Act which will still be available under a “preserved law claim”. This will make sure that the Bill retains the current restrictions and will remove any potential for unintentionally expanding the number of tenants who qualify for a Section 9(1) valuation and consequently for a preserved law claim. Right-to-buy tenants who qualify for enfranchisement rights will be no worse off and benefit in the same way from the new valuation scheme as other leaseholders.
Government Amendment 53 inserts a new clause, which acts as a paving amendment to introduce a new schedule. This new schedule brings together the consequential amendments to other legislation. As a result of this new schedule, government Amendments 50 and 51 remove consequential amendments to the Housing and Planning Act 1986, which are currently contained in Schedule 8; these are now addressed in the new schedule.
Amendment 56 inserts the new schedule, entitled “Part 2: consequential amendments to other legislation”. This new schedule is extensive and brings together the consequential amendments across 19 other Acts into a single place. None of the amendments makes separate, substantive changes, but, rather, the new schedule allows this Bill to mesh with and integrate seamlessly with other legislation. These consequential amendments will: remove provisions which will become obsolete as a result of the changes made by the Bill; enable freehold acquisition claims of houses under Section 9(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to continue to operate as they do currently, while making sure that provisions in other legislation do not override our new valuation scheme; make clear how to treat the valuation of freehold acquisitions for right-to-buy tenants; preserve the current law so that non-litigation costs payable on enfranchisement do not attract stamp duty land tax, allowing the operations of stamp duty land tax to continue as intended; and make sure that provisions of other Acts governing shared ownership leases will still function properly following the repeal of some shared ownership provisions in the 1967 Act.
Government Amendments 88 and 89 are tidying-up amendments to align the terminology in Clause 77 with terminology used elsewhere in Part 5.
Finally, with sincere thanks to noble Lords for bearing with me and for their patience, I turn to government Amendment 90. This is a clarificatory amendment which seeks to deal with any potential confusion over the extent to which the Bill applies to event fees. As noble Lords may know, some leases require the leaseholder to pay a fee on certain events, such as the sale of the premises or a change of occupancy. These so-called event fees are common in specialist housing for older people. How event fee terms are drafted varies from one lease to the next, as does what the money is used for. This amendment is not concerned with the regulation of event fees; the Government have committed to making event fees fairer and more transparent and will implement agreed Law Commission recommendations when parliamentary time allows. There is a risk in the current drafting of the Bill that the specific nature and purpose of event fees may be regarded as an administration charge under Clause 81. That would, in turn, mean that they are subject to the test of reasonableness, which we do not consider appropriate for a fee of this nature. The amendment therefore sets out a definition of an event fee and makes it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that any event fee is not to be regarded as an administration charge. I beg to move.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank my fellow east Lancastrian, the Minister, for introducing these technical, tidying-up and clarificatory amendments.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I have spoken ad nauseam about many of these amendments. I too thank my long-lost brother from east Lancashire, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and say what a pleasure it is to follow him.
Lord Gascoigne
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would reflect that the Development Board for Rural Wales has been abolished.
“(ma) any clinical commissioning group;(mb) any Strategic Health Authority;(mc) any Primary Care Trust;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the bodies listed are “local authorities” for the purpose of section 57 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would replace reference to the National Rivers Authority with reference to its successor body, the Environment Agency.
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Monday 22nd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 22 April 2024 - (22 Apr 2024)
20:24 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 240 / Noes: 211 - Motion A1 agreed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3G, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3H.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion A I will also speak to Motions B and B1. I am very grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for the careful consideration of this Bill. It is important that we have such detailed debates, and that the Bill has been scrutinised to the extent it has, but we must now accept the will of the elected House and get this Bill on to the statute book.
I turn now to the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Having now debated this issue on so many occasions, I will not repeat the same arguments, but I remind the House of a key point of which I am sure, by now, noble Lords are fully aware. The Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. We will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty.
I refer to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, during our debate on 20 March, when he said:
“I want to make it plain that I do not for a moment question the good faith of the Government of Rwanda when they entered into the agreement or when they seek to give effect to what the treaty says. I do not for a moment question their determination to fulfil the obligations that they are undertaking”.—[Official Report, 20/3/24; col. 226.]
The Government entirely agree with this sentiment. The noble and learned Lord was right not to question the determination of the Rwandan Government to fulfil the obligations that they are undertaking. Their commitment to the partnership and their obligations under the treaty have been demonstrated by the progress they are making towards implementation.
I set out last week the recent steps that have been taken to implement the treaty and I do not intend to repeat those again, but I am pleased to be able to confirm further progress. On 19 April, the Rwandan Parliament passed domestic legislation to implement its new asylum system. The new Rwandan asylum law will strengthen and streamline key aspects of the end-to-end asylum system, in particular decision-making processes and associated appeals processes.
I remind noble Lords of the role of the independent monitoring committee, which, as noble Lords will all be aware by now, has been enhanced under the terms of the treaty to ensure compliance in practice with the obligations under the treaty. The monitoring committee will have the power to set its own priority areas for monitoring. It will have unfettered access for the purposes of completing assessments and reports, and it will have the ability to publish these reports as it sees fit. It will monitor the entire relocation process from the beginning, including initial screening, to relocation and settlement in Rwanda. Crucially, the monitoring committee will undertake daily monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months to ensure rapid identification of and response to any shortcomings.
As we have made clear, if the monitoring committee were to raise or escalate any issues to the joint committee, where standing members of the joint committee are senior officials of the Government of the UK and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda with responsibility for areas related to the partnership, or areas with a strong interest in and relevance to this activity, the Government will of course listen. I remind noble Lords that it is up to the independent monitoring committee to raise any issues at any point.
The Government are satisfied that Rwanda is safe. Of course, I cannot predict what will happen in the future but, as I have set out, I can assure this House that we have already established the right mechanisms so that, should a situation ever arise, the Government will respond as necessary. This would include a range of options to respond to the circumstances, including any primary legislation as required. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary.
I turn to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne. As I have said previously, the Government greatly value the contribution of those who have supported us and our Armed Forces overseas. That is why there are legal routes for them to come to the UK. On 1 February the Ministry of Defence updated Parliament on developments relating to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy—ARAP—scheme, announcing a reassessment of decisions made on applications with credible links to Afghan specialist units. This followed the Ministry of Defence’s review of processes around eligibility decisions for applicants claiming service in Afghan specialist units, which demonstrated instances of inconsistent application of ARAP criteria in certain cases. We are taking necessary steps to ensure that ARAP criteria are applied consistently.
As such, the Ministry of Defence has decided to undertake a reassessment of all eligibility decisions made on ineligible applications with credible claims that have links to Afghan specialist units. This reassessment is being done by a team that is independent of those who conducted the original casework. It will review each application thoroughly on a case-by-case basis.
In existing legislation, including but not limited to the Illegal Migration Act, the Secretary of State has a range of powers to consider cases and specific categories of persons. I have already made clear, and given a clear commitment on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, that we will consider how removal under existing immigration legislation would apply. That means that once this review of ARAP decisions for those with credible links to Afghan specialist units has concluded, the Government will not remove to Rwanda those who have received a positive eligibility decision as a result of this review, where they are already in the UK as of today. The Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who showed courage by serving alongside us. We will not let them down.
The House of Commons has considered and rejected these amendments four times. For the reasons I have set out, they are not necessary. We will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. We will not relocate people to Rwanda if circumstances change that impact on the safety of the country, and we will not turn our backs on those who have supported our Armed Forces and the UK Government.
Illegal migration is costing billions of pounds and innocent lives are being lost. Bold, novel solutions are required, and our partnership with Rwanda offers just that. Rwanda is a safe country that has proven time and again its ability to offer asylum seekers a safe haven and a chance to build a new life. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 3J in lieu—
“(7) The Republic of Rwanda may be treated as a safe country for the purposes of this Act only once the Secretary of State, having consulted the Monitoring Committee formed under Article 15 of the Rwanda Treaty, has made a statement to Parliament to that effect.
(8) The Republic of Rwanda must cease to be treated as a safe country for the purposes of this Act once the Secretary of State has made a statement to Parliament to that effect.””
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1 as an amendment to Motion A. I do so in the unavoidable absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who tabled the previous versions of Amendment 3 and has been good enough to approve this one.
We are in the endgame now. We will, this week, have a law that provides for the offshore processing and settlement of asylum seekers in Rwanda. Its benefits remain to be seen. Its costs will be measured not only in money but in principles debased—disregard for our international commitments, avoiding statutory protections for the vulnerable, and the removal of judicial scrutiny over the core issue of the safety of Rwanda. That is now a fact, and there is nothing more we can do about it.
But there is a further principle, as precious as any of those, to which we can still hold fast. One might call it the principle of honesty in lawmaking. I presume on your Lordships’ patience this evening because we have it in our power to reinstate that principle without damaging the purpose of this Bill or delaying its passage any further. We are concerned with the safety of Rwanda, both in the present and in the future. This Bill is honest about neither.
The present position is governed by Clause 1(2) of the Bill, which
“gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”,
yet there has been no statement even by the Government that Rwanda is currently a safe country, as defined in Clause 1(5). The Minister said just now—I noted his words; they are the same words he used last Wednesday—that
“we will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty”.—[Official Report, 17/4/24; col. 1033.]
This has not yet happened. Against the background of what the Supreme Court described on the evidence before it as
“the past and continuing practice of refoulement”,
those obligations include, by Article 10(3) of the treaty, the agreement of an “effective system” to ensure that refoulement no longer occurs. The Minister has repeatedly declined the invitations of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to confirm that this system—a precondition for the safety of Rwanda—is fully set up and ready to go. Neither have we heard anything from the monitoring committee. While the Minister’s confidence is comforting up to a point, we are simply not in a position to make the judgment this Bill imputes to us.
The Bill’s treatment of the future is still further from reality. Parliament is asked to declare that Rwanda will always be a safe country, even if the progress made since the genocide of the 1990s—and one can only commend Rwanda on that—should ever falter or go into reverse. Decision-makers, immigration officials, courts and even the Secretary of State are bound by Clause 2 to treat Rwanda conclusively as safe in perpetuity.
Bluntly, we are asked to be complicit in a present-day untruth and a future fantasy, by making a factual judgment not backed by evidence, then by declaring that this judgment must stand for all time, irrespective of the true facts—this in the context not of some technical deeming provision in the tax code but of a factual determination on a matter of huge controversy on which the safety of human beings will depend. This is a post-truth Bill. To adapt a phrase we have often heard from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, it takes the culture of justification, which is a trademark of this House, and replaces it with a culture of assertion. It takes hopes and rebadges them as facts. It uses the sovereign status of this Parliament as a shield from scrutiny, and it makes a mockery of this Bill.
My amendment addresses first the present and then the future. The first part, proposed new subsection (7), requires the Secretary of State to tell us when, in his judgment, Rwanda is safe. It is this statement, not the judgment we are supposed to be reaching tonight, that will determine when the flights may lawfully begin. He has the detailed evidence on this. Despite our best efforts, we have had only scraps.
In previous versions of the amendment, this ministerial statement on the safety of Rwanda has been conditional on a favourable opinion from the Government’s own monitoring committee, established under the treaty, which we are told is already operational and which is ideally placed to assess the evidence. It has been objected, on previous occasions, that the monitoring committee should have no more than an advisory role. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I have listened and have revised this amendment, which now provides only for the monitoring committee to be consulted. The statement on safety would be purely for the Secretary of State.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, asked the Minister last Tuesday to confirm that
“before the Government are satisfied that Rwanda is a safe country, they will seek the views of the monitoring committee”.—[Official Report, 16/4/24; col. 900.]
No such assurance was forthcoming. I cannot say why not; perhaps we will get an assurance this evening. Failing that, this amendment would write one into law.
The second part of my amendment, proposed new subsection (8), deals with the future. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out the problem in these terms:
“no provision is made anywhere in the Bill for what should happen if the facts change and everyone can see that Rwanda is no longer safe”.—[Official Report, 16/4/24; col. 902.]
Sir Jeremy Wright, Sir Bob Neill, and Sir Robert Buckland—none of them lefty lawyers, the last time I checked—have made the same point in the Commons debates. The Minister indicated last week that if the Government thought Rwanda had become unsafe, there might be some unspecified “parliamentary occasion” to mark that development, but of course no such occasion, other than the passage of a full Act of Parliament, could do the trick. I think that was effectively acknowledged by the Minister in the Commons this afternoon.
This assumption of perpetual parliamentary infallibility is an embarrassment and a nonsense. Fortunately, there is an alternative, which presents not the slightest threat to what the Government are seeking to achieve. Proposed new subsection 8 would give the Secretary of State an untrammelled power to decide in the future that Rwanda is no longer a safe country. Such a decision would release all decision-makers, including himself, from a legal fiction that makes the law look like an ass and those who make it asses.
So there is a speedy and effective way to reinstate the principle of honesty in lawmaking. To quote the parting words of Sir Robert Buckland, who rebelled this afternoon, alongside Sir Jeremy Wright, “Sort this out now”. I persist in the hope that reason may yet break out in the Minister’s response. If it does not, I propose to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion B1 and Amendment 10H in lieu. I have given a great deal of thought, in recent times, to the question of what courage and strength look like. I ask myself today whether it a desperate and unpopular Prime Minister threatening to keep some of us septuagenarians up all night if we do not bow to his will, or putting yourself and your family in mortal peril by fighting totalitarianism alongside British forces with no idea of how that struggle will end. I know which I consider to be brave and strong, and I believe that the overwhelming majority of your Lordships, like others up and down the United Kingdom, of whatever age or political persuasion, agree. For weeks, Ministers have toured the TV and radio studios, saying that to repay our debt of honour to those who have served the Crown, in Afghanistan in particular, would open the floodgates of applications. If the concession I seek would open such floodgates, creating oceans of imposters, this would be only as a result of the Government’s own incompetence and lack of preparation. It is incompetence, as well as dishonour, that has brought us here this evening.
In the summer of 2021, the former Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, told us in a statement to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, that the Government were developing a plan for the evacuation of our exposed allies and agents from Afghanistan. If your Lordships will allow me a moment, I will read my exact words when reporting this to the House:
“Dominic Raab told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that, back in July, the Government were planning for the possibility of an evacuation of British citizens and those who were quite rightly entitled to think that we had a moral obligation to secure their lives”.—[Official Report, 7/9/21; col. 812.].
I remember, post Operation Pitting, asking if someone would share that plan with me, to see whether it included the reality that those who were sent to help people evacuate left before those who needed to be evacuated could be.
In a Statement repeated in your Lordships’ House and set out in full in Hansard on 7 September, the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, told your Lordships that the Taliban must ensure safe passage and that the Government would keep ongoing evacuation plans under review in respect of such people. He said this:
“Let me say to anyone to whom we have made commitments and who is currently in Afghanistan: we are working urgently with our friends in the region to secure safe passage and, as soon as routes are available, we will do everything possible to help you to reach safety”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/21; col. 21.]
Those are the words of the Prime Minister, repeated here. After the Statement was repeated in your Lordships’ House, we were told that this plan had been in existence for most of that year and that it had been reviewed in January, and was repeatedly reviewed, so that the chaos that we saw at Kabul airport would not happen—but it did.
You would have thought that, with all of that planning and information behind it, and having recruited and trained the Triples and paid them out of the embassy in Kabul, the 2,000 people who made them up—who were most at risk, and who had been working for us, in harm’s way—would have been known about, recorded and evacuated, and that it would have been the simplest thing in the world to triage anybody who claimed to be of that group out of the ARAP process. That is not how it turned out. Instead, a great many were left behind, and so the disastrous evacuation plan of 2021 continues.
The Government created this problem, which has caused at least nine of those who fought for us to be executed by the Taliban because the promised safe passage never appeared. His Majesty’s Government told us, even last week, that there would be no concession in respect of those people who had come here because they were frightened for their lives, and were entitled to be frightened for their lives and to find a way of getting here if there was no safe passage.
Why no concession for so long? I am asked this question every day—every day, since we started debating this issue, I am asked by many people, including many Conservative politicians, why there has been no concession: “Why have they not been able to work something out with you? Why the delay?”, they ask me. Either the Government have no confidence in their ability to implement this plan and are seeking in some way to delay it—considering it to be not their responsibility—or they just want the theatre of delay to their flagship Bill, so as to blame Labour, the Lords, the courts and so on. Today, the Government finally bring a concession: having offered and then withdrawn it last week, they refused to put it in the Bill.
I break away now to ask the Minister to re-read the passage of his speech that I call a concession—I know he does not—and to read it a bit more slowly, so that we can understand its implications. If not, if he has a printed a copy, I will read it slowly. I invite him to read it again, please. Will the Minister do that now, as it is important to the rest of my speech?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
With the leave of the House, I will read it very slowly:
“That means that once this review of ARAP decisions for those with credible links to Afghan specialist units has concluded, the Government will not remove to Rwanda those who have received a positive eligibility decision as a result of this review, where they are already in the UK as of today”.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
You cannot be removed and deported to Rwanda unless you are here by what the Government call illegal means and what I call irregular means. Those words are important for this reason. The Minister does not believe this to be a concession; it is to him a restatement of what he has been telling us for some time, but in a different form. In my view it is quite clearly a concession, although I guarantee that the media out there are being briefed that it is not, because there can be no concessions on this Bill.
Let me tell noble Lords why it is a concession. At Report on this Bill in your Lordships’ House, on 4 March, as recorded at col. 1420 in Hansard, I asked this question of the Minister:
“Will the Minister answer the question I asked in February when this review was announced”—
meaning the Triples review of eligibility for ARAP—
“will anyone who is eligible but was told they were ineligible—and acted in a way in which a small number of them did in extremis to protect themselves from possible death—be disqualified from being allowed to become eligible on review? Will they be excluded from the requirement of the Illegal Migration Act and this Bill if it becomes law that they must be deported to Rwanda?”
The Minister answered—it was the first time he was in a position to do so:
“As I understand it, they will be deported to Rwanda”.—[Official Report, 4/3/24; cols. 1420-1421.]
Now they will not be. That is a concession in anybody’s language.
It is an extremely important concession, because these are the small number of people who I have said, in every speech I have made in support of my amendment, are the target of my ambition that they will not be deported. Today, the Government finally bring a concession, having offered then withdrawn it, so should I trust them at their word? They left these people behind; they messed up any subsequent evacuation plan. This is a third opportunity competently to do the right thing. Why should I trust them now?
I will tell your Lordships why I am minded to consider doing so, although I have not yet made up my mind. It is because we are now part of a grand coalition, including noble and gallant Lords, many very senior politicians and officials, who have secured this country for years and put their names to this, veterans, campaigners and many voters of all persuasions and traditions across our nations—and we will not be silent until today’s promise is honoured by this Government or the next one.
Finally, what does this ignominious history tell us about the Rwanda policy as a whole? There were no safe routes for those heroes to whom we owe a debt of honour, still less are there safe routes for any other genuine refugees worthy of the promise of the refugee convention—also paid for in courage and strength in an earlier war, so many years ago. While I may not press my Motion this evening, I look forward to the day when a Labour Government repeal this immoral and unlawful excuse for legislation in total.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. His persistence, his clarity and his determination have, in my view, led to a meaningful concession—and it is a concession—by the Government on a very important issue. To those who say that your Lordships’ House has not behaved legitimately and constitutionally in relation to this Bill, we can at the very least point to the concession that has been made to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, as justification for still being here debating the Bill tonight.
I stand principally to speak in total support of the admirable speech given by my noble friend Lord Anderson in favour of Motion A1. I will return briefly to Motion A1 in a few moments but, before I do, I wish to place on the record something which concerns me very much about the fact that we are debating this matter at all today. I do so with appreciation for the characteristically gracious and considerate words spoken by the Government Chief Whip earlier this afternoon. I was not in the House, because I did not know she was going to say it, but I have been able to watch it on that splendid organ, parliamentlive.tv.
I speak as a religiously confused person, born with 100% Jewish blood but brought up in the Church of England by convert parents. I note that there may well be some Jewish Peers in the House today. Others, I know, are absent on the grounds of conviction and conscience, for today is the first day of the Passover festival—of Pessach, one of the Jewish religion’s most sacred holidays. It is a day when Jewish families gather, sometimes with their friends—I should have been at one such event tonight—around a dinner table to pray, to eat, to sing and to retell the story of the exodus, with the help of a narrative liturgy called the Haggadah. For those who have been to such a Seder, it is a joyful experience and it brings home to one the importance of the first day of Passover. I am told that strong representations were made, not least by the Labour Party, through the usual channels, to avoid the final stages of the safety of Rwanda Bill being heard today. The Jewish community, although it places great importance on the first and second days of Pessach, would have been willing to be here tomorrow or any other day this week. Unfortunately, that was refused.
I have tried hard to think of a legitimate reason for that refusal. If this debate had taken place on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, or next week, it would not have made any material difference to the Government’s position. Nothing that was said by the Prime Minister, who on 11 November displayed, properly and rightly, his devotion to his own religion in public, has justified choosing today for this debate. I take it as an offence to our ambitions for diversity in this country— sermon over.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a few words after the bravura performances from the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Carlile of Berriew.
I take a slightly different view. Before we get into the detail, we need to remember the purpose behind the Bill as seen across the country. First, the Bill is designed to stop the boats. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out that in fact the number of people crossing on the boats is increasing. That is probably because they realise that, if this is stopped, then they had better get here before that. Secondly, we need to remember that, in doing that, we are seeking to stop people drowning and dying in the channel. Thirdly, we are trying to break the economic model of the people smugglers. Fourthly, and most importantly, we are trying to ensure that people do not jump the queue, either because they are coming from countries which are safe or because they are economic migrants and are not in any way asylum seekers or refugees.
Whether the Bill will meet its objectives, of course I do not know. It may well be that “I told you so” will be a very frequent refrain a year from now. But I do know two things. First, it cannot make the situation worse. People will not go down to the beaches in Calais to come here because we pass this Bill. Secondly, at present it is the only game in town.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. Of course, he has very persuasive arguments; honeyed words which we have heard. I have heard them many times on Radio 4 and at other times, and congratulated him on them. He says that this will be a small amendment that does not really make any difference. I entirely accept what he says.
However, anybody who is going to vote for this tonight needs to think in their heart whether they are really seeking to improve the Bill or to impede it but not wreck it. They are engaged in what I might describe as a game of dragon’s teeth. The House will recall the mythological tale of Cadmus and the foundation of Thebes. He killed the dragon and planted the teeth on the ground. They had the fortunate aspect of springing up into fully fledged warriors. Each time they were struck down, more warriors came up in their place. Sometimes, when I hear speeches from around your Lordships’ House, behind all the obvious belief that comes with them, I think, “Hang on. Behind this is a wish not to let this Bill through at all. People are thinking, ‘We do not like the Bill, but we do not want to be put in the position where we are going to kill it’”.
It has particularly revolved around the issue of the judgment of the Supreme Court on whether Rwanda is a safe country. “Safe” is a big word and particularly a big word with the weight placed on it in this regard. It is entirely true that in very few cases are we entirely safe. I find myself wondering whether “judgment” is the right word or whether what the Supreme Court undertook was a risk assessment, which is a different approach.
Members of your Lordships’ House will probably be aware of the concept of assessor bias—that we are much more ready to put low risks on to problems with which we are familiar compared with those with which we are unfamiliar. In that sense maybe because we are familiar with the Government and the legal systems of, for example, France and Germany and western Europe and not with an African country, some additional risk may be placed and we need to consider that very carefully.
Let me make it clear that I am not in any way impugning the good faith of the Supreme Court. What I am saying is that the court’s risk assessment needs to be weighed and balanced against the other assessments and the undertakings given by my noble friend on the Front Bench—for which, by the way, the Government will be held responsible by Parliament. There are also third-party assessments, such as the Ibrahim Index of African Governance, which rates Rwanda 12th out of 54 African countries. I have said in past speeches that other third-party risk assessments give confidence to my support for this Bill.
My last question is for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, that he is looking forward to some commitments from them, if they are to form the next Government. I have said to some noble Lords that, when I am sitting here in a long, perhaps rather tedious, Committee, I think, “What great stars of stage and screen would be best portrayed by the great men and women who cover our Front Benches?” The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is, for me, Harrison Ford, slashing his way through the parliamentary undergrowth—and very effectively too. But it cannot disguise the lacuna at the centre of the Opposition’s position. Of course, now, with the polling, they will clearly be expecting—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am so grateful to the noble Lord for momentarily giving way. I think Isb speak for most of us on this side when I say that we understand that his comments are sincere and in no way a filibuster, but would he consider whether casting everyone in their Hollywood guises is an appropriate use of the House’s time this evening? Might he just focus on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, which very briefly and very simply requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report from a treaty and a monitoring committee of his own making? That is the amendment that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is addressing. Does addressing that really require the honeyed words and Technicolor that we are currently listening to?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry if I was not clear. I think I have spent some time discussing the issue of risk assessment and the way the risk is being weighed by various parties, various people and various bodies. This is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has arrived at: it is his assessment of where we are on the risk profile. I have said that I fully accept his position as being entirely genuine.
On the last point, we are now standing on the edge of a period of possible political change. I am sure that Members of the party opposite are hoping that they will be here next year and we will be over there. It is not unfair, in those circumstances, for us to ask the Opposition tonight, as we come to this very critical point—the point everyone agrees is critical—and for the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to tell us, if this Bill works, and they form the next Government, whether they intend to continue to use this Bill or if they would scrap it. If they would scrap it, the country is entitled to know. If they would continue to use it, then let us stop the dragon’s teeth, let us stop playing games, and let us get on, pass this Bill into law and make sure that what happens happens.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will dwell on the amendments before us. While I would love to stray into almost Second Reading speeches, like we have heard, on the state of the Bill as a whole, the issue before us are the very specific amendments that have been put down.
I want to say something about what the House of Commons has been doing. Other people have been calling this House the body that is responsible for delay. The delay is not caused by this House. We could have been dealing with this on other days earlier than this. It is at the choosing of the Government, in the other House, how this Bill plays through this House. Therefore, we cannot be accused of not doing our job properly, because that is what we are doing. It is the Government who have been slowing down the business of the Commons, for whatever reasons they feel are acceptable to them. This House is doing the proper job; certainly, we are with these amendments before us today, because the reasons we are debating and pressing these very important safeguards on this House and on this Parliament are so important.
We are asked to declare, in the Bill we are debating, that Rwanda is safe for refugees and asylum seekers. Yet, when asked when the policy on refoulement—the most principal policy that was pointed out by the Supreme Court—is to be put in place, the Government could not give any answer at all. I ask the Government tonight: what assurances can they give that the policy on refoulement, and the appropriate training and systems to support it, will be in place in the next 10 to 12 weeks? That 10 to 12 weeks is important, given the statement by the Prime Minister this morning.
A second protection, in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is for the future, since as the Bill stands it binds a Secretary of State in perpetuity.
I now turn, very briefly, to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I listened very carefully for repetition, which he asked us to do. It seemed to me that there was one very specific group of people who will not be subject to the concession called for by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. It will not work for people who have a justifiable claim and are, at this moment, outside the United Kingdom. That is a very specific group of people. Some of them in Pakistan are being threatened with being sent back to Afghanistan, based upon the experience of a Bill of a similar sort to the one we are debating tonight.
My belief—and, I hope, the belief of this House and, certainly, the belief of these Benches—is that, for those people who were allies, there must be a record somewhere. There must be a record, if they were an ally of ours. Somewhere they were employed by the British forces, or somewhere they were being paid for out of British funds. Somewhere they will be on a company record for supplying services to the United Kingdom’s forces. So it is the Government who will know who these people are, and they will know when an application comes before them, whether there is the prospect of success for them. What I did not hear tonight, and this House did not hear tonight, was a copper-bottomed guarantee that those people, seeking applications to come here from outside the United Kingdom, will not be sent to Rwanda either. That guarantee was not given, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, will reflect on that matter, when he comes to discuss this at the conclusion of this debate.
In conclusion, it seems to us on these Benches that, despite what we feel about this Bill—and I echo many, in fact all, of the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, because we have made them, and we made them a right at the beginning of the Bill at the appropriate time—now is the time for seeking amendments that actually safeguard critical groups of people and, most importantly, the critical role this Parliament plays. We are being asked to make a judgment. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, helps this Parliament make some brave and right choices—to be able to tell the truth about matters, rather than leaving it to fiction.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by saying straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, since he asked me what we would do, if—and I emphasise “if”—we win the next election: we will repeal the Bill. We have been quite clear about that, but that is not what we are debating this evening. We are debating the Bill that we have before us and, in particular, the two Motions A1 and B1.
I think it is important that we dispel some of the myths around the debate that has taken place today, started by the Prime Minister this morning in his press conference. He seemed to imply that the debate in this Chamber is between those who want to stop the boats and those who do not, whereas I have made the case continually, as every Member across this Chamber has done, that we all agree that we need to stop the boats; the dispute in this place is about exactly the right way to go about that and to do that. That is the important distinction that lies between us.
We believe that the Bill as it stands is inconsistent with the principles and traditions of our country and, as such, that is why we oppose it and the various arguments that have been made. Never have I stood at this Dispatch Box and at any time said to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, the Government Chief Whip or the Leader of the House that we will block the Bill. That has never been the policy of His Majesty’s Opposition, and never been something we have said from this Dispatch Box; indeed, we voted against a Motion that was put before us some weeks ago to do that. But we have also said that we would stand up for the proper position of this House. The proper role of this Chamber is to argue, to debate, to revise, to suggest amendments and to put forward that case. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I hope he is in a position, in a few months’ time, where he is stood here doing exactly the same as I am, and being as a frustrating and challenging as I am trying to be to him, because that is the proper role of the House of Lords. Therefore, it is important that we do that.
I cannot remember which noble Lord said this, but if the Government were as worried about the delay as they say they are, why on earth did they not sort all this out before Easter? All their own side were whipped to be here on a Monday after we debated on the Wednesday, only to have a further email go out to say they would no longer be required. That is how much of an emergency the legislation was. The Government could have cleared this before Easter, and yet they did not, presumably because the Prime Minister could not guarantee that everything was in order for the Bill to work. Let us not talk about the House of Lords delaying the legislation; let us look at the Government’s timetabling of their own business and their inability to get that right. Even today, the Government in a press conference to the lobby, as I understand it, could not give any detail of the numbers that they expect to be subject to the provisions of this treaty—the numbers of flights they expect or, indeed, the exact date when it will take place.
This has never been an argument about the integrity of this Chamber. I do not believe that there is a single Member of this Parliament, in the other place or this Chamber, or any of the journalists who report our proceedings, who does not have proper integrity. I would not have gone on the radio, as a Government Minister did this morning, and accused this House of bordering on racism in the way in which it debated the Rwanda treaty. That is a shocking and appalling comment to make. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, thinks, and I do not think that anyone in here has been bordering on racism in anything that they have said. I have heard detailed arguments and positions espoused by many, but nobody in here—or in the other place, or anybody who reports on these proceedings—has been anywhere near racist or racism. There is a legitimate difference of view, but we should not resort to those sorts of things being said.
I object also to what the Prime Minister did this morning, when he suggested that those of us who opposed the Rwanda Bill before us lacked compassion—that somehow there was anybody who was not opposed to the drownings or some of the appalling things that we see. Of course, we are all opposed to that—there is not a single individual in this Chamber, in the press or in the other place who does not abhor some of that which takes place. But that is the context in which we have been debating this issue.
We are quite right to turn to around and say that we should look at what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is saying, and what my noble friend Lord Browne is saying. But it is not just about Labour Peers. Again, the Prime Minister and other people have gone on saying, “Labour is blocking this—Labour Peers are blocking this”. We do not have a majority in here to block anything; we have to have the support of Cross-Benchers, Tory Peers abstaining or disappearing, as well as the Liberal Democrats voting with us and everybody else.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Sorry, I missed out the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It is like being at a wedding—you know that you are going to miss somebody out. You go through all the aunts and uncles and all the other relatives and you see the glower of Aunt Mabel from the back—not that that is you, Lady Jones! But seriously, that includes the Greens, of course. It is about all of us who believe that the Bill is wrong standing together. That is why it is important.
If the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, chooses to put his Motion A1 to the vote, of course we will support it and will be pleased to support it. It is a sensible amendment—it does not block the Bill; it simply says to the Government that they should let the monitoring committee that they themselves have set up talk to the Secretary of State, who can then make a Statement to Parliament saying that Rwanda is safe. That also gives the Government a get-out clause by saying that in future the Secretary of State, presumably on the advice of the monitoring committee, can say that Rwanda is not safe—whereas under the Bill at the moment, whatever happens, they are compelled to believe that it is safe. It is a perfectly sensible amendment.
I come to my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment. It is a meaningful concession on the part of the Government, and that is a really important statement to make. Let me say to all those who are listening that when people question why it is important sometimes that the Lords stands firm and challenges the Government of the day, whatever Government that is, and why it sometimes says to the Government, “You’ve got this wrong and you need to think again”—in this case, thanks to tenacious noble Lords and the brilliance of my noble friend Lord Browne in what he has done—the reason why it is important is because sometimes the Government give way. That is what has happened. If we had not pushed this last week, this concession would not have happened. If we had given way two months ago, it would not have happened.
So far from this being about the Lords blocking anything or delaying anything, it is the Lords performing its proper constitutional function and bringing about change from the Government. That is what it is about—and it has been done in a way that actually gets the Government themselves out of a bind. We know that many on the Government’s Back Benches and Front Benches, including many in this Chamber, thought that what the Prime Minister, one presumes, was saying was wrong, and they needed the Prime Minister to change his position. So the strength of what was proposed in this Chamber by my noble friend Lord Browne forced the Prime Minister—and we presume that he supports all this—to change his mind and come forward with that concession.
The concession that the Minister read out is significant and important, and it is something that my noble friend Lord Browne can be proud of. It may not be everything that everybody would want, but sometimes in politics you have to do what you can and achieve what you can. In the face of what my noble friend was facing—an absolute refusal by the Government to make any concession at all, with the Prime Minister standing in Downing Street and saying that he would not change a single word of the Bill—that has now been proved to be false, in the sense that my noble friend Lord Browne and your Lordships have changed the mind of the Government.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as ever, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively short debate. I will deal with the points in the order in which they were made, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, with whom I am afraid I am going to have to respectfully disagree. I do not believe that we have debased our principles; I believe that we have upheld them. We have upheld the principle of the integrity of our sovereign borders; the principle of not ceding our immigration policies to criminal gangs; the principle to safeguard lives and deter, of course, dangerous and illegal channel crossings. That is and always has been the point of the Bill and it deserves to be restated.
Going back to my opening remarks, things have progressed since we were last discussing these matters, and I shall repeat them for the record. On 19 April, the Rwandan Parliament passed its domestic legislation to implement its new asylum system. The new Rwandan asylum law will strengthen and streamline key aspects of the end-to-end asylum system—in particular, decision-making processes and associated appeals processes. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hodgson for reminding us of Rwanda’s high standing in international league tables. Things could not be clearer: there has been significant progress towards many of the things that the noble Lord was asking for. That includes, of course, the monitoring committee, and I will repeat this too. If the monitoring committee were to raise or escalate any issues to the joint committee where standing members of the joint committee are senior officials of the Government of the UK and the Government of Rwanda with responsibility for areas relating to the partnership or areas with a strong interest and relevance in this activity, the Government will of course listen. I remind noble Lords that it is up to the independent monitoring committee to raise issues at every point.
The future is not fantasy, as has been alleged. As is well known, the Government are satisfied that Rwanda is safe. We have acknowledged that we cannot predict what will happen in the future but, as I also set out, we can assure the House that we have already established the right mechanisms so, should a situation ever arise, the Government will respond as necessary. I repeat: this would include a range of options to respond to the circumstances, including any primary legislation as required. We do not regard this, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asserted, as inexplicable. We regard this amendment as unnecessary.
Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I am not going to get into the semantics of what this is or is not. What it actually is is the right thing to do. I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that his remarks seem to have missed the entire point of the Bill. The simple answer to his question is: “Do not come here illegally”. There will be no possible pull factors. There is a safe and legal route available to those in Afghanistan who have served and can prove their eligibility under ARAP, and over 15,000 people have already availed themselves of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, raised the issue of Passover, and I heard what he said. The start of Passover was considered and very much understood and we completely understand the noble Lord’s concerns, but, ultimately, scheduling decisions are made with a variety of different factors in mind. However, I hear what he said.
I will also go back to the fact that stopping the boats is not an idle boast; it is actually in the introduction to this very Bill. I repeat for the record:
“The purpose of this Act is to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes, by enabling the removal of persons to the Republic of Rwanda under provision made by or under the Immigration Acts”.
The purpose is not an idle boast; it is on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord German, referred to refoulement. This is from Article 10(3) of the treaty:
“No Relocated Individual (even if they do not make an application for asylum or humanitarian protection or whatever the outcome of their applications) shall be removed from Rwanda except to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 11(1)”.
The treaty needs to be ratified before the Bill comes into effect, so I say to the noble Lord that that is when we will see the provisions being acted upon.
As I said earlier, the Commons have considered and rejected these amendments four times now and, for the reasons I have set out, they are not necessary. We will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all the necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with their obligations under the treaty, including refoulement. We will not relocate people to Rwanda if circumstances which impact upon the safety of the country change. We will not turn our backs on those who supported our Armed Forces and the UK Government.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who I am going to struggle not to think of as Lord Indiana Jones from now on, that I obviously hope I am not in his place in a few months’ time, but of course I respect his right, which he frequently deploys, to make my life difficult—and he does. Seriously, illegal migration is costing billions of pounds and innocent lives are being lost. Bold, novel solutions are required and our partnership with Rwanda offers just that. Rwanda is a safe country that has proven, time and again, its ability to offer asylum seekers a safe haven and a chance to build a new life. I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, will he deal with one piece of nitty-gritty? Will he tell us a little more about the contract that apparently was reached with an airline?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
No, I will not. That is an operational matter; we are discussing the amendments in ping-pong.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to my Motion A1. Perhaps I may make two short points in response. First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who knows how much I appreciate the work he does in this House and its committees, that a vote for this amendment is not a vote for delay. It simply gives the Secretary of State a power to declare Rwanda safe, having consulted his monitoring committee. He could do that tomorrow if he had the evidence for it. If he does not have the evidence for it, how can he expect us to do it tonight?
Secondly, I thank the Minister for his measured response, not to mention the best laugh of the evening, and for the additional scrap of information concerning the Rwandan law, I assume the asylum law, that he says was passed on Friday. I am afraid that it is the first I have heard of that. I do not know how many of us in the House have had an opportunity to study that law. He knows that these scraps fall far short of the comprehensive picture that we would need if we were seriously to make our own judgement that Rwanda is safe and that the concerns identified by the Supreme Court and our own International Agreements Committee in great detail, only in January, have been satisfied.
In a less frenetic political environment, this common-sense amendment or something like it could, I am sure, have been hammered out between sensible people around a table. Sadly, that does not appear to be the world that we are in. I am afraid that I see no alternative to pressing Motion A1 and testing the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10F, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10G.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Parents: Separation
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support parents considering separation, and to promote early resolution of private family law arrangements.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords contributing to what I consider an important debate this evening. I will not soft-pedal why we are discussing these issues: parental separation is an enormous and egregious problem, the scale and ramifications of which few seem ready to acknowledge. Parental separation is a recognised adverse childhood experience; by the time British children turn 14 years old, 46% no longer live with both their natural parents. Family breakdown is a major risk factor for children and young people’s poor mental health. Children who experience it are significantly more prone to anxiety and depression. Research from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience also found greater susceptibility to severe mental illness such as schizophrenia. The IFS’s Deaton review on inequality reported that between 1971 and 2019 the percentage of births outside marriage ballooned from 8% to 48%: half of all births take place in inherently less stable, cohabitating couple families, or to parents living apart from the outset. Professor Matthew Goodwin drily comments:
“Britain is now … giving Europe a masterclass in … ‘non-partnered motherhood’—namely, women who give birth with no partner at all”.
In the rest of Europe, 5% or fewer of mothers are in this position, but in Britain and the United States that figure is 15%, so a growing number of children have never experienced life with both their parents. Many then endure multiple transitions, where step-parent figures come and go, further compounding their sense that relationships are fundamentally unreliable or worse. Children living with father substitutes are eight times more likely to be on the at-risk register and 50 times more likely to die of an inflicted injury than those living with two biological parents. Centre for Social Justice research found that they are also twice as likely to get involved in crime. Some 75% of young offenders did not grow up with both parents, and 40% experienced abuse or neglect.
Adults are also deeply and detrimentally affected by family breakdown: it is often a gateway to poverty, loneliness, mental ill-health problems and domestic violence from informal partners. Kiernan and Estaugh’s research found that women are more likely to be physically abused, assaulted during pregnancy and seriously injured by live-in boyfriends than by husbands.
Professor Jan Walker’s research found that many wished they had been warned of the harsh realities of post-separation life. There is no information about sources of support on the online divorce system, and emails from it mention neither mediation nor options for help in agreeing child arrangements. Could the online divorce process signpost people to such support? Moreover, in this age of graduated smoking bans and online regulation to reduce well-evidenced harms, should we not point people to research-based information about how divorce is rarely the end of a painful process but the beginning of a new one, especially for their children?
Family instability is the social trend of the last half century. It gets almost no airtime in government yet is a major contributor to our housing and loneliness crises, among others—massive societal harms exacting huge costs on the taxpayer. Matthew Goodwin again calls out the hypocrisy of elites who are, he says,
“by far … the most likely to get married, have children in marriage, and then stay married”.
Yet they
“downplay the importance of stable families, encourage others to lead ‘fluid’, ‘individual’, and ‘diverse’ lives, and deride anybody who points to the importance of marriage and family as right-wing reactionaries who want to return to the 1950s”.
Their “Do as I say but not as I do” is a classic “luxury belief”, an idea aggressively promoted to bolster their own standing, despite the harms and costs entailed, but which they do not personally pursue.
Sadly, our own Government have undermined the value of commitment in hard times by introducing no-fault divorce to reduce conflict over what was on the divorce petition. However, the reality is that this source of conflict pales alongside that over money and children, and everything else that has to be negotiated when one household becomes two. The interminable wrangling over such issues fuels the immense backlog of well over 100,000 family court cases and the average 45-week wait for private family law cases involving children, despite the Government’s target of 26 weeks. Allegedly, in some areas it is over 60 weeks. All the time conflict, unhappiness and eye-watering costs grow: last year Cafcass alone cost almost £150 million. May I ask the Minister the total costs for that year for family courts and the family justice system? They do not seem to be published.
Our family courts are vital but should be the place of last resort. Before then, every proper assistance should be given to couples, as the Lord Chancellor said during the passage of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act. His commitment was that
“as a Government, we will work harder … to bring together the strands of policy that sit with various Departments and to ensure that we have a family policy that is fit for the 2020s”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/20; col. 902.]
The vehicle for doing that now is the growing number of family hubs in around 100 of 150 local authorities. I declare my interest as a guarantor of FHN Holding, the not-for-profit owner of the Family Hubs Network Ltd. Family hub networks include and build on Sure Start’s vital early years work. They bring together all the family support in an area for parents with older children and those with special needs.
The independent review of children’s social care and the Children’s Commissioner emphasise the need for integrated, community-based family support in family hubs. Moreover, historically, Michael Young, Labour architect of the welfare state, knew that struggling parents needed support. The Second World War had a long tail of effect on families, particularly the emotional cost of high levels of divorce and separation from parents—trends that have of course continued, as I have already outlined. Family centres were legislated for in the Children Act 1989; Sure Start children’s centres were the first step, and family hubs are the next iteration. However, much remains to do, extending way beyond the next election, for hubs to fulfil their transformational potential.
Since 2006, Australian family relationship centres have successfully signposted families away from the courts by providing mediation and focused guidance. A key message from the academic evaluation was that their work would be greatly enhanced by collocating or integrating help with housing, debt and other support that families need at times of transition. In other words, they would be greatly improved by being part of a family hub network—and our family hubs would be greatly improved if they included an offer akin to that of the Australian family relationship centres.
The March Budget promised £55 million for family courts, including money to support families through non-court dispute resolution. Ministry of Justice documents on earlier resolution of private family law arrangements prominently feature family hubs. Minimum expectations for all government-funded family hubs by March 2025 require support for reducing parental conflict and information for separating or separated parents.
Pioneering local authorities, such as Rochdale, already include evidence-based programmes for parenting when separated, and the Family Solutions Group has a pilot-ready model to further enhance such provision. Even in cases that must go before a judge, much could be achieved during pauses between stages by drawing on services in family hubs that help address entrenched relational difficulties, such as post-separation parenting programmes and support for their children. I ask the Minister again: will the Government fund such pilots and encourage family courts to work closely with hubs?
In conclusion, I have highlighted that family breakdown is the elephant in the room of many social policy problems. Family hubs are well-positioned to prevent and mitigate its considerable harms through early intervention and support. We must now build on the good foundations that the Government have laid in their family hubs programme, and maximise their potential in this vital area.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on securing this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow him.
I have been involved in this area in various guises since my time as chief executive of Relate, as a former chair of Cafcass, and as chair of the Lords Select Committee conducting post-legislation scrutiny on the Children and Families Act 2014. As I prepared for this debate, I also reflected on my time, a few years back, as chair of the Kids in the Middle coalition of children and families charities and agony aunts, which campaigned for better support for separating families and, in particular, children caught up in parental conflict. In its day, the coalition had direct access to Prime Ministers and Secretaries of States of various hues.
My starting point in these debates has always been the need to provide more support to children embroiled, through no fault of their own, in the middle of serious and damaging parental conflict, and the pressing need for a stronger voice for children in the family courts. We know, and have already heard, that the quality of the interparental relationship has a key impact on children’s long-term mental health and future life chances—in other words, this all really matters.
The majority of separating parents come to an agreement on their own, or with minimal help from relatives and others. Only a minority need extra help, either to come to an agreement outside of court or through the family courts, but there is widespread agreement that this process is just not working properly. Far too many parents find themselves caught up in lengthy court proceedings, which are costly both to them and to the state, and which have a damaging effect on their children.
At a time when the family courts and the judiciary are suffering from a lack of resources and huge backlogs, and as the Government rightly looks to divert family matters away from court where that is safe and possible, I am convinced that early legal advice is critical. It helps people understand their legal rights and responsibilities, and understand where court is inappropriate. Conversely, a lack of clear information and guidance means that opportunities are being missed to resolve arrangements for children earlier. We must move away from a situation where the court is still too often seen as the first port of call and towards it becoming regarded as the last resort.
Respondents to the Government’s consultation last year on supporting earlier resolution of private family law arrangements pointed to a lack of early information and advice leading to disputes escalating, with individuals applying to court without a proper understanding of alternative ways to resolve disagreements, or of the court process. This was also the conclusion of the Select Committee reviewing the Children and Families Act. We argued strongly for the need for early legal advice, as many others have. It is far better to help couples make informed choices to find the route that gives them the best chance of reaching constructive and lasting outcomes on key issues such as family finances and the arrangements made for children. This may be a non-court based approach—sometimes mediation but sometimes other forms of dispute resolution, such as arbitration, collaborative law, solicitor negotiation or therapeutic mediation.
I am also strongly of the view that there should be earlier, easier and possibly even statutory access to co- parenting programmes before an application to court can be made, unless it is not safe to do so. While a co-parenting programme and a MIAM—a mediation, information and assessment meeting—are clearly different, I do not really see why only one, the latter, is compulsory before an application can be made. I was totally persuaded of their value, having sat in on several such separating parent programmes with separating parents present; they pretty much saw the scales falling from their eyes, along with some tears, as they started to understand the impact that their high-conflict behaviour was having on their children. Indeed, I remember one family judge telling me that these should be showing on a permanent loop in the entrance to all family courts. Will the Minister update me on what is happening on both in-court and pre-court parenting programmes?
Mediation can of course help to divert cases from court, helping parties to reach settlement and limiting the burden on court time. However, in some cases mediation is not appropriate. Some couples have genuinely intractable disagreements which require court intervention to settle. I have always been concerned with the Government’s single focus on mediation as a way of reducing the backlog. It sometimes seems as if that is to the exclusion of all other forms of dispute resolution.
My Select Committee, after looking at all the evidence received, was clear that MIAMs had sometimes been ineffective and had low take-up. We concluded that the single focus on mediation, combined with no requirement for the respondent to attend, sometimes coupled with the perception of MIAMs as a form of relationship counselling, had hampered their success. Instead, we felt that many couples would benefit from a source of clear, impartial information on separation, and, if necessary, general legal advice, which could direct them to non-court or court-based resolutions as appropriate.
In our report, we urged the Government to reconsider their proposals to make mediation effectively obligatory. Instead, we recommended that MIAMs and the mediation voucher scheme be replaced by a universal voucher scheme for a general advice appointment, at which point individuals can be signposted to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, which could of course include mediation. We were particularly swayed in our view by the evidence of the former President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, and the current President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, who both argued compellingly that mediation was not the only non-court solution. Who knows better than them?
We also recommended that the Government urgently evaluate the impact of the removal of legal aid from most private family law cases, considering where reinstating legal aid could help improve the efficiency and quality of the family justice system. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, and I were very grateful to the Minister for meeting us last March so that we could explain our proposals to him.
Obviously, quite a bit has happened since then, including the Government’s consultation and the subsequent package of measures in their reform programme announced in January this year. We have also had Resolution’s Vision for Family Justice. Most of this I welcome, particularly the focus on helping families to resolve their disputes earlier and without needing to go to court. But I still feel that our central conclusion was the right one: mediation is not helpful or appropriate in all cases; compulsion, in my experience, rarely leads to a good and sustainable outcome; and there are other forms of dispute resolution which will be more appropriate for some. In short, I simply do not believe that a one-size-fits-all approach works. What would make a real difference, I think, is publicly funded early legal advice.
I strongly believe that the private family law system, for those who still need to come to court, should be more investigative and less adversarial, placing the voice of the child at the heart of proceedings and providing additional support for those parents and carers who need it most. Thus I welcome the fact that, in 2022, the Ministry of Justice began piloting a more investigative approach to private law proceedings, in Devon and North Wales. I am encouraged to read that the initial feedback from the pilots suggests that the child impact report helps to focus the proceeding on the needs of the child, allowing the court to focus on the core issues for the child and their welfare, rather than the wider disputes between the parties. To me, that is the very nub of the matter.
Can the Minister give a brief update on the progress of the private law pathfinder models that I have just referred to, as well as on the proposed early legal advice pilot for separating parents, which I know were contained in the reform package? I do not think that they have started yet, but he might be able to correct me on that.
Finally, I want to mention the very important role of family hubs, to which the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, referred. They can have an important role to play, providing good signposting to relationship support and other sources of information and support for separating families. Indeed, I know that some in the sector are calling for family hubs to play an enhanced role in initial triage, with the hub, in essence, becoming the standard first port of call. I for one feel that we should be keeping an open mind on that.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for calling this debate. I am quite disappointed that so few people are here to speak on such an important issue.
I welcome the Government’s reform to help families resolve disputes faster and protect children from lengthy court cases. The programme of measures allowing separating parents to get information, support and early legal advice will no doubt help parents reach an amicable settlement without going to court. It will also alleviate pressure on family courts and free up time for families who really need the court’s intervention.
One of the most pressing issues facing separating families is the time it takes from when the application is lodged to the first hearing and the subsequent proceedings. Not only are lengthy proceedings detrimental to parents’ relationships but they deeply affect children. Research has consistently shown that children suffer profoundly when their parents’ relationship breaks down. Responsible parents will try to ensure the healthy development of their children, which includes regular contact with both parents and their extended families. Sadly, this is not always the case, and the longer the proceedings, the greater the likelihood of parents becoming entrenched in their position, often egged on by their lawyers, who focus on “winning” rather than resolving the case quickly.
As tensions rise, some parents will, consciously or not, transfer their anger and resentment on to the child. Those children will thus find themselves caught in the middle of an ongoing war between the two people they love and need most. Most children will seek the road of least resistance, and rather than face the consequences of speaking out they will simply become the mouthpiece of that parent.
The process of turning a child against the other parent can happen particularly quickly if the non-resident parent is denied or has limited access to the child. I speak from experience: it took only three and a half months under the father’s exclusive control for my eldest son, aged nine, to greet me with kicks and punches the first time he saw me again in a German court. It is therefore essential that children’s fundamental right to maintain a relationship with both parents is maintained—barring exceptional circumstances, of course, but I am not talking about those.
The longer the non-resident parent is absent, the more the damage to the relationship. Can the Minister therefore consider introducing a time-limit requirement for dealing with family court proceedings similar to the statutory limit of 26 weeks for public case proceedings? Would he consider providing clear guidance on court-ordered interim contact, even if it needs to be supervised to counter the negative effect of delay?
It is also clear that all adults, whether female or male, who are victims of domestic abuse must be protected by law. All claims must be considered, particularly as some can be life-threatening for the victims and even for their children. I applaud the work that has been done not only to highlight this issue but to ensure better protection for victims, many of whom live in fear for their lives.
Fifteen years ago, domestic abuse was raised in only a minority of cases. Today, it is raised in 80% of them. Clearly, these claims lead to lengthy proceedings and to the involvement of the police as well as other agencies, but they also lead to more children finding themselves caught in the middle of serious allegations and counterallegations concerning their parents. Does the Minister believe that this is the result of a more violent society, or is it the positive reflection of victims feeling that they can finally be protected? Might some of those claims be the consequence of the LASPO Act 2012, which removed the right to legal aid in family courts unless there was an allegation of domestic abuse? Or is it simply due to a lack of sanction for making false allegations, which may have become a tactic to deny contact to the non-resident parent? Can the Minister tell the House whether the pathfinder project has resulted in accusations of domestic abuse being dealt with promptly, thus avoiding further trauma to the victims, and whether the pathfinding hearings, in which parents are pitted against each other, have put children under undue pressure?
Cafcass officers are experienced in recognising whether a child’s view is genuine, but can the Minister tell the House whether family court judges have received proper training to recognise whether the “voice of a child” is truly his or hers, and not the result of pressure from one of their parents?
The truth is that children are not necessarily best placed to speak about what is in their best interests. Some will not be able to express their own views, either because they have been coerced, or because they feel guilty, or because they are scared of the consequences of speaking out, while others will be so indoctrinated that they may genuinely believe that they were, for example, sexually abused. While I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to safeguarding the well-being of children caught in the crossfire of parental discord, I want to put it on the record that parental alienation—the coercive control of children by one parent against the other—does exist. I have raised this in the House several times, and I am not alone in doing so.
Children are vulnerable and can easily be used as weapons, whether by a mother or by a father. Some do so subconsciously, but others do so for their own interest, while it is actually and ultimately the child who pays the price.
I know what I am talking about; I have lived through this experience. Through the charity I have run, I have seen many cases and the long-term consequences on children who have been affected. So please listen to what I have to say, not only to others who think they know best but who feel that it is a vendetta of men versus women. This is about children.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for bringing this debate on this important matter. As I hope noble Lords will know, the Archbishops’ Commission on Families and Households—with which I know the noble Lord was engaged—looked at this subject closely. It is out of this commission that I want to speak this evening. During the commission’s work, the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act became law. Opportunities could be taken through that legislation to ensure that couples separating and considering separating—and their children—are made aware of all the support that could be available to them. Surely this is an area in which pastoral concern must feature heavily, both in our policy-making and in our application of legislation and guidance.
As the Family Justice Review found more than a decade ago, too many families whose relationships disintegrate end up in the court system. While the creation of a single unitary family court was a step in the right direction, there is still much work to do, not least in reducing delays in the family courts. As we have heard, the removal of legal aid for separating couples, except where there are allegations of domestic abuse or where a child is at risk, means that couples may not receive the advice and support they need. The continued availability of family mediation vouchers is welcome but is not necessarily a substitute for the vital legal aid that could be in place.
There is much to be affirmed in the Government’s ambitious package of reforms announced earlier this year, many of which reflect the commission’s recommendations. We hope the enhanced focus on conflict resolution and children’s welfare will enable separating families to access the right information at the right time. Piloting the funding of early legal advice for parents—to help them understand the options available and how to access professional support, and encourage them to reach agreements amicably—is especially welcome.
Despite the high divorce and separation rate, there remains a taboo around relationship breakdown. Such a situation—divorce and separation—is never easy, and we trust that it would not be the first resort for any couple experiencing relationship difficulties. For some, the introduction of no-fault divorce has ended their need as separating couples to apportion blame for the breakdown of their marriage or partnership. This has the potential to reduce animosity and increase the chances of more amicable discussions, particularly around future arrangements for children.
By approaching this subject with openness and providing appropriate support, we may perhaps save relationships, as well as softening the impact for anyone in families where relationships do end in separation. As we have heard again this evening, when parental separation does not occur amicably, the negative effects of continued conflict on children can last a lifetime.
I will draw my brief remarks together this evening by focusing on just one of the commission’s recommendations: that children whose parents are separating need clear, age-appropriate information about the process and to be kept informed throughout. The commission heard that they do not want to be kept in the dark. The evidence is clear that children and young people welcome the opportunity to have their voices heard during the divorce process. The commission also heard from children whose parents have separated that the processes for them should have been—and that their desire for children in the future is that the processes are—transparent, informative, respectful, inclusive, safe and child friendly.
What are the Government doing to monitor how changes in legislation and process are enabling those outcomes for children caught up in this? How are we monitoring that children have access to information that enables the processes in which their families are involved to be transparent, age-appropriately informative, respectful, inclusive and safe? The extension of pathfinder courts may be one example of how this can be done, working with adults and children in a multiagency approach, but what else might work in different circumstances?
Surely the best interests and well-being of children are paramount. I encourage the Government to continue their focus on this important area and consider ways of supporting all involved—particularly the children—through this difficult life transition.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in the gap having heard what has been a powerful and interesting debate—short on numbers but strong on substance. I have a very narrow point to make. On the general debate, the connection between cause and effect is very difficult to establish in this sort of environment. You cannot undertake research with controlled trials; you do not know what the counterfactual is. So one should not leap to conclusions about cause and effect.
As I said, my point is very narrow. It is on pensions. Part of the process is a straightforward and pain-free process of reaching a financial settlement that does not lead to more pain than is required. The law is clear on pension-sharing on divorce but, in practice, it is not implemented to the extent required, because of lack of knowledge and the complications involved.
More work is required to simplify the process. I know that the Institute of Actuaries, of which I am a member, is undertaking work in this area. While we have this opportunity, I stress to the Minister that this is one of the issues that need to be clarified as part of the process of making the resolution of family difficulties as straightforward and pain-free as possible.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for tabling this short debate. As my noble friend Lord Davies said, it has been a very interesting and well-informed debate. Secondly, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for facilitating my recent visit to Bournemouth, where I saw the pathfinder project in action. I remind noble Lords that I sit as a family magistrate, a youth magistrate and an adult magistrate.
The family court system has experienced large case backlogs, delays and issues with judicial capacity for several years now. This includes delays for families and children involved in private law disputes. According to the Government’s latest family court statistics, there were 12,566 new private law applications made to court under the Children Act 1989 in October to December 2023. This was a decrease of 1% when compared to the equivalent quarter of 2022. These new applications involved 18,758 children and it took an average of 46 weeks for private law cases to be closed during this quarter. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, said: this should be reduced to the public law limit of 26 weeks. That, of course, is a desirable aspiration.
The Government’s LASPO Act signalled the death-knell for family mediation. In 2012-13, there were 31,000 mediation assessment meetings and 14,000 mediation starts. By 2016-17, those figures had fallen to 13,000 and 7,700, which are reductions of 61% and 44% respectively. In 2021, cuts to legal aid led to more people representing themselves in the family courts. From 2013 to 2020, the percentage of cases where neither party had a legal representative almost trebled, increasing from 13% to 36%.
Before applying to court, parents are legally required by the Children and Families Act 2014 to prove that they have considered mediation. Parents can prove this either by demonstrating they have attended a mediation information assessment meeting, or MIAM, with a family mediator, or by showing the court they are exempt from mediation—for example, where domestic violence is involved. It is widely known that long-term conflict between separating parents can have a devastating impact on children’s well-being. The trauma has been linked to increased rates of anxiety, aggression and depression, and other serious consequences.
In January 2024, the Government announced new measures to seek to protect children from the impact of lengthy courtroom battles and had a consultation on their proposals. The consultation respondents said that a lack of free legal advice on family law was a barrier to early dispute resolution. To address this, the Government set out various actions they were taking to ensure that the court process remained a last resort when family disputes arose. This included launching a free family law legal advice pilot in specific regions of England and Wales by this summer, 2024, to see if this could assist families to resolve their disputes earlier. The legal advice pilot will be launched to help families agree child arrangements as quickly as possible, addressing barriers to early resolution. I hope the Minister will be able to update us on when this pilot is going to start.
There is also work with Cafcass, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, to help more families undertake in-court parenting programmes earlier in the court process, as well as making pre-court parenting programmes the norm for families trying to reach an agreement over child arrangements. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, spoke to these alternative approaches, in what was a very well informed contribution to the debate.
The role that mediators can play would be bolstered through improved domestic abuse screening and advanced DBS checks, meaning they have the right to vetting and can support children earlier in the process. This, alongside the existing mediation voucher scheme, which has already helped nearly 25,000 families, will mean more couples can resolve their issues without ever reaching court. I ask the Minister for an update on the voucher scheme and for his response to the proposal by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and her committee to have a wider range of courses which may be accessed through the voucher scheme. Again, I thought that was an imaginative proposal which needs serious consideration.
The Government stated that, for those who end up going through the court process, there has been the Pathfinder pilot scheme, which, as I mentioned, I visited in Bournemouth. I know it is being rolled out further, in Cardiff and Birmingham. It will be very interesting to see how beneficial it is in Birmingham, which is perhaps the most analogous city to London, if the rollout is to go further. I have some statistics from my recent visit to Bournemouth, and I have to say that they are very impressive. They show a large drop in the number of fact-finding hearings between 2022 and 2023. They show a large drop in the number of court reviews, Cafcass reviews and returns, which is where the arrangements break down and the matter comes back to court. The message I got from my visit to the Bournemouth court was that, by Cafcass doing its work early and getting the voice of the child in the report early, it speeds up the whole process. Speeding up the process means that the arrangements are more likely to stick and to be sustainable. The Government have obviously seen the same statistics, and it is right that they are rolling this out. Cafcass really bears the brunt of this improved process, and I hope that there will be money available for it for this process to be rolled out further.
I turn to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I recognise the work that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has done on family hubs. That is welcome in as far as it goes, and I listened with great interest to what he said.
I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who has great experience—I would say unparalleled in this House—on these matters. She spoke about seeing scales fall from the eyes of parents when she sat in on various programs. I think it must have been a separated parents information program—she is nodding her head. I have done that program as well; it was part of my original training. I have to say that, although I have seen and heard about the same thing, unfortunately what I see in court is where it has not worked, and the battle lines are more entrenched. Although we try to break down those battle lines, nevertheless some couples, unfortunately, want to fight their battles in the court. I recognise the point she made about the influence of Sir James Munby and Sir Andrew McFarlane, and how they want to try to keep private law cases resolved outside court where possible. That is very often a better way.
I remember the speech the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, gave a number of years ago during the passage of the then Domestic Abuse Bill and her very compelling advocacy for the importance of parental alienation. I have to be frank here. I hear these accusations in court fairly regularly, and as a lay magistrate I send them up to a higher level of judiciary. This is a fraught and very difficult subject. It needs to be handled with a great deal of care, and—I will use the word—a little scepticism. I can see the noble Baroness shaking her head, but we have these allegations made fairly frequently and we have to find an appropriate way of dealing with them.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby spoke about the Church of England Commission. One recommendation she spoke about was the need for child-appropriate information to be made available. I do not know whether she is aware, but Cafcass runs a children’s group which informs children going through the process. They are extremely impressive young people; they have presented to family magistrates more than once. It is a very good way of informing children, by other children who have been through the process.
This has been an interesting debate. My noble friend Lord Davies raised an interesting point on pensions. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions raised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, few subjects can be more important than the one we are discussing this evening, and I rather doubt my ability to do justice to everything that has been said in the 12 minutes allotted to me. I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for his opening remarks and for securing this debate, and all noble Lords who have spoken. I think we are all agreed that family separation can be extremely stressful and very damaging to the children, particularly if there is a prolonged period of lack of contact, as my noble friend Lady Meyer pointed out. In those circumstances, the Government are actively supporting, and improving support, for parents considering separation, and are adopting a number of measures to promote early resolutions.
The best approach is probably if I update the House on what we are actually doing, following our response published on 26 January to our earlier consultation on early resolution of family disputes. What the Ministry of Justice is doing, of course, is in addition to other work across government, including the rollout of family hubs. Again, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Farmer in this respect. Family hubs are led by the Department for Education. There is also funding from the Department for Work and Pensions for local authorities to deliver the Reducing Parental Conflict programme.
The House will have heard in the recent Budget that the Ministry of Justice has been awarded a further investment of £55 million, specifically for the family courts. That comes, basically, in three buckets—if I may say so. The first is one that a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, have mentioned. I pay tribute to her, not only for her distinguished past as a former chair of Cafcass and in other respects, but for the post-legislative scrutiny carried out in relation to the 2014 Act, from which we have all greatly profited. However, the three buckets are, first, greatly improved, facilitated, targeted online guidance and information, so parents know where to go and can find out, at a very early stage, all the sources of support out there. There are quite a lot of sources of support, but no one can find them or knows about them—they are not joined up. The first part of the funding will be for a new online resource that will serve as a trusted and accessible source of authoritative information, relevant to the needs of the family and the needs of the parents, providing options—which will include mediation, but not only that because there are other forms of dispute resolution away from court—with the support of guidance and expert organisations in the third sector.
To deal specifically with one of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Farmer, I say that I am quite sure that links between this programme and the family hubs will be an important aspect of it—family hubs among other means of support. Indeed, if the present process for online divorce does not refer people across to the appropriate support facilities, then it should. That is another very important area, and I am very grateful to noble Lords for drawing our attention to it. Specifically, just as we have been discussing in another context a child-friendly version of the victims’ code, I would have thought that a child-friendly part of this newly available information was a specific emphasis on how we keep children informed, not only about what is happening in their case, but the general availability of support for them. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby suggested, I am sure that would also be important.
I am hoping that this will be a major step forward in how we intervene as early as we can in family disputes, combining it, as I say, with the DWP’s Reducing Parental Conflict programme, the family hubs and other programmes that a number of local authorities are already running to support separating couples—or, indeed, couples who have not yet separated but who are going through a difficult patch, which is to go back to an even earlier stage.
We are championing the family hubs that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has been such a keen advocate of. There is around £300 million to develop family hubs in 75 upper-tier local authorities. There are now around 400 family hubs altogether, and there is further support for opening further family hubs in another 13 local authorities. That is an ongoing programme, and I hope that it will come to full fruition, in collaboration with the kinds of things that I am trying to explain from the point of view of the Ministry of Justice.
In addition, the second bucket of our new funding is indeed to tackle this point about early legal advice, which is so important and was raised by the post-legislative scrutiny committee and a number of others. What we are doing is piloting; government being what it is, you have to pilot these things these days—you cannot go straight towards just doing it. It is important to learn from the pilot how to do things. I shall come back to that point in the pathfinder context.
The purpose at the moment is to expand, with the additional money that we now have, a pilot for early family legal advice, probably initially in six areas. As noble Lords probably remember, we have 43 areas across the country that have a designated family judge in charge. We can now go to six areas initially; the details are being worked out, but I am hoping that this will be up and running by the autumn. By September we should have something in place. It will be very important, among other things, to promote it and make sure that people know that it is there and that they can access it easily. We had a pilot in the ministry a couple of years ago with support in family housing, which did not work because nobody knew that it was there so nobody used it. It was in Middlesbrough, and possibly Manchester, but it was not successful, so I am very conscious that we have to sell this as well as establish it, and those details are being worked through at the moment.
That is early legal advice. Then there is the diversion when people have had early legal advice, which may lead to more referrals to mediation, or other forms of court dispute resolution. We are continuing to support the voucher scheme for mediation; that demand has been strong, with 27,000 families so far, and has cost £23 million or so. By March 2025, we think that 44,000 families will have used the scheme, so that will continue to support mediation—and, at the same time, we are working closely with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to make the mediation information and assessment meeting, which has been mentioned, more effective. The new rules come into force on 29 April, next Monday. I hope that that will prevent MIAM from being, as it had become in some areas, a tick-box exercise.
Ah, the lights have gone out; I must have said something very controversial. I still have enough light to carry on.
That provision is proceeding, as are pathfinder courts. We of course support Cafcass, but those courts focus on the voice of the child. We have an early child impact report, we have support from domestic abuse agencies, we have a case progression officer and we have other things. It has been notably successful in reducing strife and the Government’s intention now is no longer a pilot, it is a project, and we are going to roll it out across the country. We have done Dorset and north Wales, we are doing Birmingham and Cardiff, but I am pressing very hard for a plan so that we change it across the whole country over the next year or so. My Whip is telling me to sit down, although I am trying enthusiastically to carry on. I will write to those noble Lords whose questions I have not been able to answer in the very limited time I have.
The President of the Family Division describes the pathfinder as the most important change in private family law that we have had for a generation, and that is going to be a very good thing and the right note to end on.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we will now adjourn again to wait for a message on the Rwanda Bill. We will resume at a time to be shown on the Annunciator.
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Monday 22nd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 22 April 2024 - (22 Apr 2024)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3J, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3K.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, this Bill has now been scrutinised a number of times. The Government have rejected this amendment several times, so we must now accept the will of the elected House, bring the debate on this last amendment to an end and get this Bill on to the statute book. Having now debated this issue on so many occasions, I will not repeat the same arguments but reiterate a few key points. The Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, which is when the parties have completed their internal procedures. We will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty.
I have set out the steps that have been taken to be ready for the treaty to be ratified, and I will remind noble Lords once again of the most recent step. Last Friday, 19 April, the Rwandan Parliament passed its domestic legislation to implement the new asylum system. Rwanda has a proven track record of working constructively with domestic and international partners, including the UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration and other non-government organisations to process and support asylum seekers and the refugee population. As I have already set out this evening, the Government are satisfied that Rwanda is safe and has the right mechanisms in place should a situation ever arise that would change that view. The Government will respond as necessary, and this will include a range of options to respond to the circumstances, including any primary legislation if required.
The monitoring committee will undertake daily monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months to ensure rapid identification of, and response to, any issues. This enhanced phase will ensure that comprehensive monitoring and reporting take place in real time. During the period of enhanced monitoring, the monitoring committee will report to the joint committee in accordance with an agreed action plan to include weekly and biweekly reporting, as required. The implementation of these provisions in practice will be kept under review by the independent monitoring committee, whose role was enhanced by the treaty, which will ensure compliance. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 3J in my name turned out to be the last one standing. Perhaps I may say just a few words at its funeral. It was not much, perhaps, compared with some of those amendments that had already been defeated. Indeed, it survived so long under the guidance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who I am delighted to see back in his place, precisely because it was so modest and unthreatening to the Government’s policy. But it at least touched on a central disease of this Bill and perhaps of our body politic more generally: the imputation of decisions to Parliament to reduce the possibilities for challenge and the pretence that by asserting something to be true, even in the teeth of the evidence, one can not only make it true but keep it true for ever.
Many people, some of them perhaps still watching even now, will have wished us to keep on fighting, but without the threat of double insistence—which remains part of our constitutional armoury, but which did not command the necessary political support on this occasion—there would have been no point in doing so. The purpose of ping-pong is to persuade the Government, through force of argument, to come to the table and agree a compromise. They have refused pointedly to do so, and after four rounds of ping-pong, their control of the Commons remains as solid as ever.
The time has now come to acknowledge the primacy of the elected House and to withdraw from the fray. We do so secure at least in the knowledge that the so-called judgment of Parliament was not the judgment of this House, and that we tried our hardest to achieve something a little more sensible. We must take comfort from such assurances as the Minister has been able to give and hold the Government to them. This is the Government’s Bill, resolutely free of any outside influence. As a patriot, I can only hope—though I am afraid, without much optimism—that it will bring benefits, in some way, commensurate to its real and painful cost.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with a heavy heart, given the lack of further amendment, to this dreadful, international law-busting Bill. I note that in the other place, the SNP twice used procedural Motions to delay it by 15 minutes each time. I applaud them for that, and I am not going to take up the same length, but I am going to take a moment to mark this historic occasion.
Your Lordships’ House has put a lot of work into trying to make the Bill comply with international law, with basic moral laws and with the principles of justice and fairness. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, earlier today said:
“Its costs will be measured not only in money but in principles debased—disregard for our international commitments, avoiding statutory protections for the vulnerable, and the removal of judicial scrutiny”.
Nothing has changed in the Bill in the last few hours.
I note that Amnesty International this evening warned airline companies that many members of the public take an extremely negative view of the content of the policy. Those were really unnecessary words, because no company of any repute whatsoever is going to take part in implementing this dreadful policy. That is a measure of the Bill and the disgraceful, despicable actions it represents.
I am disappointed to see the almost empty Benches around me. I note that the Liberal Democrat Benches are here, having played their part in trying to stop the Bill at Second Reading, and I commend them for that action that the Green group supported. They are still here to the bitter end.
We heard from the Minister, we will hear tonight, and no doubt will keep hearing in the coming days that “Well, we’re the unelected House”. That does not mean that this House is without moral or legal responsibilities. I have asked the House a number of times: if not now, when? What will it take to make this House say, “Here we take a stand”?
We have had the abomination of the Elections Act, the elements of a policing Act that targeted Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people explicitly. We have had multiple indefensible restrictions on the right to protest. Now, we are letting through an attack on some of the most vulnerable, desperate people on this planet. What more will we let through? I suggest to noble Lords as they leave this Chamber tonight to ask themselves that question.
With a desperate, flailing government party bereft of ideas and philosophy and without principles, this House will keep being tested. I ask these empty Benches: you might be waiting for an election, but what kind of a country will it be if you do not stand up now?
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we recognise the resolution and strength of this House in how it has worked on the Bill. That is not to suggest for one moment that this House has changed its view; it is simply that we have had to recognise that the other House has the elected ability to override whatever we wish. However, the Bill’s outcomes are still to be discussed and debated.
The Minister, at least three times during the last three sessions here, said that the Government will not ratify the UK-Rwanda treaty until
“all necessary implementation is in place for both”
the UK and Rwanda
“to comply with the obligations under the treaty”.—[Official Report, 17/4/24; col. 1033.]
Given the position that this House has taken, it seems to us that it would be very valuable indeed, whenever the Government are prepared to sign the treaty, to have an opportunity to debate it in this House. Will the Minister acknowledge that, and give Parliament and this House an opportunity to discuss these matters when the opportunity comes up? We assume that will happen in the next 10 to 12 weeks, because that is the timetable that the Government have set themselves. Therefore, these matters will be very important to the House, which has grave concerns about the issues that have been debated here many times.
Recognising that we are at the end of this route of the legislation does not mean that we are at the end of the debate that we must have on the manner and objectives that the Government have set for themselves. To put those under more scrutiny, it would be most helpful indeed if the Minister could grant us time for that debate.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, these are the final stages of the passage of the Bill. It is not a Third Reading, but I again thank the Government Front Bench, including the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart—who is not here; I cannot see him anywhere—the Government Chief Whip, the Leader of the House and others, for the way they have conducted the proceedings of the Bill overall. It has been very much appreciated.
Although we fundamentally disagree on the Bill—the Government will now own the Bill and see how it works—I am somewhat reassured by the process that has been undertaken, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. As a result of what we have said—and contrary to what the Prime Minister said at the beginning of the Bill’s passage, which completely dominated our discussions for much of the time—the Government have amended the Bill. It would be extremely helpful to the Government Front Bench here, and others who may be listening, to recognise that the House of Lords has a role to play. It is perfectly appropriate for the Lords to delay legislation and to say that we think the Government should think again—and even think again twice. If it had not been for us demanding that the Government think again three or four times, my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment would not have been passed. Given the importance that everybody in this House attributes to his amendment, I would have thought that was cause for reflection on how well this system works. When I was in the other place, I saw that it irritates the Government. They feel that their elected mandate is being overridden, but actually—except in very exceptional circumstances—that does not happen.
I am sorry to reiterate this point about process, but it is really important. I do not know how many times, but I have said numerous times from the Front Bench that we will not block the Bill, as have my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lady Smith, the leader of our party in this place. Yet we see consistently from the Prime Minister, including today, claims that Labour Peers in this place seek to block the Bill. I hope—I am not sure—that noble Lords opposite will come to this side of the House and that we will go to that side. If that happens, I hope that, when we put forward various pieces of legislation to do with trade union rights, for example, and all the other Bills that we have suggested, noble Lords will remember that the role of the House of Lords in those circumstances will be to challenge the Labour Government who I hope will come into place but not seek to block or undermine the elected will of the people. That is not what we have sought to do.
I hope the serious point that I am making about the way the political system operates in this country will be a cause for us to reflect that, in respect of this Bill, although we fundamentally disagree with it, that system has worked reasonably well, and I look forward to that happening again in the future.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, if I might intervene briefly and ask my noble friend for indulgence, I should say that the noble Lord opposite made important remarks. This House has a major and abiding role in asking the elected House to think again. But as he said, we are now four times into this process. This House is at its best, as he again implied, when we have dialogue, understanding and tolerance across the Chamber. We have heard the words “patriotism” and “morality” used—not by the noble Lord opposite. In my experience as Leader of this House, this is a patriotic House, whatever the party and whatever the person. This is a House where people of different political views, with a high political morality of public service, have different ways of seeking to achieve the same end. The party opposite wishes to repeal this Bill; I hope it will, shortly, be passed.
I have said this before on other occasions, and I am sorry; I crave the indulgence of the House at rising at this, but it is an important point. It is important that we have a discussion about what are the limits and what is the place of your Lordships’ House in scrutinising and indeed challenging legislation put forward by any elected Government. However, he embers of the passage of this important Bill, which I understand was controversial in this House, are not the occasion. I do not think this is the place, but this is a matter that we might debate in an open forum and privately, and I hope that we can do that.
I appreciate the gentle way—in the sense of gentlemanly, if that word is allowed to be used in this way—in which the noble Lord has put the point. I appreciate his tribute to my noble friends and others on the Front Bench, and indeed to all the people in this House. There have been spirited and good debates, in the best traditions of the House, but in the weeks and months ahead we must reflect on whether sending something back to the elected House four or five times is the best way to enable the King’s Government to be carried on.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Perhaps the Leader might reflect on the point that my noble friend Lord German made. The Minister, this evening and previously, has said that the Government currently are not in a position to ratify the Rwanda treaty because they are not in a position to state that the conditions that would be required to ratify the treaty are yet in place. That assumes that a process will have to be under way for the Government to ratify that treaty, of which we are currently unaware.
The Leader speaks very sincerely about our ability to scrutinise and to hold the Government to account for decisions that they make, especially when it comes to international agreements. Given what the Minister said—I repeat, that the Government are currently not in a position to ratify the treaty—will the Leader ensure, through the usual channels, that there is open discussion about facilitating time in this Chamber for us to discuss what the Government’s statement would be when they come to the conclusion that those requirements for the treaty are in place? Surely that is simply an open way for us to scrutinise the decision that would be made if the conditions are met.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I hope it is in scope for the Leader of the House to interpose his body, particularly when the noble Lord is active and spirited, as he is at this hour. I will say two things. First, we have had many hours of debate on this legislation. I think the doubts about the Bill, and we believe the beliefs and proprieties about it, are entirely clear. So far as further discussion and the development of events are concerned, we in the usual channels are always open to discussion with other parties about when or in what way further discussion can be made. I apologise to the House for my intervention but these are important things which we need to reflect on. Perhaps this has been a prolonged process, but I would like, in the immortal phrase of the Senate of the United States of America, to yield the floor to my noble friend Lord Sharpe to conclude the proceedings.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his intervention. He put his points across extremely eloquently, and I agree with all of them.
I say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that the Bill does comply with international law. It is profoundly moral and patriotic to defend the integrity of our borders, and it is profoundly moral and patriotic to prevent the needless loss of life in the channel and to put the criminal gangs out of business.
I also ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, why the Green group is currently a solo act. Where is her partner?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I have been asked a direct question. I am sure the House would have been delighted to hear from both of us this evening, but we made a choice to have one representative. If the House would like to hear and see more of us, we would welcome being invited to do that.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Speaking personally, I would rather hear a lot less, but there we are.
Rwanda is a safe country that has proven time and again its ability to offer asylum seekers a safe haven and a chance to build a new life. Rwanda has a strong history of providing protection to those who need it and currently hosts over 135,000 refugees and asylum seekers, who have found safety and sanctuary there. Binding provisions in the treaty place obligations on the Government of Rwanda to provide for those relocated under the partnership, and this is long overdue. I put on record my thanks to officials in the Government of Rwanda for all their efforts in delivering this partnership. I commend the Motion to the House.