House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
We will all know somebody with special educational needs or disabilities and understand how vital it is to get a child with special educational needs or disabilities the right support early on. In recent years, we have seen a massive increase in special educational needs in our country, which is why we have expanded funding to a record level—at £10.5 billion, up by 60% in the last five years—and why we are reforming the system to deal with the increase in demand, including the biggest investment in building special educational needs school places in our country’s history.
Janet Daby
Children in Lewisham are waiting on average two and a half years to get an autism diagnosis. This is wrong and unacceptable. It is also a national issue, but it is made worse by a shortage of clinical staff. The Government are failing to recognise the seriousness of the shortage of educational psychologists. Can the Secretary of State tell me why they have failed and what is being done to recruit more educational psychologists as well as to tackle education, health and care plan waiting times?
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Around half of new EHCPs were issued within the statutory time limit of 20 weeks, and some local authorities are delivering over 90%, but of course we recognise that the system is under pressure, post both the pandemic and the massive rise in demand for special educational needs support. That is why we have increased the budget and put an improvement plan in place. With regard to her question about educational psychologists, we are training 400 more, which is a big increase.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I have a constituent—it could be many of the constituents who come to me—who has a child with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and other severe learning difficulties. She had to wait an awful long time for an EHCP for her child and, in the end, the plan listed the very school that says it cannot cope with the needs of the child. This happens routinely—a school that says it cannot cope is still listed on the EHCP. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that councils and other people who do the EHCP are not just ignoring what the school says and are actually putting down the schools that can cope with the needs? My constituent’s child now has only one hour a week of education. That is surely not good enough.
Gillian Keegan
We need to do all we can to support children with special educational needs; they are vulnerable and need the support as early as possible. We have programmes in place to support local authorities, but the biggest thing that we are doing is increasing the number of special educational needs school places. This will be the largest increase in a generation—60,000 more school places—and it is in stark contrast to when Labour was last in power, when the number of places reduced by 4,000. That is something we are very focused on doing. Many of those have already been delivered, some are work in progress and some will be in the hon. Member’s area.
Alistair Strathern
Far too many families know what a battle it can be to secure an EHCP assessment for their child, but for forces families this battle can become a recurring nightmare, as they are forced to restart the process all over again if required to move base before it completes. It cannot be right that those who sacrifice so much for our country are so let down by the current assessment system. How can we put this right?
Gillian Keegan
Of course, we are always looking to improve the system and we do have an improvement plan in place. I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about people who move around from place to place, but the most important and fundamental thing is that we have increased the budget, which has now gone up to £10.5 billion—a 60% increase in the last few years. We are also investing in building the right provision, the number of educational psychologists and the workforce. We have a thorough plan in place and we are working to deliver it.
Stephen Morgan
Parents in Portsmouth are rightly concerned that fewer than half of the primary schoolchildren in the city are achieving the expected standards in reading, writing and maths, while, under the watch of the Lib Dem-run council, waiting lists for SEND support continue to rise. Does the Secretary of State agree that families in Portsmouth deserve better than a council that is failing children and failing families?
Margaret Greenwood
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has found that autistic children are 28 times more likely to think about or attempt suicide than other children. Not getting the support they need can affect autistic children into their adult lives. This is a matter of extreme concern, as is the fact that more than 9,500 Wirral children were persistently absent from school in 2022-23, which is double the pre-pandemic figures. I note the Minister’s earlier comments, but what assessment have the Government made of the percentage of children in Wirral and across England who are missing from school and who have special educational needs and disabilities? What specific measures will the Government take to address their needs?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Lady is right to identify the crossover between special educational needs and absence from schools. This can sometimes result in poor outcomes, which can lead to mental health issues later. That is why it is important that we get early help to children as quickly as possible. We have a special educational needs and alternative provision improvement plan, and in terms of workforce, which is the most important thing on top of the places, we are training more special educational needs co-ordinators; we have changed the training for new teachers; we are making sure that we invest in a new national professional qualification to upskill teachers; and we have more educational psychologists—400 more in training—and more speech and language therapists. There is a huge workforce element in the plan to improve our special educational needs offer.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I welcome what Secretary State has just said about the workforce, and it is vital that we get that into place, but a week on from the publication of the Buckland review and two years on from the Education Committee’s call to bolster careers support for children with SEN, can she update us on what Ministers and the Department are doing to work with the Department for Work and Pensions to provide wider opportunities for young people with autism?
Gillian Keegan
We all know that most people with learning disabilities want to work, and with the right support they can work. The SEND code of practice is clear that all children and young people with special educational needs should be prepared for adulthood, including employment. We are investing £80 million in a supported internship programme, which is very successful, and we will be doubling this by March 2025. We are working with the DWP on a number of programmes and, following the Buckland review, the DWP is setting up a task group to consider all the recommendations.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
With a 60% rise in complex needs funding over five years, reaching £10.5 billion in 2024-25, with £105 million of funding for special free schools in the spring Budget and with the special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision plan to support everyone with needs and disabilities to age 25, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is this Conservative Government that are working hard for the life chances of every child in our country?
Gillian Keegan
Absolutely right. My hon. Friend is also right to say that we should take no lessons from the Opposition on supporting children with SEND: let us not forget that the number of children benefiting from being in special schools fell, probably because there was no specific high needs funding at all for local authorities to support people with special educational needs. In contrast, we are investing record funding and we are obviously building more places than we ever have in our country’s history. Only the Conservatives have a plan to support children with SEND.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
In all my years in teaching, before I came to this place, I experienced only one episode of violence at the hands of a student when they hurled a chair at me across the classroom. I was six months pregnant then. Only one episode in all those many, many years. But increasingly, teaching staff are telling me that this is becoming more and more commonplace. In fact, they expect it. My most recent conversation about this was on Saturday, when a teaching assistant said that they had finally been forced to retire because they could not cope with the stress any more. Some of this will be due to unmet or unrecognised special educational needs, and I thank the Secretary of State for outlining all the provisions that are being made—indeed, I have a new special school in my constituency—but some are not. Will she meet me to discuss some specific local concerns?
Gillian Keegan
Yes; I am sorry to hear about the situation of the teacher in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Of course, good behaviour is the bedrock of schools and school standards. We are investing more in behaviour hubs, which are helping schools that need help with the behaviour of children. We are also investing more in alternative provision schools. We are building 77 new ones; 51 are already open and the rest will be opening in the coming years.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In Essex, it has been taking far too long for children to get their education health and care plans, so I was pleased to hear that the county council had just recruited 46 additional members of staff. It is also building new special schools, including two more in Chelmsford, but what can make a difference is specialist hubs within mainstream schools, helping children from that school and from neighbouring schools. Given that we have large numbers of schools being rebuilt in Essex due to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC—does the Secretary of State agree that this could provide an opportunity, and that we should look at all the schools that are due to be rebuilt and consider putting specialist hubs into those rebuilding programmes?
Gillian Keegan
My right hon. Friend mentions the considerable investment that is going into special educational needs and high needs budgets. There is also provision for capital to build new free schools and school places. As we look to rebuild some of the schools affected by RAAC, which has now all been identified—every school has its budget details—we urge local authorities to consider what will best meet the needs of young people in their area. There is flexibility on free school places as well: those schools look at what to come forward with as regards provision that is needed to address local need.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Coram’s 2024 childcare survey found that just 6% of local authorities are confident that they will have enough childcare places for disabled children. High-quality early years education is essential in ensuring that children’s needs are identified at the most important time for their development. The children’s Minister, the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston), did not give a clear answer on this last month and his statement last week made no reference to disabled children. Is the Secretary of State really confident that every eligible family with a disabled child has been able to access a childcare place as part of the April expansion—yes or no?
Gillian Keegan
I will expand on the yes or no, as the hon. Lady wants a clear answer and obviously has not heard the clear answer that she been given before. Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide places for all children, including those with special educational needs, but we are working with organisations such as Dingley’s Promise to review special educational needs inclusion, and to see what more we can do to encourage providers to further consider what they can do to provide places. However, we will work with local authorities to make sure that we improve this.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Luke Hall)
The proportion of apprentices who achieve their apprenticeship standard rose to 54.3% in 2022-23, which is up 2.9 percentage points on the year before. We are taking action to ensure that every apprentice has a high-quality experience. We are reviewing and improving standards where there are poor achievement rates; we are investing £7.5 million in the provider workforce development programme; and Ofsted will be inspecting all providers by 2025.
Ms Rimmer
Giving all young people a good education is key to levelling up our country, yet the number of apprenticeship starts has fallen by a third over the last decade and there are 3% fewer completions than three years ago. We have improved on last year, but we are not there yet. Why have the Government let the number of offered and available apprenticeships slide, and why does the Minister think that young people are not qualifying at the rate they were three years ago?
Luke Hall
We want all young people to have access to good, high-quality apprenticeships because they offer a valuable experience and an opportunity to upskill at the start of their career. We have seen a 4% increase in apprenticeship starts by young people under the age of 19 so far this year, and 57% of all starts have been by those aged under 25. Last year, we saw a 21% increase in apprenticeship achievements in the hon. Lady’s constituency. That is welcome news but, of course, there is always more to do. I am very happy to work with her on the issue.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is it not the case that apprenticeship achievements have gone up by 22% over the past year, that over 90% of apprentices who complete their apprenticeship get good jobs or good skills, and that starts are going up, too? Is it not also the case that we now have more than 690 quality apprenticeship standards in everything from aeronautics to zoology, and that any attempt to dilute the apprenticeship levy would not only destroy the number of starts but harm achievement? It is this side of the House that is building an apprenticeship and skills nation.
Luke Hall
During his time as a Minister, my right hon. Friend helped to completely rebuild the apprenticeship system, introducing higher-quality standards. Apprenticeships are now longer, better and have more off-the-job training, with proper independent assessment at the end. They are more valued by employers and we have seen 5.8 million starts since 2010. He is an incredible advocate for further education. Following him in this role, I learnt very quickly that I had big shoes to fill. I look forward to working with him to ensure that we continue delivering in this area.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The truth is that not only have apprenticeship starts plummeted since 2017, but new data shows that the overall achievement rate has dropped since 2020, with level 2 apprenticeships hit hardest. Almost half of apprentices do not complete their courses, which is simply not good enough. Employers are calling out for reform, but this Government have their head in the sand. Is this not yet more evidence that, far from tackling barriers to opportunity and boosting Britain’s skills, the Government are failing our young people and our businesses, and that only Labour has a plan to turn this around?
Luke Hall
We have made apprenticeships more rigorous. They are now more credible. They are designed by employers and have proper robust assessments. The only plan Labour has, without more funding, is to cut the number of apprenticeship starts in our country by 60%. Obviously, the hon. Member missed the figures published last week, which showed a 2.5% increase in level 2 attainment rates. We are delivering high-quality standards with more off-the-job training and that should be welcomed across the House.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
Having undertaken a review of the special educational needs system, we published our improvement plan last year. Provision is regularly reviewed through school and local area inspections by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission. We also collect and review data on education, health and care plans, including on timeliness and volumes, and on capacity in special schools, SEND units and resourced provision.
Tom Hunt
Last week, I met the chief executive of a chain of independent schools, which includes a lot of independent special schools—approximately 40% of the children there have special educational needs. She was concerned about any proposal to put VAT on school fees—she feels all this will do is put up school fees and a lot of parents who are just about managing to send their kids to independent special schools will take them out, putting more pressure on the state education SEND system. Does the Minister share my concern that, although people may think that this policy is smart politics, it may be people with special educational needs, including those on low incomes households, who pay the price for this short-sighted policy proposal?
David Johnston
My hon. Friend is a great champion of children with SEN and he is absolutely right. Labour’s ideological obsession with private schools means that it will even charge children in an independent special school 20% VAT for their needs. That will make it harder for those families to afford the provision they need and drive up demand for places in state special schools. It is just another example of the mess Labour would make of our education system.
Rachael Maskell
The inequality in the funding formula is driving inequality for children with SEN. In York, we are seeing not only the lack of placements that are needed, but staff being laid off because of an inadequacy of funding. We know that the number of children with SEND is growing exponentially in York, so will the Minister not only review the funding formula to ensure that it is fair, but give local authorities the power and provision to provide for the future needs of our city?
David Johnston
York is in our safety valve programme to provide support with the financial challenges it has. It has seen a 27% increase in per-head funding in the last three financial years. We review the funding formula every year. The biggest complaint people have is the historic factor, which is difficult to reduce quickly because there are children receiving that provision at the moment.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Wyre Forest School, a special school in Kidderminster, has been doing a fantastic job for a number of years, but it has been running way past its maximum capacity for some time. There was potential for relief when its next-door neighbour, Baxter College, secured funding from a generous grant from the school rebuilding programme for a mutually beneficial rebuilding to expand capacity on both sides. However, with that project being in phase 3, Wyre Forest School and Baxter College may have to wait until 2032 before they can see any beneficial reliefs. Will the Minister or the Secretary of State meet me and the heads of the two schools to discuss how we can expedite getting this rebuilding programme under way?
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
On Saturday, I met a lady who has moved within Shropshire but into North Shropshire, and it took 10 weeks for her year 9 son with SEN to be placed in a school. It is one without any one-to-one support, which is a big downgrade on his previous situation. His parents reported to me that all he has received from the school is detention for not completing his work fast enough. We are desperately short of SEN places in Shropshire. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government are looking at Shropshire and working to provide proper provision for those children, who are being so badly let down?
David Johnston
Obviously, I cannot comment on that specific case, but I can tell the hon. Lady that we are in the process of creating 60,000 more special school places; there 108 schools already open and 92 approved to open.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
It is well and widely recognised that PE and sport support children and young people’s health and general wellbeing. The school sport and activity action plan update, published in July 2023, sets out how we will support all young people to participate in PE and sport in school.
Craig Tracey
I recently hosted an event here in Parliament with Nick Dougherty, the golfer, and the Golf Foundation to kick off their Unleash Your Drive programme, an amazing initiative providing young people with the life skills they need to survive in the modern world, including mental resilience. The scheme has been rolled out to over 500 schools since September last year, with fantastic results. Will the Minister meet me and the Golf Foundation to discuss this success and how we can encourage more schools to teach mental toughness skills through sport, as part of the school sport and activity action plan?
Damian Hinds
I know about the good work of the Golf Foundation, under the leadership of Brendon Pyle. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss its work, specifically the Unleash Your Drive programme.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Sport, PE and outdoor education have a huge impact on building resilience among young people, helping them to gain a love of learning as well as the outdoors, which can be great for them for their whole lives. Does the Minister agree that it is a great shame that just the other week the Welsh Senedd voted down by a single vote the Bill proposed by his colleague and my friend Sam Rowlands which would have made outdoor education an experience that every young person in Wales could access? Will the Minister go one further and back my equivalent Outdoor Education Bill, which will receive its Second Reading on 21 June, so that this place ensures that every young person in primary and secondary schools has the ability to access an outdoor education experience for free?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman has been entirely consistent for some time in talking about the importance of outdoor education, about which I am happy to agree. I am not sure it is always necessarily a case for law, but it is certainly important for young people to get outdoors, to be in touch with nature and to see the countryside, as well as running around enjoying PE and sporting activities.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
I have been horrified and appalled to see the rise in antisemitism in education since 7 October. It is unacceptable and it cannot be tolerated. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to all schools and colleges reminding them of their duties under Prevent, and we are investing £7 million to help tackle antisemitism across education.
Bob Blackman
My right hon. Friend is clearly right that the rise of antisemitism in schools—or anywhere—is absolutely unacceptable. One of the causes is the failure of schools to teach children about the history of Israel and the fact that Jewish people have occupied Israel for over 3,000 years. Indeed, the Balfour declaration set up the creation of the modern state of Israel. As that is not communicated, there is widespread ignorance and people do not believe that Jewish people have occupied that land for so long. Will my right hon. Friend conduct a review of the curriculum to ensure that young people are properly educated about the history of Israel?
Damian Hinds
I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. History is a very important subject for many reasons. Learning about Israel and the wider region can be covered in history, for example in the “challenges for Britain, Europe and the wider world since 1901” theme. In general, we do not specify individual historical events in our national curriculum, with the sole exception of the holocaust, as he will know.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his positive and helpful response. What discussions has he had with counterparts in the devolved nations, in particular in Northern Ireland, where the two different groups—the nationalists and the Unionists; the Protestants and the Catholics—have been able to develop an understanding on education? They are able to look at each other without the suspicion that may have been there 20 or 30 years ago. Has the Minister had a chance to talk to the devolved nations to ascertain whether introducing compulsory education on the importance of combatting antisemitism is possible, taking the Northern Ireland example as one that works?
Damian Hinds
I always value opportunities to speak to colleagues and counterparts in the devolved Administrations. I believe that we will have another opportunity relatively soon to speak to the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in Northern Ireland, and I have no doubt that that will be one thing that we will wish to talk about.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is right that young people can recognise and denounce antisemitism and it is also right that they know something of the history of the region, including the continued expansion of illegal settlements. But I hope the Minister agrees that right-wing rhetoric and Islamophobia also pose a threat to our young people. What steps are being taken to ensure that both antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate are treated with equal severity, especially given some of the Islamophobic remarks that have been made by Members and former Members of his own party?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady is right to call out the wickedness of Islamophobia. There have been Islamophobic incidents in schools as well, and Tell MAMA is an important resource in that regard. We will not tolerate anti-Muslim hatred in any form and we will seek to stamp it out whenever and wheresoever it occurs.
Mr Speaker
Ms Anum Qaisar is not here to ask the next question, but will the Minister give an answer so that I can bring in the Opposition Front Bencher?
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
Ministers normally meet colleagues from the devolved Governments, as we were just discussing a moment ago. The Education Ministers Council was due to be hosted by the Scottish Government in late 2023, but, although we have been watching our doormats, no invitation has arrived. The UK Government are providing £108 billion over 2022-23 to 2024-25 to help with the cost of living.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
On the cost of living, among concerns raised by parents in response to the most recent National Parents Survey by Parentkind, the cost of school uniforms, trips and food came up the most. Labour has a plan to cut the cost of school uniforms by limiting the number of branded items, and our free breakfast clubs in every primary school will put money back in parents’ pockets while improving attendance and attainment. We have done the Government’s homework, and they are still failing families. Will it take a Labour Government to give every child in this country the chances that they deserve?
Damian Hinds
I appreciate what the hon. Lady says, but I am afraid she needs to keep up: we have done the things that restrict the cost pressures on uniforms. We regularly survey how much uniforms are costing, and some of those results are encouraging. We also survey regularly the number of schools that have a second-hand uniform facility available, and I am pleased to report that that has improved. We are also very clear that, when a school trip is part of the national curriculum—an essential thing to do—there should be no charge. In addition to that, way many schools make sure that they are providing inclusivity for all pupils, and of course the pupil premium that we introduced shortly after 2010 is one of the things that facilitates that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I thank him for his ongoing support for this new school, including his personal work to make sure that there is provision for boys and girls. We are working with his council and sponsoring trust to agree a provisional opening date for Hanwood Park Free School as soon as possible.
Mr Hollobone
The new Hanwood Park Free School is a key part of the future educational infrastructure in Kettering and will be located at the heart of the Hanwood Park development, which, with 5,500 houses, is one of the largest housing developments in the whole country. Will my right hon. Friend please facilitate a meeting in Kettering with the Department’s regional director for the east midlands, me, the local educational authority, the Orbis academy trust and the Hanwood Park developers so that together we can ensure that the school build is co-ordinated as best as possible?
Damian Hinds
Again, I commend my hon. Friend for his work. I also appreciate the importance of the provision of local services—none is more important than education—where there is housing development. I would be very pleased to convene such a meeting as he requests.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Since 2010, we have completely transformed how we teach reading in England, expanding the evidence-based methods of phonics across all of our schools. In the 2011-12 phonics screening checks, only 58% of our children met the expected standard of reading. Thanks to those reforms and the hard work of our brilliant teachers, not only is that number now 79%, but our primary schoolchildren have been ranked fourth best readers in the world. We are sticking to our plan, delivering higher reading standards across our schools.
Sir David Evennett
I thank my right hon. Friend for that very positive response. In 2011-12, only 63% of children in my borough of Bexley met the expected standard of reading. Now, after the evidence-based reforms from this Conservative Government, that number is 81%—a real achievement. There is still much more to be done, but does she share my disappointment that the Labour party opposed those reforms at every opportunity?
Gillian Keegan
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservatives’ plan to reform our reading standards completely and expand phonics across our schools has meant that our primary schoolchildren are now the fourth best readers in the world. What was Labour’s response? It said that phonics would not work, that our literacy drive was “dull”, and that free schools were “dangerous”. What is dangerous is the risk of a Labour Government who would collapse educational standards, as Labour has done in Wales.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Luke Hall)
We have seen year-on-year growth in degree-level apprenticeships. Starts at levels 6 and 7 increased by 5.8% this year. There are now more than 170 employer-designed degree-level apprenticeships, and we are providing an additional £40 million over two years to support providers to expand their offers.
Chris Clarkson
Last week, I had the pleasure of hosting Members of this House and representatives of industry and of the education sector to discuss how we could leverage the resources of the private sector to support further education through a lecturer reservist programme. I particularly thank the Minister and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), as well as Hayley Pells of the Institute of the Motor Industry, for all their hard work in making that meeting a reality and for their positive engagement. I would not be doing my job properly if I was not cheeky enough to ask whether the Minister would be willing to join us for our next meeting, when we will flesh out the proposals that we discussed.
Luke Hall
I thought we had an excellent meeting last week. We had really positive discussions about the exciting lecturer reservist pilot that will run in the west midlands, bringing together regional employers, colleges and providers. I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend as the pilot progresses, and not just to meeting him again but to visiting the pilot when it is up and running.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Luke Hall)
Our reforms make the student loan system more sustainable and fairer for graduates and taxpayers. Tuition fees have been frozen until 2024-25, and it was this Government who acted to cap the interest rate on student loans, because we believe that everybody in our country should have access to world-class higher education.
Yasmin Qureshi
In January, the number of applications to study nursing fell by 7.4%. The Royal College of Nursing said that that could be a direct threat to patient safety. Surely the Government should be doing everything they can to boost recruitment in nursing, but instead last September they introduced a tuition fee system that means that future nursing graduates will pay an extra £48 per month. Why is the Secretary of State penalising people who choose to work in our vital public services?
Luke Hall
The system that we introduced is a progressive one, because lifetime earnings now correlate with the amount that somebody contributes. The highest earners make the largest individual contributions, and the lowest earners contribute the least. For example, someone who leaves university in 2026 earning £26,000 a year will now pay just £7 a month repaying that loan. Crucially, the new interest rate is reduced from the retail prices index plus 3% to RPI plus 0%, which makes it more affordable too. It is a progressive system that we think is fairer for students and taxpayers.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place; it is good to see him in his new role. Of course, we miss the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) put it so eloquently, we are in real danger of dissuading and disenfranchising so many young people from getting into the sorts of careers in which they are interested, and particularly into roles such as nursing. I reiterate that point, because we have seen a 7.3% decline in the numbers of applications for nursing. At a time when we desperately need more in our health service, what is the Minister doing? Does he really think this system, which was introduced ahead of his joining the education team, is a fair one?
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words welcoming me to my post. The point I would make is that the 2023 cycle shows numbers rebalancing and returning to a trend of normal growth in applications following the pandemic. He should also look at the big impact nursing apprenticeships and nursing degree apprenticeships are having on the system. I am always happy to meet him to discuss these issues, but we do think it is a fairer and more affordable system for both students and taxpayers, and will result in more people being able to access a world-class higher education in our country.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
Ofsted outcomes are strong for the five special schools in Bournemouth. Departmental officials continue to work with the council and other services to support rapid improvements, including £16.4 million of higher needs capital funding between 2022 and 2025. The funding allocation this year is £60.9 million, a 27% increase per head compared with 2021-22.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He speaks about increased funding, but there is growing anger from headteachers and parents alike in Bournemouth about the mismanagement of the dedicated schools grant over the past couple of years by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council. School heads have now taken the unprecedented step of writing open letters of concern to the council. The council is not following the required guidance and is demanding unaffordable sums from schools which, if implemented, would see the loss of teaching assistants. I ask the Department for Education to investigate the council’s decision making, to ensure that correct guidelines are followed in the future and that the right levels of funding stay with the schools.
David Johnston
My right hon. Friend has done an excellent job of raising with me repeatedly the frustration of parents and headteachers in his constituency with BCP Council. I and officials continue to monitor that closely to ensure that schools and children in his area get the provision they deserve.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
How many children in schools in Bournemouth have relied on special educational needs and disability provision because they have had an acquired brain injury in the last five years? If the Minister does not know the answer—he might not know it today—will he be able to write to me? If his officials are not able to provide him with an answer, will he ensure that the Department establishes precisely how many children, in all our schools across the whole country, have had an acquired brain injury in the last five years?
David Johnston
I did not know the hon. Gentleman’s constituency was so close to Bournemouth. As he suggests, I do not have the precise answer to that question; I will write to him.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
Early language skills are vital for children to thrive. That is why we carried out landmark early education reforms, investing up to £180 million in training, qualifications and support and providing a range of evidence-based interventions, from home learning to working with local health services.
Wera Hobhouse
There is growing evidence of how important it is to provide support for speech and language development in nurseries and for preschool-aged children. Programmes such as Language for Life, which is supported by St John’s Foundation in Bath, underpin the work that schools are doing. To demonstrate how well they are doing it, the percentage of children needing additional language support in schools that participated reduced from 84% to 29%. I am sure the Minister will want to congratulate the schools and St John’s Foundation on the work they are doing, but will the Government prioritise speech and language programmes such as Language for Life?
David Johnston
What the hon. Lady sets out sounds very encouraging and I look forward to hearing more about the Language for Life programme. We have been very pleased with the findings of the Government-funded Nuffield Early Language Intervention, which is different, but has also focused on language development. The NELI has been found to help children to make four months’ additional development in their oral language skills, and disadvantaged children to make seven months’ additional progress.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will the Minister give us an update on this month’s delivery of the first phase of the free childcare entitlement, and may I urge him to ensure that we deliver phase 2 on time in September?
David Johnston
I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend and the House that the first phase of the roll-out went very well indeed. Some 200,000 children are now benefiting from the first stage of the roll-out, which Labour Members doubted could happen—we have shown again that we have a plan while they have absolutely none.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, but I am afraid there is a flawed premise within it. School funding is, at £60.7 billion, the highest it has ever been in real terms per pupil. There has been a real-terms increase of 5.5% per pupil nationally compared with 2010-11.
Nadia Whittome
I thank the Minister for his response, but what he says about the state of school funding is not the full picture, and he knows it. Schools’ costs have increased much faster than funding. In fact, analysis by the National Education Union shows that every single school in Nottingham East had less real-terms funding last year than 14 years ago—that is £1,266 less per pupil on average. If the Government really cared about the future of children and young people, should they not be funding high-quality education instead of whipping up culture wars?
Damian Hinds
We are funding high-quality education, and the quality of that education is seen in the results, be they the performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics, English and science, or the results of primary school children, which have improved dramatically since 2010. On the NEU “analysis”, I am afraid that it is flawed in multiple respects: it does not include a number for the high-needs budget, which has grown so much, and ultimately it does not use real numbers for 2010.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
On the subject of school budgets, will the Minister join me in welcoming the letter that I received from Malvern College in Worcestershire this week? Not only is that independent school one of the largest employers in Worcestershire, but it contributes £28 million to the local economy, and if its 300-plus fee-paying pupils had to be educated in local schools, that would come at a huge cost to the public purse.
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is exactly correct. If the Labour party got into government, there would be a hike in the cost of going to private schools, which would push a number of families out of that provision. We do not know how many, Labour does not know how many and nor does anybody else, but we do know that some— possibly very many—would come into the state-funded system, causing great strain and possibly cuts that would affect other children.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I start by sending our thoughts and prayers to the whole school and the community in Ammanford in Wales.
With exams season nearly upon us, I wish all our students and teachers the very best of luck over the coming months. We should be very proud of all the progress that our students and teachers have made, with 90% of schools now rated “good” or “outstanding”—up from 68% under Labour. In the internationally renowned programme for international student assessment, our secondary school children have rocketed up the rankings from 27th and 25th in the world for maths and reading under Labour to 11th and 13th now. The establishment of the Education Endowment Foundation, which has conducted nearly 20% of all randomised control trials in education in the world, is adding to that success. That fantastic progress is testament to the hard work of our schools and the evidence-based reforms that we have undertaken since 2010.
Sir David Davis
On a personal level, may I thank the Secretary of State for sponsoring my charity event yesterday for disabled children with SYNGAP1? Of course, I welcome the Government’s funding of 60,000 new school places for children with special educational needs, but we need a fairer funding formula for those resources, and we need a further £4.6 billion just to prevent the crisis in special needs from getting worse, so what steps are the Government taking to ensure that funding is allocated according to need, not postcode?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my right hon. Friend, who is doing exceptional work to raise awareness of the impacts of SYNGAP1, and has so far raised over £29,000 to support vital research. As he has pointed out, we are investing record amounts in special educational needs and disability funding. We review that funding and look at the formula every year; it has gone up by 60% over the past five years—to £10.5 billion—but I am very happy to meet my right hon. Friend, and look forward to doing so. We said we would have a cup of tea to talk about this important topic, and I will get that date in the diary soon.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments, and send my thoughts and best wishes to all those in the school community of Ammanford at this very difficult time.
“The extension does not achieve its primary aim or demonstrate value for money”.
That is a damning line from the National Audit Office’s report into the Government’s childcare expansion. For months, the Secretary of State has told parents and providers that they were wrong to be concerned, yet now we learn that even her own Department considers delivery to be “problematic”—her own failure exposed. Why has she not listened and got a serious plan in place, or is she simply waiting for Labour to publish ours so that she can steal it? [Laughter.]
Gillian Keegan
I do not think anyone in the country is waiting for Labour to publish its plan. This is serious, because of course we are ambitious; delivering the largest expansion of childcare in our country’s history is not an easy task, but that is the job of Government, and that is what we are doing. Thanks to the expansion, over 200,000 more children are getting childcare support. We are already delivering, and have put that deliverability into three phases to make sure we continue to deliver.
We know what we need—we need places, we need workforce, and we need the children—but Labour has absolutely no plan. First Labour Members criticised our childcare model, then they said they would scrap it, and now they are saying that it is not their job to have a plan. It is time for Labour to stop talking down our childcare sector and commit to supporting our plan, which is clearly working.
Bridget Phillipson
Nonsense, Mr Speaker. What people right across this country want is a general election, and it cannot come soon enough.
It is not only on childcare that the Secretary of State is in a total mess; school leaders, teachers and staff have been dismayed by her failure to reform Ofsted. She simply refuses to listen to staff, to the Education Committee, or indeed to parents. I am clear that under Labour, the days of one-word judgments will come to an end, so when can we expect the Secretary of State to follow Labour’s lead and commit to ending Ofsted’s headline grades?
Gillian Keegan
We will not follow Labour’s lead, because in 2010 only 68% of schools were rated “good” or “outstanding”; now, thanks to our reforms and hard work, that figure is up to 90%. We have already delivered a number of changes to improve the way Ofsted carries out its inspections, but the answer to these challenges is not to water down standards by abolishing Ofsted, as Labour has twice proposed to do. That accountability is one reason why 90% of our schools are “good” or “outstanding”—up from just 68% under Labour. In the past year alone, over 200,000 more children are attending “good” or “outstanding” schools because of the work that we do to improve standards, and Ofsted is an important part of that.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
We expect that schools will follow the guidance, because it is guidance to help them carry out their existing statutory duties, including safeguarding. If they did not take those guidelines into account when delivering those duties, they would be at risk of breach.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for mentioning exam season. I am sure she will include the Scottish young people sitting their exams, whose exams started last week—they are already in the throes of it.
Deepfake images and nudification apps pose massive threats to the mental health of girls in particular, and therefore their educational outcomes. I am pleased that the Government have taken steps to criminalise the creation of such images, but how is the Secretary of State working with Cabinet colleagues to put pressure on internet companies to take the radical action necessary to remove such images, which can have such an impact on girls’ education?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Member is of course right that the lead is taken by a different Department, but we are very conscious of the pressures, including from social media, in relation to pornography, deepfake and nudification, as she rightly identifies, and we are working right across Government to make sure those pressures can be eased.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
My hon. Friend makes two important points. There was a 6% decline in the number of nought to four-year-olds between 2015 and 2021, and we are providing £242 million in this financial year to support schools with managing that. He is also right that although some children will always need a special school place to have their needs met, many can have their needs met in a mainstream school. Through our SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, we are making sure that schools are inclusive and make that happen.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Gillian Keegan
I was actually referring to the fact that parents did not feel they were receiving the best service from the system, the schools did not feel they were giving the best service and the Government felt they were spending a lot more, which is why it was very important that we got a grip and fixed the system. Of course, we know that there has been a massive increase in demand over the last few years—not even 14 years—so we have had to put in place the special educational needs and alternative provision improvement plan, which is very thorough. I believe that the result of that plan will be: win, win, win.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Luke Hall)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for all of his work on this area. I know that he has been integral to the “I am a Housebuilder” campaign to encourage more women into the building sector. Our apprenticeship diversity champions network is supporting gender representation among employers, and it is good news that STEM starts continue to increase year on year—up 7.5% in the last year—but there is more to do, and I look forward to working closely with him on the issue.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Damian Hinds
I would encourage our friends and colleagues in the Scottish Government, whoever they may be at the time, to pay close attention to Hilary Cass’s report. I think her work has injected some much-needed common sense into the debate, and we are very grateful to her. This Government will always put the safety of our children first, and that is why the gender questioning guidance we have produced in draft is underpinned by the important principle of parents always being involved in decisions about their children.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The Liberal Democrat-run council in Rutland has announced that it will close our specialist—and “outstanding” rated—SEND nursery, the Parks School. This comes with the further news that it is also going to close our only leisure centre. The community is rightly devastated, especially parents who want their children to get the best and most expert support. Does my hon. Friend agree that specialist provision must be protected and is absolutely vital, and that the need for this kind of provision is only going to increase?
David Johnston
I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. We have been hearing negative things about Lib Dem councils from both sides of the House this afternoon, which, sadly, is not surprising. She is absolutely right to be championing the needs of those parents and children, and I hope the council will listen to her campaign and do the right thing.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Damian Hinds
I will look into the details of the case and write to the hon. Lady.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Research by London Economics and the Association of Colleges highlights that in recent years there has been a significant drop in level 2 apprenticeship starts. Will my hon. Friend the Minister outline the specific work being carried out to reverse this decline in an area that is so vital in promoting social mobility and levelling up?
Luke Hall
At levels 2 and 3, apprenticeships make up 65% of all starts so far this year and there are almost 140 apprenticeships at level 2. We published data last week to show that level 2 apprenticeships rose by 2.5% in terms of attainment. We will do everything we can to make sure people have access to high-quality apprenticeships, and we have also invested £50 million over two years to boost starts in growth sectors including engineering and manufacturing. I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Damian Hinds
We have increased the amount of money going into condition funding. We are also, of course, rebuilding 500 schools under the school rebuilding programme. I will look into the specific case the hon. Gentleman mentions and come back to him.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware of my campaign to improve literacy across the country by improving children’s access to libraries in their schools and communities. Much can also be done by parents, grandparents and carers in the years before children start school. What is the Department doing to improve access to books and audiobooks in particular, as well as other literary materials, for pre-school children?
David Johnston
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Reading is one of the most important things children can be doing at a young age. Our Little Moments Together campaign provides free resources for parents to encourage a positive culture of reading at home, and we also fund the National Literacy Trust, which does great work to promote reading.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
David Johnston
As it happens, I am meeting the director of the Youth Endowment Fund in the morning. We have a quarterly meeting to review progress and make sure it is on track.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In regard to the worrying topic raised earlier of antisemitism and Islamophobia in schools, will Ministers please bear in mind sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996? The former bans political indoctrination in schools, and the latter says that when political subjects are brought to the attention of pupils, they must be presented in a fair and balanced way.
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend issues a timely and important reminder and we are very clear on that with schools. We also, of course, part-fund Educate Against Hate, which has materials available, and I know that schools also seek to go to lengths in most cases to make sure that when tackling controversial current affairs, they are doing so in an entirely impartial way.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
David Johnston
Again, the first stage of this roll-out has gone incredibly well, with more than 200,000 children now benefiting. Labour MPs should spend less time criticising our roll-out and more in asking their Front Bench what their plan is, because it is supposed to be like the creation of the NHS.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
St Francis School and Heathfield School are two excellent special educational needs schools in Fareham, supporting a variety of children with conditions ranging from Down’s syndrome to epilepsy, but around the country there are 95,000 children at independent special educational needs schools. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour’s misguided attack on independent schools will be harmful and punitive to vulnerable children all around the country?
David Johnston
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. This is a policy to tickle the bellies of the left of the Labour party. The Opposition did not think it through, and they are now going to whack families trying to get the right support for their children with special educational needs with 20% more in fees.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
In 2024-25, Scottish students living away from home will be entitled to a minimum of £8,400 in student maintenance, whereas English students living outside London will only be getting a minimum of £4,767. Given the current cost of living crisis, which is undoubtedly a factor in the withdrawal of almost 16,000 undergraduate students in England last year, will the Government commit to providing the same encouragement and reinforcement to students in England as students in Scotland enjoy?
Luke Hall
We are trying to deliver a system that is fair not just to students, but to taxpayers, too. That is why we are taking action to support students with the cost of living in England, including freezing tuition fees. We have increased loans by 2.8%, and we have made sure that if someone’s family income falls by 15%, they can have their loans reassessed. It is also important that we support people from lower income households, which is why we have made a further £10 million available, including for hardship funding, in 2023-24. This system is fair not just to students, but to taxpayers more widely.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Sir Robert Pattinson Academy in my constituency is a great school providing an excellent education to children. However, it is struggling with the challenges of aged infrastructure, and an urgent bid for it to rectify the heating and wiring challenges has been refused. An urgent meeting on Friday with officials was unproductive, not least because the data they were looking at was out of date. Can I ask the Secretary of State to please ensure that the senior leadership team gets an urgent meeting with senior officials and that she personally ensures that this bid is looked at properly and quickly?
Damian Hinds
I will indeed do that. My hon. Friend has brought up this subject with me and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. There was that meeting with Mr Hardy on Friday. I know there are two separate cases around the condition improvement fund bid and the urgent capital support bid. We will continue to work with the school, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets that high-level meeting that she asks for.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Among other cuts, the Department for Education has quietly slipped out the announcement that it is slashing funding for Now Teach, which has supported more than 1,000 people to switch careers and retrain as secondary teachers in shortage subjects such as science, maths and modern languages. Why on earth are the Government withdrawing funding when they are missing their teacher training targets by 50% in some of these subjects, and when Now Teach has had such a brilliant track record in getting people to retrain as teachers?
Damian Hinds
First, I must say that the statistics the hon. Lady just gave on missing recruitment targets are incorrect. They are frequently repeated, but not right. We do think that career changes are an important part of people coming into this noble profession, and we are continuing with our career changes programme. We are not axing Now Teach; we are not re-procuring it, so we are not extending it again. To put it in perspective, it is roughly about 200 to 250 people in a typical year, out of about 7,000 career changes coming into teaching. We are reassessing the best way to attract more of them, because we want to grow the number of career changes coming into teaching and make sure that we go about it in the best and most productive way.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Secretary of State is well aware of the issues we have with Academies Enterprise Trust and Maltings Academy in Witham town. She will know of the stories of children missing out on school time because of exclusion and bullying. Some are even self-harming. What assurance can she give to pupils and their families, who have very little choice as to which schools they go to locally, that their concerns will be heard and that they will have greater educational choice over which school their children go to?
Damian Hinds
I know we have corresponded on this recently, and I know my right hon. Friend is taking a close personal interest and has been involved directly and personally in multiple cases. In my most recent letter—I am not sure if it will have arrived yet—I have said that we will as a Department work with her.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for their comments about the incident at Ysgol Dyffryn Aman in my constituency last week. There is obviously now a criminal investigation ongoing and a charge of attempted murder, so it would not be wise to speculate, but as education is devolved in Wales, will the Secretary of State pledge to work with the Welsh Government to ensure safety measures, following the various investigations having completed their work?
Gillian Keegan
Yes, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am always willing and ready to work with anyone from the devolved Administrations.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Businesses—those in manufacturing in particular—speak about the challenge in filling vacancies. The solution can often be in the existing workforce, but older workers can be reluctant to take up apprenticeships. What work are we doing to encourage more older workers into the apprenticeship system?
Luke Hall
Working with employers is central to success on that point. That is why we are delivering the local skills improvement plans to ensure that we are matching the needs of businesses and employers with the workforce they need. We are working with over 5,000 employers, with over 700 different occupations, including on skills bootcamps, which bring different demographics to the workforce, to ensure that we have intensive training where industries have those skills needs. Engagement with businesses is at the forefront of our mind on that point.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
This weekend, The Times reported that some Conservative MPs want to see graduate visas banned. Will the Minister ask the Home Secretary to quash that damaging rumour, given that international students provide the UK with a £42 billion boost?
Luke Hall
We are home to some of the world’s top universities, which benefit from strong international ties. We think it is right to try to prevent any potential abuse and to protect the integrity of our higher education system, but it is true that international students make significant economic and cultural contributions to our education. We believe it is possible to balance a fair and robust migration policy with maintaining our place as a top destination for students from around the world.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I thank the Education Secretary for all the support that her Department is giving to Bracknell Forest, particularly the £16 million safety valve programme and other SEN initiatives. Given the high number of good and outstanding schools in Bracknell and the focus on apprenticeships and T-levels at Bracknell and Wokingham College, might I tempt her please to visit?
Gillian Keegan
It is tempting. We are proud of the safety valve programme, which is being used across 38 local authorities, and I would love to see it in action as I know it is providing a lifeline to many councils.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
For 14 long, weary years I have been arguing for an end of the faith cap, which is preventing the opening of new Catholic schools and has no proper effect. Does the Secretary of State think that I should keep campaigning and be patient for a bit longer?
Damian Hinds
I have also had an opportunity to speak to my right hon. Friend on occasions about this. The Catholic Church, the Church of England and other denominations play a central part in our education, typically having high-quality schools and typically being popular with parents. We are keen to extend our academies and free schools programme, which has underpinned the huge rise in quality and children’s results that we have seen since 2010. No doubt, before too long, we may wish to put the two things closer together.
UK Armed Forces in Middle East
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the UK armed forces in the middle east.
The Minister for Armed Forces (Leo Docherty)
The Prime Minister and Government Ministers have regularly provided updates in Parliament on the recent role of the armed forces in the middle east through written and oral statements, in addition to responding to written questions. As has been said previously, publicising operational activity to Parliament in advance could undermine the effectiveness of operations and risk the lives of armed forces personnel involved.
The UK has provided assistance to our allies and partners in the region. The Ministry of Defence has provided support to facilitate the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s response to the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza, and we continue to work with the FCDO. Our armed forces personnel have played a critical role in working to establish more routes for vital humanitarian aid to reach the people of Gaza and in the delivery of support, in co-ordination with the US and our international allies and partners. To date, the UK has conducted nine airdrops as part of the Jordanian-led mission, dropping more than 85 tonnes of vital humanitarian aid of prepackaged halal meals, water, flour, baby milk formula and rice to Gaza.
UK military planners have been embedded with the US operational team to jointly develop the safest and most effective maritime humanitarian aid route. RFA Cardigan Bay is sailing from Cyprus to support the US pier initiative to enable the delivery of significantly more lifesaving aid into Gaza. The UK Hydrographic Office has also shared analysis of the Gazan shore with US planners to support the initiative. The RAF also sent additional aircraft to the region to protect our allies and support de-escalation, culminating in the UK armed forces shooting down a number of Iranian attack drones. The House will understand that for operational security reasons, I cannot comment on the specifics of that activity.
As stated by the Prime Minister on 15 April,
“Our aim is to support stability and security because that is right for the region, and because although the middle east is thousands of miles away, it has a direct effect on our security and prosperity at home, so we are working urgently with our allies to de-escalate the situation and prevent further bloodshed.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 23.]
We are directing all our diplomatic efforts to that end. I will not comment on media leaks and speculation, but I can assure the House that the Government are taking all measures to support our allies and partners in the region. We are pressing for a sustainable ceasefire that will enable the release of hostages and provide the people of Gaza with the essential assistance and humanitarian aid that they need.
John Healey
I welcome the Minister back to the Department in his new post. Of course, the Defence Secretary should be here; he has made only one oral statement on the middle east in more than two months.
As the Minister said, our UK armed forces are reinforcing regional stability, protecting international shipping, defending partner countries and delivering desperately needed aid to Gaza. We are proud of their professionalism, and across the House we pay tribute to their work, but the agonies of the Palestinians in Gaza are extreme. Children are starving, families are dying, and famine and disease are taking hold. Humanitarian help must flood into Palestinian hands, so we welcomed the ninth RAF airdrop last week, but why has there been only one sea shipment of UK aid in more than six months, and none this year? What are the Government doing to open up Ashdod port?
We welcome the new role for RFA Cardigan Bay in helping to build the temporary pier. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary is demonstrating that it provides vital naval support. Is it protected from new civil service cuts? Have Ministers resolved the issue of the potential strike action? What is the Defence Secretary doing to raise rock-bottom morale in the RFA? Weekend reports suggest that UK troops could be deployed to deliver aid on the ground in Gaza. Will the Minister confirm those plans? How will the Defence Secretary report to the House, and ensure that Parliament has a say, on any such deployment?
The Defence Secretary seems to be doing the bare minimum on the diplomatic front. Why has he made only one visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 7 October? We need an immediate ceasefire now, hostages released now, and unimpeded aid now. We need a political route to securing a long-term two-state settlement. Where the Government pursue these aims, they will have Labour’s fullest support.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions and his warm welcome. He asked a series of pertinent questions, which I will seek to cover off. He asked about our efforts on maritime delivery. Clearly, the deployment of RFA Cardigan Bay is leaning into the prospect of a far greater flow of maritime aid through the Cyprus humanitarian corridor, which will seek to substantially uplift that delivered so far. That will have an important impact on the extent to which Ashdod can come into play. We make the point regularly to our Israeli colleagues that opening Ashdod would be a critical enabler of a dramatically increased flow of aid, which is seriously needed.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay. Colleagues will have noticed in last week’s statement to the House that there has been a very substantial uplift in defence funding. An additional £75 billion over the next six years means that morale across all three services and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will be resilient, and higher than before. That uplift is a vote of confidence in our capabilities, of which we should all be proud—I certainly am.
I will not comment on speculation that there might be a ground role for UK forces. It would not be right for me to comment on speculation. We are very clear about the current remit. RFA Cardigan Bay is there to provide living support for the US troops involved in the construction and operational delivery of the JLOTS—joint logistics over the shore—platform.
The Defence Secretary will, as is his wont, continue to report frequently to this House, and to make oral and written statements. I am very pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman would like to see the Defence Secretary at the Dispatch Box more often. I will relay that desire to him when I see him. He is a busy man, but he knows that his first duty is to be in this House. His visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territories was important; his is a global role. To categorise his one visit as disproportionate, or a lack of interest, is uncharitable to say the least.
In all earnestness, we share the right hon. Gentleman’s view that a far greater flow of aid and humanitarian support is contingent on a sustainable ceasefire. This House will know that we call on Hamas to lay down their arms and release the hostages; that is the surest route to finding that sustainable ceasefire.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I commend the Government’s determination to get aid into Gaza, and I commend the work of the RAF, RFA Cardigan Bay, UK planners and the Hydrographic Office. As the Minister is aware, I would not expect him to comment on speculation, but some of the best laid and best intentioned plans can run into problems. Can he assure the House that we would only ever contemplate putting UK boots on the pier if appropriate force protection was in place?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, who speaks with characteristic expertise. He is absolutely right that it would be improper for me, as a Government Minister, to comment on that speculation.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Can the Minister confirm that the US maritime humanitarian aid corridor is required only because the Israeli Government will not allow the port of Ashdod to be used to receive the appropriate amount of aid for northern Gaza? Are the UK Government content with that stranglehold over the people of Gaza? The working assumption is that a nation will be driving trucks of aid across this American facility, but will that nation be the UK? If it is, what is the risk assessment if UK troops potentially step up for an operation that goes where American troops fear to tread? Getting aid into Gaza to alleviate the unspeakable torment of the Palestinians must be a good thing, and the professionalism and capability of UK troops is beyond question, but are Ministers seriously suggesting that the best that Euro-Atlantic allies can muster is British troops? Have Ministers forgotten how British forces operated in Palestine in the Arab rebellion of 1936? The Palestinians have not. Any risk calculation must command more robust analysis, rigour and humanitarian ambition, not simply UK Ministers’ ambitions for positive headlines.
Leo Docherty
Well, Mr Speaker, that was a mixed bag of questions. I will answer in the spirit of sincere debate. We should say that we are leaning into the Cypriot and Jordanian humanitarian efforts. That is very important, because those efforts need to be grounded in the region. Solutions to the problems of the region lie in the region, but clearly we have a key enabling role, along with the US. The hon. Gentleman invites me to comment on speculation in the media, which I will not do. Nor will I dwell on his reference to the history lesson from 1936. We should be upbeat and proud of the way we have significantly leaned into the delivery of humanitarian aid. That is a key component of stabilisation, and of any prospect of peace in Gaza.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One of the main strategic aims of Iran, Russia’s ally, in supporting what Hamas did in October last year was to suck western powers into the middle eastern theatre, thereby diverting them from Russia’s existential conflict with Ukraine. May I urge the Minister not to comment on the suggestion that we might have British boots on the ground in the Gaza strip, but to take the message back to the Secretary of State that this would be a completely insane idea? It would be far better to have moderate neighbouring Arab states deal with any distribution of aid that we have facilitated as a result of the viable RAF and sea power that we have rightly exercised.
Leo Docherty
My right hon. Friend is right: the answers to the humanitarian and political challenges in the region lie within the region. I entirely agree with his analysis. He made a relevant and good point about the requirement for us to maintain focus on our efforts to support our Ukrainian friends in defending their sovereignty. That is why last week we announced an additional uplift in our annual support for Ukraine to the tune of £500 million, bringing this year’s support to £3 billion—a record amount.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
From our work on the Defence Committee, I know that the armed forces are running hot. Obviously, the events in the middle east over the last six months or so have put much greater strain and pressure on our armed forces. What is the Minister doing to ensure that our armed forces get proper rest and recuperation, and that we improve the resilience of our assets?
Leo Docherty
We are increasing funding for defence to record levels, which increases the armed forces’ capacity to train, rest, and attend to all the areas of their lives other than operations. That is a huge vote of confidence in the esprit de corps of our armed forces. We are taking defence investment to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. It is a tremendous boost, which will filter down and improve retention and effectiveness right across the board.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
I was in Israel earlier this year and met senior Israel Defence Forces personnel, who assured me that they are doing everything in their power, and are working with allies, to increase aid to Gaza. It is the right thing to do, and we must continue those efforts, but it is patent that Hamas are obstructing the distribution of aid within Gaza—another reason why we need to support Israel in defeating Hamas. Will the Minister assure the House that if and when Israel goes into Rafah, where several Hamas battalions remain, and where senior Hamas operatives and the hostages are based, UK support will remain resolute and steadfast, as we support Israel in finishing the job and eliminating Hamas?
Leo Docherty
We are clear-eyed in our assessment of Hamas: we regard them as a terrorist organisation that has prosecuted an atrocity. We call on them to lay down their arms and to release the hostages. That is the precondition for any kind of meaningful and sustainable ceasefire.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Government have so far resisted having a proper debate and a vote on British military engagement in the middle east this year. The engagement of the British Army in Bosnia in the 1990s started out as being for the purposes of humanitarian aid, but was subject to mission creep as British soldiers were attacked by the warring parties. In 2006, John Reid said:
“We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years’ time without firing one shot”.
Will the Minister assure us that if the Government proposed using British troops on the ground in Gaza, they would first grant this House a debate and a vote on the matter?
Leo Docherty
The lessons of Bosnia are interesting, and are not lost on Government Members. The hon. Gentleman should have no doubt that Ministers and the Government will remain fully accountable to this House.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Ind)
May I declare an interest? Members of my close family have been, and are, involved in military operations in the middle east.
Bearing in mind my experience in Northern Ireland—seven tours—I am slightly worried that if our armed forces open fire in the middle east, which they have done, a foreign country will, at some future date, put them before an international court and charge them. I hope the Minister will declare that such a thing will never happen.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his questions; he speaks from a position of knowledge. He should be assured, as should the House, that our forces in the region operate with the full force of the law behind them on the basis of collective self-defence.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Israeli media are reporting that the International Criminal Court could be about to issue an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu and other top Israeli officials for the litany of war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. It is further reported that the United States Government are working to prevent justice from being done and to stop the ICC issuing arrest warrants. Does the Minister agree, after more than 34,000 Palestinians—women, men and children —have been slaughtered in Gaza and Israeli bombings have obliterated and decimated entire Palestinian neighbourhoods, that Benjamin Netanyahu should be held to account for his horrific crimes?
Mr Speaker
Order. We have to be careful: the question is quite framed. I am sure the Minister might want to pick part of that to answer.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Hamas are a terrorist organisation that hate the United Kingdom and everything that we stand for. It would therefore be deeply unwise for the UK to commit British servicemen and women, whether on the ground or on the pier in Gaza. It is for precisely that reason that the White House has categorically ruled this out. Will the Minister take the opportunity to do the same, so that we can reassure our constituents that we do not make an inadvertent mistake, and that British troops will continue doing what they should be doing, which is facilitating the complete eradication of Hamas?
Leo Docherty
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend’s analysis and his comments about Hamas. Other than that, of course I will not comment on speculation in the media.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
What discussions has the Minister had regarding UN security forces accompanying trucks to enable them to move into Gaza in the light of the impediments they are facing, and also rebuilding infrastructure so that trucks can travel across the country to deliver crucial medical and other humanitarian aid?
Leo Docherty
A great deal of energy from Ministers and officials is going into the ongoing discussion about how to operationalise the greater flow rate of humanitarian aid going into Gaza, so the hon. Lady asks a relevant question.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Minister is rightly reluctant to discuss the roles, dispositions and locations of British forces in the middle east, but could he again confirm to the House that the requisite force protection will be factored into all operational level planning, and also that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the UN could be coerced into taking a more active role in Gaza?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend also asks a relevant question, and I can give him that assurance in relation to the deployment of RFA Cardigan Bay.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Some 34,000 people are already dead in Gaza, many are dying now in Rafah from wholly preventable conditions such as measles because of a lack of sanitation and medical care, and the Israeli bombardment is still going on. That is the biggest problem for getting aid in. What pressure is the Minister putting on the Israeli Government to cease the bombardment of Gaza, to ensure the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, and to ensure that we will not be deploying British troops anywhere on the on the ground in Gaza, the west bank or any other part of the region and that instead we will search for peace and for justice for the people of Palestine?
Leo Docherty
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the protection of civilians. We continue to make the point to our Israeli friends that they must seek to protect civilian lives, but of course the root cause of this is the atrocity committed by Hamas. For peace to be secured, all that would have to happen is for Hamas to lay down their arms and release the hostages.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Iran continues to present one of the most pressing and dangerous threats to the middle east and to global stability. With the increasing emphasis on the need for an integrated defence strategy comprising different nations of the region, does my hon. Friend agree that there is an ongoing, vital role for British forces to play, as they did so ably on the night of 13 and 14 April?
Leo Docherty
I wholeheartedly agree, and we should pay tribute to those who courageously played an active role in that defence of our collective security. Undoubtedly, British armed forces have a sustained and hugely important role to play in bringing peace and stability right across the region.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The UN reports that 80% of all those in the world facing imminent famine are located in Gaza. With over 200 humanitarian workers killed by Israeli forces since October, a ceasefire is essential for the effective delivery of aid and for preventing famine in both the short term and the long term. How can the Government justify their continued refusal to back calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady is correct that a ceasefire is needed, as it is the way to assure the flow of aid that Gazans need. The precondition of that ceasefire is for Hamas to lay down their arms and to release the hostages.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I was in Israel on the night of the Iran attacks, and I saw the jets in the sky, David’s Sling and Iron Dome dealing with the ballistic missiles as they came in. I felt very proud to know that our forces were involved, and the Israelis were very grateful for our activity.
One group of people in Gaza who are not being provided with aid or proper medical checks are, of course, the hostages. Last Monday, I spoke to the parent of 23-year-old Hersh Goldberg-Polin, who was last seen on 7 October being bundled into the back of a truck with his arm and hand missing, having had a grenade thrown into his shelter. A video was released on Wednesday, and it was the first sight of him. He looked in a very distressed state. Can the Minister assure me that we will continue to do everything we can, militarily and through intelligence, to help Israel to locate these hostages?
Leo Docherty
I can, of course, give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is a highly sensitive subject, and if he would care to raise the case with me individually, we will do what we can to follow up.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Two months ago, the House passed Labour’s motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. We believe that Hamas must immediately release their hostages, but Israel must also look at releasing its prisoners. There has to be an immediate and unimpeded supply of aid into Gaza, but I am really concerned about UK forces getting involved. We should rely absolutely on aid being delivered by the charities and voluntary organisations on the ground. What is the Defence Secretary doing with our allies and regional partners to secure an immediate ceasefire?
Leo Docherty
We continue to make the point that Hamas must lay down their arms and release the hostages. That is the precondition for peace.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The key problem, as my hon. Friend will know, is that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are appropriating aid meant for the Palestinians. What steps are our armed forces taking to ensure that aid gets to those who really need it, not the terrorist networks? What steps are they taking against Hamas’s terrorist tunnels under the Egyptian border? British armed forces could play a significant role in working with Israel to dismantle the tunnel networks.
Leo Docherty
My right hon. Friend asks a very good question, and a huge amount of effort is going into this. We are energetically leaning into the prospect of a greater degree of aid flowing through the Cypriot and Jordanian humanitarian corridors, and the JLOTS temporary pier capability could be an absolute game changer.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The Government continue to provide huge sums of taxpayers’ money for arms and weapons for Ukraine, but minimal funding for humanitarian aid for Gaza. Does the Minister believe that the UK public share the Government’s spending priorities?
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Despite some positive noises coming out of the middle east about a truce, for my constituents in Bolton it is deeply worrying to see reports of an increasingly likely ground offensive in the southern city of Rafah. The Minister spoke about not wanting to see any more bloodshed, but if there is a ground offensive, more blood will be shed. What are our Government, the Ministry of Defence in particular, doing to avoid bloodshed happening in Rafah and to prepare for different scenarios?
Leo Docherty
We always make the point to our Israeli colleagues that the protection of civilian life is imperative. We acknowledge that Israel has an absolute right to self-defence, and we hope that Hamas will recognise that the path to peace lies in laying down their arms and releasing the hostages.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
My understanding is that the British Government do not support the ground offensive by the Israeli military in Rafah. Will they therefore use all the leverage at their disposal, including withdrawing arms export licences, if the Israeli Government act against British policy?
Leo Docherty
We have one of the world’s toughest arms export regimes, of which we should be very proud.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
On the middle east, it is a decade since this House voted to support the UK’s joining the global coalition against Daesh. Although territory has been liberated, does not the recent strike by the RAF against a rocket launcher being used to target coalition forces underline the need for a sustained, long-term commitment to defeat and destroy terrorism?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, and we should be grateful for the role played by the RAF. It is a reminder that the price of peace is eternal vigilance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his responses. I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement last week about the extra defence spending. It is important that we support innocent victims who cannot protect themselves. The UK’s role in the middle east is much appreciated, acclaimed and respected. Does the Minister agree that in response to recent increased Iranian threats, for instance with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps being responsible for Hamas terrorist attacks across Gaza and the broader middle east, we must do whatever we can within our budget to encourage de-escalation and to try to prevent further attacks by Iran and its supporters?
Leo Docherty
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; he rightly says that putting in 2.5% of GDP by 2030 will provide that boost and ensure that we have the operational capability to achieve that global response that we need to keep our country safe.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
We talk about 500 trucks a day because that was the pre-war number, but that was when Gaza had a relatively functioning economy and an agricultural sector to back it up. Therefore, more than 400 trucks will be needed, by land and sea, and so I thank the armed forces for their help in delivering aid and in helping to build the pier. What pressure are we putting on Israel to get more aid quickly delivered by land, which is the best and quickest way of doing it, and on the use of UNRWA in northern Gaza, as it has the most effective system to get aid to the right places quickly?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend is correct: we do need to increase that flow. What would be a game changer is opening the port of Ashdod, and we continue to make that point forcefully to our colleagues.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that His Majesty’s armed forces could be providing any humanitarian support, now or in the future, only with Israel’s total co-operation and that it should be recognised for that? Has he noted also that Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow 3 defensive systems, among other things, would, in effect, be part of the protection of His Majesty’s and other allied forces? Does he agree that that makes even more nonsense of the anti-Israel interests’ call for an arms embargo against Israel, because if allied forces, including His Majesty’s forces, were to be acting in the region, they would be looking for support from Israel itself?
Leo Docherty
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point.
Checks on Goods Entering UK
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the introduction of checks on goods entering the UK under the border target operating model due to be live on 30 April 2024.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)
Under the border target operating model, tomorrow the Government are introducing documentary and risk-based identity and physical checks on medium-risk animal products, plants, plant products and high-risk food and feed of non-animal origin imported from the EU. Checks on high-risk products, currently conducted at destination, are moving from destination to border control posts and control points. Recent media reports suggesting that the introduction of these controls will be delayed are incorrect.
Documentary checks will happen at all risk levels. Physical checks will initially focus on the highest-risk goods, with some also taking place on medium-risk commodities. We will build up to full check rates to both protect biosecurity and minimise disruption. We will continually review our enforcement approach as we track compliance and trade flow, and will adjust our approach accordingly. This pragmatic approach will support traders as they adjust to the new regime.
The Government have worked closely with industry, inspection agencies and the Animal and Plant Health Agency, known as APHA, to ensure we are ready for the introduction of these controls. We are confident that border control post infrastructure has sufficient capacity and capability to handle the volume of checks expected under the border target operating model. We are confident that our systems are robust, dynamic and effective, and that the inspection authorities are appropriately staffed and trained.
I close by emphasising that the introduction of these biosecurity controls is not optional. Now that we have moved away from the EU’s rigid biosecurity surveillance and reporting systems, we are responsible for protecting our own biosecurity against threats such as African swine fever.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Let us start by saying this is not about Brexit because, whether Members supported or opposed Brexit, nothing proposed here is inevitable or unavoidable. Having left the EU, we need border controls, but what is proposed will not be controlled—it will be chaos.
The EU brought in checks in 2021, but this Government have delayed doing that five times. In that time, they could have negotiated a sanitary and phytosanitary deal to avoid the mess that is about to happen. Instead, from Wednesday, for the first time, 2.7 million lorries will need to be stopped at Dover so their contents can be checked, and another 4 million will require a health certificate for the animal products they carry. On top of that, 5 million of them will have to pay a common user charge for the privilege of importing goods deemed medium or high risk, whether or not they are inspected. The costs to business, which we know will be passed on to consumers, are horrendous and chaotic, and the charges were confirmed only on 18 April.
The Government have admitted that the checks will cause inflation, but they claim it is only £300 million—0.2%—over three years. Independent analysis shows it will be 10 times that amount, or £8 a month on the average food shop. If the Minister wants to dispute that figure, will he finally publish the modelling that the Government have refused to disclose so we can see how they have come to their numbers? We know their numbers are wrong because, while they have confirmed that the common user charge—the direct cost to each lorry—will be about £145 a time, they admit they have not calculated how much the new veterinary checks will cost, with some running to hundreds of pounds. They cannot make those calculations because they told European countries to set their own standards and charges, so how can Ministers tell us we can be confident when we do not know what will be passed to be healthy in Hungary, Germany or here?
If food standards matter to people, they will be disappointed because the Minister has just admitted that only “some” checks will happen on medium-risk goods from Wednesday. Will he put a number on how many checks will happen from Wednesday? Medium-risk goods are anything of animal origin that are not alive, but could also be beetroot or sweetcorn. What a mess.
Small businesses are going to be clobbered for a fee for a service they will not even get. On top of that, Sevington has not even been declared a border control post to carry out any of the checks. Where will goods coming into Dover be checked on Wednesday, especially if they are high risk? What about the other ports around the UK that can set their own charges? And who is going to enforce any of this? The Government told industry to be prepared, but there will not be any checks after 7 pm, so people can say goodbye to those just-in-time supply chains for perishable goods. People coming back from holiday have no idea what their “personal use” is, so they could be stopped for carrying gorgonzola.
With 36 hours to go, we need some straight answers. Our constituents cannot eat the paperwork or afford the price rises these checks will create. Corner shops, delis and restaurants will go bust and our ports will be bunged up. I say to the Minister that there is still time to cancel the Brexit border tax, so will he please listen to concerns from across the House and do so?
Sir Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady either chooses not to understand what is happening, or deliberately tries to inflame a situation that will be of great benefit to the UK moving forward. She deliberately picked the highest figure available. For low-risk goods, there is a £10 charge for products, capped at a maximum of five products, so the maximum amount that can be charged on a lorry load of low-risk goods would be £50.
The hon. Lady is right that we have calculated that over three years that will lead to an additional 0.2% on food inflation. In comparison, an outbreak of foot and mouth disease cost this country £12 billion, not taking into account the impact on international trade and our reputation as a country, so these checks are a small price to pay for ensuring we are safe and protected for phytosanitary and sanitary goods coming into the UK.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Obviously, as part of the European Union and the single market, we could not impose checks to ensure that diseases such as African swine fever did not come into the country. The Minister has said that there will be a graduated approach to the introduction of the checks. What is the timescale for ramping them up to a level that he believes will be satisfactory? If consignments are diverted to Sevington, what measures will be in place to ensure that those trucks or vans actually arrive at Sevington and people do not dump what is on board in a layby or transfer it to another vehicle?
Sir Mark Spencer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for the scrutiny that his Select Committee has undertaken.
It is important to distinguish between those goods that come into the country through approved routes, via approved importers on traditional lines, and those people who may seek to import goods into the UK illegally or without that documentation. There will still be border control checks by Border Force at the port of Dover to catch those who are trying to do something illegal, but those who are operating within the system will move to Sevington. To stop halfway and avoid those checks would be a criminal act and those goods would not be able to be sold within the UK marketplace.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
We recognise the need to ensure the UK’s biosecurity, but I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). What a mess. It is 29 April and the new checks are being introduced tomorrow, but the businesses involved are unclear about how the system is supposed to operate—and that is after the five delays that we have heard about and huge sums wasted on border control points. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how much has been wasted on Portsmouth, for instance.
We want these checks to work. I have been to the London and the Dover port health authorities and been extremely impressed by the work that they do, but it is baffling that, in the battle against Asian swine flu, at Dover, the Minister is taking away vital funding, as the Government move the checks 22 miles up the road to Sevington. Can he tell the House how food vehicles will be controlled on that journey, as Dover Port Health Authority tells me clearly that they won’t?
The Government have admitted that the cost will be an extra £330 million annually. Others say it will be more. What definitive figures can the Minister provide for the inflationary impact that this Government’s border measures will create for food supplies in the UK? What assessment has been made of the savings and efficiency that would be made if we were to achieve a better veterinary agreement with the EU?
In conclusion, the British chambers of commerce says that DEFRA has failed to listen to industry over these changes. Others say the same. Many businesses are exasperated by the endless delays and the repeated and continual lack of clarity and certainty in the implementation of the new system. Why have the Government left businesses and even border chiefs in a position where they simply cannot plan properly and are left in the dark, as one put it, at one minute to midnight in terms of being told about the essential features of the new system? What is the Minister going to do to sort out the mess?
Sir Mark Spencer
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions and his interest in this topic. What is clear is that there is a distinction between those goods that are coming into the country illegally, which will still be inspected at the port of Dover by Border Force, and those that are coming in via legitimate routes, by legitimate trade links, from areas that have been inspected by their own country’s equivalent of the Food Standards Agency to make sure that those port goods are safe to come into the UK with the correct documentation. Those goods will go to Sevington. But if someone tries to do something illegal, they will be picked up by Border Force at the port of Dover, via inspection, including intelligence-led inspection. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister says that there is no money, but we are in conversation with Port of Dover to resolve that.
The other challenge that the shadow Minister put to us was that we have delayed this a number of times. That has happened because we have been in conversation with those people and hauliers who have had comments on how to improve the system. We have listened to those concerns and now have the model that will operate, given the advice and liaison we have had with those companies.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
As a veterinary surgeon, I am passionate about biosecurity. I am reassured that our Conservative Government are taking this matter very seriously indeed. I thank the Animal and Plant Health Agency and everyone at our borders who do so much in this regard. Prior to leaving the EU, we did not have the opportunity systematically to check animal and plant products coming into the UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we now have the opportunity to strengthen our biosecurity and that the introduction of the border target operator model will protect animal, plant and, ultimately, human health in the UK moving forward?
Sir Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area and his expertise in it. Moving forward, we will be in a much stronger place in terms of our phytosanitary and sanitary protections. That is the right outcome. We will continue to ensure that we are safe in the UK and that we protect our borders proportionately.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The continual uncertainty being caused by these border checks is not only disgraceful but highly damaging for industry and consumers. There have been five delays by the UK Government, accompanied by a complete failure to communicate those delays effectively. Does the Minister accept that the significant disruption being faced is a symptom of not only the Government’s disastrous delivery of the checks but Brexit itself? Any suggestion to the contrary is frankly for the birds. Secondly, will he apologise from the Dispatch Box to the businesses that have been diligently preparing for the changes, only to be left utterly in the dark by his Government?
Sir Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is simply untrue. We have been working closely with the sector, with hauliers, and with companies that want to import food into the UK. We are approaching this in a pragmatic, proportionate way. We have taken our time to get it right. I do not apologise for taking time to ensure that the system that we will introduce tomorrow is proportionate and pragmatic. We have listened to the companies that will use the systems to ensure that we get it right and it works. We are ramping this up at a pace that is slow but steady to ensure that we get to the right place in the right time, to keep the country safe from any disease.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes the point that there have been delays, and he makes no apology for them. Given those delays, will he accept my assurance, since Sevington is in my constituency, that the team working there, whom I have spoken to about this in great detail, are absolutely prepared and well trained to do the checks as well as they could possibly be done? People can be assured of the safety of import checks at Sevington, because the team there are absolutely across everything that needs to be done.
Sir Mark Spencer
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support, and the reassurance that he gives the House. We will continue to listen, and to work with those who want to import goods into the UK, to ensure that we remove as many barriers to the operation of free trade as possible, but at the same time keep ourselves safe.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Our trade intensity has fallen to the lowest level in the G7, and ITV’s Joel Hills has stated that the estimated costs of the new model are 10 times the Government’s estimate. I hope that the Department will publish its detailed workings soon, but surely the bottom line is that the cost of living crisis has not gone away, and the Minister is basically introducing a system that will cost UK consumers more to check on imports coming from the EU to standards that are exactly the same as the UK’s, and which of course meet EU standards in the first place. Does he seriously think that voters will forgive him?
Sir Mark Spencer
The right hon. Gentleman says that there will be extensive costs. As I said, for low-risk products they are £10 per product, limited to a maximum of five products per common health entry document. That means that the costs are reasonable. We calculate that there will be a 0.2% increase in cost over three years. He says that these goods are coming from within the EU under the same regulations. African swine fever is moving across Europe. It is already present in Italy. Were that disease to get to the UK, it would be devastating for the UK pork market and the UK pig population. It would also damage our ability to export pork products around the world if we lost our credibility as being free from African swine fever.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The Minister is absolutely right about the devastating impact of not having proper checks and the risk of African swine fever, so can he explain why Dover Port Health is having its costs slashed for essential checks at the border? Will he accept that the existing checks should be maintained in full at Dover Port Health; that Dover port of is the right authority, with its state-of-the-art facility, to do these important checks, in respect of which it is the most experienced body across the entire channel; and that we should not risk having these checks at some new, untested, supposedly trained facility 22 miles away in Ashford? That is a risk to this country.
Sir Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s tenacious campaign on behalf of her constituents and the port of Dover, but I hope she will not mind my drawing attention to the fact that these are separate regimes: goods coming in legally, via legal channels, with the right documentation will move to Sevington, but the port of Dover is the right place for Border Force to ensure that we are protected from illegal imports, and those checks will still take place. The conversations with the Port of Dover over funding continue, and we want to see Port of Dover continue to help to keep us safe and intercept any illegal imports that people may attempt to bring into the UK.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Those of us from rural communities, particularly those like mine in Cumbria that had to live through the horror of the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, know how vital it is to have biosecurity at our borders—but intelligently applied, so that we do not damage supply chains and have excessive red tape. Does this issue not shine a spotlight on the fact that we are now, sadly, increasingly reliant on food imports? Britain produces only 60% of the food we eat. Does that not remind us that the Government’s agricultural payments scheme, which actively disincentivises the production of food on good-quality, productive agricultural land, is extremely foolish and should be reversed if we are serious about our security as a country?
Sir Mark Spencer
I am familiar with the beauty of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency; as he knows, I was there on Saturday with the shadow Minister. He gives the figures for what we import in total, but for the food we can produce we are at 72%. The Prime Minister has also recognised that challenge, and we will introduce a food security index so that we can monitor this issue, to make sure that the Government’s policies do drive farmers to increase their productivity and their production. I have full confidence in the ability of our farmers to continue to produce top-quality British food, to continue to expand their productivity and to keep the country well fed.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
These changes are required under World Trade Organisation rules and are about keeping us safe from disease threats, but in practical terms, how will it work for mixed loads in particular, to reduce the cost to business and therefore to consumers?
Sir Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend asks an important question. That is why we have capped the maximum charges to five per load, particularly to support SMEs. As I say, for those of medium risk the charge is £10, or a maximum of £50 per load. That cap is specifically aimed at helping and supporting SMEs that are importing food into the UK.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
What do the Government have against the £6.2 billion floristry industry in this country, which employs 240,000 people—seven times as many dentists as we have in this country? Many of them work in small family businesses on very small margins. Why did the Government do absolutely no impact assessment when they increased the costs for those bringing in chrysanthemums, dianthus, solidago, orchids and gypsophila to £500 and introduced severe delays on products that need to be at market by 9 o’clock in the morning? Weddings, funerals, Mothers’ day and Valentine’s day—is there any family event that will not feel the dead hand of this Government?
Sir Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight how important that sector is to the UK economy; that is why we want to protect those growing flowers here in the UK from any diseases that may be imported via products that have not come through the right channels with the right documentation. We want to keep the growing sector in the UK safe from any of those diseases; that is why we are introducing these checks.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The border operating model will not apply on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain; those trade routes are exempt. However, given the record of dodgy products being manufactured in the Irish Republic and brought through Northern Ireland to GB, can the Minister give an assurance that, should that route be used either by Republic of Ireland producers or other EU producers, he will not be installing checks on Northern Ireland to GB trade, which is so important to the Northern Ireland food industry and economy?
Sir Mark Spencer
Of course, we recognise the importance of the Northern Ireland economy, and we want to ensure that Northern Ireland feels part of the United Kingdom. We will do everything we can to limit any impact. As the right hon. Gentleman identifies, there is currently no timescale for the introduction of the way in which we will monitor and work with those who are moving goods across from that part of the United Kingdom. We want to ensure that that does not become a back-door route, and we will continue to have conversations with the authorities in that part of the world.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
On the subject of back-door routes, can my right hon. Friend tell us when the border control points for the Welsh ports that connect to the EU through the Republic of Ireland will be operational?
Sir Mark Spencer
I cannot give my right hon. Friend a date at this moment in time, but we are in detailed conversations—particularly with those at the port of Holyhead, which is an important UK port—and as soon as we have a date, I will update him from the Dispatch Box.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Minister says that this policy will benefit Britain, but the Centre for Economic Performance says that our food prices are already 30% higher because of Brexit, and independent analysis shows that the Government’s approach will cost another £2.9 billion. Why is he ignoring British business estimates on this issue and hitting British customers with another Tory tax at this difficult time?
Sir Mark Spencer
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from my previous answers, we are working hard to ensure that we keep UK food producers free from plant and animal diseases. That is why we are introducing these checks in a proportionate way that does not impact on business, it is why we have limited the amount of charges that can be introduced to five per lorryload, it is why we have ensured that those fees are set at only £10 for medium-risk products, and it is why we will continue to work with industry to ensure that we have a proportionate approach that does not take cash away from businesses and only recovers the cost of keeping us safe as a country.
Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough) (Lab)
Why have the Government refused to implement a tonnage-based approach, as the EU does, which would support small and medium-sized importers, particularly in Wellingborough? Not doing so risks putting them out of business. To avoid that, will the Minister adopt measures such as ensuring that all small and medium-sized importers can join the trusted trader scheme?
Sir Mark Spencer
We did look at different models. Of course, we could have adopted the model of third country to the EU, but that would have created significant cost for those wishing to import food across the channel. We also looked at adopting the EU’s model, which, again, would have cost way more than the model that we are introducing. The model that we are rolling out tomorrow is the best and most pragmatic model that we have been able to develop through working with and listening to the advice of those in the sector.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Food prices are 30% higher than they were three years ago, and independent estimates reckon that new border checks are equivalent to adding a 10% tariff to imports. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that border checks will have on living standards in Welsh households, in which one in every four adults has been skipping meals to make ends meet?
Sir Mark Spencer
Actually, on increased food prices in Wales, the biggest danger is taking 20% of land away from Welsh farmers and out of production and imposing a top-down approach to those farmers. I hope that the right hon. Lady will rethink her support for the Welsh Government’s disastrous proposals, which will drive thousands and thousands of people out of Welsh agriculture.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
As a direct result of all these changes, small businesses will close, jobs will be lost and consumer choice will be reduced. That is the exact opposite of what Brexit was supposed to achieve, is it not?
Sir Mark Spencer
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. This is a pragmatic approach to keeping the country safe from animal and plant diseases while allowing the free flow of trade via a model in which people can get certification away from the ports to ensure that they can import products, and stamping down on those who want to act illegally.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Obviously, these controls will introduce additional logistical steps, which are problematic for time-critical products. I recently met people from Maincrop Potatoes Ltd in my constituency. It trades potatoes to producers, so it has a deadline to hit on those production lines, and it will be importing more this year because of the disastrous potato harvest. Can the Minister provide any reassurance that that process will be streamlined enough to enable that business to continue to move its goods around in a timely way?
Sir Mark Spencer
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. What the hon. Lady has described is exactly what we want to try to achieve: making sure that trade, particularly in goods such as potatoes, flows across the channel as freely as possible, but that we protect ourselves from diseases such as brown rot that could be devastating to the UK’s potato production.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Could the Minister set out the Government’s current policy towards a comprehensive UK-EU veterinary agreement, and what negotiations—if any—are happening in that regard? That would surely be a huge win for consumers and producers right across the UK, and would have the added bonus of further reducing the level of checks required on agrifood movements across the Irish sea.
Sir Mark Spencer
I do not think that if we were to reach that agreement, it would include veterinary medicines, but of course we continue to have conversations with our friends in the EU to remove as many barriers as possible. We have a strong interest in making sure that the farmers and vets in Northern Ireland continue to get adequate supplies of medicine, and we will work with our friends in the EU to unblock as many of those barriers as possible.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
My understanding is that the Minister was opposed to Brexit in 2016, and I presume one of the reasons for that is that he opposes red tape. Do this measure and others not indicate that, as feared, Brexit is turning into the biggest chapter of red tape in UK economic history?
Sir Mark Spencer
I am a strong believer in democracy. The Brexit debate was one that was settled by the great British public. They voted to leave the European Union, and now I want to embrace the opportunities that that brings for the UK. As a Government, we will continue to work tirelessly to make sure that we make Brexit work for the UK and seize those opportunities that come our way.
Mr Speaker
I am now going to have to suspend the House. I suggest that we suspend for 10 minutes in order to allow the Front Benchers to read the statement.
Health and Disability Reform
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The sitting is now resumed. The reason for the suspension was because the statement, which under the ministerial code should have been delivered at a minimum of 45 minutes prior to the statement being made, was delivered late; I know the Secretary of State will want to look into the matter and report back to the Speaker.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
First, may I apologise profusely to the House that a copy of my statement was not provided to Mr Speaker and indeed those on the Opposition Front Benches sufficiently in advance of my statement? May I also take this as my first opportunity in the House to say how saddened I was by the passing of Frank Field, a true champion of welfare reform who was always prepared to work across party? While we did not always agree on all matters, I share and admire his belief that welfare means transforming lives.
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on the consultation we are launching today on the changes to the personal independence payment, which aim to create a benefits system that can best support disabled people and people with long-term health conditions to live full and independent lives.
This Government’s priority is to make sure that our welfare system is fair and compassionate: fair on the taxpayer by ensuring that people of working age who can work do work; and fair on those in most need of the state’s help. Welfare at its best is about more than just benefit payments; it is about changing lives for the better.
In recent years the Government have delivered successive reforms to create a system that is fairer and more compassionate while providing value for the taxpayer. We have reformed an outdated and complex legacy benefits system and introduced universal credit—a new, modern benefit that ensures people are better off in work than on benefits. Last year we published a landmark White Paper announcing significant reforms to focus the welfare system on what people can do rather than what they cannot. We are delivering our £2.5 billion back to work plan, substantially expanding the employment support to help more disabled people and people with health conditions to start, stay and succeed in work. Our reforms to the work capability assessment will better reflect the opportunities in the modern world of work and ensure that more people get the support they need to move into employment, while protecting those unable to work, and in February we published the disability action plan to make this country the most accessible place in the world for people to live, work and thrive.
In addition, the Government have provided unprecedented help for the most vulnerable, including by implementing one of the largest cost of living support packages in Europe, which prevented 1.3 million people from falling into absolute poverty during a time of global inflationary pressures. We have increased benefits by 6.7% and raised the local housing allowance, benefiting 1.6 million households by an average of around £800 this year.
Our approach to transforming the benefits system for disabled people and people with long-term health conditions is guided by three important priorities: providing the right support to the people who need it most; targeting our resources most effectively; and supporting disabled people to reach their full potential and to live independently.
Although we have made significant progress, the disability benefit system for adults of working age is not consistently providing support in the way that was intended. It has been more than a decade since the introduction of the personal independence payment. The intention was that it would be a more sustainable, more dynamic benefit that would provide better targeted support to help disabled people with the extra costs arising from their disability. However, the nature and understanding of disability and ill health in Britain has changed profoundly since then, and the clinical case mix has evolved in line with those broader changes, including many more people applying for disability benefits with mental health and neurodivergent conditions.
Since 2015, the proportion of the caseload receiving the highest rate of PIP has increased from 25% to 36%. Some 7% of working-age people in England and Wales are now claiming PIP or disability living allowance, which is forecast to rise to 10% by 2028-29. In 2022-23, the Government spent £15.7 billion on extra costs disability benefits for people of working age in England and Wales, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that the cost will rise to £29.8 billion in nominal terms by 2028-29. There are now more than 33,000 new awards for PIP per month. That figure has almost doubled since the pandemic.
With almost a quarter of the adult population now reporting a disability—up from 16% in 2013—I believe that now is the time for a new conversation about how the benefits system can best support people to live full and independent lives. Today I am launching a consultation to explore changes that could be made to the current PIP system to ensure that support is focused where it is most needed. These options include: making changes to eligibility criteria for PIP; redesigning the PIP assessment to better target it towards the individual needs of disabled people and people with health conditions, including exploring whether people with specific health conditions or disabilities can be taken out of PIP assessments all together; and reforming the PIP assessment so that it is more linked to a person’s condition. We are also consulting on whether we should make fundamental changes to how we provide support to disabled people and people with a health condition.
We know that any additional costs arising from a disability or health condition, which PIP is intended to help with, can vary significantly and are unique to the individual’s circumstances. Some people on PIP may have relatively small one-off costs, such as walking aids or aids to help with eating and drinking, or ongoing additional costs related to their disability or health condition, such as help around the home or running a ventilator. Some claimants’ costs will be fully covered by their award, while others may find the current system does not provide enough support to meet their needs, yet the current system operates a one-size-fits-all model and does not channel people towards bespoke support tailored to an individual’s needs. We recognise that better, more targeted support could be provided by other local services.
Our plans include exploring how the welfare system could be improved with new approaches to providing support, such as: moving away from a fixed cash benefit system, so that people can receive more tailored support in line with their needs; exploring how to better align the support PIP offers with existing services and offers of support available to disabled people and people with health conditions; and exploring alternative ways of supporting people to live independent and fulfilling lives, which could mean financial support being better targeted at people who have specific extra costs, but could also involve improved support of other kinds, such as respite care or physical or mental health treatment, aiming to achieve better outcomes for individuals.
Crucially, we want to explore whether we can achieve our aims within the current structure of health and disability benefits, or whether wider change is needed. We are consulting over the next 12 weeks to seek views from across society, including disabled people and representative organisations, to ensure that everyone has a chance to shape welfare reforms that will modernise the support provided through the benefits system.
We know that these reforms are significant in their scale and ambition, but we will not shy away from the challenges facing our welfare system today. We owe that to the millions of people who rely on it and to the hard-working people whose taxes underpin it. That is what the next generation of welfare reforms is all about. These proposals will help to create a benefits system that can better support disabled people and people with long-term health conditions to live full and independent lives, and they are a crucial part of my mission to ensure that the welfare system is fair and compassionate and that it provides the right help to those who need it most. I commend this statement to the House.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his comments about Frank Field. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who is sitting alongside me on the Front Bench, thought the world of Frank. I thank the Secretary of State for his tribute to a person who was completely unique in every way.
With regards to advance sight of the Secretary of State’s statement, I say: apology accepted. Labour will carefully review the detail of the Green Paper, because the country that we want is one where disabled people have the same right to a good job and help to get it as anyone else. We will judge any measure that the Government bring forward on its merits and against that principle, because the costs of failure in this area are unsustainable. The autonomy and routine of work is good for us all, for our mental and physical health—and more than that, for women, work is freedom, too.
I have read the Secretary of State’s gibes about Labour. He says that he does not know what our position is on a set of reforms that he has not set out. The Prime Minister made a speech about this issue two weeks ago, but every single day since then the Government have failed to publish the Green Paper. The Secretary of State wants my views on his, until this moment, unpublished thoughts. What was the problem? Was the printer jammed? Rather, was it that the Prime Minister and Secretary of State realised that, as soon as they published the Green Paper, everyone would realise the truth about the Government: like the Prime Minister who leads them, they are long on questions and short when it comes to the answers?
The Green Paper is not a plan; it is an exam that the Secretary of State is hoping he will never have to sit. The reason he wants to know Labour’s plan is that he suspects he will be long gone before any of these proposals are a reality. Will the Secretary of State tell me where the Green Paper leaves the Government’s earlier half-baked plan to scrap the work capability assessment, given that the idea behind that was to use the PIP assessment? He said that some health conditions can be taken out of PIP assessments. Which conditions was he talking about?
PIP was the creation of a Conservative Government, so where is the analysis of what has gone wrong? PIP replaced DLA, and now we are hearing that PIP is the problem. How many more times will we go around this same roundabout? Do the Government’s plans involve treating people’s mental and physical health differently? Can he explain the legal basis for doing so? Importantly, on health itself, is this Green Paper not a huge admission of the Tory failure on the NHS, in that it takes as its starting point the fact that people today simply cannot get the treatment and care they need? What will the costs of any new system be, in particular those of any extra support of the kind he mentioned? Will we see a White Paper before a general election?
I am standing in today and for the next few weeks for my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who believes that health and work are two sides of the same coin. That is the insight that the Government are missing today. I ask myself how we got here. The country today is sicker—that is the legacy of this Government. NHS waiting lists are longer than they have ever been—that is the legacy of the Secretary of State’s party. If he does not know how bad things are in mental healthcare, he needs only to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). There are 2.8 million people who are locked out of work due to long-term sickness. That is the Conservative legacy: like ice on our potholed roads, the Tories have widened the cracks in our economy and society, making them all much worse.
With respect to mental health, in recent weeks the Secretary of State has decided to speak out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he says,
“I’m grateful for today’s much more open approach to mental health”,
but with the same breath he goes on to say,
“there is danger that this has gone too far.”
He wants it both ways. He thinks that openness about mental health is good, but then he says the very thing that brings back the stigma.
Every time the Secretary of State speaks, he makes it less likely that people will be open about their mental health. On behalf of all of us who have ever had a panic attack at work, or worse, can I say that that stigma stops people from getting treatment, it makes getting help harder, and it keeps people out of work, not in it? A Labour Government will take a totally different approach. We will not only ensure more appointments but have an extra 8,500 mental health staff. The last Labour Government delivered the highest patient satisfaction on record, and that is the record on which we will build.
The issue that we are discussing is bigger than just health; it is also about work. Because of our commitment to serve working people, we will make work better, too. We will have the new deal for working people, improving rights for the first time in a generation, and we will drive up employment in every region because we will devolve employment support and end the tick-box culture in jobcentres. We will tear down the barriers to work for disabled people and provide help for young people. That will get Britain working again.
Harold Wilson said that unemployment, above all else, made him political. Those of us who grew up seeing people thrown on the scrapheap in the ’80s and ’90s feel the same. Every young person out of work today will never forget whose hand was on the tiller when these Tories robbed them of hope. It is time for a change, and a general election.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her response and the gracious manner in which she accepted my apology, which is much appreciated.
The hon. Lady said that she cannot be expected to comment on the PIP proposals, but I remind her that the work capability assessment proposals went through a consultation, and we still do not know where the Labour party stands on those. We have spoken about fit note reforms, we are setting up WorkWell, and in the autumn we will trial some of those fit note possibilities. We do not know where the Labour party stands at all on those matters.
One would have thought that given the central role that PIP plays in the welfare system in our society and country, the Labour party would have some kind of view on that benefit. But we hear precisely nothing on that matter because the Labour party has no plan. The consequence of that will be that, as under previous Labour Governments, the welfare bill will continue to spiral out of control. That will fall to hard-working families up and down the country to pay, by way of higher taxation.
The hon. Lady asked about the abolition of the work capability assessment, which, as she said, is set out in the White Paper. Those measures will not be due to come into effect until 2026. We will take into account the conclusions that may be drawn as a result of this consultation when we consider that matter. She raised numerous other questions, many of which are included in the consultation. I am sure that she will actively take part in the consultation as we work towards the answers to those questions.
I was rather surprised that the hon. Lady raised the NHS. This party is spending more on the national health service than at any time in its history, with a 13% real-terms increase in spending over the last couple of years, 21,000 additional nurses and 7,000 more doctors in the last 12 months alone, and from next year £2.4 billion additional spend on mental health services, to which she referred. That is on top of the additional £4.7 billion that the Chancellor previously set aside for more mental health treatments and, at the last fiscal event, 400,000 additional talking therapies within the national health service.
The hon. Lady concluded by referring to Harold Wilson’s comments on unemployment. I simply refer her to the fact that under every single Labour Government in the history of this country, unemployment has been higher at the end of their term of office than at the beginning.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
A constituent who has cerebral palsy has been in touch with me this afternoon to outline how he currently uses PIP. It gives him the freedom to live independently and work full time, as he uses it to buy mobility aides such as hoists and wheelchairs. His concern is that any changes to PIP might push those costs on to the NHS and reduce his flexibility to choose what to spend the money on and when. He does not want to be pushed into a cycle of renewal that may be too rapid and therefore cost the NHS more money. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give that this consultation will enable those sorts of concerns to be highlighted and that, in the long term, it will give more choice and not restrict my constituent’s freedom?
Mel Stride
I thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed for that question and for raising the issue of her constituent. The reassurance I can give her is that we are aiming for the best outcomes. There will be a number of ways in which those best outcomes may be achieved—that is the purpose of the consultation—but it is reasonable to at least explore the issue of whether cash transfer payments are always the right solution, particularly given the growth in mental health conditions we have seen in recent times. The final point I would make is that we are absolutely interested in examples of situations where people have lifelong regressive illnesses from which, unfortunately, they are not going to recover, and to ask whether, under those circumstances, it is right to require them to go through re-assessments.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Following today’s statement, the announcement made a couple of weeks ago and all the proposed changes, people are scared. They are scared because they rely on these payments, which have changed their lives. They have been able to access support that they otherwise would not have been able to get. It is very clear that the announced changes are not being created by disabled people, with disabled people at their heart of the decision-making process. This is a Government consultation and then people are being asked to input into it. It is totally different from the situation in Scotland, where the adult disability payment was created with disabled people in the room talking about the best way to make the payments work and the best way to have assessment processes. Basically, the answer that came back was, “Do not do them anything like the assessment processes for PIP.”
Everybody should have the income to live with dignity, whether or not they are able to work. I am massively concerned by the comments that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister allegedly made about people with mental health difficulties only facing the “ordinary difficulties of life”. It is very clear that anybody who is able to say that has not suffered from depression, and has not felt that absolute energy-sapping that comes alongside suffering depression or anxiety. These are real conditions. These are real things that people are struggling with. And the lack of the ability to work is just as serious for people with mental health conditions as it can be for people with physical health conditions.
I have a couple of specific questions. In relation to universal credit, it is a gateway benefit. Will the Secretary of State assure us that any changes that might be made to eligibility criteria around universal credit will be fully consulted on and fully discussed, particularly with anybody who administers benefits that are allowed through those gateway benefits?
Has the Secretary of State spoken to the Scottish Government about the creation of the adult disability payment with disabled people in the room, ensuring that at the forefront of every decision is dignity and respect? Those are the two key columns of the Scottish benefits system. The Secretary of State could learn a lot from that approach.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her response to my statement. I reassure her that disabled people will be very much involved in the process and the consultation. It will be a 12-week consultation and of course we will take them, their comments and representative organisations extremely seriously.
The hon. Lady’s comment about the importance of recognising that many, many people unfortunately suffer from very serious mental health challenges is extremely well made. I am absolutely determined that whatever conclusions we draw from the consultation, they should lead us to a position where the Government are better able to support people who are in those circumstances.
On whether there will be questions in the consultation on the passporting of PIP into other benefits, the answer is yes. That is something we are most certainly consulting on.
On the Scottish equivalent of PIP—this is, of course, a devolved matter—yes, the Department has been in discussions with the equivalent officials in the civil service and the Scottish Government. We are looking forward to considering, as I know the Scottish Government will be, the independent review of that benefit, which is being conducted at the present time.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
May I ask the Secretary of State about his comments on the one-size-fits-all model not working if people incur very different costs from their disabilities? Surely he is not expecting people to send in invoices to prove how much support they need, so is he looking at having more tiers of award? For example, disability living allowance used to have three tiers, rather than two. Is that one of his options for trying to reduce costs?
Mel Stride
By mentioning “one size fits all”, I am saying that we should explore whether the approach we have at the moment has the best outcomes. We have much to learn from the experience of countries around the world that have a similar benefit but go about its organisation and application in a different way. New Zealand makes payments based on invoices for equipment submitted by those who receive the benefit. Norway does not have assessments in the way that we do; it relies more on evidence provided by medical practitioners. We should go into this with an open mind. Bear in mind that there has been no fundamental review of PIP for over a decade.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
PIP assessment providers confirm that worsening delays in NHS treatment are a big factor in the increase in the number of people applying for PIP. The Secretary of State has confirmed this afternoon that the work capability assessment is to be scrapped and replaced by PIP assessments. There are people who are too ill to work, but not disabled, and so not eligible for PIP. How will their support be assessed in the absence of work capability assessments?
Mel Stride
As I have set out, we will need to look at the conclusions that can be drawn from the consultation in the context of the replacement of the work capability assessment and PIP becoming the gateway to future universal credit health benefits, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. These are questions that are being asked in the consultation.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
In the spring of 2019, before I was elected, I was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. I was extremely ill with it, and could not work for several months, so I know for myself how debilitating that can be, but I also know that with treatment and support, you can lead a fulfilling career and a normal life that is extremely rewarding. I would have been devastated to have been out of the workforce for the long term. How will the reforms in the Green Paper help anxiety sufferers to get the treatment and support that they need to return to work, and also to take back their life?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for a powerful and moving contribution to today’s statement. I am pleased that she is in such fine form nowadays, knowing her as well as I do. The answer to her question lies in the consultation, and the recognition that the one-size-fits-all approach is not necessarily right. Those whom she describes may well be better served by receiving treatment, rather than cash transfer benefits. That is not a preconceived outcome that I have in my mind, but it is one of the possibilities on which we are seeking opinions.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The charity Sense has criticised the Government’s narrative around disability benefits, highlighting the divisive and deeply damaging language used, which further stigmatises some of the most vulnerable people in society. Disabled people have told Sense that they are sick with worry about whether they will lose their personal independence payments, which are vital—a lifeline—for them. Given the Tory cost of living crisis that we have been living through for multiple years, does the Secretary of State not think that disabled people need more support, not dangerous rhetoric that casts them as undeserving?
Mel Stride
We are certainly not stigmatising anybody—far from it. Indeed, in the consultation, it is explicitly recognised that there might be some disabled people who need additional help, beyond the help that they are getting at the moment. I made reference earlier to those who have lifetime progressive illnesses and conditions that, sadly, are not going to improve. The question is being asked: do we need to ask those individuals to attend reassessments and jump through bureaucratic hoops, with all the anxiety that may go with that, or should we have a better system that better looks after them?
Dame Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I totally agree with the Secretary of State that everyone gets dignity from being in work, but he will be aware of the very high levels of unemployment experienced by those with learning disabilities and autism. Bearing in mind that able-bodied people over 50 struggle to find work, let alone those with a disability or long-term health condition, what does he propose doing to change the attitude of employers, so that they recognise that everyone has a skill and a role to play, and that everyone is an asset?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for that really pertinent question. She will be familiar with the Buckland review, which has reported. I was very keen to pursue that review when it came across my desk, and I made my officials and the necessary infrastructure available to ensure that it was able to go ahead. It addresses many of the issues to which my hon. Friend rightly points, in terms of employers accommodating and benefiting from those who have autism and other conditions.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Can I start by commending the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) on her comments? They really went to the heart of some of what we are discussing. One of the challenges for the Government in talking about PIP is that they started this whole conversation by referring to the back to work plan, which makes many disabled people feel that this is about getting them back to work and reducing the overall welfare budget, when PIP is supposed to be about ensuring that they get the right support for their disabilities. On PIP, a big challenge that all MPs deal with is the number of errors in the system, and particularly the number of cases that end up at a tribunal. If we are looking into having a system that targets support better, what assurances can the Secretary of State give that it will actually be a better system, with fewer errors?
Mel Stride
There were two points there. First, errors in the benefits system—overpayments, underpayments and so on—are relatively rare. Secondly, on how we approach those who have long-term sickness or disability, the hon. Lady will see, if she refers to the back to work plan, that we are giving the 2.8 million people on those long-term benefits the opportunity to try work without fear of losing those benefits at all. We have made that extremely explicit. That is simply freeing up the system, and trying to get rid of some of the barriers that those people otherwise face.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I need to read the detail, but on the face of it, there is much to be welcomed in the Secretary of State’s statement. However, there are 2.6 million DLA and PIP working-age recipients and their families who will no doubt be concerned about the future of their support, so can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will tread carefully and think really carefully about tone and the language that we use, and that we will listen to those with lived experience and the charities that support them?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend; he has done a great deal in the important area that this statement and consultation are addressing. As he knows, my door is always open to him, at every step along the way, so that I can listen to his thoughts. I can assure him that questions of tone, language, and treading carefully are absolutely at the forefront of my mind.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
There are 4,500 people in Newcastle Central who are out of the workforce and economically inactive due to disability or ill health. The Government have failed them when it comes to the benefits system, failed them when it comes to supporting them to work, which is so important, and failed them when it comes to the NHS. How will the £46 billion black hole in the Government’s plan to abolish national insurance payments enable the Government to fix their failings?
Mel Stride
On the hon. Lady’s political points, I should point out that economic inactivity is lower today than in every single year of the last Labour Government—that is our record, compared with her party’s. She will know full well that reducing the £46 billion national insurance figure still further, and finally eliminating it, is a very long-term aspiration. I understand why the Labour party tried to make it more than that. What is more than that is the £28 billion that her party suggests will be made available through its energy and net zero offering, which it is still talking about to the electorate.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State’s approach as being entirely realistic, given that the disability benefits system is not consistently providing support in the way that it was meant to. He is also right to take a strategic look, because he is correct that the understanding of disability and ill health has changed quite significantly in Britain, in some ways for the better, and there is an imperative to consider that, in the light of our labour market and the broader economy.
The Secretary of State is also correct to be comprehensive in his approach in today’s Green Paper, the prior White Paper and other connected work. Will he also be comprehensive in delivering on those measures, across Government? Can he give us assurances about the way that he is setting up for the work that will need to be done if this is to be a success, including with the NHS and local authorities, for those who need support with their disability or ill health? It is my understanding that the NHS perhaps knows less than it could about how to help people, holistically and individually, to move back into work, or with the things that they need and care about.
Finally, how is the Secretary of State working with employers to ensure that we unlock the workforce productivity needed in this country?
Mel Stride
I thank my right hon. Friend for her very astute comments, which are built on her great experience of the exact issues that we are discussing, both as Secretary of State and, before that, as a very successful Minister for this area in the Department for Work and Pensions. She is absolutely right to recognise that society has changed a great deal in the 10 years since this benefit was fundamentally reviewed. I will, of course, continue to work very closely with my colleagues in the national health service and the Department of Health and Social Care. We collaborated on setting up WorkWell, which will be rolled out in 15 of the 42 health areas of England this autumn, bringing together the world of work and healthcare.
The White Paper specifically invites thoughts on how local authorities could be more involved in PIP or any successor. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention employers, and I have no doubt that she is aware of the two consultations we have run on increasing occupational health, in which employers have a particularly important role to play.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State questions the need to reassess certain groups. After visiting my local Motor Neurone Disease Association support group, I can tell him that those with motor neurone disease are one group who absolutely do not need or deserve reassessment.
On the wider point about mental health conditions, I hope that the Secretary of State will talk to his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I have had many experiences of constituents waiting months, if not years, for the assessment of neurodivergent conditions or mental health support. We clearly cannot address the issues that he wants to address in the consultation if we do not fix the NHS workforce crisis.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about mental health, and I can reassure him, as I reassured my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), that we will continue to work very closely with the DHSC on the proposals as they emerge. In response to an earlier question, I mentioned that the Chancellor has brought forward funding for 400,000 additional NHS talking therapies, for example, which may be an important part of what we develop.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Compassion has to be at the heart of this consultation. I have seen patients who had to be reassessed repeatedly, which does not seem fair, but I have also seen patients who do not engage with services and do not take medication, yet are signed off, which is not compassionate either. One practical way forward is to bring DWP closer to GP surgeries, so that people can have their hand held when they get to a diagnosis, whether it is of anxiety or a physical complaint, or whether they are recovering from an operation. Will the Minister consider that in the consultation? DWP joining up with primary care would be a fantastic way to help GPs help their patients—and to help the DWP.
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for a sensible set of questions. He refers to the importance of bringing GPs together with advice and support to get people into work. That is very much the focus of our fit note reforms, upon which we have a call for evidence at the moment.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his swift response to my request earlier this afternoon for support for the people at Everest in Treherbert, who look likely to lose their jobs in the next few days.
Depression and anxiety are real, are they not? It is not just a question of people pulling up their socks, as some in the crueller parts of the commentariat have suggested. All too often, talking therapies are least available in the areas with the highest levels of economic inactivity, so how are we going to change that?
On the intersection between mental health and physical health that is acquired brain injury, does the Department even know how many people who have had an acquired brain injury are in receipt of PIP or of universal credit? If the Minister does not know the answer today, will he write to me? If both he and his Department do not know the answer, as I bet is the case, will he make sure that the Department finds out before it implements something that could provide even more problems for people who are trying to get their lives back together?
Mel Stride
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the jobs situation in his constituency. Let me reassure him that my Department will do whatever it can to assist with those circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that depression, anxiety and mental health conditions are very real, and in many cases extremely severe, which is why I am absolutely determined that we should do whatever we can, where appropriate, to provide as much support as possible to people. As for his question about acquired brain injury and how many PIP recipients are in that situation, I do not think he would expect me to know off the top of my head. It would be rather impressive if I did know. I will, as he has suggested, write to him.
Sir Chris Bryant
You have never impressed me before, and I have known you a very long time!
Mel Stride
That is probably fair. As the hon. Gentleman points out, he has known me for a very long time, and I recall that when we were at university together he was a young Conservative, as I was. How things have progressed, or perhaps I should say regressed, since then?
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that my proposals over the past few years to improve support in the workplace for mental health are essential as part of this programme of work? Does he also agree that one aspect of that, which I have raised repeatedly in my work and suggestions, would be to make sure that physical and mental health are given firm parity in the Health and Safety Executive guidelines? I believe that would help both employers and employees, both in my constituency and nationally.
Mel Stride
We are considering the issue of parity that my hon. Friend has raised. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of mental health support—occupational health support—within businesses, which is why we have consulted on that matter. I am particularly keen to see what we can do not just for large companies, but for small and medium-sized enterprises, to make sure that they engage more fully in that respect.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
A considerable number of constituents have already contacted me because they are worried about what the Government are proposing; the key message they want to get across is that having disabilities or a serious mental illness is not their choice and not something they have control over. The Secretary of State mentions tailored support an awful lot in his statement. My experience is that when people with disabilities have engagement with the system and have to go through the process of making an application, being assessed and so on, that is a cause of great anxiety and often the decisions are wrong. If he is proposing more tailored support and more engagement with bureaucracy, particularly for people with fluctuating conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis, how is he going to get it right? He has not managed to get it right so far.
Mel Stride
I am absolutely determined that we are not going to be seeing more bureaucracy. Indeed, I set out that one question we are exploring in the consultation relates to those who, sadly, have conditions from which they are not going to recover or improve. In those circumstances, I want to see less bureaucracy and a system where we are not having to reassess people in a superfluous way, causing anxiety and putting them to that inconvenience. The other points that the hon. Lady raises are of course exactly the kind of questions we are asking in the consultation, and I urge the constituents who have written to her to engage in that consultation process over the next three months.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of focusing on what people can do, rather than what they cannot, and it is worth noting that there are 2.2 million more disabled people in work than 10 years ago. However, as he mentioned, the benefits system is not just about work; it is about ensuring people live full and independent lives. He said that during the consultation there will be engagement with disabled people and their representative organisations, which is critical, but each individual’s needs are personal to them, so how will he ensure as many voices as possible are listened to during the consultation?
Mel Stride
The consultation will be very thorough. It is available in accessible formats to ensure we cater to the greatest extent that we can, and that we get the best possible and most universal feedback. I am pleased that my hon. Friend spoke to the issue of the employment of disabled people. In 2017, we set a 10-year target of a million more disabled people in employment; we broke that target in five years rather than 10.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Announcing that disabled people suffering from certain conditions will no longer receive support payments, but instead get improved access to treatment, is one of the most absurd policies to have come out of this Government in the past 14 years. The Government plan relies on imagined brilliant mental healthcare support being available. Is the Minister even aware how long people have to wait for treatment after being referred? After 14 years of this Tory Government gutting our NHS and our mental healthcare, even basic access to treatment does not exist, let along the improved access the Minister is relying on in the fantasy world he lives in.
Mel Stride
I simply do not recognise the comments the hon. Gentleman has made about our national health service. There are more people working in the national health service than at any time in its history: 21,000 more nurses and 7,000 more doctors in the past year alone. We are spending a record sum on the national health service. I will not give chapter and verse, as I did earlier, as to the other things we are doing, but we are completely committed to the health and mental health of people up and down the country. There will be new ways of doing things. If we do not have a grown-up conversation, as I describe it, about those matters, we will not discover those new ways. WorkWell is a completely new way of addressing issues, such as mental health, and encouraging people to stay or go back into work. It did not exist 18 months ago; it came about because we consulted people and came up with a solution.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I would like to give the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt, and he has made a number of important points, but those 2.6 million people and their families who will have heard his statement will be absolutely terrified. A lot of them will feel that the reforms are just about providing some kind of cuts to services. I believe that we need to try to support those people and put compassion at the heart of our welfare system. There are reports of up to 2 million people waiting for mental health treatment at the moment, so does the Secretary of State believe that in this “compassionate” review, where we are going to have a “grown-up conversation”, we will be able to see more money invested to ensure that those 2 million people can get more mental health support?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend raises important points that are core to the consultation that is being carried out. The corollary to my hon. Friend’s argument is that we should not do anything and stay with a system that has not been revisited for over a decade, despite the fact that the terrain has changed substantially, not least in terms of the increase in those suffering from mental health conditions. I say no to that. We need to have a grown-up conversation about these matters if we are to provide better support for the people whom hon. Members across the House care about.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister is right: economic inactivity rates have soared because of ill health, and where possible we want those people to get back into work. It is for their own good. It is also for the good of the hard-working taxpayers to have those costs minimised. However, given that these proposals come at the tail end of a Government, who have just weeks or months to go, I doubt very much that the measures will become a reality for many people. I have one question for the Minister: as this issue is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, has he had any discussions with the Executive about these proposals? If he has, what response did he get? Should the Executive go in a different direction, what will the economic consequences be for the Northern Ireland Executive’s budget?
Mel Stride
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the importance of work in the context of mental health. That is my strongly held belief. He is also right to raise the issue of the fiscal sustainability of our welfare system. If the public are to continue to have confidence in that system, we must get the balance right between the requirements of the taxpayer and our absolute determination to support those most in need of help.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the Northern Ireland Executive. He is right: it is possible for Northern Ireland to decide to manage its benefits in a different way to England. That is not traditionally what has happened. Traditionally, Northern Ireland has followed the moves that we have made. As to discussions, absolutely, there are always close, ongoing discussions between my Department and our counterparts in Northern Ireland.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has said that the Government’s approach is fair and compassionate. Can he tell me what is compassionate about the language used by the Prime Minister over the past fortnight, when he has referred to a “sick note culture”, implied that people who are forced to rely on benefits do so as a lifestyle choice, and, today, talked about the arrests, seizures and crackdowns on benefits claimants? The Disability Poverty Campaign Group, which comprises the major charities that we have all worked with, described the speech as “chilling”, “threatening” and “stigmatising”. Does the Secretary of State not realise that the language that the Prime Minister has used increases prejudice against disabled people and contributes to the escalation of hate crime against disabled people?
Mel Stride
The Prime Minister shares my view, which is that it is really important that we achieve the best possible outcomes for the people whom we are discussing in this statement. He cares a great deal, and I think he said at the end of his speech that he wanted to help many people, some of whom are watching the screen flickering away while their opportunities drift off into the distance—or words to that effect. That speaks from the heart. That says that we have a Prime Minister who cares deeply that opportunities in our society should be made as widely available as possible. That is a view, a characteristic and a quality that I admire and that I share with him.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has upset many disabled people and organisations with his clumsy, negative and juvenile approach. Mind, for example, has asked for a grown-up conversation. Furthermore, the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box today that there has never been a review of personal independence payments, but there have been two independent reviews commissioned by the Department, so perhaps he could correct the record when he gets to his feet. PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, so when will the Department publish its assessment of the impact of these latest cuts on disabled people using PIP to support themselves in work?
Mel Stride
It is the case that there has not been a fundamental review of PIP on the basis that that has subsequently led to a change in that benefit. Therefore, it is the case that that benefit has remained fundamentally the same for more than decade—it actually came in in 2013, as the hon. Gentleman will know. On what assessments may or may not be made available, I think they will come at a point when the Government arrive at their conclusions having conducted the consultation.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Members of this House may remember that I had to take a leave of absence from this role three years ago because I have post-traumatic stress disorder. I can tell the House that the insinuation that mental health conditions are not debilitating, do not affect people’s ability to go about their daily life or to go to work, and do not incur additional costs could not be further from the truth. The Prime Minister’s comments about so-called “sick note culture” and the changes that the Government are proposing will do nothing to help people with mental illnesses, and will just make their lives harder. Why are the Government setting back the clock on the acceptance of mental illness as a disability instead of truly tackling the crisis in mental health support?
Mel Stride
I am at pains to say this: every time I have come to the Dispatch Box this afternoon, I think I have made it extremely clear that serious mental health conditions are very real. I take them very seriously, as I think does everyone in this House. I say to the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] This is where we need a grown-up conversation. [Interruption.] This is really important. We need a proper conversation about this, because if at every stage, whenever a Minister suggests that we need to look at a particular area, their motives get impugned in the way that the hon. Lady has—[Interruption.] She inferred that I am actually saying that mental health conditions should be trivialised in some way. I am definitely not saying that.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
My constituent Elizabeth has been a very hard worker, but also someone who has suffered from ill health. She came to see me at my surgery on Friday to express her alarm about the Prime Minister’s speech on 19 April, his proposals for sick notes, and what she sees as his lack of respect for the professionalism of general practitioners. If the issue came up in the Chamber, she asked me to ask the relevant Minister this question: how can a random DWP assessor, faced with a complete stranger, based on the briefest of interactions, be relied upon to produce a more accurate and objective assessment of a patient’s condition than her own general practitioner?
Mel Stride
I know the Prime Minister shares the view that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to our GPs, right up and down the country. They have a highly pressurised job, and they do it extremely well. DWP assessors are highly trained individuals, and there are very clear guidelines on how assessments should be fairly conducted. They are, as the hon. and learned Lady will know, open to appeal where that is necessary. She mentions GPs. As part of the assessments, which are concluded by a DWP team member, rather than the assessor themselves, taking into account all the evidence, it may well be that GPs have an input into many of the decisions.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Secretary of State must understand that the rhetoric coming from the Government over the past few weeks has been brutal, divisive and inducing unimaginable terror in the two thirds of people already in destitution who have a chronic health condition or disability. The prospect of further cuts is making the situation worse. Can he confirm whether he expects overall Government PIP spending to be reduced and, if so, by how much, and what assessment he has made of how his proposals will affect those who are already in material deprivation?
Mel Stride
The presumption that the hon. Lady makes is that the alternative to consulting on a different and potentially much better way forward is to do nothing at all. To me, that is unacceptable. In terms of ensuring that we truly support all those who need support, I have already given that reassurance from the Dispatch Box. It is made very clear in the consultation that we recognise that there will be people who need more support than they are receiving at the moment, but we need to have that conversation in order to get the best outcomes.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Language matters, as we have heard, and the Government have been warned that the language and rhetoric—perhaps not from the Secretary of State himself but from others—risks minimising the impact of mental health conditions, which are real and serious. What are the Government’s plans to ensure that proper treatments are available—not just talking therapies but whatever treatment is appropriate—to ensure that people with mental health conditions are treated appropriately?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady raises an extremely important point: the prevalence of mental health conditions in our country has grown. There are many reasons for that—I know the Labour Party like to say it is all about the NHS, but it is about many other things, not least social media among young people. There are many causes. The consultation will look at exactly the question she quite rightly raises. She mentioned the NHS talking therapies; I think that, particularly for some less severe mental health conditions, combined with work, they can make a real difference. I was very pleased when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor brought in 400,000 more of those talking therapies at his last fiscal event.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Back in 2018, a bad concussion left me out of work for several months. Over time, I became deeply depressed, worried and anxious that I would never get back to full-time work at all. I was lucky that my employer was able to find and to pay for me to get the support I needed to get back to work, and I am lucky enough to be here today. However, for many across the country that simply is not the reality they face. Why are the Government not focusing on making sure everyone has the support they need to get back into work, rather than falling back into the kind of political posturing that will only add to the stress and anxiety that thousands already feel?
Mel Stride
If I may say so, first, I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is now fit and well and I am sorry he went through the difficult time that he describes. We are doing a huge amount; he may or may not be familiar with universal support, which is there not only to place the kind of people he has described into work, but, critically, to stay with them for a period of up to 12 months to make sure they have the support to hold that job down. We know that work is good for those with mental health conditions. I have already referred to WorkWell, which brings together those who have mental health challenges and work coaches who are able to see how work can fit within their recovery programme. We are very much doing those things. If he would like to see me at some point after this statement, I would be happy to sit down with him and talk him through some of the other approaches we are taking.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Today’s statement has been made necessary by the huge deterioration in the nation’s health and mental health since the pandemic. I think the whole House has to take responsibility, because this House voted for draconian lockdowns that devastated mental health, particularly among the young. This House voted to mandate untested experimental treatments, threatening people that they would lose their jobs if they did not take them, while giving immunity from prosecution to the manufacturers for their dangerous and defective products. Will the Minister do the best thing he can for public mental health by assuring the British public that these mistakes have been learned from and will never be inflicted upon them again?
Mel Stride
I am afraid I simply do not subscribe to the theories that the hon. Gentleman promotes. I think it is probably best to leave it at that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to questions.
Points of Order
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the urgent question on the humanitarian situation in Gaza on 17 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), speaking on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, said that the Government wanted an “independent review” of the terrible killing of British aid workers by the Israel Defence Forces. That followed the Foreign Secretary himself posting on X that “a wholly independent review” was required.
However, in response to my written question, the Deputy Foreign Secretary said that the Prime Minister had called for a “transparent investigation” into that terrible attack. A transparent investigation is not the same as an independent investigation. Given that the whole point of my question in the Chamber was to highlight that investigations conducted by the IDF into its actions are not independent, this answer troubled me. Given also that the Foreign Secretary refuses to come to this Chamber to be held accountable, can you advise me, Mr Deputy Speaker, how I can clarify whether the Minister did not accidentally mislead the House in saying that the Government wanted an independent investigation when they are only calling for a transparent investigation? All those who seek accountability for the actions of the IDF want to know what the Government’s position is.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. Clearly the Chair is not responsible for the answers of Ministers, but those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point of order and will make sure that the Minister is able to respond to her.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on how we in this House can ensure that the National Security Online Information Team investigates the Facebook groups that Greenpeace exposed at the weekend, of which the Tory mayoral candidate, Susan Hall, is a member. People have put on this group that they plan to kill our current Mayor, Sadiq Khan. How can we make sure the Government are investigating that?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and for giving forward notice of it. I am sure she could make contact herself with any organisations that can investigate the serious allegations she has just made.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier today the Minister for Schools said that the statistic I quoted on secondary teacher recruitment targets was “incorrect”, often repeated and “not right”. I am afraid it is the Minister who is incorrect. The Department for Education’s own website states—in bold—that 50% of the initial teacher training recruitment targets for secondary teachers were reached in 2023-24, which is what I said. In raw numbers, that is 13,102 secondary school teacher trainees recruited on to courses, out of the 26,360 the Government said were needed. We do not need maths to 18 to work out that that is less than 50% of the target.
Furthermore, I said in my question that some subjects were missing those targets by 50%, yet in many subjects they are missing them by way more—for instance, physics only met 17% of its target. Have you had any indication, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Minister plans to correct the record? If not, how do you suggest I go about securing a correction?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving forward notice of it. Again, the Chair is not responsible for ministerial responses, but those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her remarks, and of course we would expect any alterations or corrections to be made as soon as possible. I will now hand over to Dame Rosie Winterton for the rest of the business.
Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 20 March 2024 (Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in one day.
(3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption.
(4) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.—(Robert Largan.)
Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill (Instructions)
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 42 / Noes: 265 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before the House resolves itself into Committee, I draw the House’s attention to the instruction motions on the Order Paper. They are subject to selection by the Chair, and Mr Speaker has decided to select the motions in the name of Secretary Kemi Badenoch, to allow the Bill to extend to Northern Ireland, and in the name of Marion Fellows, to allow the Committee to make provision in the Bill for it to make provision relating to Scotland.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill that it has power to make provision in the Bill for it to extend to Northern Ireland.—(Robert Largan.)
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
On behalf of the Justice Minister, First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and indeed Northern Ireland MPs, I want to put on record briefly our gratitude to the Minister and the Government for listening to the arguments we have put forward and for including Northern Ireland in the Bill. It has made an enormous difference and we are extremely grateful. I just wanted to make sure that that was properly placed on record.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I agree with the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) and thank the Minister for reaching this point. There has been considerable effort and collaboration across the House and across parties. The hon. Gentleman mentioned most particularly the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, the Justice Minister for Northern Ireland and, indeed, all Northern Ireland MPs, who are all agreeable to the aspiration of the instruction to the Committee. It is right that Northern Ireland be included in a UK-wide system, and the outcome should benefit our constituents who have been most deeply affected by the Horizon scandal.
Question put and agreed to.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that it have leave to make provision relating to Scotland.
At the outset, let me say that if I cry this afternoon, it is not because I am upset; it is because I am angry and feel got at by other parties in this place, which are determined not to bring Scotland into the Bill.
This morning, Robert Thomson, Chris Dawson and Keith Macaldowie—three sub-postmasters—travelled from Scotland to be here to listen to the reasons that Scotland should not be included in the Bill. Unfortunately, there were two urgent questions, a statement and a train break-down, so they have had to go back and could not be here to watch the people in this House hold the fate of their exoneration in their hands.
There are huge legal misgivings about and potential constitutional implications to the Bill, as legal authorities across the United Kingdom have said. However, to use the words of the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake):
“We recognise that this is an exceptional step, but these are exceptional circumstances.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 302.]
Postmasters across the United Kingdom want this exoneration Bill to succeed, as do those of us on the SNP Benches. It must succeed; we need to get the exoneration through this place in order that convicted sub-postmasters across the United Kingdom can claim compensation and redress for what they have suffered.
I have before me the witness statement from Robert Thomson, who, during his court case, had to sit down with his two young sons to tell them of the real possibility that he would have to go to prison. How awful is that? How awful it is for all the other sub-postmasters who have had to go through the very same experience?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend talks about going to prison. My constituent lost her liberty, her good name, her house, her marriage, her family—her whole existence—because of this situation. She has had to move to my constituency —a life on her own. The Government are denying my constituent the justice she deserves. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is utterly shameful?
Marion Fellows
“Utterly shameful” does not even begin to describe it.
Right up until quite recently, the Government said that they would include Scotland in the Bill, but they have decided not to do so for spurious reasons. Today, I have been talking to sub-postmasters, and I have invited Scottish MPs to come and speak. The main reason some Scottish MPs, whether they are Liberal Democrats or Conservative Ministers, did not want to include Scotland was that the First Minister said that he did not want to see criminals exonerated when they were guilty. No one wants that—[Interruption.] I have heard the Minister himself say that previously in this House.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I admire the passion with which my hon. Friend is speaking on behalf of sub-postmasters. Does she agree that part of the sense of insult upon injury is that there is no proper explanation as to why Scotland cannot be included, so it looks like petty partisanship? And I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that is borne out by the chuntering, sniggering and laughter going on behind me as my hon. Friend speaks.
Marion Fellows
My hon. Friend is right: I am passionate about this. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, I have deliberately worked on this issue, across parties, for years—I have worked with everyone. Indeed, when I wrote to the Prime Minister at one point, I had signatures from every party, including from a Member of Sinn Féin, a party that does not attend the House.
I have also heard it said today that the Lord Advocate does not want this. Well, at no point has the Lord Advocate taken a view on proposed legislation either in Westminster or in Holyrood. The Lord Advocate is not responsible for bringing cases of miscarriages of justice before the court of appeal in Scotland.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I have worked with the hon. Lady in her role as chair of the APPG, and I commend her for her work over many years. The point about the Lord Advocate is surely that the route to justice must go through the Scottish Parliament, because the route to prosecution went through the Scottish Parliament. That is where the route of accountability lies. [Interruption.] There was some talk about chuntering earlier, but it seems to go in more than one way. I refer the hon. Lady to the comments of the Lord Advocate in the Scottish Parliament on 16 January. If the Lord Advocate really wants the Bill to proceed, she could say so in terms herself. [Interruption.] Chunter on, boys.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Will my hon. Friend take an edifying intervention?
Joanna Cherry
Is my hon. Friend as surprised as me that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), a former prosecutor, does not understand that prosecutions do not go through the Scottish Parliament? The prosecution service in Scotland is completely independent of Parliament. That is a fundamental aspect of our constitution. Is she as shocked as me that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, and does she agree that the fact that he misses such a fundamental point rather undermines the force of his argument?
Marion Fellows
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for making that point. The body responsible for bringing miscarriages of justice before the court of appeal in Scotland is the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is not under the spell of the Lord Advocate. That argument is spurious to say the least.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is she aware of the evidence given by Professor James Chalmers of the University of Glasgow to the Justice Committee a couple of weeks ago? He was asked this very question, and he said that in his view, it was better that the legislation goes through this place with legislative consent motions in the Scottish Parliament, because it is tied directly to the UK compensation scheme for this area.
Marion Fellows
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, I am very aware that the regius professor of law at the University of Glasgow made that very point to the Justice Committee. There has been widespread disquiet; I think the Chair of that Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), would agree that no one in the legal profession really wants this Bill. It is breaking all precedent, but for a really good reason.
Postmasters have suffered. Robert Thomson, the postmaster who was going to be sitting in the Gallery, was convicted in 2006 while his mother was still alive. He is the man who had to talk to his sons and tell them, “I might not be here tomorrow.” He did not go to prison, but he could not get a job that gave him the income that he had when he was a postmaster. He has been in penury, his life has been turned upside down, and his children have suffered enormously. That is the case for so many sub-postmasters across the United Kingdom: they did nothing wrong, yet people were pointing at them in the street and whispering. Another sub-postmaster who was going to be in the Gallery watching us all today had to move back to his hometown because, five years later, he heard people in the supermarket saying, “There’s the guy who stole from the Post Office.” This kind of thing never leaves those victims—they will carry it to their dying day. Robert Thomson’s mother died before her son spent two years going through the Scottish courts to be exonerated.
Every time I have been in this place when any legal issue comes up, I am told that this Parliament is sovereign. Well, prove it: put the provisions of this Bill into Scotland-wide use as well. [Interruption.] Members can stand at the back, smile and snigger, but I mean it—it is absolutely disgraceful that you are saying to Scottish sub-postmasters who were convicted that they cannot get justice at the same time as their English, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts. This is a Westminster problem. Westminster must and should sort it out, and it is easily done. Ask for a legislative consent motion, and you will get it. The Scottish Parliament will put a Bill through to exonerate these postmasters, but it cannot do it—it cannot mirror exactly what is done in this place—until this Bill has gone through all of its stages.
Joanna Cherry
Having regard to the evidence of Professor Chalmers, who of course is regius professor of criminal law at Glasgow University—that addressing this problem would be best done in this place—does my hon. Friend agree that we often hear sanctimonious lectures from the UK Government about how Scotland’s two Governments should work together to benefit Scotland? This legislation deals with a problem made on the UK Government’s watch; is it not the perfect example of an issue on which Scotland’s two Governments should act together, with the UK Government taking the lead in the same way that they have done for Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government consenting, so that we can get justice done swiftly for Scottish postmasters and postmistresses in the same way as it has been done for other people in this glorious Union that Tory Members are always telling us about?
Marion Fellows
Yes. I was appalled, upset and disturbed by the fact that the Scottish Government had been trying to contact Westminster Ministers to get this Bill to cover Scotland as well, and there was no comeback and no correspondence—nobody bothered. One afternoon, within a two-hour period, the Minister—who I greatly admire, as he knows; I have a very good working relationship with him—was able to phone the Northern Irish First Minister, Deputy First Minister and Justice Minister.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I have met the Scottish justice Minister twice online; the reason I met the Northern Ireland Ministers physically is that they came here to Parliament to meet us.
May I push back on something that the hon. Lady said a few moments ago? She said that this Parliament is sovereign. Absolutely, it is sovereign, but on these matters, her Parliament is also sovereign. [Interruption.] Clearly, as she said earlier in her remarks, there is legal controversy on these matters—she has admitted that herself. This Parliament is taking the legal risk in that area, but is the hon. Lady aware of her Lord Advocate’s position on this particular matter? These are her actual words:
“It is important to recognise that, in Scotland, there is an established route of appeal in circumstances such as this…and that due process must be followed.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 January 2024; c. 14.]
Does the hon. Lady not believe that in that situation, her Parliament should act to overturn these convictions?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am quite anxious that we do not have too many long interventions so that, if hon. Members want to catch my eye, there is plenty of time for debate.
Marion Fellows
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hate to disagree with you—as you know, I do not do that—but there will be no more time for some Members to speak on this Bill if it does not include Scotland. In his intervention, the Minister said that the Scottish Parliament is sovereign—well, there is a surprise. We on the SNP Benches all want Scotland to be sovereign, but it is the people who have sovereignty in Scotland, not the Parliament.
We are dancing on the heads of pins, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is not my intention. It is very clear—so clear that it is transparent— that party politics is involved in all of this. Six days ago, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade described the Scottish Parliament as lazy, and asked why it did not put through its own legislation. Believe me, it can and it will if it has to, but why should Scottish postmasters wait longer for justice? On Second Reading in this place, I said that there was likely to be to-ing and fro-ing, and that it would probably be July before this Bill is passed.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
On behalf of my constituents who have been affected by this scandal, I thank my hon. Friend for the astonishing amount of work she has done in this area. Is it not the case that, while it would certainly create issues for the legal officers in Scotland if Scotland were included in this Westminster Bill, a Bill in the Scottish Parliament would create exactly the same issues for them? The concern for legal officers on both sides of the border is that they do not like it when parliamentarians overturn the decisions of the courts, but it has to be done this time, because some of the postmasters will not live to see their compensation if we do not get on with it soon.
Marion Fellows
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I heard the Minister chuntering from a sedentary position that Scottish Ministers should take responsibility for this.
Marion Fellows
They will, but they did not cause the need for this Bill. This is a Westminster issue and should be sorted out here.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am incensed—people may have realised that. This is not fake anger: this is a real issue for those men who came down here today. They were representative of the 100 sub-postmasters and mistresses in Scotland, and we have not even started to talk about the effect on their families and those who have died. Two years it took Robert Thomson to go through court, during which time his mother died, and it is the same story right across all the postmasters who have lost family members, and postmasters have committed suicide. This has to be sorted.
I go back to my original point. Scottish postmasters will be behind the curve when it comes to applying for the due compensation they are entitled to if they are not exonerated at the same time as the rest of the postmasters in the UK. This is a piece of nonsense. Get it done for Scotland. The Government have done it for Northern Ireland. Get it done for Scotland.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for her remarks and her engagement. It has always been a pleasure to work with her both in the Chamber and in other areas. Yes, we have worked cross-party, and I have been very keen to do that all the way through on these matters, but that does not of course mean we always agree.
I was very grateful to have the opportunity to meet the hon. Lady earlier with the Scottish postmasters she referred to. I am sorry that they have not been able to attend this debate. However, at that point I was able to explain to those postmasters why the Government oppose this motion, as our position remains unchanged that this Bill should not be amended to include Scotland.
Marion Fellows
I just want to ask the Minister: what did the Scottish postmasters say to you—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Lady knows she must not refer directly to the Minister in that way, but do so through the Chair.
Marion Fellows
I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. What did the Scottish sub-postmasters say to the Minister this afternoon? Were they pleased, were they happy and did they feel they were getting justice through this action?
Kevin Hollinrake
I listened to the postmasters very carefully, and of course they would prefer us to legislate in the way the hon. Lady describes. I set out very clearly the reasons why we would not do so, and I think they heard the concerns we raised about how we think we should proceed.
Scotland has a historically separate legal jurisdiction, and the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have a unique role in prosecutions in Scotland. We feel it is more appropriate for the Scottish Government to bring forward proposals to address prosecutions on this matter in Scotland, and for those to be scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament. The First Minister has previously made public comments suggesting that the UK Government’s approach to the criteria in our legislation was too broad in relation to the convictions it would quash. He is reported, in The National on 27 March, to have said that he wanted
“to make sure that people who have genuinely committed a crime…do not then have access to…compensation.”
We have been clear from the start that there is a real risk of that happening with our approach.
Joanna Cherry
Has the Minister taken the time to read the evidence taken at the Justice Committee when Professor Chalmers said that the purpose of the Bill is to make sure convictions can be quashed so that innocent people can be compensated? The scandal originated with a faulty computer system and dubious investigatory procedures within a UK-wide institution. The scheme for compensation is to be UK-wide, so the paving legislation should be UK-wide, too. That is the opinion of the regius professor of criminal law at the University of Glasgow. Has the Minister given that any thought, and can he tell me why it is wrong?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. and learned Member for her point, and I heard the points she raised earlier. It is very clear that all that is required for someone to access the compensation is the overturning of a conviction, and that can be done by means chosen by the Scottish Parliament or the means that have been chosen by the UK Parliament. There will be identical access to the compensation schemes: it makes no difference by whatever mechanism those convictions are overturned.
As I said earlier, the Lord Advocate has said very clearly that
“It is important to recognise that in Scotland, there is an established route of appeal in circumstances such as this…and that due process must be followed.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 January 2024; c. 14.]
She is of course entitled to that view. These are difficult political choices, which we have taken in defining the cohort criteria, and it is right that responsible Ministers remain accountable for those decisions. The buck stops here, and it must also stop with the Scottish Government.
Chris Stephens
I am confused at the inconsistency here, so perhaps the Minister could help us. The Government are putting through a Criminal Justice Bill that impacts on Scotland, which has required the Scottish Parliament to pass a legislative consent motion for that Bill. So if it is good enough for the Criminal Justice Bill going through this place, why is it not good enough for this Bill to go through this place?
Kevin Hollinrake
As I said earlier, Scottish Ministers have the responsibility and the means to be able to form this legislation. We think it is important that they take responsibility for their decisions in this area, given the nature of these issues.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will make some progress, if I may.
I note that the First Minister stated on Thursday 18 April that the Scottish Government are prepared to introduce legislation to the Scottish Parliament to overturn convictions—I understand from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that that legislation has actually been drafted—and I believe it is possible and necessary for the Scottish Government to do so swiftly. Our position on Scotland’s inclusion in the Bill is very clear. The Government made a statement on 22 February to that effect, and I have written to the Scottish Government on this point. Indeed, the First Minister’s comments, together with the proposed draft amendment to the UK Bill that the Scottish Government have published, suggest that they should be in a position to do so.
The UK Government remain committed to supporting the Scottish Government to progress their own approach to their legislation. I have met Scottish Government Ministers multiple times since this Bill was introduced, and officials at the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice hold weekly meetings with officials in the Scottish Government to discuss these issues.
In conclusion, I remain of the view that the Scottish Government should introduce their own legislation to quash convictions in their jurisdiction. As such, the Government oppose this motion.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Horizon scandal is one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in British history, and it has robbed sub-postmasters of their lives, their liberty and their livelihoods. We welcome the Government’s inclusion of Northern Ireland in the territorial scope of this Bill following our representations, including on Second Reading.
We agree that sub-postmasters in Scotland who have been victims of this devastating scandal need urgent exoneration and compensation as much as cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I want to commend the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for her work in tirelessly campaigning for victims across the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland, and her work in the APPG. However, the case of Scotland’s inclusion provides a unique set of issues. Unlike in Northern Ireland, there has not been united support for Scotland’s inclusion in the Bill. Both the Scottish judiciary and a number of MSPs have publicly opposed this course of action.
Marion Fellows
Does the hon. Lady agree with me that many people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have vociferously opposed the Bill, but actually understand, as people do in Scotland, that it is necessary and that it is a pragmatic solution to a situation that has been going on for far too long?
Rushanara Ali
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but the reality is that this is a very unusual Bill, and there are serious issues, which we will go on to debate, about the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary.
In a context where, as I have said, there is disagreement between the judiciary and the legislature in Scotland, we believe it is not appropriate for the United Kingdom Parliament to overrule the Scottish judiciary. It should be for Holyrood to make that call and pass a mirror Bill. Therefore, we intend to abstain on this motion to include Scotland.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for organising the briefing for us today. I attended it; I think there was only one sub-postmaster and one solicitor present at the time, but it was useful to hear from them. I pay tribute, as I have done before, to her for the work that she has done.
I suppose it is a consequence of the motion before the House that we have emphasised its procedural aspects more heavily than the outcomes, but the House today needs to focus on the best possible outcomes for sub-postmasters. If there had been insistence on the Northern Ireland Assembly drawing up legislation, that would have required a 12-week minimum statutory consultation period, and that would have produced a worse outcome for sub-postmasters in Northern Ireland. For that reason, I thought that the direction in which the Minister moved was absolutely sensible.
I am afraid that I do not take the same view on the position in Scotland. Including Scotland in the Bill would leave unresolved issues, and the Bill would therefore leave Scottish postmasters in a poorer position than those in the rest of the country.
Mr Carmichael
Will the hon. and learned Lady let me explain why I take that view? On 16 January, the Lord Advocate made the following observations, and I think that she is quite right:
“The vast majority of the cases that may be affected by the issue were cases in which the accused pled guilty to the offence. Often, those pleas were tendered under legal representation. Although it is impossible to comment on every case, prosecutors do not mark cases to proceed in the absence of corroboration—they simply do not do that. Defence solicitors do not advise clients to plead guilty in the absence of corroboration. In cases that proceed to trial, the sheriffs do not convict in the absence of corroboration. As a result, it is reasonable to infer that, in cases that resulted in a conviction—whether by guilty plea or conviction after trial—other evidence was available that was capable of supporting the finding of guilt…As I have explained, not every Horizon case will involve a miscarriage of justice. In some cases, there was sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 January 2024; c. 22-27]
That is the view and analysis of the Lord Advocate. Essentially, what she is saying—I have always believed that this is right—is that because of the way that the laws of evidence and procedure operate in Scotland, and in particular because of the need for corroboration, qualitative safeguards that bring better outcomes are available to people who are before the Scottish courts. The presence of corroboration is an important part of Scots law, and the Lord Advocate is right to highlight that. As she has raised these issues, I believe that it is better for legislation to be made in the Scottish Parliament, where the equivalent to this stage would take place in a committee, and not in the Chamber, as is the case here; again, that is preferable.
Joanna Cherry
Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the concerns that the Lord Advocate has expressed are similar to those expressed by lawyers from across these islands about this legislation? Ultimately, it is Parliament’s decision whether to exonerate. Has he read the evidence given to the Criminal Justice Committee, and does he disagree with Professor Chalmers, who said that the purpose of the Bill is to make sure that convictions can be quashed, so that innocent people can be compensated quickly; that the scandal originated with a faulty computer system and dubious investigating procedures in a UK-wide institution; and that the scheme for compensation is UK-wide, so the paving legislation should be UK wide? That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of one of Scotland’s most pre-eminent criminal lawyers, the regius professor at Glasgow. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why he is wrong?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. and learned Lady has said herself that this is a matter of opinion. I put great confidence in the opinion of Professor Chalmers, but I come to a different conclusion, because the route to conviction lay through civil servants employed by the Scottish Government—[Interruption.] As the hon. and learned Lady reminds us, almost three decades ago, I was one of them, so I understand perfectly how the system works, and I also understand that if I ever got it wrong—incredible though that suggestion may seem—the accountability for my mistake would be through the Lord Advocate.
Peter Grant
I note that nobody has challenged the very important point that because the Scottish legislation has to mirror UK legislation, it cannot be passed until this Bill has had Royal Assent. The right hon. Gentleman has experience of the system; in his experience, once the Scottish Parliament can start considering legislation, what would be the minimum delay before Scotland caught up? Secondly, does he agree that it would be outrageous for anyone to try to shut down the Scottish Parliament in the meantime, to build in further unnecessary delay?
Mr Carmichael
I am intrigued to know what that final question about shutting down the Scottish Parliament is about, but it is open to the Scottish Parliament to deal with such matters through an emergency procedure. That would be sensible, and it would bring sub-postmasters across the whole United Kingdom to exactly the same place at the end of the day. That can be done in a matter of days, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. We have heard from others that the legislation is drafted and ready to go, so as a matter of politics, what is it that the Scottish National party does not want to admit?
Marion Fellows
As far as I am concerned, and as far as the SNP is concerned, politics does not come into this. It is about getting justice for Scottish sub-postmasters and postmasters across the rest of the United Kingdom at the same time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I want to make it clear that interventions need to be questions to the person making the speech.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Lady knows that I agree with her a lot more than either of us would ever admit, but on this matter, there is clearly a difference of opinion. The decision on whether the route to exoneration should be through the Scottish Parliament or through this place is a political choice.
Joanna Cherry
I sense that the right hon. Gentleman is reaching his peroration, and as we are both Scots lawyers, I wonder if he will join me in correcting the Labour party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). She said repeatedly that the Scottish judiciary did not want this legislation. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Scottish judiciary, like the English judiciary, would never comment on the desirability of legislation. Does he agree that the hon. Lady was getting mixed up with the Lord Advocate? Perhaps she should have a chance to correct the record later, because it is very important that the House does not give the impression that the Scottish judiciary have been criticising Parliament when they have not.
Mr Carmichael
I say gently to the hon. and learned Lady that the Scottish judiciary would never comment publicly because, in my experience, they have ways of making their views known. But she is right to point out that on this occasion, the Opposition spokesperson confused the office of the Lord Advocate with the judiciary. I would say to the hon. and learned Lady, however, that that in itself demonstrates to me the need for this matter to be dealt with where the expertise lies, which is the Scottish Parliament.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I find myself in the unusual position of supporting an SNP motion. It is probably the first time; I suspect it will be the last. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) has shown her dedication to the people whom she represents. I have sat in Committee with her, and I have listened to her in debates, and I know how passionately she feels about this matter. She is not, in my view, just making a political point; she honestly believes that postmasters and postmistresses in Scotland who have been wronged by the Post Office, which carelessly dealt with her cases, deserve the same justice as those in Northern Ireland, England and Wales.
I appreciate the fact that the Minister listened to voices from Northern Ireland. Since coming into his position—this matter has gone on for a long time—he has been dedicated to resolving the issue, and I praise him for that, but we have one last part of the jigsaw that needs to be dealt with. It could be dealt with by including Scotland in the Bill, as Northern Ireland has been included.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Like others who have spoken, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for the work that she has done. We all feel for the postmasters throughout Scotland, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a lot of people in Scotland watching this are wondering why the SNP’s argument is not with the Lord Advocate, the person responsible for this delay? Why are SNP Members bringing it here? Why are their Government not taking this up with the Lord Advocate?
Sammy Wilson
I do not know about the relationship between the Lord Advocate and the Scottish National party, but I do know that a remedy is going through this House today that could dispense with whatever differences there might be in Scotland, and deal with an issue that all of us in this House are agreed needs to be dealt with quickly.
I have listened to the argument made by the Minister and others that due process needs to be followed. Indeed, I have listened to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who said, “You have to remember that the Scottish system is different. The level of proof in Scotland is different. There was greater information available.” The implication is that when the Scottish Parliament considers this, it might come to the conclusion that some of the convictions were safe, and some postmasters and postmistresses would not be exonerated at all. We have not taken that view for the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, some judges have argued that not all the convictions were unsafe, but we have decided that given how the whole Horizon situation was dealt with, it is fair that we take the view that the problems may affect some people who were rightly convicted and do not start going through each case. I remember that an argument made by a number of Members here was, “Why don’t we do this case by case?”
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The situation is different in Scotland; the Lord Advocate’s position is exactly that she does not want to risk one person who was rightly convicted being exonerated. It is therefore impossible for Scotland to follow the same route as us at the moment. As was detailed in the Scottish Parliament earlier this year, the Lord Advocate is against mass exoneration. Until she changes her position and the advice that she gives to the Scottish Government, it is impossible for them to follow what we are doing in the House of Commons through this Bill.
Sammy Wilson
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was not listening to me, but I made the point that although there may be cases in other parts of the United Kingdom that are in the same situation, given the exceptional circumstances, we are prepared to exonerate. If the Lord Advocate’s position is as he says, fair enough, but Parliament is making this decision for people in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. As the Bill is available to us, we should apply it to people in Scotland as well.
Peter Grant
I am grateful to be given the chance to make possibly the only supportive intervention I will ever make on the right hon. Gentleman. Does he not agree that if the possibility of a single guilty person walking free was really such a barrier, we would never have the requirement for guilt to be proven beyond reasonable doubt not only in Scotland, but in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? In a judicial system, we accept that it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to go to jail.
Sammy Wilson
I will move on because Madam Deputy Speaker is catching my eye.
Sammy Wilson
I will not, because I just want to make two more points. First, the Minister has said, “It can be done quickly through the Parliament in Scotland.” The Scottish Parliament cannot start the process until the law has gone through here. I think I can say this, although some SNP Members might not be able to: the situation in Scotland at the moment does not look good for getting legislation through quickly for any reason, because of the uncertainty around the leadership, what will happen and what support there will be. There is a parallel with the situation we had in Northern Ireland. One of the arguments we made was over special circumstances, with the Assembly just being set up again and the delay that might cause. The Minister’s argument could mean further delay in getting justice for postmasters and postmistresses in Scotland.
Kevin Hollinrake
May I just point out that the legislation apparently has already been drafted for Scotland? There is no requirement for Scotland’s legislation to mirror our legislation; that would be up to the Scottish Parliament, and it is clear that is the case. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is not just the Lord Advocate who is against what we are doing? The First Minister himself said, as I said earlier, that people with safe convictions should not have access to compensation. We are clear that the route we are taking raises that likelihood. It is therefore only right that the Scottish Parliament takes this decision.
Sammy Wilson
That has been the Minister’s position throughout the discussions we had earlier. I am still arguing for including Scotland, on the basis of consistency, fairness, speed and the political signal we should be sending to people in Scotland. No SNP Member will make this point, but I will. We have already heard in this debate that this is more of a political decision. The Scottish National party feels that it is being got at—sometimes it deserves to be got at—but my point is this: when there is a mechanism to avoid it, why create a sense of victimhood? People feel they have been got at and have been treated differently when they could have been treated in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not think there is any political merit in excluding Scotland from this legislation. For the people who have been wronged in the Horizon scandal, for the people who have had their reputations damaged, and for the picture of this Parliament as a fair Parliament, dealing with people right across the United Kingdom who have been affected by a United Kingdom problem, I believe this motion should be passed today and Scotland should be included along with Northern Ireland.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
I start by paying tribute to several people across this House from a number of different parties. When I arrived here last year, I could tell they had already been working hard on this issue, including my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). There is consensus across the House that this huge injustice must be righted. The question, as we have heard from a number of people, is how that is done in Scotland, and that is what I want to speak to briefly.
I want to make two points. First, there is the question of speed, which we have heard about a number of times, but more importantly, there is the question of accountability. Accountability is important. The Scottish Parliament has responsibility for justice in Scotland. Scotland has always had a separate legal system—since long before the Scottish Parliament was re-established—and, as we have heard, there are the questions of the Lord Advocate’s position, of how convictions were taken forward not by the Post Office by but by the Crown, of the basis of evidence used—
Michael Shanks
May I make a bit of progress? I will then give way.
There is also the question of the evidence used around corroboration. There are differences in the convictions.
More importantly, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw spoke about one of the organisations involved—the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which she rightly said was the body that brought cases for review in Scotland—but she did not mention the accountability aspect. The commission was created by an Act of the Scottish Parliament, is responsible to the Scottish Parliament and gets its budget from the Scottish Government. There is a clear line of accountability between the Scottish Justice Secretary, the Scottish Government and the bodies responsible for reviewing these convictions, so the accountability is clearly with the Scottish Parliament.
Joanna Cherry
May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he is completely misunderstanding what we are dealing with? We are dealing with absolutely extraordinary legislation that is quashing convictions as a gateway to compensation. Giving us a lecture of dubious accuracy on the lines of accountability of the Crown Office in Scotland does not address that. This legislation is going over the head of the Crown Prosecution Service in England, just as it would go over the head of the Crown Office in Scotland. Why cannot he appreciate that point? Is it because he is playing politics with the issue, like his Front-Bench colleagues?
Michael Shanks
The suggestion of dubious lectures coming from the Scottish National party is slightly misguided. I accept the point that the legislation goes above normal legal precedent, but there is no reason why the Scottish Parliament could not invoke its emergency Bill procedures as it has done in the past, recognising that this is an extraordinary situation.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) clearly does not understand how prosecutions are done in the UK—sorry, in England. [Interruption.] Well, not in England. In England, the Post Office took the prosecutions—they never went through the CPS. In Scotland, they did actually go through the Crown Office and the Advocate General. That is the difference. In terms of where decisions were taken and the people who reviewed cases before they went to court, the cases are not similar.
Michael Shanks
That is absolutely right. The key point is that there is no question about the Post Office being held to account for the institutional levels of cover-up—
Michael Shanks
May I just make the point and then I will give way? The Post Office must be held to account for that institutional cover-up, and it is the responsibility of this place and the inquiry to look into that, but the prosecutions in Scotland were taken forward by the Crown Office, which is responsible to the Scottish Parliament. That is the point that I am making about accountability.
Marion Fellows
Would the hon. Gentleman agree that accountable for all of this is Post Office Ltd, which is wholly owned by the UK Government as its single shareholder, and that the UK Government took their eye off the ball, did not follow through, and took years to admit that there was a problem in the first place, and that if the UK Government caused this, they should fix it?
Michael Shanks
I am happy to agree with the hon. Lady about the responsibility of Post Office Ltd—I said that a few moments ago—but the prosecutions based on that Post Office evidence were taken forward by the Crown Office. There is responsibility to go around here. [Interruption.] I will just answer the point, if that is okay.
The evidence absolutely came from a flawed system, and Post Office Ltd must be held to account. That does not deal with how prosecutions in Scotland were taken forward not just on evidence from Horizon but with corroboration from other sources.
Patricia Gibson
I wonder whether the hon. Member shares my distaste at some of the things said in the Chamber today, including that we cannot bring this legislation forward in Parliament today because some of the postmasters in Scotland might indeed be guilty of theft and that we have to tread carefully. That bar has not been placed on postmasters elsewhere in the UK.
Michael Shanks
I would share that distaste, but those comments were reflecting what the Lord Advocate has said. I have letters from the Lord Advocate in my hand that repeat that point a number of times. Of course, the Lord Advocate sits around the Cabinet table with, I think—I will need to check—the current First Minister, Humza Yousaf.
Michael Shanks
No. I have taken a lot of interventions and am going to make a bit of progress.
My second point is about timing. I do not accept the SNP’s argument at all that the timing is an issue. I have heard the Minister make the point on a number of occasions that the compensation regime will be available to people who have been exonerated—by whatever means that is—at the moment they are exonerated, so there is no question about that.
On the point about the Scottish Parliament not being able to rush through legislation, it does not have the same processes as the Northern Ireland Assembly—it does not have to go through a lengthy consultation process—so it could introduce a Bill tomorrow and have it passed before there is a vote on any of the confidence motions on Thursday. Indeed, in 2020, the Scottish Parliament passed an emergency Bill on covid—a considerably more difficult piece of legislation, stretching to 138 pages—in just two days, and the idea that this Bill is somehow more complicated than that is ridiculous.
There is no reason why the Scottish Parliament cannot take responsibility and introduce a Bill now. Indeed, if there was a question about not being able to finalise the Bill until the UK Bill had passed, the Scottish Parliament could take it all the way to the final amendment stage and amend it as necessary. But actually, again, the Minister has said that the Scottish Bill does not have to mirror directly the UK legislation for people to have access to the same compensation, which is what the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw and I both want to see.
If the SNP is unwilling to act in the Scottish Parliament to introduce the Bill, my colleague Michael Marra MSP has already drafted a Members’ Bill and will introduce that Bill this week.
Michael Shanks
If the SNP is unable to act, there will be no more dithering and there will be no more delays, because Labour will act. For that reason, I will not be supporting the SNP motion.
Marion Fellows
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At no time have the Scottish Justice Secretary or the Scottish Parliament said that they will not pass legislation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks) has finished his speech. If the hon. Lady would like to make a few comments, she can. She does not need to do so through a point of order.
Marion Fellows
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have here the Justice Secretary in Scotland’s remarks. She said:
“We remain crystal clear that the best way to achieve parity for the sub-postmasters across the UK who were convicted on the basis of tainted evidence from the Post Office Horizon system is for the UK Government’s Bill to be extended to Scotland, as it has been for Northern Ireland, just as we have been clear if this isn’t the case we will bring forward a Scottish bill that mirrors the UK bill as quickly as possible.”
Question put.
Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill
Monday 29th April 2024
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 View all Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 29 April 2024 - (29 Apr 2024)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair, Madam Chairman or Mr Chairman are also acceptable.
Clause 1
Quashing of convictions for relevant offences
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move amendment 25, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(za) the conviction took place before the coming into force of this Act,”.
This amendment makes it clear that clause 1(1) will quash only convictions occurring before the coming into force of the Act.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, page 1, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).
Government amendments 27 to 28.
Clause 1 stand part.
Government amendments 29 to 33.
Clause 2 stand part.
Government amendment 34.
Clause 3 stand part.
Government amendments 35 to 41.
Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 3, line 34, at end insert—
“(4A) Notification under subsection (4) must include a written summary of—
(a) the compensation schemes available to a relevant person following a quashed conviction under section 1(1);
(b) the relevant heads of loss under which a relevant person may claim compensation; and
(c) a tariff of compensation available relating to each of the heads of loss mentioned in paragraph (b).”
Amendment 4, page 3, line 34, at end insert—
“(4A) Notification under subsection (4) must include a written commitment from the Secretary of State that—
(a) the period of time between a full and valid claim for compensation and an offer of compensation will not exceed four weeks; and
(b) if the offer is not made within the four week period mentioned in paragraph (a), a fixed penalty amount will be added to the ultimate compensation sum for each day by which the four week period is exceeded.”
Amendment 5, page 3, line 34, at end insert—
“(4A) Notification under subsection (4) must include a written commitment from the Secretary of State to use reasonable endeavours to ensure that the period of time between a full and valid claim for compensation and an offer of compensation will not exceed four weeks.”
Government amendments 42 to 44.
Clause 4 stand part.
Government amendments 45 and 46.
Amendment 6, in clause 5, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“(3A) Notification under subsection (3) must include a written summary of—
(a) the compensation schemes available to a relevant person following a direction to delete a caution under section 5(1);
(b) the relevant heads of loss under which a relevant person may claim compensation; and
(c) a tariff of compensation available relating to each of the heads of loss mentioned in paragraph (b).”
Amendment 7, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“(3A) Notification under subsection (3) must include a written commitment from the Secretary of State that—
(a) the period of time between a full and valid claim for compensation and an offer of compensation will not exceed four weeks; and
(b) if the offer is not made within the four week period mentioned in paragraph (a), a fixed penalty amount will be added to the ultimate compensation sum for each day by which the four week period is exceeded.”
Amendment 8, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“(3A) Notification under subsection (3) must include a written commitment from the Secretary of State to use reasonable endeavours to ensure that the period of time between a full and valid claim for compensation and an offer of compensation will not exceed four weeks.”
Government amendment 47.
Clauses 5 and 6 stand part.
Government amendments 48 to 51.
Clause 7 stand part.
Government amendments 52 and 53.
Amendment 70, page 5, line 39, after “as” insert “Pathway,”.
This amendment would provide additional clarity by ensuring that the application called Pathway, which was rolled out as a pilot version of Horizon, is explicitly referenced as a Horizon system for the purposes of the Bill.
Government amendments 54 and 55.
Clause 8 stand part.
Government amendment 56.
Amendment 71, page 6, line 26, at end insert—
“(3) This Act expires at the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”
Clauses 9 and 10 stand part.
Government new clauses 2 and 3.
New clause 1—Provision relating to Northern Ireland—
“(1) The Secretary of State must consult the First Minister and deputy First Minister about making provision for quashing any conviction in Northern Ireland for an equivalent “relevant offence” (see section 2) alleged to have been committed in Northern Ireland.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations to apply the provisions of this Act, with any necessary modifications to take account of the law and legal system in Northern Ireland, to secure the quashing of any conviction in Northern Ireland for an equivalent “relevant offence” (see section 2).
(3) Unless the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly advise to the contrary, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of regulations to be made under subsection (2) no later than one week after the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(5) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, section 7 of this Act applies to other regulations made under this section.”
This skeleton clause would require comparable provision to be made to quash convictions in Northern Ireland on the same basis as in England and Wales.
New clause 6—Statement on quashing convictions relating to Capture software—
“The Secretary of State must, no later than 30 days after the day on which this Act is passed, make a written statement to Parliament outlining action the Government intends to take to secure the quashing of convictions of persons carrying on a Post Office business while using the Capture software from 1992 onwards.”
Government amendments 23 and 24.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Rosie. Given the nature of this debate, in moving the Government amendments, I will also use my speech to discuss the other amendments that have been tabled.
First, I will address the Government amendments in the name of the Secretary of State relating to Northern Ireland: 23 and 24, 26 to 44, and 46 to 56, as well as new clauses 1 to 3. I am grateful to the House for agreeing to the Government’s instruction motion to enable debate on these important amendments. The Government have listened carefully to representations across the House regarding the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. We recognise the unique challenges faced by the Northern Ireland Executive in bringing forward legislation to quash convictions to a similar timeframe as the rest of the UK.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I just want to put on record, in Committee, the Democratic Unionist party’s sincere and personal appreciation of the Minister for how he has engaged with us, the pragmatic way he has approached these issues, and the can-do attitude he has extended to Northern Ireland. We have met on a number of occasions. He has received the thorough representations of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and colleagues across the House, not least Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. We are indebted to him. We recognise that this is a huge step forward for the sub-postmasters in Northern Ireland who felt there would not be light at the end of the tunnel. He has extended the Bill very purposefully for all those affected in Northern Ireland, and we thank him for it.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. It is a pleasure to work with him and his colleagues from Northern Ireland. We were always sympathetic to his arguments and are delighted to have been able to move forward as we have.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Following on from my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), it is fair to say that a week ago or even a month ago, the 23 sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in Northern Ireland had little hope. Today, they have hope and that is due to the Minister’s endeavours on their behalf, pushing this issue and the Government’s acceptance. On behalf of the 23, we would like to say a big thank you to the Minister and the Government.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very grateful. The hon. Gentleman is right to address the point about the 23 sub-postmasters. They are why we are here and why we are keen to act in this way. We recognise that there were specific circumstances in Northern Ireland that would have delayed the exoneration and compensation to those individuals, and that is why we are acting as we are today. It is always a pleasure to work with him, as I have on many different issues over the years.
Issues include the Executive’s recent restoration and additional public consultation requirements, which the House debated on Second Reading. In deciding to take this step, the Government recognised the extent of cross-community support for the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. For those reasons, we have decided to put forward Government amendments which would extend the scope of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I am very grateful to have cross-party support from Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies in co-signing Government amendments, specifically the right hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), and the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), for North Down (Stephen Farry), for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna).
The amendments, which have been drafted in consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, empower the Northern Ireland Department of Justice to implement the legislation in the same way as the Secretary of State will in England and Wales. The amendments would modify the criteria for the convictions which are overturned to ensure that the relevant convictions from Northern Ireland are captured within its scope. Specifically, they would add those secured by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland and refer to distinct Northern Ireland offences. Additionally, this group of amendments would ensure that the relevant cautions will be deleted in Northern Ireland, as they will be in England and Wales. The amendments have the same intent as new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim, so I hope he will be happy to withdraw it on that basis.
On amendment 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), I thank him for his continued engagement on the Bill and on wider Horizon matters. It is vital that we stay true to our objective of bringing justice to wrongly convicted postmasters, but it is also important to keep in mind the constitutionally sensitive nature of the Bill. We should legislate in a way that respects the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. This amendment would widen the scope of the Bill to include convictions that have been upheld by the Court of Appeal. It would automatically quash such convictions, thereby overriding decisions taken by the senior judiciary. These cases are excluded from the Bill because the Government believe that it should tread very carefully where judges in the senior appellate courts have considered a case on its merits. We do not consider it appropriate for Parliament to interfere with such decisions.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on this point and, indeed, for the way he is approaching it. The Chairman of the Justice Committee sent him an excellent letter last week in which he underlined that almost all the witnesses before his Committee agreed that it was unfair for the Bill to take a restrictive approach, in the way the Minister has, while taking a rather expansive approach elsewhere. I know the Minister has written back to the Chairman of the Justice Committee, but his letter did not touch on this point. I wonder whether he will take the opportunity to wrap that up for us.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for their work. We take these matters and the independence of the judiciary very seriously. Where the Court of Appeal has upheld a conviction and declared it safe, we think that is a material concern. There will always be different opinions in these areas, but we think we are striking the right balance between overturning convictions that we believe to be unsafe in the main and ones that have been before a senior judge.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for the extremely constructive way in which he has engaged with everybody on this matter. My initial position was entirely supportive of the Government, but I must say that the evidence given to the Justice Committee causes me to think again. It is usually right to be very wary indeed about trespassing on decisions made by the courts. However, we have chosen to do that because it is thought desirable for the greater good in respect of the bulk of convictions.
The point that needs to be emphasised is that we have perhaps not appreciated that, in cases where convictions were upheld by the Court of Appeal, it applied a narrower test to the relevance of the Horizon evidence. In Hamilton and related cases, it said that the test was whether the Horizon evidence was essential to the conviction. We do not apply that test as a result of a policy decision. That could lead to a bizarre situation whereby someone who did not get to the Court of Appeal because the Criminal Cases Review Commission did not refer the case would have their conviction quashed, whereas someone who the commission thought had an arguable case and who went to the Court of Appeal but who was rejected on a narrower test than Parliament is now creating would not benefit from having their conviction quashed. That is the unfairness that we need to think a little more about, and it is the thrust of what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) is getting at.
Kevin Hollinrake
There will, of course, always be different legal opinions on these matters. As my hon. and learned Friend expressed, he has had two different opinions on what we should do in this regard, and I know that his view is based on further submissions of evidence that he has received. Of course, we consider these matters very carefully. My right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary is here and listening to my hon. and learned Friend’s comments. We will always continue to reflect on this legislation to make sure that we are getting to the right place, but I understand the points that he raises.
Sir Robert Neill
There were certainly differences of opinion as to the appropriateness of the measure as a whole, with Dr Quirk being in a minority of three who took a different view, but there was not a difference of opinion on the factual point that the test applied by the Court of Appeal in Hamilton is different from that which is in statute. That was a matter of unanimity.
Kevin Hollinrake
I understand and accept that point, but a decision has to be taken on whether to include these cases. There is definitely a difference of legal opinion on that point, because I have had different representations made to me.
We recognise that this approach may leave a small number of individuals concerned about the way forward for their cases. In cases where the Court of Appeal has upheld a conviction, the usual routes of appeal remain available to them. Those affected can apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which can review their cases.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister knows that we on the advisory board have discussed this issue at length. Given what has come out of the inquiry over the last few weeks, does he agree that there is evidence that may have a bearing on some of these cases? I accept why he does not want to include them in this Bill, but we need to look at some of these cases to see whether there are grounds for appeal.
Kevin Hollinrake
Of course, and I am listening intently to the evidence before the inquiry. It is true to say there are some shocking revelations. As the right hon. Gentleman illustrated in his work with the advisory board, there was a maliciousness about some of the prosecutions, which is of great concern, as is the flawed Horizon system. Part of the reason why we are legislating as we are reflects that, but we will continue to look at the evidence that emerges.
Liam Byrne
If that is the approach that the Minister is going to take, could he tell the House a bit more about how his Department will support individuals who find themselves in this egregious position? As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, evidence will now have come to light that was not available to the Court of Appeal or, indeed, to courts that may have refused leave to appeal. Those individuals will be in a terrible state now. What can his Department do, and on what timetable, to support them through the process that he proposes they take?
Kevin Hollinrake
The right hon. Gentleman makes the point himself: as more evidence emerges, it may be that the CCRC takes a different view of cases that are brought forward. People who have presented their cases can revisit them by making an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which can make recommendations as it sees fit. Clearly, we are happy to provide any information that we possess, and the Post Office will do the same. As I say, the inquiry’s revelations may bring information that would help in some cases. The CCRC may refer cases to the Court of Appeal if it considers that there is a real possibility that convictions would not be upheld. With the constitutional sensitivities in mind, I hope the right hon. Member will agree to withdraw his amendment.
I turn now to amendments 3 and 6, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to include details of available financial redress in notifications to people who have had their convictions quashed, or cautions deleted, by this Bill. The amendments come as part of a number of recommendations by the Business and Trade Committee, to which the Government have since provided our response. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the whole Committee that we will include information about redress in the notifications that we send to postmasters when their convictions are overturned. Our aim is that the redress process will follow seamlessly from the process of overturning convictions—there is no need to legislate for this. Those with cautions may have already sought financial redress via the Horizon shortfall scheme or the group litigation order scheme. We will provide them with the necessary guidance to identify the appropriate route to claim financial redress, if they have not done so already.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying these points as we go along. He will know that many sub-postmasters have not applied for the full extent of their potential claim because they are unsure about the case law involved, and I understand that the Department is using some guidance in making judgments—for example, the Dyson judgment, which is not publicly available, for perfectly good reasons. There is a bit of creativity going into how we solve this problem. The Post Office wrote to me last night to say that, on the Horizon scheme, it is recording the heads of loss and the averages of claims that are being agreed, which could be one of the ways in which sub-postmasters are given a sense of what the tariff is. Could the Minister say a bit more about how we absolutely guarantee in the notification that we maximise the chance of sub-postmasters claiming the maximum possible amount that they should be entitled to?
Kevin Hollinrake
We have tried to design the schemes in conjunction with the legal firms that are advising most of the claimants on claiming redress. We will continue to work with them, as we do with the advisory board, and there are different mechanisms that we can use to make this process simpler, more transparent and easier to navigate. Clearly, cases will differ, despite similarities, so if we go down the full assessment route, it is important that all claims be assessed individually, which obviously takes time. If there are mechanisms that we can use—for example, the tariffs that the right hon. Gentleman describes—to expedite the process, we would be happy to look at them. We will continue to work with the advisory board on that.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I had hoped that my hon. Friend was going to speak to amendment 70 as well. I just so pleased that we are going through the legislation today, because it is so important for so many people. I have written to him about my constituent who came to see me about her husband, who was a sub-postmaster. He had been written to by the Post Office, who had told him about his exceptional bookkeeping. He then discovered an unexplained loss in the amounts. He called the auditors; they came in, and they locked him out of his business. They searched his home. They did not find any evidence, but they took away his business, his home, his livelihood and his reputation. We have heard that so many times. The only difference is that this happened in 1992, under the precursor system to Horizon. Amendment 70 mentioned the Pathway system. My constituent was using something called Capture. Fortunately the case was dropped before it got to criminal court. I know that the Minister is looking at whether there were more of these Capture cases. When the legislation comes before the other place, can we make sure that, if needed, it can also quash any criminal convictions due to Capture, or other precursor systems, as well as Horizon?
Kevin Hollinrake
I will speak to amendment 70. I wrote back to my right hon. Friend about her case, and we are looking at this. I am sure that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) will have something to say about this issue. We have agreed to instigate an independent review of that software. There are some fundamental differences. For example, it is not networked, so no remote access is possible, whereas that is a major feature of the issues with Horizon. I am happy to continue to engage with my right hon. Friend on the issue, and I congratulate her on the way she has dealt with it on behalf of her constituent.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst’s amendment 71 would also sunset other parts of the Bill. This would not give victims of the scandal the justice that they deserve. We are clear—there has been agreement across this House on this—that this exceptional legislation does not set a precedent, and I hope, especially with the reassurance provided by Government amendments 25 and 45, that he will withdraw amendment 71.
Sir Robert Neill
I understand where the Minister is coming from, and of course he has provided a deal of reassurance, but I want to test this a little. Are we really assuming that it will be necessary to leave open-ended people’s ability to come forward to have their conviction quashed? After all, if they cannot reasonably be traced, there is provision for the Secretary of State to notify an appropriate person. For example, if we cannot find the person—or their next of kin, if they are dead—there is a catch-all provision about notifying an appropriate person. Why could that not include the criminal records bodies? Would they not be notified anyway? I just wonder why we have to leave the provision open-ended to that extent. There will come a point when the provision has been exhausted. Also, I am interested in how my hon. Friend envisages a process working through which people can get a document that shows that their conviction is quashed—for example, if they need a visa or work permit, or have to undergo Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
Kevin Hollinrake
As I said, the legislation expires on the day that the provision is brought into effect. My hon. and learned Friend is talking about the ongoing marking of the records of people who may come forward at a future date. We do not know what that date would be. I am happy to have a conversation with him about what the cut-off would be, but the effect of this legislation, in terms of quashing convictions, expires on the day it receives Royal Assent.
Sir Robert Neill
I understand that, and I can see my hon. Friend’s point, hence the two amendments. My point is that he is praying in aid, as another reason for not having a sunset clause, the provisions for notifying people about applying to have their convictions quashed. What is the mechanism to make sure that does not hang around indefinitely? We will eventually want to bring things to a conclusion—not only getting convictions quashed, but, quite separately, paying out the compensation fund. One day, all the compensation that can be claimed will have been claimed. What do we do then? How do we wrap up the process? That is what it comes down to.
Kevin Hollinrake
As I said, I am happy to have a continuing conversation with my hon. and learned Friend on that point. I feel that it would be a serious injustice if we set, say, a three year cut-off period and somebody came along a day later. Those are the challenges that we have to meet.
Liam Byrne
In a way, this is the core of the debate about where the four corners of the Bill should stretch to. The hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) makes a very good point: at some point, there should be a sunset on such unprecedented legislation. At the moment, there are no limits to its expansiveness in terms of time, but the Minister has set a limit on its expansiveness in terms of the individuals involved, because he is ruling out those who have gone through the Court of Appeal. The Bill would benefit from further discussion, perhaps in the other place, about precisely where the four corners should be pinned down.
Kevin Hollinrake
I would welcome that discussion, and I will follow it closely in the other place.
The controversial element of this unprecedented, exceptional legislation is the overturning of the convictions, because we are interfering with the courts by legislating in this way. The convictions expire on day one. All that happens further on from that is the marking of the records, which is not the controversial part. The controversial part is the interference with the courts. Again, I am happy to have a continuing conversation with the right hon. Gentleman.
New clause 7, in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), would require the establishment of an independent intermediary body to administer financial redress to individuals whose convictions are quashed by the Bill. I also acknowledge the Business and Trade Committee’s recommendation on a similar point.
I assure the Committee that we are building independence into the process of making financial redress. Final decisions will, if necessary, be made by an independent panel comprising a King’s counsel, an accountant and a retail expert. The panel will have a case manager, who will ensure that cases are settled fairly, swiftly and in a non-adversarial manner. I have been clear throughout my work that we should put the victims of the scandal back in the position that they would have been in, and that we should move as quickly as possible. We feel that it would take months to set up an independent intermediary, and that it would add additional steps to the process and risk creating unnecessary bureaucracy.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
If my new clause had been selected for debate, I would probably not seek to press it. I am not in a position to do anything more, but I thank the Minister for his assurances on independence.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As the new clause was not selected, we probably should not be discussing it.
Kevin Hollinrake
My apologies, Dame Rosie. I will move on with pleasure.
Penultimately, I turn to new clause 6. I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham for all his work seeking justice for the former sub-postmasters and, indeed, on the Horizon compensation advisory board. My officials have been working closely with him, as have I, and he will be aware that we have set in train the process of appointing an independent forensic investigator to look into the Capture software, now that the Post Office has addressed concerns about it. Obviously, this relates to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who is no longer in her place.
This follows on from the useful meeting that the right hon. Member for North Durham and I had with a sub-postmaster and his wife who wanted to talk to me about his experiences. My officials have spoken to other affected sub-postmasters, too. New clause 6 would require the Secretary of State to make a statement within 30 days of Royal Assent. As the Committee knows, we aim to complete the Bill’s passage very quickly, so a statement may be due quite soon. In practice, we feel it would be too soon, and time is needed to identify and appoint the right person for this role, and for the investigator to complete their work and offer an independent conclusion.
Mr Kevan Jones
Clause 2(2) mentions 23 September 1996. Is the Minister saying that any ICL Pathway system installed in post offices, even prior to that date, will be captured by the Bill?
Kevin Hollinrake
Certainly, if we regard it as a pilot system of Horizon, that would be the case, as drafted.
Mr Kevan Jones
So is the date irrelevant? I have spoken to one person whose prosecution might have been 1996, but there is evidence that the Pathway system was in place before that date in 1996.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is not what we understand from the Post Office, but I am happy to continue our discussions, as I always do, to make sure that every relevant person affected by Horizon or its pilot systems is covered.
Several hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the Committee that this debate has to finish at 9 o’clock. I know some of the points are very detailed, but I am conscious that I have the four Members who are standing and the shadow Minister to get in. Colleagues should bear that in mind, because I cannot impose a time limit. It is about making sure that everyone has a chance to speak.
Liam Byrne
Thank you, Dame Rosie. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship.
I will be very brief, because some of my points have been covered through interventions. There has been good progress since the Bill was published, which is testament to the Minister’s leadership and his officials’ support. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, the more that we have heard in the inquiry and through the media since the Bill’s publication, the more horrified and more determined we have become to hold individuals, including the former chief executive of the Post Office, to account. It is pretty clear to many of us that the evidence she gave to the Select Committee on 3 February 2015 and 24 June 2020 has been flatly contradicted by the Channel 4 revelations that were published on 27 March. I hope the Select Committee will be able to bring options for the House to consider as soon as possible.
I wish to touch on three points quickly: the speed of redress, the stress of redress, and the scope of this scheme. The point about speed is lit up by a single fact: the total budget for compensation is about £1.2 billion, but as of last Wednesday £196 million has been paid out. The implication of that is that 80% of the compensation budget has not been paid out, after all this time, and all the heartbreak, trauma and scandal. This Bill will correct that imbalance substantially; about £780 million of the budget is earmarked for overturning convictions and this Bill allows us to move that money much faster. However, I remain concerned by what the Minister said today about the lack of any service level agreements for paying more out for the overturning convictions scheme. I would have expected a timetable for paying out that redress alongside this Bill today.
We should be concerned about that because the track record of making payments is not good. For example, if we look at the claims in the Horizon shortfall scheme submitted by the original deadline in November 2020—three and a half years ago—we see that 362 people have still not been paid, which is a sixth of applicants. If we look at the late claims, all 667 of them, we see that three quarters of them have not been paid. That is why the Select Committee looked hard at how we could introduce some strictures to ensure that people were paid much faster.
Since then, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has more experience in this House than pretty much anybody else, and indeed the Minister, raised serious and wise concerns about the risks of putting a legally binding deadline on the entire timetable. I have listened to those concerns with care, which is why the way that my amendment on this has been drafted takes aim at one part of the process: the timeframe between a legitimate claim being submitted and a first offer being made. The Minister’s target is four weeks and we are getting close to that now, but the reality is that a significant number of people are still not being paid within that timeframe.
In some of the anonymised evidence the Minister provided to the Committee, we can see that 13% of claimants in the GLO scheme are waiting more than 40 days, with 2% waiting more than 100 days. If my amendments, as I have drafted them, are not right and still run risks, I appeal to the other place to work harder on this to ensure that there is some legally binding stricture on the Department that means that when, God forbid, the Minister is no longer in his position, and we do not have his emollience and tenacity to rely on, his successor, whoever that may be, is bound by some kind of timeframe that ensures we are not still having this debate in years to come.
To check the point, I contacted a number of Select Committee witnesses this morning and found that there was some evidence that the speed of claims was improving. However, new issues were emerging; I am told that the time taken to table a second offer when the first is rejected is, frankly, not fast enough. There have been delays of up to three months or more in offering dates through remediation hearings, so the process is still running too slow. If I have failed to persuade the Committee today, I appeal to the other place to help us to find some legal mechanisms to ensure that there is stiffer timetable to which the Department must adhere.
My second point is about the stress that many people will face when putting claims in. Many people will not put claims in because legal assistance is not available before the claim is submitted. Many people, such as Christopher Head, are going out of their way to provide pro bono assistance to people in putting claims together, but often it will take hours and hours of work to get a claim form in and many people simply will not be up for that, as they do not have the patience and they want to put this behind them. They certainly will not have the legal assistance available to them. That is why I hope the Department will consider publishing some kind of tariff to help people ensure that they are claiming for the full amount. The Minister may well say that there is a risk that people will then under-claim, but I checked that with some of the lawyers this morning. Their response was expressed in rather unparliamentary language, I am afraid, Dame Rosie, but the upshot was that such an objection was utter nonsense.
I know that a lot of thought is going on in the Department about the way to do this, and I welcome the letter from the Post Office publishing average offers around the heads of loss that have been set out. Obviously, there will be bandings that are more appropriate, and perhaps that is a way to publish these things. Obviously, there is a judgment the Department is relying on—the Dyson judgment—and the neutral evaluation, which is not publicly available, for good reason. However, my plea to the Minister is this: let us try to make much clearer to claimants the full measure of redress that they should have available. If there are issues in people needing extra help before the claim form is put in, please let us make sure that that help is available right at the beginning of the stage and not simply made available once the claim is in and a contest is under way about what should be paid.
My final point is about scope, which we have already got into. There is a case for the Government to think again about the cases that have already gone to the Court of Appeal and were refused or were not given leave to appeal. The best evidence for that is the Chair of the Justice Committee’s excellent letter, in which he says:
“The Bill is in effect treating cases where the CCRC had credible evidence that Horizon data might have been essential to the prosecution case less favourably than those that the CCRC considered had no credible evidence and therefore no basis upon which to refer to the Court of Appeal.”
That is an extremely important point.
I can see what the Minister is trying to do. He is conjuring here with very radical legal remedies, and that is not something we want to be expansive, but the risk we are running is that we leave an injustice that takes years and years to work through. He has addressed some of the points the Chair of the Justice Committee made in his letter, but he has not addressed that one in writing. The objection and the goal of my amendments still stand. I will not press my amendments to a vote, because we are trying to maximise the spirit of collegiate working. I accept that my amendments, particularly on the issue of speed, may not yet be at the state of perfection that they would satisfy everyone in the Committee, especially those Members with more experience of working on these cases than I have.
However, the problem is there: people are not being paid fast enough; they are not being supplied with the right amount of information up front at the beginning of their claim; and the scope of the Bill has been drawn too narrowly. I look forward to working with the other place to try to get amendments in place that can improve the Bill and commend the consent of Members from all parties.
Sir Robert Neill
I, too, hope that I can be brief, Dame Rosie, because we have covered a deal of the ground in the interventions. However, I wish to make a few short additional points to those that have already been ventilated. They are all contained in the transcript of the evidence of the Justice Committee’s hearing with four distinguished witnesses, three senior academic lawyers and, in Mr Rozenberg KC, arguably the most distinguished legal journalist of recent times. Interestingly, the Government will perhaps take comfort from the thought that three of those distinguished witnesses were prepared, despite some of my misgivings, to say that this may be the least worst way of dealing with the position. Equally, however, all of them thought that more things need to be done with the Bill, which is what I ask the Minister to bear in mind.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) for referring to the letter that I wrote to the Secretary of State on 24 April. It broadly encompasses what I think are the key points, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to respond in writing, so that we can then publish that, in addition to the transcript of our evidence and the letter, for completeness of the record before the Bill goes to the other House.
I come to the other issues we flagged up. A small but perhaps important one relates to the conditions that must be met before the conviction can potentially be quashed. In particular, condition D in clause 2(5) requires the offence to have been committed
“in connection with carrying on, or working for the purposes of, the post office business”.
The Government’s explanatory notes say that the provisions of the Bill are “intended to be unambiguous”, but the debate we had in the Justice Committee suggests that there is potential ambiguity there. Take, for example, the position of a post office worker who, during the course of the operation of the Horizon system, is convicted of theft of stock for personal gain. Is that in the scope of the Bill or not? It is not in relation to a deficiency. In reality, that means that the Secretary of State will have to be advised by officials, perfectly properly, as to whether any individual case comes within the scheme and therefore within the scope of the requirements of clause 4. Some judgment will have to be made, and it would be interesting to know on what basis.
Liam Byrne
The Chair of the Justice Committee is making a brilliant speech. The Minister characterised the decision and the conundrum here as a legal conundrum, but in a way it is in fact a political conundrum, because we are taking a political decision about the where the scope of the scheme should start and stop. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman have any insight into how long it might take those who are currently left out of the scheme to secure justice if we do not amend the Bill to improve the scope?
Sir Robert Neill
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the policy choice that ultimately gives rise to this issue. I pray in aid a quotation from Dr Hannah Quirk, who, of all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Justice Committee, was the most sceptical, but she conceded, in reference to people whose cases have gone to the Court of Appeal,
“If we are taking an expansive approach, it seems unfair to exclude them. The Court of Appeal might have been applying different criteria at that stage—the full extent of the scandal had not come to light.”
That is an important point to bear in mind. The Court of Appeal would have been considering a mixture of evidence and law at that stage. Professor Chalmers, who has also been mentioned, said:
“I obviously think it is unreasonable. I can certainly see the argument for cases from Hamilton onwards, but if someone had appealed at the time when the problems with Horizon were not documented, it seems to me to be entirely unfair to exclude them from the Act on that basis.”
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that much has come out since those cases were looked at? The public inquiry evidence about the way the Post Office investigated those cases showed that a text-book aggressive style was used in every case. That had an impact on some sub-postmasters pleading guilty when they were not, and in the way in which some of them were harangued to the court.
Sir Robert Neill
The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. That is why I hope we can find a formula to revisit this issue as the Bill makes progress. Given the expansive policy decision the House has taken, I do not think any great extra constitutional outrage is caused by including those who have been to the Court of Appeal within scope. It is rather as Keynes said:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
As the right hon. Gentleman points out, the facts may well have changed.
There may be an alternative formulation to that set out in amendment 1. It might be that a provision could be added to the Bill—I am thinking almost de bene esse at the moment—when it goes to the other House to automatically mandate the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer those cases. At the moment, someone is required to go to the CCRC to seek the reopening of their case and apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal out of time, if the case has been dismissed, and for it then to be reconsidered. As the Lady Chief Justice said in evidence to the Justice Committee, I have no doubt that the Court of Appeal would move very swiftly if that were to occur—she was very clear on that point—but there has to be a trigger mechanism, which is absent at the moment.
To come back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, the current working processes of the CCRC could not guarantee speed. Some provision to mandate the CCRC to refer such cases swiftly might be a means of achieving justice, without upsetting any more constitutional apple carts. Perhaps that is the sort of discussion we could usefully have as the Bill goes forward.
A point linked to that is the position of someone who has appealed. I notice that clause 3 sets out the various circumstances in determining when a conviction has been considered by the Court of Appeal. Clause 3(4)(a) says one such circumstances is where
“a single judge of the Court of Appeal has refused to give leave to appeal against the conviction,”
and leave to appeal has not been given by the Court of Appeal thereafter. People can appeal the single judge’s leave to the full court, but that does not always happen. The point to make there is that, although in some cases we do not know, a suspicion was strongly raised by witnesses to the Justice Committee that the single judge may have refused leave simply on the grounds that an appeal was out of time, because there are strict time limits on bringing an appeal. If that has been the case, because it never got to the full court, the single judge and the full court would never have considered the merits; leave would have been refused purely on the basis that technically the case was out of time and there was no evidence put forward to justify at that stage why there should be a granting of leave to go beyond time. Again, that might have been because the full facts of the scandal were not yet know. I would hope that that sort of anomaly could be addressed without too much difficulty.
Dame Eleanor, I hope constructive things can still be done on the margins to improve the Bill in relation to those matters and, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill rightly said, to get the shape of the Bill into proper form. I will not press my amendment, because we want to take things forward constructively, but I hope that the Minister, in the exceptionally helpful spirit that he has adopted throughout, will continue to engage with those of us who, whatever our misgivings, realise that this is a route that the House has chosen to take. We want to get it working to the best possible extent for those who have been affected by this horrendous scandal. That will lead to ramifications in the prosecutorial process, the disclosure process and many other things beyond.
Mr Kevan Jones
First, may I declare my interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board and take some responsibility for why we are here today? It was the advisory board that recommended this course of action, but this suggestion was down to the tenacity of the Minister and of the Law Officers, who he worked with closely.
When the idea was first muted at the advisory board, we thought that, possibly, this would not be acceptable to the Government, but the persuasive powers of the Minister, who I have come to admire, clearly worked their magic within Government. None the less, this was the only path to take; many individuals would not have come forward without this approach, which the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has described as unique.
May I also put it on the record that I am pleased that the Northern Ireland cases have been included in the scope of the legislation? Although there is only a small number, it would have been wrong to have held them up, through no fault of their own, because of the way that the consultation had taken place. Again, I congratulate all parties in Northern Ireland on how they have come together to take this united position for the victims.
Let me refer to amendment 70, and the ICL Pathway. Although the Minister has given some assurances on this, let me explain why I tabled the amendment. ICL Pathway was introduced in 1996, and the purpose of my amendment is to get some clarification on it. It was a stand-alone pilot, but the legislation refers to the “Horizon pilot”. I am quite convinced by the Minister’s assurance that this will be in the scope of this legislation. That is important, because there are a number of individuals, certainly in the north-east of England, who used the ICL Pathway—it was not called the Horizon pilot at that stage—who were subsequently prosecuted and will now be brought into the remit of the Bill. That is important, because it will mean that at least one individual I have met, who originally thought they would not be included in this legislation, will be.
Let me turn now to new clause 6 on the Capture cases. The Minister will not be surprised that I have tabled this clause, because—given the anorak that I am in terms of the Horizon scandal—I think we have potentially discovered another scandal that predates Horizon. For the benefit of the Committee, I would like to provide a little bit of background. As the Minister said earlier, Capture was very different from Horizon; it was developed by the Post Office itself from 1992 onwards, and it was not a linked or networked system like Horizon. It was sold as a quick way of
“producing cash accounts quickly and accurately.”
It was a computer-based system, but was not networked, and it is quite clear that there were huge troubles, with it generating shortfalls. With each upgrade of the software, new bugs seemed to have grown on the system. According to the analysis that has been done on the upgrades, the Post Office identified at least 123 bugs in the Capture software.
Once we had the publicity around the Horizon scandal, a lot of people came forward and talked about experiencing shortfalls, including someone I went to visit in the north-east who described exactly their experience with the Post Office. I initially thought, “Well, this is a Horizon case.” It involved a computer, and the aggressive way in the way the Post Office prosecuted that individual. But it was only when I looked at the dates that I realised that they did not match up; it could not be Horizon or ICL Pathway, because it was before then. Since then, 35 individuals—36 from today, I think, because the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) has raised another case—have come forward. We are talking about a long time ago, so a lot of these individuals will have sadly passed away, but more people are coming forward. I heard of someone this week who is now on the other side of the world; they had moved away from this country because they had been made bankrupt by the Post Office.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Like other Members, I will not speak for very long. In this instance, I actually mean that. I will speak to new clause 1 in my name and those of my colleagues, and new clauses 3 and 2 in the names of the Secretary of State and my colleagues. The Minister will really have an opportunity to dine out on all the thanks and gratitude. It is not given lightly. He has shown something that the public constantly tell us is absent from this place: honour. He has been completely honourable with the people of Northern Ireland in this matter.
Whenever my right hon. Friends the Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) raised the matter in the Chamber, they consistently asked for Northern Ireland to be included. From day one, the Minister was consistent in saying that he would use his best endeavours to do that. Sometimes we hear those words and it is only acknowledged in the breach, but he was absolutely clear that he was going to do it. There were ups and downs in the process, but every effort was made to ensure that, on a cross-party, cross-ministerial and cross-legal-jurisdiction basis, the consistent message came back to the Minister that this was the way to resolve the issue. Accepting the instruction this evening was a clear indication that that would happen.
New clause 1 is now superfluous to requirements. It has been incorporated in the Government’s own new clauses. We welcome that and thank the Government for it. Sub-postmasters across Northern Ireland will know that they are being treated exactly the same, with the same opportunity for fairness and to receive compensation, as their colleagues in England and Wales. I hope it is not inappropriate to thank the Clerks’ office. I really want to draw attention to how, frankly, brilliant they are in helping us to ensure that new clauses are drafted correctly. That made it easier for the Government’s team to then accept what we had tabled. Without the Clerks’ help, we would not have been as successful. It is only appropriate to acknowledge that.
I know from speaking to some of the victims that they are extremely grateful. They were wound up a bit from time to time by the media, who told them, “Northern Ireland is being excluded. You’re not going to get it,” even after we had the commitment from the Minister. Thankfully, tonight postmasters in Northern Ireland will see justice, and I thank him for that. I will therefore not press new clause 1 in my name.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It cannot be repeated often enough that the Horizon scandal remains one of the greatest miscarriages of justice our nation has experienced. It is a scandal characterised by abuse of power, the mistreatment of innocent people and the wholesale failure of the entire system. We might blame it on a failure of IT, but that is not the whole story. It is human failure on a grand scale—a failure to listen, and a failure to learn. It is a failure by the powerful to listen to sub-postmasters, and it has had a catastrophic cost in reputation, income and suffering on hard-working, innocent sub-postmasters and their loved ones.
Sub-postmasters are people we rely on, at the heart of our communities—the people who serve us, help us and hold our communities together. Without the tireless campaigning of people such as Alan Bates, the relentless efforts of parliamentarians across the House, and the work of journalists and filmmakers, perhaps justice would have never been done. To them I pay tribute, and I extend my gratitude to the Minister for the work that he has done, from the Front Bench as well as from the Back Benches. We have heard horrific stories of sub-postmasters who took their own life because of the suffering, and stories of shame, pain and suffering for sub-postmasters, as well as their families and friends.
Labour supports this unprecedented Bill, and we believe that it must pass into law with the necessary urgency, given the gravity of the situation. This has been said already, but it is crucial that this Bill should not set a precedent. It is an exception. We must understand the weight of this action, so that it is never even considered again. The legal solution in this Bill is a wholly exceptional and isolated case. These necessary actions are being taken to match a miscarriage of justice unprecedented in both scale and impact. The Bill must not set a precedent.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will tackle the points that have been made as briefly as possible. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), is right to say that £196 million has been paid out so far. This legislation will open the door to a lot more compensation, and it should go out rapidly to victims of prosecutions. Also, we expect that number to rise significantly with the introduction of the fixed-sum award of £75,000 for Horizon shortfall scheme claimants. To be clear, around 70% of claims submitted in time have been settled, following the final settlement for those individuals, so we are making progress, but we are determined to make more. Certainly, we are working with the Horizon compensation advisory board to ensure that that is the case. We are very happy to get into the weeds and nitty-gritty of this; we do that daily. The right hon. Gentleman said that, for whatever reason, I may not always be the Minister with this brief. I am very happy to help whoever takes over the brief when that happens, should more help be needed.
Yes, we are keen to accelerate the timescales right across the piece for the GLO scheme. As I say, we are hitting our target of making 90% of first offers within 40 days, but we will come forward with more service-level agreements for other schemes. I am very happy to work alongside the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill on that.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful for that reassurance. Does the Minister think that he will have the service-level agreements for the overturned convictions scheme on the table before the Bill is sent for Royal Assent?
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes. The right hon. Gentleman asked about tariffs. We are keen to do whatever we can to make the process quicker, easier, clearer and more transparent. We are taking that away and looking at it right now.
Of course, legal advice is available prior to the submission of a claim to the Horizon overturned convictions and compensation scheme, as it is in the GLO. It is only in the HSS, which was seen as non-adversarial, that that does not apply prior to the offer being made, but legal advice is available after that point.
We are obviously keen to continue discussing the cases that are before the Court of Appeal. We will certainly respond in due course to the letter from the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the Minister for taking a final intervention. It is maybe a non-adversarial process, but it is none the less an intimidating one that involves a complicated 16-page form that takes several hours to fill in. That is the equivalent of several thousand pounds-worth of legal assistance. At the moment, such assistance is being provided pro bono by those with some experience, but I hope that the Minister will look at the matter again.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am happy to look at that. I should point out that a lot of the 16-page form is legalese. Only about four pages of it is actually stuff that needs to be filled in, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and the advisory board has made a recommendation for an independent appeals process for this scheme as well, which we are looking at.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for his work on the issue with the Justice Committee. I agree that what is before us is the least worst option, and I am glad that the legal fraternity is coming to the same opinion. We will respond to his letter of 24 April, particularly on the Court of Appeal cases. There are 13 cases—seven before the Court of Appeal, and six that have been refused leave to appeal—and I am very happy to look at them, and to continue our conversations. I understand the potential injustices around those cases. We will also have a look at his point about subsection (4)(b) of clause 2, to make sure that there are no unintended consequences from the legislation.
I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for all his work on the advisory board. He has talked about my persuasive powers; I think the ITV series was far more persuasive than I was in moving things on and getting us to where we are today, but certainly, following his recommendations, which were made before the series aired, we were looking at ways to expedite the overturning of convictions, and some of the Bill is based on those recommendations. As I say, we are looking at the Capture software through the independent review. We have both met with Mr and Mrs Marston, and their story, like many others, was compelling.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the date range, which is dealt with in subsection (2)(a) of clause 2, under which the offence has to have taken place between 23 December 1996 and the later date. If an offence was committed at an earlier date, it would be excluded under the legislation. We need a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman about that, but the independent review should inform our debate going forward. It is easier to include Horizon than other things that were not directly connected to Horizon, as the court has found convictions unsafe on the basis of Horizon evidence. That is why we are able to legislate in this way.
I thank the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for his kind words. It is important to recognise that all of us are here to do the right thing, and it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to do so in this way, on a cross-party basis. We are very pleased to be able to agree with the DUP’s wishes that Northern Ireland be included in the legislation, particularly for the sake of the 23 postmasters in Northern Ireland who have suffered as a result of Post Office actions.
I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), and her Front-Bench colleagues for their support. We are very keen to make sure that Fujitsu contributes—it has agreed to do so, and has a moral obligation to do so. My Secretary of State, who has been massively supportive of all my work on these issues, has met Fujitsu’s global chief executive officer, and we expect to provide more news to the House in due course.
With that, I commend the Government amendments to the House.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendments made: 27, page 1, line 9, after “Appeal” insert “in England and Wales.”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 26.
Amendment 26, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) This Act also applies to a conviction in Northern Ireland for a relevant offence where—
(a) the conviction took place before the coming into force of this Act,
(b) the offence was prosecuted by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland or the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, and
(c) the conviction has not been considered by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.”
This amendment provides for convictions in Northern Ireland for relevant offences to be quashed.
Amendment 28, page 1, line 12, at end insert
“in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 26.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Meaning of “relevant offence”
Amendments made: 29, page 2, line 32, at end insert
“or section 17 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;”.
This amendment, and amendments 30 to 33, add the equivalent offences for Northern Ireland to the list in clause 2(3).
Amendment 30, page 2, line 35, after “1968” insert
“or section 15 or 15A of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 29.
Amendment 31, page 2, line 37, leave out “that Act” and insert
“the Theft Act 1968 or section 19(1) or (2) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 29.
Amendment 32, page 2, line 41, at end insert
“or section 21 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 29.
Amendment 33, page 3, line 1, at end insert
“or section 1(1) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 29.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Determining when a conviction has been considered by Court of Appeal
Amendment made: 34, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
“(6) In this section “the Court of Appeal” means—
(a) in the case of a conviction in England and Wales, the Court of Appeal in England and Wales;
(b) in the case of a conviction in Northern Ireland, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Identification and notification of quashed convictions
Amendments made: 35, page 3, line 17, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.
This amendment, and amendments 36 to 43, provide for the functions of the Secretary of State under clause 4 to be exercisable in Northern Ireland by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 36, page 3, line 18, at end insert—
“(1A) In this section “the appropriate authority” means—
(a) in the case of convictions in England and Wales, the Secretary of State;
(b) in the case of convictions in Northern Ireland, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.
Amendment 37, page 3, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.
Amendment 38, page 3, line 20, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “authority”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.
Amendment 39, page 3, line 25, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.
Amendment 40, page 3, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “authority”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.
Amendment 41, page 3, line 32, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “authority”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.
Amendment 42, page 3, line 36, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.
Amendment 43, page 3, line 37, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “authority”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.
Amendment 44, page 3, line 37, leave out “in England and Wales”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Deletion of cautions for relevant offences
Amendments made: 45, page 4, line 3, after “has” insert
“before the coming into force of this Act”.
This amendment makes it clear that clause 5 applies only in relation to cautions given before the coming into force of the Act.
Amendment 46, page 4, line 5, before “criminal” insert “UK”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment NC2.
Amendment 47, page 4, line 27, before “criminal” insert “UK”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment NC2.
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Power to make further consequential provision
Amendments made: 48, page 5, line 7, leave out
“an Act of Parliament passed”
and insert
“primary legislation passed or made”.
This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
Amendment 49, page 5, line 8, at end insert—
“(2A) But regulations under this section may not make any provision which is transferred Northern Ireland provision for the purposes of section (Power of Department of Justice to make further consequential provision).”
This amendment is consequential on amendment NC3.
Amendment 50, page 5, line 15, leave out “an Act of Parliament” and insert “primary legislation”.
This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
Amendment 51, page 5, line 20, at end insert—
“(6) In this section “primary legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament, or
(b) Northern Ireland legislation.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Interpretation
Amendments made: 52, page 5, line 23, at end insert—
“(a) in the case of England and Wales—”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 53.
Amendment 53, page 5, line 30, at end insert—
“(b) in the case of Northern Ireland, any caution (including a restorative caution) given to a person in Northern Ireland in respect of an offence which, at the time the caution is given, the person has admitted;”.
This amendment makes provision about the meaning of “caution” in relation to Northern Ireland.
Amendment 54, page 6, line 9, after “Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”.
This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
Amendment 55, page 6, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)).”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Extent and commencement
Amendment made: 56, page 6, line 25, leave out “only” and insert “and Northern Ireland”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment provides for the Bill to extend to Northern Ireland (as well as to England and Wales).
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Deletion of cautions for relevant offences: Northern Ireland
“(1) If it appears to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland (“the Department”) that a person has before the coming into force of this Act been cautioned in Northern Ireland for a relevant offence, the Department must direct the Chief Constable to delete details, contained in relevant criminal records, of the caution.
(2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving a direction under subsection (1), the Chief Constable must delete the details of the caution.
(3) Where the Department gives a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a person’s caution, the Department—
(a) must take all reasonable steps to notify the person, or, if the person is no longer alive, the person’s personal representatives, that the direction has been given, or
(b) if it is not reasonably practicable to give a notification under paragraph (a), must take all reasonable steps to—
(i) identify some other person whom the Department considers it is appropriate to notify, and
(ii) notify that person that the direction has been given.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the Department must, in particular, consider any representations made to it which claim that a person has been cautioned in Northern Ireland for a relevant offence, whether or not made by that person.
(5) In this section—
“the Chief Constable” means the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
“the Northern Ireland criminal records database” means the names database maintained by the Department for the purpose of recording convictions and cautions;
“relevant criminal records” means—
(a) the Northern Ireland criminal records database, and
(b) the UK criminal records database;
“the UK criminal records database” means the names database held by the Secretary of State for the use of constables.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This new clause makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to that made by clause 5.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Power of Department of Justice to make further consequential provision
“(1) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may by regulations make provision that—
(a) is consequential on any provision made by this Act, and
(b) is transferred Northern Ireland provision.
(2) For the purposes of this section “transferred Northern Ireland provision” means provision that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and
(b) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
(3) The power to make regulations under this section may, in particular, be exercised by amending or modifying any provision made by or under primary legislation passed or made before, or in the same session of Parliament as, this Act.
(4) Regulations under this section—
(a) may make different provision for different purposes;
(b) may contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision.
(5) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).
(6) Regulations under this section that amend any provision of primary legislation may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(7) Any other regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.
(8) In this section “primary legislation” has the same meaning as in section 7.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This new clause confers power on the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to make consequential provision as a result of the Bill.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Title
Amendments made: 23, line 1, after “Wales” insert “and Northern Ireland”.
This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
Amendment 24, line 4, after “Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.
Third Reading
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Hon. Members will need no reminder of the significance of this Bill. This legislation will, I hope, bring some much-needed relief and closure to those caught up in one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our nation’s history. For the postmasters wrongfully accused of, and convicted and punished for, crimes they never committed, this Bill means hard-won exoneration, with their convictions wiped clean from the slate.
A wrong is finally being put right but, as hon. Members know, these postmasters will also receive the fair compensation they deserve through the Horizon conviction redress scheme; this will be delivered by my Department rather than the Post Office. While the scale of the Government’s response in this case is extraordinary, I am keen to remind hon. Members that it does not set a precedent for our involvement in other judicial matters. I know this sentiment has been echoed across this House during debates on the Bill. We have chosen this path because the sheer extent of the Post Office’s prosecutorial misconduct is an affront to justice in and of itself. It demanded an exceptional response from Government.
That is why I was glad to see this Bill being welcomed on both sides of the House on Second Reading. There is, I believe, a unanimous consensus that the provisions of this legislation are needed to bring justice to postmasters who have suffered too much for far too long.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am sorry to intervene on Third Reading. The Secretary of State is talking about justice for postmasters and mistresses, which is completely right, but I want to ask one question about the policy aspect of this. I and other Members have had postmasters who have written to us who have not been prosecuted but found that the Horizon system was working badly and had to top up out of their own money when Horizon was reporting losses due to faults in the system. What is their redress route if they are now saying, “I was hundreds of pounds out of pocket because I was having to make up the difference”?
Kemi Badenoch
We have devised the Horizon shortfall scheme to deal with those specific situations and if my hon. Friend writes to the Department we can look at some of the cases brought to him as a constituency MP.
I know the debate to date has centred around calls to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland, and the Government have been supportive of them. So, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, I was pleased to see the Government amendments in my name accepted by the Committee of the whole House. As a result of the House’s support, postmasters in Northern Ireland who suffered the same injustices as those in the rest of the UK will now also see their good names restored, with proper financial redress.
As has been noted during recent debates, the speed of that redress could not be more important. Because of the Horizon scandal, people lost more than just their jobs; they were pursued for non-existent losses, they racked up legal bills, and they suffered enormous financial and personal strain because of the Post Office’s actions. It is therefore entirely right that victims do not wait a second longer than necessary to have that money paid back to them—with interest—to reflect what they have lost. I am determined that this legislation complements the ongoing work to hasten redress across the existing schemes. Here we are already making good progress, with payments allowing postmasters to finally move on with their lives.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Opposition, especially the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for his constructive and supportive approach to working with the Government on this Bill, and so many Members across the House who have engaged with us over and again to deliver the right result for postmasters. I would also like to thank the officials of both my Department, Business and Trade, and the Ministry of Justice who have been working hard behind the scenes for some time to ensure that postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal are supported and compensated fairly. But most of all I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for his exemplary work as Post Office Minister and in taking through this Bill and dealing with the issue in a very sensitive manner and helping to create confidence in the scheme.
This Bill is a major step forward in that mission. After years of campaigning and fighting to clear their names, postmasters are now receiving the justice they deserve. No Bill can fully undo the damage that has been done or remove the scars the Horizon scandal has left on its victims, but through this legislation we are doing our best to right the wrongs of the past so that every postmaster caught up in this scandal can begin to rebuild their lives. I commend the Bill to the House.
Rushanara Ali
I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for their remarks. Today’s Bill, as has been acknowledged, provides an important step forward in bringing justice for sub-postmasters. They have suffered more than we can imagine, as the Secretary of State has pointed out. That has included unjust prison sentences, bankruptcy, ostracisation from communities, family breakdown and homelessness. Tragically, the scandal has led to some sub-postmasters taking their own lives. Today by no means makes amends for what they have been through and the suffering their families have endured, but it is an important positive step.
We welcome, as I have said previously, the fact that today’s Bill will bring particular relief for the 27 Northern Ireland cases and ensure that they receive exoneration. The many stories we have heard of those affected, whether in this debate or in previous statements and debates, are just snapshots of the scale of suffering that the Horizon scandal has caused. It has been a scandal defined by the abuse of power, secrecy and delay. As others have acknowledged, we have seen the inquiry revealing yet more challenges and yet more issues, whether those relate to the cases referred to today, non-disclosure agreements, the speed with which action is taken, the particular abuses that we have seen or much else. While this Bill has a particular focus, it will not be enough.
As I said earlier, I welcome the actions the Minister is taking to address the concerns on Capture. I welcome the clarification he has made on Pathway and the assurances he has given to Members on both sides of the House on the speed of providing the necessary compensation and on ensuring that this Bill remains a unique provision, given the unique and extraordinary situation that sub-postmasters have experienced and the injustice they have faced.
We look forward to seeing progress on the action that will be taken to deliver the compensation that sub-postmasters desperately need. We look forward to working with the Government to make sure that the Post Office is fit for purpose, because frankly what we have seen from this scandal and what has been uncovered over the period that the Post Office has presided over it and its implications has exposed major failings that we urgently need to address. We must ensure that the institution is fit for purpose, that further scandals do not hit that institution and that more people do not suffer. What we have seen does not inspire confidence, and action must be taken. I look forward to working with Ministers to help achieve that.
Mr Carmichael
I am pleased to give this Bill my support and that of my party on Third Reading. It shows what is possible when the House comes together and works collegiately, as we have done. It must surely remain a concern to us all that it is necessary in the first place.
I pay warm tribute to the Minister for how he has handled this matter, not just as a Minister but in his time before he came into office, as well as to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), although she is not in her place at the moment. I would say only that I hope that the Scottish Government can bring to the Scottish Parliament the legislation that has been prepared so that we can all come to the same place at the same time, because the important thing here—we have to come back to this time and again—is the outcome for the sub-postmasters themselves. For the Post Office as an institution, this is an important step in restoring its trust and its standing in the communities that we all represent.
I leave the House with this final thought. There is a temptation to think that when the Bill passes and its provisions are implemented, somehow or other that is it—job done. I caution the House against that. We are here tonight because of a head of steam that was built up because of the nature of the Post Office as an institution, the standing of sub-postmasters in our communities, the sheer number of cases and the remarkable way in which the ITV programme caught the mood of the nation.
What happened to sub-postmasters is different from what happens to people all the time only in one respect: the sheer scale of it. In my time as a Member of Parliament, I have come across so many examples of people with good, reasonable cases who were squeezed out of what they are entitled to because of the inequality of arms. Public bodies have deep pockets—the taxpayer is behind them every step of the way—to pay for the best legal representation and to stonewall in cases where people would otherwise have good justice.
I will be back in Westminster Hall on Wednesday morning to deal with a case about the accountability of the Financial Conduct Authority, where it acted in respect of claims made by constituents of mine who had been the victims of a Ponzi scheme only because it was eventually forced into doing so by people who, as with the Post Office, were brave enough to take their case to court. Ultimately, they lost, but in the process of taking their case to court, they put the FCA in a position where there was no alternative but to pay out to all the victims through the financial services compensation scheme.
The brave 95 people who took the legal action in the first place are left £2 million out of pocket. Everybody gets something because they were brave enough to stand up, but they are left to pay at the end of it. That might be the law, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you will never persuade me that it is justice.
Gavin Robinson
Like others who have spoken, I indicate the Democratic Unionist party’s full support for the Bill at Third Reading. The Secretary of State was kind enough to thank the Minister. As she was not present to hear all our tributes to him throughout the course of the evening, I want to repeat them for her benefit.
The Minister has thoughtfully and doggedly worked through the issues on the inclusion of Northern Ireland. We are incredibly grateful to him. He used to sidle up to me weekly and suggest something else that I needed to do to allow him to advance the case for inclusion, and every time I satisfied what he had asked of me, he presented another challenge, and then another. He requested that I speak with people who are really uncontactable for politicians because they are too impartial for such work. But my colleagues and I genuinely appreciate the way in which he has engaged with us.
Tribute was paid to the Northern Ireland Executive and the way in which they have engaged in this issue, but as the party leader it would be remiss of me not to put on record my appreciation for the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who took an interest in the issue long before the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive. He has recognised the deep injustice that has been at the heart of the Horizon scandal and doggedly pursued resolution and justice for those affected in Northern Ireland.
Our friend, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), has always been a champion for Northern Ireland’s inclusion in the legislation. We are grateful not just for his interest in us, but for his commitment to the issue over many years and the thoughtful way in which he has engaged in it.
It serves to prove the impact that Back Benchers can have in the parliamentary process that there is no frailty to the pursuit that we have. Though we may not have sufficiency of numbers to provide the opposition in and of ourselves, we have been able through effective relationships to ensure positive progress in the Bill. However, that can work only if there is reciprocation. For that, throughout the course of the last weeks and months, and longer relationships on other issues, we are grateful.
Mr Kevan Jones
This is a historic, unique and very controversial Bill. It is another small step in the justice for sub-postmasters campaign, which has been going on for decades. I pay tribute to Alan Bates and all his campaigners. They said no to the people who were telling them to go away. They kept at it, and they are the heroes in all this.
I pay tribute to the fellow members of the advisory board, Professor Chris Hodges, Richard Moorhead and James Arbuthnot. We proposed this solution for overturning convictions, but did we expect it to be accepted? No, we did not. That is down to the Minister’s work. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Attorney General and Justice Secretary, both of whom not only engaged with the arguments but saw the logic of this controversial way of doing it—the only way of doing it. Without their help, it could not have been done.
Let me put on record my thanks to the Minister’s long-suffering officials. They have to put up with not just him but me and the other advisory board members. They worked tremendously hard on this, as did the officials in the Ministry of Justice. We are into civil service bashing again this week, but I must say that without them, we could not have achieved what we have in this Bill. I heard what the Minister said on the issues around Capture. Hopefully, given the constructive way in which he has approached the issue, we can get justice for those affected.
Finally, our thoughts should be with all those people who are no longer with us, such as Tom Brown, my constituent who originally got me involved in this scandal. June Tooby’s forensic cataloguing of the Capture case will hopefully lead to some justice for those victims, too. This is an important step forward. Let us hope that it gives families some comfort to know that their loved ones will be exonerated as part of this process.
Sammy Wilson
Let me also put on record my thanks to the Minister for his work on this issue. I first came across it when I witnessed the anger, frustration and despair of people who knew that they had done no wrong, yet had their reputations sullied, lost their business and faced the suspicion of their friends and even their family. They felt that they were beating their heads against a brick wall of bureaucracy—they were against people who had standing, and who were believed, regardless of the evidence that mounted against the case that they were making. The Minister has done a great thing by giving hope and exoneration to people, many of whom felt that they would never get justice. Now they have found it.
The Minister knew about the scandal before he took his position, and he made it clear at the very start that he intended to see this through. He has used his position to do a good thing. It is important to recognise that this place has been the vehicle by which justice has been delivered. A committed Minister was determined to use his position to do the right thing for individuals.
When the issue of Northern Ireland was first raised with the Minister, there was a reluctance; there is no doubt about it. When I put questions to him on the Floor of the House. and in my conversations with him, there were always reasons why legislation should be introduced in Northern Ireland. Here is a good thing: the arguments were listened to, over time.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, the Minister did not just roll over. He expected us to do something as well, and make the case—that is the job. I am thankful for the fact that he listened, and that Northern Ireland was included.
I thank the Clerk for his advice. Many of us are not really aware of all the parliamentary procedures, even though we have been here for I do not know how long. We do not always know the best of way of going about things. The advice and the support that was given was very important in getting this over the line.
Unfortunately, even though people will be exonerated as a result of this legislation, there are many who died with this shadow on them, and with the shame of what was done to them by people who, as the inquiry now shows, were cynical, manipulative and calculating in how they pursued them through the courts. This is not for debate today, but I hope that once the inquiry is over, there will be accountability for those who knowingly put sub-postmasters through this, quite apart from the embarrassment some have had during the inquiry, when they have forgotten matters, shown arrogance, or claimed that they were just doing their job. As I say, some sub-postmasters died without their name ever being cleared. We can do nothing about that, but I hope that their families will at least feel some reassurance as a result of this legislation.
Once the Bill passes into law, sub-postmasters will be exonerated from a legal point of view, but I hope that the compensation that they are due will be paid out quickly. The Minister outlined some of the ways he intends to ensure that compensation claims are dealt with quickly; I hope that they are.
I hope that other Ministers learn from this experience. Do not forget that even when the evidence was piling up, and the issues had been pointed out, and suddenly sub-postmasters and sub-mistresses across the country were common thieves, Ministers turned a blind eye, or accepted the explanation given by their officials. As I mentioned at the very start, the frustration that people feel when the state denies them justice, or tells them that they have done something that they have not, causes them to have no confidence at all in Government and its institutions. We could go through a number of issues. I look at the evidence that is building up on the loan charge. I ask myself whether, in five years’ time, we will find the same kind of issue there, with programmes put in place, and Ministers embarrassed and unable to explain why they did not take action when all the evidence was there. I hope Ministers take heed of this sorry tale, in which they believed people in power, rather than the victims of those in power.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I was elected in 2010, and was an MP of just a few months’ standing when my constituent Seema Misra approached me, saying that she had just been sentenced to jail. She was pregnant and her sentence came down on her son’s 10th birthday. With the help of James Arbuthnot, now in the other place, within a few days I realised that there were other colleagues who had similar cases, and it all pointed to the Horizon system. I wrote to the Post Office Minister at the time and I was rebuffed. There must have been other colleagues who did the same thing. A Back Bencher of just a few months’ standing was able to see right to the heart of the problem with the help of the internet and a couple of fantastic colleagues, yet a Minister of the Crown was not. Now, Ministers in our system have surgeries—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. This is not a Second Reading speech. We are at the very end of the Bill and the hon. Gentleman should be making an intervention, but that was very much a speech. We all have sympathy with the point he is making, but this is not the time in the proceedings when such points are made. I believe that the right hon. Member for East Antrim was just about to conclude the entire debate on the entire Bill.
Sammy Wilson
I was indeed, but the intervention shows that Ministers need to listen. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for giving us great support for the case of Northern Ireland, and to others who persisted in raising this issue. I know that a lot has been said about the TV programme, but even before it aired there was a realisation, because of the persistence of Members, that something had to be done. I am glad it has been done, and I hope that this will be a great relief to many people who have lived under the shadow and the cloud of the things that happened to them over a number of years.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 4 to 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Companies
That the draft Accounting Standards (Prescribed Bodies) (United States of America and Japan) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 21 February, be approved.
Sea Fisheries
That the draft Sea Fisheries (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 14 March, be approved.
National Crime Agency
That the draft National Crime Agency (Directed Tasking) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 7 December 2023, be approved.—(Joy Morrissey.)
Question agreed to.
House of Commons Members’ Fund
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I briefly speak as a member of the Members’ Fund? Would that be in order?
Sir Charles Walker
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As we can all see from the Order Paper, the increase is very moderate. The sum deducted from our salaries on a monthly basis goes towards the Members’ Fund, which is distributed on occasions to former Members and their dependants who are in straitened times. It is a hugely important fund and is staffed by amazing officers of the House, who also staff the parliamentary contributory pension fund. We are very grateful for their support and for the support of trustees.
The only thing I would say—I hope I do not put myself in contest with other trustees—is that the sum taken from our monthly salary is still very small. At some stage in the very near future, it should be incumbent on this House to look at a more generous monthly contribution from Members. A figure of perhaps £10 would not be too onerous on Members, but it would certainly help the Members’ Fund to support many former colleagues of all parties who, through illness or just bad luck, find themselves struggling once they are no longer in this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman has spoken for the whole House.
Question agreed to.
Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Motion made, and Question Proposed,
That, in pursuance of paragraph 2A of Schedule 3 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, Ms Tina Fahm be appointed as a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years from 6 May 2024 to 4 May 2029.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Question agreed to.
Petitions
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Having spent the day dealing with the injustice of the Post Office Horizon scandal, we move to the injustice of the infected blood scandal. I join a number of right hon. and hon. colleagues in presenting a petition on behalf of constituents who are seeking justice, and I pay tribute to my constituent Joyce Donnelly, the chair of the Scottish Infected Blood Forum, who is the first signatory on the petition.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow North,
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.
[P002962]
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk in relation to the recognition of Peter McLagan MP. I would like to pay tribute to local historian David Main, who alerted me to the legacy of Peter McLagan and who has done some tremendous work on keeping his memory alive. In case Members do not know, Peter McLagan was Scotland’s first ethnic minority MP. He was also the longest-serving MP in Scotland during Queen Victoria’s reign, serving from 1865 to 1893. Members might have noticed the pioneers display in the Admission Order Office corridor, but they will not have seen any reference to Peter McLagan, who has sadly been missed off the list. We have been trying for some time to have that rectified. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to act to ensure the omission of Peter McLagan MP from ‘The Pioneers’ display is rectified at the earliest opportunity.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Welcomes that the temporary display “The Pioneers: The First Asian and Black MPs” has been moved to form part of the permanent display that is located in the Admissions Order Office Corridor; acknowledges the permanent recognition of these groundbreaking MPs; regrets that permanently honouring them has taken so long; and further regrets that Scotland’s first mixed-race MP, Peter McLagan, who served the Constituency of Linlithgowshire from 1865 to 1893 and was the longest serving Scottish Member during the reign of Queen Victoria, is not included in “The Pioneers” display.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to act to ensure the omission of Peter McLagan MP from “The Pioneers” display is rectified at the earliest opportunity.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002965]
Post-16 Education: Isles of Scilly
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate on the cost of post-16 education for families on the Isles of Scilly. I have yet to stand up in this Chamber unless it is to raise an issue that has been raised directly with me by a constituent, and today is no exception. I rise to raise an issue that has been raised by not just one but several constituents. They are all parents, and they met me last month to set out their concerns.
The Isles of Scilly are unique in so many ways. They are situated just off Land’s End, and they are a beautiful part of the UK and a fantastic part of my constituency. I have often spoken in this Chamber about the unique environment on the islands, but the people of Scilly also face unique challenges—or almost unique. As I prepared for this debate, I found that there are in fact two local authority areas in this country with no sixth-form provision. One is the Isles of Scilly; the other is the City of London. So the situation is not unique; the consequences, however, are. Young people in the City of London can walk to a sixth form college or pay 85p for a bus ride; the buses are rarely cancelled because of stormy weather or high seas and, unlike the Scillonian ferry, they run all year round. More to the point, those young people can go home to their families at the end of each school day.
That option is not open to the families I met on Scilly. They know that they have to send their young people to stay on the mainland to fulfil the statutory requirements but, as one of my constituents told me,
“the decision about where to go was based on accommodation, not educational preference”.
The lucky ones could stay with family or friends on the mainland—I should perhaps say “the lucky one”, if the council’s unofficial survey is accurate—but everyone else had to choose between staying with a host family or in a boarding school. Last year’s Ofsted report on Scilly’s children’s services stated:
“To access…post-16 education children must live away from home on the mainland. This adds the potential for social, emotional and mental health challenges and additional safeguarding risks for some children.”
It is not surprising, but still shocking, that 20% of 16 and 17-year-olds from Scilly are not in education, employment or training, which is four times the national average and infinitely more than the City of London’s 0%. This is despite the fact that students from the Isles of Scilly consistently outperform students on the mainland in GCSE attainment.
The Council of the Isles of Scilly is responsible for the provision of compulsory education until the age of 18 and, like all local authorities, is expected to meet the costs of delivery from its own budget. The council is supported by post-16 travel and accommodation grants administered by the Education and Skills Funding Agency. The funding is currently £6,365 per student, which can go towards travel to and from the mainland and accommodation while studying. The actual costs are considerably more, and I am grateful to the parents of current students who have prepared very helpful figures that show just how much more they have to fork out for their children’s education.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Does he feel it is immoral and wrong for a parent to have to pay for their children’s education when sixth-form education is free across the rest of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? It is wrong that the parents and children of the Scilly Isles cannot have the same advantages as we have elsewhere.
Derek Thomas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will be covering that injustice and how equality and levelling up really should apply, but I am pleased to know that there is someone else in the Chamber who also takes an interest in the Isles of Scilly. I appreciate that they are not everyone’s area of interest or expertise, but they are beautiful, remote islands. I am sure they are a holiday destination for many, but visitors do not always consider the challenges that people face.
As I was saying, the cheapest option for sixth-formers is staying with a host family, but even this costs more than the £6,300 grant, and it is increasing. That is without factoring in the cost of travel, with six return journeys a year, including transport on the mainland, costing £1,750 for each student on average. This does not include contingency for overnight stays when travel is disrupted, despite the high risk of the weather scuppering travel plans. And this weather disruption is not limited to the winter. Everyone in the Chamber will appreciate the difficulty of finding accommodation in a wonderful destination like Penzance at the peak of the tourist season. There are obvious safeguarding issues with young people staying on their own when their journey is disrupted.
Many parents are understandably reluctant to entrust their children to host families, who are currently unregulated. At an age when most young people are living with their parents, 16 and 17-year-olds from Scilly are living in digs. They lack the structure and support they need, in the absence of family and friends. Some hosts become like second families, but other parents have chilling stories.
One constituent told me that their child became very ill while living in host family accommodation. Nobody was aware, because nobody had pastoral oversight. Nobody noticed the student lose 1½ stone over a six-week half term, and he ended up with one A-level, having started doing five with top grade predictions. There are other cases where vulnerability, loneliness, isolation and naivety have placed students at risk that I cannot, of course, divulge in such a debate.
Colleges such as Truro and Penwith College, our excellent further education college in west Cornwall, and the main post-16 provider for Scilly, have concerns. They see how often this lack of support is reflected in poor attendance and work at school, and it can lead to students failing to complete their studies. According to the informal survey I mentioned, less than two thirds of children attending post-16 education completed their courses successfully.
Although colleges take seriously the challenges facing students who are required to leave Scilly to learn, their pastoral care is limited to their statutory role, which covers only the school day. Outside that period, which may be only 18 hours during a typical school week, students are left to their own devices. They may not have access to the support and extracurricular activities, such as sport and social clubs, that young people take for granted in the rest of the country.
For all those reasons, homestays are becoming less popular with families on Scilly; nearly half of students did this just three years ago but now just over a quarter do. The other option available to families is boarding school, where these young people have supervision and support. There are a number of state boarding schools in the south-west, but, as was hinted at in the intervention, although the education is free, the board and lodging is not. According to the parents’ figures, the shortfall can be as much as £13,000, including travel costs, per child. Again, that does not include contingencies or incidental expenses; many students never see their sixth forms until they arrive for the first time in September, as the cost of visiting beforehand is not covered by the grant and is just not achievable.
The cost of living is already high on Scilly, because of freight costs, and salaries are lower than average, yet families on Scilly are forced to pay for their 16 and 17-year-olds to have the same opportunities as anyone else. Furthermore, when their children have finished their A-levels and are thinking about higher education, families are already saddled with debt and reluctant to take on more. I am aware that the Department for Education is already reviewing the policy on Scilly post-16 education, but it is my understanding that a robust equalities impact assessment has not yet been undertaken by Government. It is, however, clear that families on Scilly do not have an equal access to post-16 education.
The Isles of Scilly Council, with which I have been working closely on this issue, has suggested a grant of £15,000 per student per year is required to ensure financial parity with those on the mainland and to meet the additional increased costs to enable the students to continue in their education or training. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that he will direct his officials in the Education and Skills Funding Agency to take Scilly’s unique challenges into consideration when assessing the size of the grant and to hasten a decision, as the next academic year is just four months away and decisions about the next stage of a child’s education are needing to be made imminently.
When I corresponded with the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), he made the point that young people all over the country have options to study in diverse and widespread locations, and it would not be “financially feasible” for local authorities to fund all the costs this involves. But families on Scilly do not have options: they have a straight choice between sending their children to a potentially unsafe environment or racking up thousands of pounds in debt. A number of parents told me they were considering leaving Scilly purely so that it was financially feasible to educate their children as the law required. The one thing everyone on Scilly would like to say to this House is that when families leave, it becomes difficult to maintain the services and all the things that are required to keep a community of about 2,200 people viable and going on a remote island setting such as Scilly.
The cohort over the next few years fluctuates from 15 to 32 students, so I submit to the Minister that it is not financially infeasible for the Department for Education to look seriously at the figure of £15,000 that the council has identified. We know that money allocated for Scilly in the Government’s levelling-up fund is not now going to be spent as intended; this would be an ideal opportunity for the Government to show their commitment to these unique islands and to their future as thriving communities.
Although the subject of this debate is the cost of post-16 education to families on Scilly, there are wider issues about how to ensure the welfare and wellbeing of Scilly’s young people so they can fully and appropriately engage with their education. The council needs the capacity to commission packages of support for students on the mainland where it is necessary. That could be through bespoke packages enabling them to return to mainstream tuition after a period of absence; or through the Future Foundations programme, which, as the Minister will know, empowers students to aim high and achieve their potential. The council aims to work with the multi-academy trust, of which the Five Islands Academy is a member, to provide opportunities for students to engage in extra-curricular activities. It also wants to work with voluntary organisations such as Action for Children and Young People Cornwall to improve the offer for post-16 students outside the hours of formal education. As I have hinted, there needs to be some money set aside for contingency.
These are not outlandish requests. All the officers at the Council of the Isles of Scilly want is to enable students to remain safe in an unfamiliar environment; to remain gainfully and safely occupied outside the times of formal education; to have and to maintain good mental health and wellbeing; and to thrive socially, emotionally and academically. These are not unique requirements—they are what we all want for our children and young people. There is no reason why parents on Scilly should not want the same. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on how he plans to ensure that the families on Scilly can have the same.
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Luke Hall)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing this debate on the extremely important subject of education on the Isles of Scilly. While they are a beautiful place, I appreciate the argument he made that residents face a number of different issues and challenges because of the size, location and population of the isles. He is a passionate advocate for them in this House.
My hon. Friend clearly and eloquently set out one such challenge: there is no post-16 education for young people on the isles. The people of the isles are extremely fortunate to have him batting for them in the House today and making that case so strongly. From what he has described, many parents face difficult decisions about the next steps in their children’s education. Young people have to face the difficult situation of going to the mainland for education and training opportunities. As he said, that involves travel and living away from home at a relatively young age, which must be extremely daunting and creates a number of challenges. He set out eloquently and with force the emotional and wellbeing issues that young people on the isles face. That set of issues is no doubt difficult for parents and young people, and, after listening to my hon. Friend’s strong arguments, I sympathise with them.
All young people in the isles, in common with those across England, have to continue in education and training until they are 18. Young people can choose to participate in full-time education, have a job or volunteer combined with part-time study, or can undertake work-based training, such as an apprenticeship. The Government provide funding for a range of education and training opportunities for young people. Continuing in education and training means that young people are given the opportunity to develop skills and qualifications that open doors for them to future employment, helping them to make the most of their potential and to earn more over the course of their lifetime.
Empowering young people to gain the skills they need to climb that ladder of opportunity into successful careers or further study is a top priority for us at the Department for Education, and across wider Government. It is to the immense credit of all the residents on the Isles of Scilly that they are determined to overcome all the unique and challenging barriers they face so that their children can continue into post-16 education and training. At that point, they have many more diverse challenges than those on the mainland, including challenges accessing the benefits and opportunities that people on the mainland often enjoy.
To support our commitment to ensure young people across England—wherever they live—get high-quality educational opportunities, we are boosting 16-to-19 funding by an extra £1.6 billion in 2024-25, compared to the financial year 2021-22. We made a further investment of £185 million in 2023-24 and £285 million in 2024-25. Overall, in the academic year 2023-24, nearly £7 billion was allocated to institutions in programme funding for 16-19 education to help ensure that every young person has access to an excellent education. Young learners in Cornwall, including learners from the isles, will benefit from that extra funding through receiving a high-quality teaching and learning experience in high-quality facilities.
The Department provides a range of financial support for students who need it, including those from the Isles of Scilly, to enable them to participate in post-16 education. That includes free meals and bursaries to help with the cost of education, whether that is travel, books, equipment or trips, plus support for childcare and residential costs where required. Students can speak to their education institution about accessing those funds. We of course recognise, as was powerfully articulated just now, the unique situation of young people from the Isles of Scilly and understand that the normal provision of funding in 16-to-19 education does not fully fit with their circumstances on the isles. In addition to receiving full funding for their learning, like other young learners across the country, for many years we have provided extra funds to help them meet the cost of travel to and from the mainland, and for accommodation on the mainland where they are staying.
In the current year, as my hon. Friend has said, the per student funding was increased by more than 11%—that is now £6,365. The number of students has grown, which means that we have increased the total quantum of funding by more than 40% this year compared with last year, but my hon. Friend has made a powerful case that families on the island believe that the current level of support—£6,365 per student—is not sufficient and should be increased. As I said, the figure has increased by 11% from last year, but I do understand the point my hon. Friend makes about the challenges that families face with increasing costs, and particularly with the reduced availability of host family accommodation; they feel that this funding does not cover the total cost of support for their children to travel for their post-16 education.
I know my hon. Friend and his constituents feel extremely strongly about the issue, so we will consider carefully any request from the council to provide additional funding for the scheme as part of the spending review. My hon. Friend has made that case eloquently and, as the Minister responsible, I will be watching the matter closely. I am very happy to meet him—and perhaps his council—to talk about the proposals in more detail at the appropriate time, because I understand the point he has made, and the pressures and challenges faced by families in his community.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of student wellbeing. He spoke powerfully about the health and wellbeing of young people who are under 18 and living away from home, and about the impact on them. I appreciate that students from the Isles of Scilly and their parents need to make difficult choices about where they live when they study. We heard that some families decide to place young people with host families on the mainland, while some opt to take more expensive options such as state boarding schools; I agree with my hon. Friend that that is not a situation that lots of parents want to see their family in, and I understand the concerns he has raised. As a parent myself, I felt it very keenly when he made that argument.
I know that the council publishes a model accommodation agreement for students and their parents to ensure that the accommodation options are safe, including making sure that any adults within a host family that a child is placed with undergo a Disclosure and Barring Service check. The colleges also provide general support for their students’ wellbeing, including help with stress and anxiety, and advice and support on study and careers. As we know, this situation is a unique one. It is important that students and families feel that the accommodation and travel arrangements are safe and secure, and help them to succeed in their post-16 education. That is why we keep the scheme arrangements under review. My officials are in regular contact with the local council about how it is working, but my hon. Friend has made his points powerfully and well, and I am very happy to discuss the matter further.
My hon. Friend also talked about post-16 education and training opportunities. He was right to raise that point. The council estimates—I think he quoted this number in his speech—that there are around 48 students aged 16 to 19 who will take part in education or training this year. Of course, a cohort of that size makes it difficult at this stage to deliver face-to-face post-16 education on the isles themselves, because of all the logistical challenges that it would create. To undertake face-to-face education, young learners have to travel to the mainland. There are a number of sixth-form colleges, sixth forms and other options—I think he referenced a couple in his speech—but the most popular are Truro and Penwith College and Cornwall College, which between them provide a range of post-16 provision. Those providers offer a wide variety of options, with the colleges working increasingly well together to avoid duplication of the offer to students from the Isles of Scilly, and to ensure that the widest variety of high-quality options are available to learners in the area, including those from the isles.
It is of course not ideal that learners from the isles have to travel so far and live away from home, despite the support that is available, and all the help with costs that the colleges provide. My hon. Friend spoke passionately about that, and about the collective challenges. This is not just a challenge about post-16 education; there are lots of different elements of life for people on the isles, and this is just one challenge they face. That point was made very well. I assure my hon. Friend that we are open to considering other approaches, if parents and education institutes have workable alternatives—for example, if some courses could be accessed via distance rather than face-to-face learning. I am very happy to have that conversation.
My hon. Friend has made a strong case. I know that he has raised the issue before, and that he is a strong advocate for reform and doing more in this area. I thank him for bringing this debate to the Floor of the House. He made some important points about post-16 education for young people on the Isles of Scilly, and the difficulties that both they and their families face with the provision of this type of education and access to these opportunities. It is clear that students from the isles are in quite a unique situation in this regard—and no doubt a range of others. I appreciate the challenges they face. We will keep the scheme arrangements under review. My officials and I are in regular contact with the council on the isles and will listen to any other suggestions or alternatives that the council or my hon. Friend wish to talk through.
I pay tribute once more to the people of the Isles of Scilly. It is a huge credit to them that they are determined to overcome all the logistical challenges they face in trying to access post-16 education and training like many other people across the country. Through my hon. Friend’s tireless campaigning, he is ensuring that the issues are being heard at the top of Government, and I very much thank him for it.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Combined Authorities (Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. The draft regulations before us today will, if approved by Parliament, complete the legislative framework for the funding of new combined county authorities. In recent months, similar secondary legislation has been made to provide rules for the election and by-election of combined county authority Mayors, and for their overview, scrutiny and audit committees. Today’s statutory instrument is the last key building block in the architecture of legislation for combined county authorities as a category. The regulations will provide for Mayors of the new combined county authorities to set budgets for the costs of their functions, and raise a precept for these costs, subject to consideration and a vote by the combined county authority. They also provide for a mayoral fund.
As with preceding legislation, we are following the principle that provision for combined county authorities should be the same as that for combined authorities. The regulations do this by amending the Combined Authorities (Finance) Order 2017, to apply its measures to combined county authorities. The 2017 order provides for an effective process, aligned with the wider local government budgeting timetables, including robust arrangements for scrutiny and challenge of the Mayor’s spending proposals by the combined authority. The effect of that application to combined county authorities is essentially identical, and is as follows.
First, there is a requirement for combined county authority Mayors to submit by 1 February a draft budget to their combined county authority for consideration. Secondly, the combined county authority must recommend any amendments to the draft budget by 8 February, and the Mayor must consider these amendments and respond with a further proposal if they choose to do so. Ultimately, the constituent members of the combined county authority may impose amendments to the Mayor’s draft budget, if supported by a significant—usually two thirds—majority. In the absence of this majority, the Mayor’s proposals are deemed to be accepted by the combined county authority. The combined county authority must set a mayoral budget on the Mayor’s behalf, if the Mayor fails to submit a draft for consideration by 1 February.
The Mayor may fund mayoral functions through a precept. The standard local government finance regime applies so that precepts must be issued by 1 March. Mayoral costs are itemised separately on council tax bills. Where the Mayor exercises police and crime functions, those are also listed separately. To further aid transparency, the Mayor is required to maintain a fund in relation to the receipts and expenses of the Mayor’s functions, excluding police and crime commissioner functions, for which there is a separate police fund.
Before introducing the original 2017 order for combined authorities, the Government undertook informal consultation with officers of constituent councils of current and prospective combined authorities, including via a working group of senior finance officers. Our inquiries with finance officers of existing mayoral combined authorities during the development of these draft regulations found no operational difficulties with the existing set-up. The regulations therefore simply extend the application of the existing provision in line with the broader policy of parity between combined county authorities and combined authorities.
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
This delegated legislation provides for a precept to be set. Can the Minister tell me what the mechanism is by which an upper limit for such a precept would be set, so that councils or Governments of a different colour would not necessarily be given a mechanism to fleece taxpayers?
Jacob Young
I will come back to my right hon. Friend on that point, but I would say that Conservative Mayors charge zero mayoral precept, whether that is Ben Houchen in the Tees Valley or Andy Street in the West Midlands. Contrast that with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, for example.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I would just like to pursue the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox). The issue is not what a particularly good Mayor from a good political party would do. These regulations relate to constitutional changes, which I know because the explanatory memorandum says so. It says that the combined county authorities have a slightly different constitutional structure from the combined authority model before, being designed to be better suited to non-urban areas—quite how, it does not say. Surely the issue is, regarding my right hon. Friend’s question, how are limits put upon the power to raise tax? If there are not any, can we be told, now, during this Committee?
Jacob Young
I shall make sure that I give my hon. Friend the answer to his question by the end of this Committee. However, to conclude my speech, these regulations will apply the regime, which is already in place for combined authorities, to combined county authorities to support their Mayors to fund their functions through a precept, where they chose to do so. They prescribe a tried-and-tested budget-setting process that allows for effective challenge and robust and transparent scrutiny by the combined county authority. I commend them to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Nokes. I will start by confirming that we do not intend to divide the Committee on this statutory instrument. We agree that there is a financial and democratic need for transparency in the funding of combined authorities and in granting equal powers to mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities in this regard.
The regulations are intended to extend the existing provisions for the funding of mayoral combined authorities to those of county combined authorities. The new model of county combined authorities, we accept, is more appropriate for non-metropolitan areas where two-tier governance is in place, and this model recognises the geographically specific issues that non-urban areas face, and that local governments then must reflect that different identity and accommodate it where possible.
Can the Minister answer, though, why it has taken so long for the Government to address this difference? There has been a great deal of frustration from our counties, which feel very strongly that they have been required—demanded, in fact—to mirror the model in urban areas, when it just did not fit their geography or their political structures. It would be interesting to know why it has taken so long to reconcile that.
Combined county authorities have shown great progress for English devolution, but there are legitimate concerns over the process and the way in which the SI has been handled. Therefore, can the Minister answer how this change would be communicated with the combined authorities, and their component councils, as this is rolled out?
Labour supports devolution and believes that having the right powers in the right places is important, and that precepts are an important way of achieving that. However, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities made a point in the Chamber, during oral questions only last week, of criticising the use of precepts in some areas. We heard some of that today, where the political argument is used that Labour Mayors choose to exercise their powers of precepts in a way that Conservative ones do not.
I think that we need to accept that there is no free ride on this—a Mayor is not free; the money comes from somewhere. It comes from a subscription that local authorities pay, from a levy that is required of the local authority, or is done via a precept. Surely the most transparent way is that Mayors of county combined authorities say to the public, on their council tax bills, “This is how much this particular function costs.”
Mr Bacon
The hon. Gentleman looks at me in a slightly accusatory way, as if I might disagree with anything he is saying. I do not think you get a free Mayor either. I believe that it is good that it is transparent. I believe that it is good that it is broken up on a bill, so we can see what council tax payers are having to pay for this. On these matters, we are in violent agreement. The only question I had—and I think my right hon. Friend had—was, “What is the upper limit, and how is it imposed?” We know that district councils, if they wish to put up council tax above a certain amount, have to go to a referendum. I am asking—and I think my right hon. Friend is—“What, if any, limits are there here?”
Jim McMahon
I will avoid answering the Minister’s question for him, but we need to accept that different Mayors have different powers. Some are police and crime commissioners, while some do not have those powers, and some take on the fire authority powers, the powers of the transport authority, and the rest of it. Therefore, their funding models, and their precept and levelling-up funding, are very different.
However, in each of those circumstances, it will be for the Secretary of State to determine, by legislation, what the upper limit for any increase will be, whether that is a percentage applied to the council tax, or even a cash limit —£5, £10 or whatever—applied to mayoral combined authorities. That is in the gift of the Secretary of State. There is no precept increase in England that has been done without the explicit consent of the Secretary of State, and I think that that is an important point to make here.
We know that councils are facing a perfect storm of rocketing demand in adult and children’s services, adult social care and temporary accommodation, and a rise in borrowing costs, but, at the same time, the core grant has decreased alongside neighbourhood services. The sticking-plaster approach to devolution is part of the problem.
Local growth plans will be made in conjunction with businesses and local authorities to ensure that precepts will be adequately funded, planned and supported, therefore maximising economic potential across the whole region under consideration. More needs to be done, however, because local authorities are, in the end, the foundation of combined authorities. Combined authorities do not exist in isolation, and if the foundation on which they rest is not secure or firm, that will have an impact on them.
Labour is the party of devolution: it created the Scottish Parliament, the devolved Parliament in Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the office of the Mayor of London, and it introduced the Localism Act 2011. Labour Mayors and Labour councillors are leading the charge across the country and, together, have made the case for further devolution.
We propose more stable, longer-term, single-pot settlements across all our combined authorities to reward those who make good progress and are good custodians of public money. It is a fact that, under the Government, working people are paying more and more for less and less, so it is time for a fresh start, which can be achieved only with a Labour Government.
Jacob Young
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton for expressing support for the regulations.
On the questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, there is no upper limit. The mayoral precept is not subject to the same referendum principles as council tax. As I said, however, mayoral budgets are subject to challenge and amendment by a significant majority on the combined authority or, in these cases, the combined county authority. I would suggest that local decision makers are best placed to determine what is right for their local area. As I outlined, it is made clear on council tax bills what the mayoral precept costs taxpayers, so taxpayers can hold the Mayor to account for charging an unwieldy mayoral precept in those circumstances.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend consider changing that in future, particularly for the new county devolution deals? Unlike most prior devolution deals, they have not been accompanied by any local government reform, so our council tax payers could be paying precepts for the town, the district, the county, the PCC and the new combined authority. Value for money is questionable in such a case.
Jacob Young
I understand my right hon. Friend’s point. I am happy to take that away and look at whether something similar could be established for mayoral precepts. It is not currently the Government’s intention to do so, but he makes a valid point.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, combined county authorities are a direct result of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This statutory instrument is required by that Act. He asked why it has taken so long, but the Act was passed only at the back end of last year in direct response to the request of counties to have a devolution model that fitted them, so I would say that his frustration at the time that it has taken to get to this point is misplaced.
Jim McMahon
I do not particularly disagree, but I would ask for an acceptance that there is a natural tension in the devolution programme between the need to have devolution for a purpose, such as jobs, housing, the economy or transport, and the need to represent local identity. The Government have struggled in the past where there have been conflicting identities—for example, where counties with distinct identities have been forced to merge to create a combined county authority with a Mayor who did not fit. Part of the delay that we have seen comes from trying to get that through but it not working.
Jacob Young
As the hon. Gentleman says, we have been flexible in our approach. We have the traditional combined authority model that previous combined authorities have adopted. On Thursday, we will see a new Mayor for York and North Yorkshire elected using the traditional combined authority model, as well as a new Mayor for the East Midlands being elected using the new combined county authority model. We have listened, we have been flexible, and we have met local needs as and when they have arisen.
In conclusion, the regulations are essential to ensure a robust legislative framework for combined county authority mayoral finances for budget-setting, precepting and the mayoral fund. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards) Regulations 2024
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards) Regulations 2024.
I apologise in advance for my loss of voice, which is a result of being rather enthusiastic at a Derby County football match on Saturday. The draft instrument was laid on 21 March 2024, and I acknowledge the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which have provided a helpful review of the regulations and have not drawn them to the special attention of this House or the other place.
The instrument amends regulations underpinning the contracts for difference scheme, which is the Government’s main mechanism for supporting new low-carbon electricity generation projects in Great Britain, and which has been hugely successful in driving down deployment costs. The amendments are about providing extra funding support through the CfD scheme so that we can better support offshore and floating offshore wind supply chains. This critical industrial sector has been hit hard by inflationary pressures and supply chain disruption resulting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, necessary investments in manufacturing and infrastructure have been delayed or abandoned altogether.
The CfD scheme currently focuses on only the price of deployment and no other factors, so offshore wind developers are incentivised to use the cheapest supply chain options available, regardless of where in the world they are or how dirty their means of production. We are therefore introducing sustainable industry rewards, or SIRs, to rebalance the CfD scheme so that it may help to address some of the supply chain challenges already causing bottlenecks in the supply chain, further increasing costs and slowing down deployment.
This policy intervention has been welcomed by supply chain companies and is intended to take effect for the seventh CfD allocation round, which should take place in 2025. So how does it work? The regulations require all offshore wind and floating offshore wind CfD applicants, as a condition of entry to the CfD, to obtain an SIR statement from the Secretary of State. Applicants who obtain an SIR statement will obtain additional revenue support through the CfD—a top-up, as it were—for investing in the economic, social and environmental sustainability of their supply chains.
SIR statements are obtained if the applicants make successful SIR proposals that fulfil one of two sustainability criteria:
“Investment in shorter supply chains in UK deprived areas”,
which means investing in manufacturing in the most disadvantaged places in the United Kingdom, or
“Investment in more sustainable means of production”,
which means investment in manufacturers that have signed up to the science-based targets initiative for the reduction of carbon emissions. The mechanism to allocate SIR funding will be a competitive auction just before the main CfD auction. An applicant who obtains SIR funding will then be contractually obliged to deliver their commitments. Undelivered commitments will be subject to a system of performance adjustments.
The Government are conscious that the extra support for offshore wind will have an impact on consumers’ electricity bills as SIRs—like the rest of the CfD scheme —will be funded through the existing electricity supplier obligation levy, which electricity suppliers pay. The actual budget for SIRs is still being discussed with the Treasury, but we estimate that it will be in the region of £150 million to £300 million a year for no more than three years, subject to the number of applicants. The impact on the consumer will be small, in the region of about £2 a year per consumer. Hopefully, hon. Members will agree that that is a small price to pay for the benefit that sustainable industry rewards could bring to UK communities by creating new and cleaner manufacturing facilities and highly skilled jobs in deprived areas and carving out opportunities for businesses to become part of the offshore wind supply chain.
To further ensure that the policy does not become a permanent burden on consumer bills, the intervention is time-limited for three years—it is there to address a specific market failure. CfD SIRs also complement other Government support for renewable supply chains, such as the £1 billion green industries growth accelerator, which runs to a similar timeframe. The explicit, detailed rules of the allocation are set out in the draft SIR allocation framework released in parallel with the regulations, which replace the current supply chain plan process for offshore wind and floating offshore wind. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The Opposition very much support the changes, which we hope will come in for allocation rounds 7, 8 and 9—it would be nice if they came in for AR6, but that is not in anyone’s gift to sort out right now. First, we think they will make a material change to the quality of the schemes supported by Government funding. Secondly, we think they will uprate the whole industry so that it is clear about what it is doing about UK-sourced materials for the schemes, arrangements for UK jobs and the sustainability of the whole supply chain and of the products themselves. So far, so good; we are fully behind the proposal to introduce SIRs as a replacement for the present arrangement, which is the sustainable supply chain declarations.
I ought to say before we proceed that my voice is not that great. I was also enthusiastically supporting my football team on Saturday, but unfortunately the result was not as positive as that for the Minister’s team, which I understand has now been promoted to the championship. If my team fails to get promoted through the play-offs this season, our two teams will play each other, so we will both have lost our voices if we meet again under those circumstances.
The problem with the regulations is one of potentially considerable detail. If I am wrong in my concerns, I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister of why I am wrong. Alternatively, if I am not wrong in my concerns, will she tell me what the Government are thinking of doing in the future to put right what I think is a potential problem for the process?
The problem is that both the allocation round and the new process that is to be introduced are competitive and have a budget, but one precedes the other, providing for the possession of a sustainable industry reward, or SIR, which essentially allows the company to go on to the full allocation round. If a company does not have an SIR, it cannot go into the main allocation bidding.
Once the SIR process is in place, companies bidding to go into the main allocation round have three possible outcomes. The first is that they have bid for an SIR and their bid has been ticked off—the Government have said, “Yes, your bid qualifies for SIR status, so you can through to the allocation round.” However, that company may not necessarily want to bid in that first round, prior to the allocation round, to get a funded SIR, because they may have ways of reaching what is in the SIR other than by going for a funded SIR. For example, a Danish offshore wind operator may be able to reach those arrangements through its own existing internal facilities. It may say, “Well, we are going to bid in without a funded SIR, but we have an SIR, so we can qualify for the eventual allocation round.” That is outcome No. 1. No. 2 is a straightforward process where a company bids for and gets a funded SIR, and then goes through to the allocation round with that funded SIR in its pocket.
The third possibility depends to some considerable extent on how the budgets are set, both for the SIR and the eventual allocation round. A company could have qualified for an SIR, with the Government having ticked off its proposals as SIR-qualifiable, but when it gets into the pre-allocation round competitive bidding, it may fail to get an SIR because of the budget constrictions in the SIR process—logically, because it is a competitive round, it is possible that some people will fail to get a competitively bid SIR to go into the allocation round. At that point, it is a company that had a bid process in at pre-qualifying, which allows it to be competitive against all those other bidders that have funded SIRs going into the actual allocation round. If a company has bid on the basis that it is likely to win some funding in the SIR allocation round, but it fails to win it, logically it has to readjust its bid, as if there was no SIR in place, in order to remain competitive in the actual allocation round.
As far as I can see, companies would not be denied access to the allocation round, because they did have a certified SIR in the first place. If they have bid and lost, as opposed to having decided not to bid, their bid will have to look different in the allocation round itself. Is it the case that the most advantaged people in the allocation round may well be those who have bid for an SIR and lost, and who have then readjusted their bid accordingly? Could it be that the smartest strategy for companies is to try to lose an SIR, while having indicated that they can, in principle, meet its terms? They can then bid more competitively than if they had had an SIR in the first place.
That is not to undermine the scheme as a whole, which is potentially very good, but there is a potential problem with the process of going between two separate competitive allocations to get to the eventual position of companies being in possession of a CfD, which is what we want to happen. That could distort the bidding process and could certainly lead to some lack of clarity about the principle of placing these additional requirements on bidders to secure the sustainability and so on of supply chains, which could potentially undermine the process.
Does the Minister therefore have any guidance she can give me to show that this is not really a problem, because of various issues that she can conjure up this afternoon, either on receiving inspiration or otherwise? Alternatively, if she cannot fully satisfy me that I need have no worries about this issue, which I quite understand, we could perhaps engage in correspondence subsequently.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I will speak with some reasonable volume; there is nothing wrong with my voice—I had quite a quiet weekend.
In the interests of collegiate working across the Floor of the Committee, let me say that contracts for difference are a useful mechanism and have demonstrated themselves to be so. They have delivered a systemic and substantial shift in the way that electricity is generated across the market in Great Britain.
What is proposed today is contingent on the CfD regime; it is an improvement to the regime—or rather an attempt to improve it. Criterion A is welcome, and in that respect the UK Government are nodding to what the Scottish Government have known for some time: that we should give priority to applying multiplier effects from substantial multibillion-pound investments in electricity generation from renewables to the supply chain at base in GB.
However, that is where CfD has largely fallen over—there have been a few notable exceptions, but systemic investment in the supply chain rooted in GB has not happened as a consequence of CfD. That is not to take anything away from the generation capacity that has been created from CfD and or even the funding mechanisms, which, like most funding mechanisms, are imperfect to a certain extent. However, it does signal that there is a substantial problem that Governments—both Scottish and UK—are trying to address.
I am pleased and proud that the Scottish Government have sought to address the issue in a substantially different way in terms of ScotWind’s focus on the strike price in the auction round, whereby it has prioritised a commitment from manufacturers to invest in the supply chain, rather than seeking the lowest possible price in the auction. CfD, however, continues relentlessly to pursue the lowest possible price, and we saw the Government come unstuck in auction round 5 with that approach. The way the Government have recalibrated that approach for auction round 6 is welcome, and I very much hope that it generates as much new capacity as possible in that auction round.
However, let me move on to the bit that the SNP fundamentally disagrees with. Criterion B for the sustainable industry rewards scheme is:
“Investment in more sustainable means of production, anywhere in the world.”
The Minister literally used the terms “means of production” in her speech, and I am glad she did, because it removes any doubt that she knows exactly what she is talking about. I would respectfully suggest that investing in another jurisdiction’s means of production is not the best use of bill payers money in the GB energy market. I do not think that the Government would find a great deal of support from ordinary bill payers in GB for using their standing charges to fund investments in the means of production in a foreign jurisdiction.
I am also concerned that the quantum that the Minister has set out, which I think is in the region of £1 billion over three years, will have an extremely marginal effect on GB’s manufacturing base by the time that it has been shared—potentially; we do not know in what proportion —with manufacturers in foreign jurisdictions. I am sure that Siemens Gamesa, Vestas and Hitachi are delighted with the UK Government’s largesse and ambitions to invest in other jurisdictions, despite that being the responsibility of Governments in those jurisdictions. Manufacturers and potential manufacturers here will take a much more jaundiced view, as the SNP does, of such a misplaced ambition to invest in potentially any market across the world.
With that, I decline to support the measure. I emphasise to the Minister that if the basis of what we are discussing today was simply criterion A, I would be happy to nod the regulations through, because that is a cogent and reasonable ambition for manufacturing in GB and, in particular, Scotland. However, that is not the case, and the regulations are somewhat—fatally, actually—undone by the provisions in criterion B.
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Angus for their contributions. I will endeavour to answer the questions as fully as possible, but if I fail to answer them all, I am incredibly happy to have further meetings on the subject, as suggested, although this issue is not in my portfolio.
All companies need to meet a minimum standard of investment before they bid into the CfD, so there is a level playing field for everybody. Companies will know if they have been allocated an SIR before they bid in. If they fail to get a CfD, their budget will be reallocated to those who were successful. As I have indicated, however, if I have not fully understood the question, I am happy to clarify further.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Angus, the UK does not manufacture all the components required to build a wind farm. We do not expect to make everything, and it would not be legal to mandate UK content. Where investment goes beyond the UK, we want that to go to cleaner, net zero-consistent firms that support our net zero commitments.
The contracts for difference are a key pillar for our energy security, but they need to adapt to changing market conditions. We are determined to make offshore wind deployment a success story and we are willing to take innovative steps to make that happen. Sustainable industry rewards have been deployed with industry input. They will provide much-needed support to an industry that has faced a tough economic environment and supply chain disruptions.
That support should trigger significant investment in expanding the supply chain’s capacity and capability in many deprived coastal areas around the UK and in new, cleaner manufacturing processes. The investment will help to deliver our levelling-up agenda and will positively impact communities that host large infrastructure projects by providing new, well-paid, high-tech manufacturing jobs, as well as by maintaining existing jobs. New offshore wind manufacturers from Britain and overseas are already looking at the UK, thanks to our package of supportive measures. It is true that the measures will have an impact on consumer bills, and we are talking to the Treasury to get the balance right between what realistic sustainable industry rewards can achieve, through targeted revenue support to get investment in the supply chain back on track, and the cost to the consumers.
These measures will also put us on an equal footing with our direct competitors in the EU and the US, who are investing heavily in their offshore wind supply chains. Considering how much deployment and potential we have, it is only right to try to attract and support as much of the supply chain as possible. It is key, though, that we provide the support in a targeted, proportionate way.
As many hon. Members will know, allocation round 6 of the CfDs is now live. The budget for allocation round 6 was announced as part of the Chancellor’s spring Budget. At over £1 billion, it is four times larger than for the previous round.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister is giving a good response to this afternoon’s debate, but I do not think that she addressed the detail of the particular point that I raised. It is not a question of reallocating CfDs but of how we go about a competitive allocation round if we have people in different circumstances, albeit with an SIR, leading up to that allocation round. I would appreciate an opportunity—outside this Committee, if possible— to get to the bottom of that particular problem.
Amanda Solloway
I would, of course, be delighted to facilitate that, either with me or the relevant Minister.
Although that budget does not include the SIRs, it is none the less a crucial step in our renewable energy deployment plans and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the UK remains one of the world’s leaders in renewables. The Secretary of State will decide in due course whether to increase the budget later this year. I commend the regulations to the House.
Draft Goods Vehicles (International Road Transport Permits and Haulage Within the EU) Regulations 2024
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Goods Vehicles (International Road Transport Permits and Haulage Within the EU) Regulations 2024.
These regulations are necessary to ensure that the UK upholds a key part of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, thereby ensuring that the movement of goods and trade can continue to take place between the UK and EU. They also ensure that the UK’s bilateral agreements are properly reflected in legislation. They support the UK haulage industry by discouraging undercutting by cheaper foreign operators. I commend them to the Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am very happy to support the Government in these important regulations, which give great support to the UK’s haulage industry and international trading prospects. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my short speech.
Petition
Bank closures in Paisley and Renfrewshire North
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
Assisted Dying
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 653593 relating to assisted dying.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert.
It is no secret that I grew up as a Catholic and attended Catholic schools. One of the most engaging lessons was religious education, where topics such as abortion and assisted dying, or euthanasia as some may wish to call it, were hotly debated. I admired my teachers who, with firmly held views, always encouraged debate—that is how I remember it, anyway. I have taken, and still take, the same attitude in my work as a Member of Parliament. For this place to have integrity, we must disagree agreeably and have the skills to debate and amend legislation that we may not agree with. Assisted dying is one such subject.
There is no set definition of assisted dying so let me clarify at the outset that here we are referring to the involvement of healthcare professionals in the provision of lethal drugs intended to end a patient’s life at their voluntary request, subject to eligibility criteria and safeguards. That includes healthcare professionals prescribing lethal drugs for the patient to self-administer, and healthcare professionals administering lethal drugs.
The petition calls for the Government to allocate parliamentary time for assisted dying to be debated in the House of Commons and to give members of this House a vote on the issue. More than 207,000 people have signed the petition so far, 272 of them from my constituency of Gower. The petition remains open, so the numbers are probably ticking up as we speak.
The petition was started by Hanna Geissler, the health editor at the Daily Express, and is supported by Dame Esther Rantzen, who is named in the petition. Hanna and the Daily Express have been campaigning on the issue for about two years, but Dame Esther’s public comments marked a change in the public perception of assisted dying, leading them to launch this petition. I pay tribute to their dedication and tenacity.
As people across the House know, this is not the first time I have opened a debate on this topic on behalf of the Petitions Committee. In July 2022, this House considered e-petition 604383, which asked Parliament to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults; that petition had more than 155,000 signatures. The fact that, in less than two years, we have had two petitions debates on this subject clearly indicates to me and to others that this issue is one that our constituents are highly engaged in, and I have no doubt that Dame Esther Rantzen has contributed to the heightened awareness of assisted dying. By her own admission, made in our discussion, she did not realise that speaking out about her personal choice would have had the impact that it has.
Whatever our own views, we must recognise that public opinion on assisted dying has shifted in one direction. Polls by Dignity in Dying have shown overwhelming support for changes to the law, with safeguards in place. Membership of Dignitas held by UK citizens has increased to 1,900, with a 23% rise during 2023.
In preparation for this debate and the previous one, I met a wide range of voices on assisted dying. Before this debate, as well as speaking with Hanna and Dame Esther, I spoke with Dr Matthew Doré, the honorary secretary of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland; Dr Andrew Green, the deputy chair of the British Medical Association’s medical ethics committee; and Jonathan Blay from the Royal College of General Practitioners. Such conversations are always welcome and challenge my stance in this debate. The more evidence and sunlight that we can bring to these debates, the better, and we must never dismiss concerns, but consider them fully.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Is not the truth of the matter that the debate will continue whether we have it here or not? My colleague Liam McArthur has a Bill going through the Scottish Parliament at the moment. Similar legislation is being considered in the Isle of Man and in the Channel Islands. This issue will have to be addressed. Either we do that in our own time, with our own measured, reasoned debate, or we risk having decisions made for us.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I fully accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point that the law is changing in other countries and in parts of the UK. It is important to consider that, and to look at what is done well and not so well. It is for us in this place to consider this matter fully when the opportunity arises.
“Choice” is a key word for Dame Esther and for many of those who have signed the petition. This is about having the choice to die under their own conditions, with dignity and without struggle.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I was here for the last debate that she introduced on the issue and I am pleased to see this debate overwhelmingly supported today. The fact of the matter is that people can have a good death if they can afford it and are physically able to fly to Switzerland. That is grossly unfair. This is completely out of reach for the vast majority of my constituents in Pontypridd and the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom, so it is absolutely right that we have the debate, because if people can afford it and are physically able to do so, they can have a good death.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, particularly because she raises a very valid point about the cost of that option for those who can afford to travel, and the discrepancy that there is in our healthcare system.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
That was a perfectly valid intervention, but surely one way to approach this problem is for us to get much better palliative care in place throughout the country. Everybody should be entitled to a dignified death. On this point, under the law of double effect, it is perfectly proper for a qualified doctor to relieve pain with very large amounts of morphine as long as his or her primary purpose is not to kill the patient.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I really value that intervention, because two thirds of palliative care in the United Kingdom is actually funded by charities. It is a postcode lottery. Excellent palliative care is what I would hope to have, but I would like to have the choice to have assisted dying and palliative care. I will go on to discuss that further in my speech.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On that point, will the hon. Member give way?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I will, but I am very aware of the time and the contributions that need to be made.
Caroline Lucas
I will be very brief; I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Does she agree with me that, actually, assisted dying can be a catalyst for more resources to go into palliative care? That is exactly what we have seen under many Administrations around the world.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She makes a valid point.
How your family remember you and those last, dying hours with them is also what worries people such as Esther Rantzen. So often, it is the struggle that sticks in the mind of family members when they lose a loved one.
One thing that we can agree on is that this choice must be the choice of the individual and one that is well informed. There are always intended and unintended consequences to any legislation, and it is perhaps naive to suggest that any change in the law would not have wider consequences in society, beyond the individual making the choice. Safeguarding is a huge issue among the voices who oppose a change in the law. In 2023, the Danish ethics council concluded that the existence of an offer of assisted dying would decisively change ideas about old age, quality of life and dying, and that there was too great a risk that it would become an expectation aimed at certain groups in society. How do we prevent vulnerable people from experiencing coercion at a time when they are afraid and ill? It is about conversations and decision making.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am so grateful to the hon. Lady, for whom I have the highest regard, for allowing me to intervene. Can she explain one thing to me? I do understand the idea of safeguards against coercion, but this is where I have a problem with the notion of assisted suicide: how do we set a safeguard against the person themselves feeling that they have to accept that they will die by their own request rather than be a burden to others? We can protect them from the pressure of others. We cannot protect them from the pressures that they will put on themselves, even though they do not really want to die.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because those are exactly the conversations that we need to be having. We need to see how this has worked in other countries, look at data, be specific and take our role as legislators seriously. We may fall on a different side of the debate, but we need to consider it and engage in the arguments. The work that has been done in this House by the Health and Social Care Committee reflects the importance of having the debate and taking the evidence. I hope that evidence will emerge if we get to debate the issue on the Floor of the House.
The Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland and the Royal College of General Practitioners oppose any law changes, while the British Medical Association holds a neutral stance. I was very interested to see what the BMA had suggested. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go into that now, but everyone I spoke to agreed that no medical professional should be forced to assist patients to end their lives. That stance is an interesting one, which we should consider.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech. She has pointed out the opinion polls and the international examples—Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and so on—and mentioned the BMA’s neutral stance. Does she agree that some of us are massively conflicted on this issue? When it comes to abortion I am very pro-choice, but last time we voted on this subject I actively abstained—voted yes and no—and was relieved that the status quo was upheld. Does my hon. Friend agree that some of us are relieved that there is no vote today? With the Hippocratic oath and other things, we are just massively torn on this one, despite the opinion polls.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s contribution. I am going to make progress, because I said that I was going to speak for only 10 minutes, but she makes a very valid point, which will be noted. I thank her for it. This is not an easy debate to have.
In their response to the petition, the Government said:
“It remains the Government’s view that any change to the law in this sensitive area is a matter for Parliament to decide…If the will of Parliament is that the law on assisting suicide should change, the Government would not stand in its way, but would seek to ensure that the law could be enforced in the way that Parliament intended.”
There has not been a vote on this subject in Parliament since 2015, but that does not mean that this House is ignoring the issue. In February this year, the Health and Social Care Committee published its report on assisted dying, as I mentioned. The report did not make any recommendations on law changes; rather, the aim was for the report to serve as a basis for discussion and further debate in Parliament.
A common theme in the evidence submitted to the Committee’s inquiry was what many respondents called “a good death”. I want to make it abundantly clear that assisted dying should not be discussed as a replacement for palliative care; we must also have frank discussions about how palliative care can be improved, so that we can give people the most comfortable end of life possible. Last Monday, there was an engaging Backbench Business debate in the House on funding for hospices; in the interests of time, I recommend that Members and other interested people read it in Hansard. We have to think about some of the recommendations that the Health and Social Care Committee did make around palliative care. It recommended that the Government
“ensure universal coverage of palliative and end of life services”,
give a funding uplift to hospices that require assistance, commission research into how better to provide mental health support and guidance after a terminal diagnosis, and
“establish a national strategy for death literacy and support following a terminal diagnosis.”
That was a point raised by Dr Doré during our conversation. I was struck by the issue of funding. As I mentioned, about two thirds of the funding for palliative care comes from charitable organisations, and I really do not see how that is good enough.
Should the law on assisted dying change and any services be covered by state funding, what message would that send? Should Parliament vote in favour of a law change, there are important questions to consider, some of which I hope I have highlighted this evening. These questions are difficult, but as legislators it is our job to assess the evidence and to try to answer them. The topic of assisted dying is so broad that there are many areas I simply do not have time to cover, such as the current situation in the Crown jurisdictions, the pursuit of prosecutions for family members, or the many individual stories I have heard.
I have previously spoken about the death of my father, over 12 years ago. My family have been supporting my lovely mum, who has had a very tough year—since December, there have been a few times when we did not expect her to pull through. Many friends and colleagues in the House have offered prayers, and I have to say that my mother is our little Easter miracle—the Catholicness never leaves you—and she continues to make good progress. During this time, I have personally wanted to talk about death and consider how I want my death to be. The experience of being in a hospital where there is death all around makes you reflect. It seems harsh and even simplistic, but when such emotion and heartbreak is all around you, you just want your loved ones to be out of pain, however that looks.
We have been lucky that my mother has gotten better, although her life has changed greatly. In my personal view, if someone has a terminal diagnosis and is mentally sound, should they not have the choice to take themselves out of suffering? That is the choice Dame Esther Rantzen talks about. Whatever comes from today’s debate, I would like everyone to consider bringing up the subject of their death with their loved ones now, before it is too late, because two things are certain in this world: we are born, and then we die.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)
Order. As Members may have noticed, this is a popular debate. Please try to keep to three minutes or below. Normally you would be expected to be nailed to your seats until the wind-up speeches, but if somebody were to vacate their seat for other business, the Chair would be pragmatic.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for her introduction to the debate.
When Frank Field spoke in one of the first major debates on euthanasia, he told the story of how Barbara Wootton, who founded the national assistance scheme, made him promise that were she in hospital with a terminal condition, he would empty her medicine cabinet and bring her all the things that together would make a poison so that she could end her own life. She lived perfectly conscious in hospital for six months and never did that.
On 22 October 2021, Frank Field had just come out of a hospice and was reported as saying that he had changed his mind: in the past he had been against euthanasia, assisted dying or medical assistance in death—however one wants to call it. He said that two-and-a-half years ago. When I saw him over the last months, he did not raise the issue at all, so I think people can understand that people’s views are not always as intense as they sometimes appear.
I am a great fan of Dame Esther and collaborated with her—at least, she manipulated me when I was a Minister in 1986, when we were campaigning for a really good policy on child restraints in cars. Were she to put the case for better hospice care, she would do it with the same verve that we have heard her speak with on the broadcasters in the last few days. I would like to go on and debate with her, if she were willing. I would ask how many people the campaigners thought would qualify under the kind of terms suggested in this petition.
There are about 5,000 to 6,000 suicides a year in this country. Do people think we are talking about 100 people a year extra or 1,000? I put it to the people here that if we had a Dutch level of medical assistance in death, we would add 15,000 deaths a year—we would treble the number of existing suicides and, including the existing figure, take it up to four times.
People talk about the safeguards and conditions. There is a list of all the conditions and safeguards that other countries are taking away. It starts with, say, the people who cannot afford to go to Dignitas and expands to those who are depressed. All MPs and their staff know what it is like to try to help somebody who rings up or writes and says, “I’m going to do away with myself because of the condition I am in”, or says they will because of how they feel. We do not say, “We are in Westminster Hall debating making it easier for you to carry that out.” We say, “Can we talk? Can we pass you on to somebody else you can talk to? This help might make your life different and changed.”
I am at the sort of age that means that I am an orphan—my parents have died. My father died aged 93. After he came out of hospital having been badly shot up in the war, he did not spend another night in hospital for the rest of his life. He knew that he was dying. He had stopped eating and drinking. A few hours before he died he came out of unconsciousness and said, “Am I still alive?” When he was told yes, he said, “I’m so sorry”, and went back to sleep. He then died.
My mother died three days after a diagnosis. She had had the benefit of a wrong diagnosis six months before, so she lived her last six months happy rather than being mucked about in hospital. When she was told she would be dead within three days, she said, “Can we talk about the funeral?” My father said to my wife, “Look, Virginia, you are the Health Secretary—you are rather busy. Which day is convenient for you?” This was said in front of my mother—a perfectly normal conversation. I think conversations about death are ones we ought to have.
I conclude by telling the story of a member of my family who died last week. The hour-by-hour reports from those sitting with her in the care home, which had a hospice end-of-life service, and from those in my family would make a lot of people think twice before charging down a route that could lead to an increase in the number of suicides in this country by three times.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Sir Robert, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling us to have this debate today.
I want to say quite openly that, after a great deal of thought, I have come to the same conclusion as that in the petition: the time has come to legislate to enable, with proper safeguards, assisted dying to take place. I do not want to get into the detail of what such a Bill might look like—that is for another day and another debate. I want to address the principle by referring to two arguments commonly used to oppose such legislation. The first concerns issues of faith and the second, which has been referred to, is about pressure being put on people to make a decision that they might not agree with when the time comes.
I will start with the issue of faith, which I approach with a great deal of trepidation. I certainly do not want to get caught up in any tangled theological debates, but as a Christian myself, I think that two important principles are involved. First is the argument that we are all—particularly those of us brought up in an Abrahamic faith—given free will. Our life is not mapped out before us; we have the free will to make choices at certain times in our lives. I also cannot imagine that the God I was brought up to respect as a Christian would want people to die in pain and suffering in a way that is, I think, unchristian.
The second argument is the one that has already been referred to—that at some point along the road to the end of their lives people will be put under pressure to make a decision that they either do not really want or that they do not want to be exercised when the time comes. I have thought a great deal about that argument and it seems to me that it is based on an unduly pessimistic view of human nature: that people will pressure their close relative or loved one to take such a decision purely on the grounds that it might serve them well financially—their motivation is venal, in other words—or because they want to avoid caring responsibilities in the later stages of their loved one’s life. I do not believe that that is how the majority of people take those decisions. I concede that some people might act in that way, but I think that the overwhelming majority will act as they act—out of love, rather than out of self-serving motives. The issue also comes back to the exercise of free will.
As I said at the outset, I think the time has come for us to make a decision about this issue. I am not being prescriptive about the clause-by-clause nature of what a Bill should do, because, as I also said earlier, this debate is not the occasion for that; Second Reading would be the appropriate occasion.
I conclude by saying to the Minister that I would like to think, not least because I will not be here after the next election, that before this Parliament concludes and before the next general election we will have the opportunity to vote, as a Parliament, on legislation on this issue that will take us forward. I do not expect her to give me any assurances in that regard today, but I hope that, as a member of the Government, she will use such influence as she has to bring about such a vote.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)
Order. May I remind Members about the three-minute time limit? I now call the Chairman of the Health and Social Care Committee, Steve Brine.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Robert, for calling me to speak. The “Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide” report by the Health and Social Care Committee —the Committee that I chair, as you said—has been tagged to this debate. It was published on 29 February and all Members of the House have received a copy of it from me. By complete coincidence, we received the Government’s response to the report just this morning; hon. Members can find that on the Committee’s website now.
Our report is a pretty big piece of work. It includes roundtables with people who have lived experience; we talked to health and care workers from across the NHS and social care, including people who on a daily basis provide care to people at the end of their lives; and we went on a number of visits, including to the US state of Oregon, where assisted dying has been legal for over 20 years, and to the Royal Trinity Hospice in Clapham. We received just shy of 68,000 responses to our online form, which is the largest number of responses of that type to any engagement from a House of Commons Committee. We held five evidence sessions with witnesses from across the world and received close to 500 written evidence submissions.
As we set out to conduct the inquiry, we were very clear that we did not want to weigh in on whether assisted dying should be legalised or whether the law should remain unchanged. That seems to have disappointed just about everybody, which tells me that we got things just about right and, more importantly, in line with the terms of reference that we published at the very start. All that has produced a weighty reference for MPs and peers to draw from in the future.
Our aspiration was for Parliament to have a broad and well researched basis for further consideration, whether sooner or later. Obviously, today’s debate makes it sooner, but I predict that this issue will come back again. We can be crystal clear that this debate is a general one, not a piece of draft legislation. I just implore the campaign groups that encourage people to contact their MPs about this debate to be clear and accurate about what it is. It is not fair to mislead people about what we are doing today. This is a general debate.
In their response to us this morning, including evidence that they gave us, the Government made it clear that they will not bring forward legislation in this area and that it was more possible that a change in law would be sought through a private Member’s Bill; that is indeed what has happened in other jurisdictions where assisted dying has become the law. In producing our report, it was very interesting to look at the international jurisdictions, although the evidence is quite limited about their track record on this issue. In the majority of jurisdictions that have it, this law has come in only quite recently.
As I said, we visited Oregon, and there has been such legislation there for two decades. Its legislation comes into the category whereby a person receives an established terminal diagnosis, which means that they are likely to die within a prescribed period—six months. In the Netherlands, however, the legislation applies a much wider set of criteria: the person seeking to access assisted dying can do so on the basis of “unbearable suffering”, subject to their own experience. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth). I take the rather old-fashioned view that MPs should vote to change the law based on a clear and concise understanding of exactly what we are changing it to, but that is not the purpose of today’s debate.
We did not find any evidence that the quality of palliative and end-of-life care deteriorated after the introduction of assisted dying in those jurisdictions; in fact, there is some evidence to suggest that there has been an increase in the funding of palliative care services, which I think is interesting. I hope that colleagues follow up the point that some hon. Members have already made: there will probably be legislative changes elsewhere in the UK, and certainly in the Crown dependencies in the coming months. Ministers need to be ready to respond to that, whatever their intention for the law in England.
Three or so minutes is not enough time to set out much detail, but I hope colleagues will reference our report. In the time that I can be here today, I look forward to listening to them and the Minister.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, having also travelled to take evidence over the last 18 months and really engaged with everything people have written to us about in sharing their opinions and life experiences. I really do commend the report to the House. We learned especially about the need to have a better death, and there are lots of opportunities for that, through improvements in palliative care and listening to clinicians about the extent to which that can be brought about. We also heard very clearly that if the law were to change, it would fundamentally change the relationship between the physician and the patient, and the House must take that into consideration.
Not only should there be more investment in palliative care, but we should push on with the opportunity for more research in that area. Of course, we should also address the social factors that are cited as reasons why people want to access palliative care. It is often about poor death literacy. Certainly, I am disappointed that the Government do not have a plan to improve that, so I urge them to consider it.
We must also look at the reasons why people have opted for end of life in other jurisdictions, as set out in the petition, including the loss of meaningful daily activities, the loss of dignity and incontinence. For many people, perhaps those with an impairment, that is their daily experience, and yet it would be wrong to say that that dehumanises them as individuals. We should move on from the embarrassment and inconvenience and look at how quality of life can be given to everyone, no matter their impairment.
Loneliness and isolation are also cited, but that is a societal failure that must be addressed. If we improve our NHS care, our social care and civil society, many of those reasons will be dismissed. The reason why we are debating this issue is not lost on me: the NHS is in tatters, social care is in a dire condition and so much funding has been withdrawn from civil society. There is much for the Government to do, and they must address those reasons in order to ensure that everyone has the opportunity for a good end-of-life experience.
I am worried about the person who says, “I’m just getting in the way. My children will have a better future without me. Perhaps the savings I have put aside could be better spent by them than on me.” It is not necessarily coercion, but the way that people feel in a society that changes the law. We have much to address, including the physical, psychological and spiritual needs of people in our country, and that must be our first consideration.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I am not a religious man, but I have always viewed life as sacred. For most of my life, I have been disinclined to accept the arguments of people who are in favour of assisted dying, but various events have changed my view in the past several years. Some time ago—a long time ago—my mother died of brain and lung cancer in considerable agony, pain and, I suspect, terror, too. I am pretty sure that the doctors in charge of her accelerated her demise. I am glad they did. It was a miserable, miserable time for her, and in my view it was a good thing for her to go more peacefully with an excess of morphine, if you want to put it that way.
I suspect that it was the unstated norm to do that in those days, and doctors took those decisions quite properly themselves. But I also suspect that that changed after the Shipman scandal. Dr Shipman killed hundreds of people, and doctors then became rather fearful of the legal consequences of doing what I have just described. That, in my view, alters the balance of this argument.
Later, Bishop Bill Westwood—some may remember him; he was probably the only Thatcherite bishop in history—became a constituent of mine. He also argued with me that we should change the law to allow assisted dying. I was surprised at that because of his faith. I thought that was really quite material.
And then, only a few months ago, one of my constituents talked to me about her father, who had motor neurone disease. He was terrified of getting to the end of his life and being unable to do anything about it, so he told her that he intended to end his life earlier than the inevitable outcome. He was a very wealthy man, and was able to afford a private jet to fly himself and his whole family to Dignitas in Switzerland and go through the process there to deliver what my constituent described as a beautiful death—certainly a painless death. I have come to the conclusion that as long as extremely strict controls are put in place so that no one feels pressurised to end their life, I am supportive of the legalisation of assisted dying.
But let us be clear: we must not make the same mistakes as other countries. I am thinking particularly of Canada and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, for example, several people with autism and intellectual disabilities have brought on the end of their life, some of them before the age of 30. That is not acceptable. Similar weaknesses apply in Canada. We must ensure that safeguards are in place.
Given the time, Sir Robert, I will finish with these comments. There have been references to a private Member’s Bill. That is the wrong mechanism for this. A multi-day Second Reading and a many multi-day Report stage are required to take this through and get it right. Once we get it right, unless we are going to accept that we are stepping on a slippery slope, we have to make that the final decision as a Parliament.
I was a friend of Frank Field for 50 years. We were close friends and allies on all sorts of things over that time. Like me, he opposed this proposal for a long time and changed his mind at the end. I am honoured to follow him on that course.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I have spoken in previous debates since 2012, the year after my father took his life alone and prematurely with terminal lung cancer. However, today’s debate is different, because I believe that we are finally on the brink of catching up with public opinion and bringing about law change—not in this Parliament, but in the next.
Since 2015, over a dozen jurisdictions around the world have introduced laws enabling choice at the end of life. Today, over 30 offer that choice, with protections, covering hundreds of millions of people. In the UK, the medical profession has dropped its opposition. Legislators in Scotland, Jersey and the Isle of Man are crafting laws that will give choice and protection. The Leader of the Opposition has committed to ensuring parliamentary time for proper consideration of a Bill in the next Parliament, and that commitment has been echoed by the Prime Minister. So law change will be debated soon, and we have the opportunity today to inform that debate to some degree. That is what the Health and Social Care Committee report did. I was pleased to be part of that report, and want to confine my remarks to it.
Our report starts by looking at the impact of the current law. So many of the 68,000 submissions we received set out powerfully how the current law is failing people, forcing loved ones with a terminal diagnosis to plan their death secretly and take their lives alone, often violently. I do understand why debate focuses on the consequences of change, but the evidence that we heard underlines the consequences of leaving the law unchanged. It forces those who wish not to end their lives but to shorten their deaths to act while they have the capacity, and too many die too soon.
Our report drew heavily on the practical experience of jurisdictions that have legalised assisted dying. They take two routes, one based on terminal illness and the other on adding wider criteria, such as intolerable suffering. My remarks are based on those opting for terminal illness alone, because it is the approach of most countries and of previous legislation proposed here—and, I am sure, of the legislation that will be proposed in the next Parliament.
We listened hard to the concerns of those opposing law change. They fell into three areas, but our evidence provided reassurance on all three. We found that not a single jurisdiction that opted for assisted dying for terminal illness had extended it beyond that definition, so there is no slippery slope. We found no evidence of coercion in jurisdictions allowing assisted dying. That is not to say that coercion does not exist, but assisted dying laws seek to provide protection, in contrast to our current law. How do we know that the 650 people who take their own lives now are not coerced or did not take that decision because they felt themselves to be a burden? We talk rightly in this debate about safety, but it is the current law that is unsafe. Assisted dying laws are safer than blanket bans.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I think it is right that Parliament looks at this issue early in the next Parliament—whether to leave things as they are or make changes. There is clearly public pressure for us to do so.
I was not able to get to the deaths of either of my parents —they both died in hospital before I was able to get there. But I was very involved at the time of my mother-in-law’s death just over two years ago. I was privileged to help my wife, her two brothers and my three children look after her in her final weeks. My biggest observation from the privilege of looking after her in her dying days was that the pain relief was much too slow to get hold of. I spent many Saturday mornings driving around North Yorkshire to GP surgeries to ask for her morphine prescription to be increased. That is simply not good enough in this country today. The thing about pain relief is that you have to get ahead of the curve; it is no good delivering it after the pain has built up. We urgently need to look at that.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
On the point about access to morphine, for some people it is simply not an option, as they have allergies to opiates. While uncommon, they do exist for many patients going through end-of-life care. Does the hon. Member share my concerns about that and think that it should be included in the debate?
Andrew Selous
I was not aware of that issue and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting it on the record.
A constituent wrote to me on Saturday about her sister, who she described as “begging” to put herself out of her misery before she died. Her death led to the nephew of my constituent taking his own life because he was so shocked by the death of his mother. None of us would want something like that to happen.
I have to say that I was deeply shocked by the remarks of the journalist Matthew Parris, who said in an article recently that he welcomes this being the thin end of the wedge, that he makes no apology for treating human beings as “units”, and that we should be making the cold calculus of inputs and outputs. I am appalled by that. I hope that every Member here is appalled by that type of discussion about our frail and elderly fellow citizens, who have a right to dignity and care until the very end of their lives. I will certainly fight back against that idea, and I want to call out what he said today in this debate.
I also think we need to look at the quality of life for people in their final days. I was sat next to one of my constituents this morning, who talked about how bored his 92-year-old father is in his dying days. That is an issue for us as well. Life should be full of stimulation. Life should provide things for people to live for, and we need to make sure that our elderly and those towards the end of their life are not bored and not lacking in stimulation such that they think they have nothing to live for.
I welcome the fact that Parliament will look at this issue. We have the commitment from the Prime Minister and from the Leader of the Opposition. There is definitely work to do on pain relief, which is not where it should be, but I want to end with a quote from Cicely Saunders, who founded the hospice movement:
“You matter because you are you, and you matter to the end of your life. We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.”
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I thank you for your chairship, Sir Robert, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for leading this important debate.
I am pleased to speak again on this issue to call for parliamentary time for assisted dying to be fully debated, and for MPs to have a vote on it. The blanket ban on assisted dying and on refusing terminally ill people the autonomy to make decisions at the end of their life forces them to suffer against their will while loved ones watch on helplessly. Some choose to avoid this fate and to seek assisted death abroad, but that comes at a substantial cost of some £15,000 to travel to Switzerland for that purpose, which highlights the systemic inequality where only those with the financial means have access to a choice over the timing and manner of their death. For the terminally ill, that should be a right, not a privilege.
That inequality forces many people who do not have other options to take their own life. Each year, up to 650 terminally ill individuals end their lives, with many more attempting to do so, often in secret and using unsafe methods at home. The lack of safeguards, regulation and oversight forces dying individuals to take matters into their own hands without adequate support for them or their families. As a humanist, I believe in individuals’ right to make informed choices about their own care and quality of life, and I do not believe that people should be forced into making horrible, lonely decisions to end their own life, something that the blanket ban on assisted dying in this country fails to recognise.
The legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults must be introduced, with robust safeguards, to promote freedom of choice at the end of life. I reiterate: this is about choice. I agree that better pain management and much more support for palliative care are needed, but it is also about choice—if people wish to choose it. People deserve autonomy and compassion in their end-of-life decisions.
The public agree. Unwavering public support for assisted dying is exemplified by the 200,000-plus signatures on the petition calling for a parliamentary vote on this critical issue, and by the fact that reform is backed by the majority in every parliamentary constituency across Great Britain, including more than 60% of my constituents in Luton South.
I was encouraged to hear that the Leader of the Opposition has pledged to allow time for the next Parliament to consider assisted dying, if Labour were to form a Government. The public are counting on us as their elected representatives to ensure their right to freedom of choice at the end of life. As this is fundamentally an issue of dignity and compassion, we must use our power to alleviate the pain of thousands of suffering individuals and their families by ensuring a free vote in Parliament on assisted dying.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I feel a heaviness of heart about this debate, in part because of my faith and in part because of the weight of seriousness of the issue and of ensuring that I represent the constituents who have contacted me in droves about it. I have not had a surgery in some time when someone has not come in about it. In a public question-and-answer session, a gentleman broke down in tears thinking about the death of his wife, and the memory of a lady carefully walking me through her experience of the death of her sister, culminating in a trip to Dignitas, and her description of that place, has never left me.
I have to say that, over many years of being the Member of Parliament for Stroud, constituents’ experiences have steadily changed my views. Arguments about choice, compassion and the ability to plan are very powerful to me, although my constituents know that I am careful in how I vote and I would need to see the legislation in front of me before making a final decision.
Constituents on the opposite side of the debate have also contacted me in a very powerful and thoughtful way. I refer to the article by Josh Glancy in The Sunday Times this weekend which sets out a number of the arguments that my constituents have also made. I will use my brief time to give the Chamber some examples of the very thoughtful correspondence I have had. A gentleman wrote to me:
“This is extremely personal to me and my wife…who has an incurable blood cancer…at the age of just 55. Neither of us want her to suffer the gradual progression through incapacity, pain and death without her being able to choose her time of death with dignity, whereas at present the only choice might be to travel abroad and seek an exit prematurely”.
Another gentleman, in a lengthy and thoughtful correspondence, talked passionately about his mother, a working-class Liverpool woman who became a curator at Historic Royal Palaces. I liked the fact that he said:
“You would have loved her.”
He said that the weeks of her illness were rather life-affirming. His mum considered taking her own life, as her best friend had done following a terminal diagnosis, but she did not and,
“later told us she was glad she hadn’t, because she would’ve missed out on the experience of so much love and goodwill from friends, family and carers.”
Yet she went on to plead for death in the final weeks. It took 16 weeks for her to die, effectively from starvation. I mention this gentleman because he said:
“When my Mum was dying”—
This is hard; we all get such emails—
“I promised myself that at the very least, I would write this letter, so that my bitter disagreement with the law…would be known. Thank you for taking the time to read it.”
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) that we need days of debate on this, with everybody involved. It has to be very well thought through.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I could refer Members to Hansard and my speeches in the three previous debates, and then sit down, which might be popular, but looking at those debates I realise that this is something to which some urgency now attaches. The last one was less than two years ago; the previous one, in this Chamber, was three years before that; and four years before that, in 2015, we had the last vote on the issue, when I was in the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), replying for the Opposition. I think I am right in saying that the previous vote was about 18 years before that. It is a matter that, partly due to public opinion, demands our attention, and I hope and trust that, certainly after an election, we may be in a position to legislate on it as soon as a year’s time, with the caveat that that will have to be a very serious and profound process.
Public opinion is leading on this. That does not mean that we have to follow public opinion, but there is a substantial change in the mood of the public and overwhelming support for some form of assisted dying, whereas the arguments and opinions have not greatly moved on over the last 10 years. For me, this is about one very simple question: that at the end of my life, it is not just my choice but my right to decide the manner and timing of my leaving it.
I hope first for a huge improvement in palliative care. I took part in the debate on hospice care in the main Chamber last week, and I pointed out that we have not had in-patient beds that are convenient for my constituents for six years. That should not be happening anywhere in the country.
In reality, I do not believe that anybody would say that their religion or their personal views should impact on my choice. The issue is whether there is undue pressure—by the state, the family or the person themselves in considering that act. We have many laws for dealing with coercive behaviour. We should have better palliative care. As a society, we should be able to reassure people that they are all valued as long as they want to be with us, even at the end of life and even, perhaps, in great pain and suffering. That should not be a barrier to those who wish to decide to leave because of great pain, because of great suffering and because the end of their life is near. As a society, we have to grasp that very difficult decision and move on.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Sir Robert. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on choice at the end of life, so it should come as no surprise that I support the aspiration of the petition.
Over the last 10 years of my involvement in the campaign in Parliament, I have become used to converts—very welcome converts—to the cause, but of course they almost always convert to the cause after they have been through the horrible experience of watching someone they love go through an awful, agonising and degrading death. When Esther Rantzen stepped forward and talked about the impact that her disease was having on her, as well as about her decisions for the future, it should come as no surprise that there was an outpouring of support from the British people, because for many people she was part of the family. She regularly appeared in their front rooms, with her smiley, sunny demeanour, on a Saturday afternoon. Now that she is facing a horrible death and, with money, has decided to make the choice, the British people have obviously stood up and listened to the fact that she is supporting the campaign for a change in the law.
The British people listened to such an extent that they now do not really understand why politicians tolerate or talk about three particular things. First, they do not understand how so many Members in this House can stand for the status quo when, as has already been stated, the status quo is appalling. We have hundreds of people taking their own lives in this country—thousands dying agonising, horrible deaths when they may wish to do something different. Of course, we also have business class, so it is even worse: if you have the money, you can have what the law denies to everybody else. It is an outrage, and it should change. Worse than that, many Members who would oppose me making the choice are quite happy for a doctor to do it for me, as we have already heard. They are quite happy for a doctor to give an extra squeeze on the morphine and take away my own agency, choice and rights about my life. The British people just do not understand how so many people can tolerate that.
Secondly, the British people do not understand this view that the country is teeming with granny killers—that all of us are just waiting to bump off a wealthy relative so we can pocket the cash, like we are some kind of nation of Jeremy Bambers, intent on remunerating ourselves. The vast majority of British people love their parents and grandparents. They want the best for them, and they agonise when they die. If you go to the funerals or see them greeting each other at airport terminals, you will see the love there. That is not to say that there should not be safeguards, but we have safeguards in lots of other areas, and we should in this, too.
Thirdly, the British people do not understand how people of a genuine religious faith can seek to impose their own morality on the rest of us. They have not done so on gay marriage. They did not do so on homosexuality, adultery, abortion or sex before marriage. Why on this issue should the British people be denied a choice, because of the—certainly legitimately held—religious convictions of others? If the law changes, as I hope it will, and assisted dying becomes available, in extremis, to me and others, people need to realise that it is not compulsory. You may not want it yourself, and you may not want it for your relatives, but please do not stop me having it.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert.
I was thinking today about all those evenings when I was allowed to sit with my parents and watch “That’s Life!”, and how I could never have envisaged this moment. With all the successful campaigns in which Dame Esther Rantzen has been involved in her astonishing career, there can surely be none that has touched a nerve with the British public in so widespread a way as this one. Her involvement with this petition, which 555 people signed in my constituency alone, shows me that there is a momentum among the British public: a desire to see a national debate on the subject and for their Parliament to reflect their view, which we see in so many opinion polls nowadays. It is not a party political issue, but for the record my party, which believes in the freedom, dignity and wellbeing of individuals, has long supported the idea of a free vote in Parliament and would welcome a free vote in the next Parliament for us all to make the choice.
I find myself in the strange position where my colleague Liam McArthur is currently steering a private Member’s Bill on this issue through the Scottish Parliament. If he is successful, I would hypothetically have a choice denied to so many other people in this room—a significant choice. Another Bill that is about to be introduced to the Scottish Parliament by a Conservative MSP is about improving palliative care. Liam and Miles Briggs are working together, because the two are not mutually exclusive. We should see it as a choice between assisted dying or palliative care not for us, but for the individuals affected. They should have the choice.
The time has come when we need to recognise that there is momentum; other parts of the UK will make decisions on this shortly. I must be honest with Members and say that I do not know what decision I would make. I saw my parents die very different deaths: my father suddenly from a heart attack when very young, and my mother very slowly of a horrible asbestos-related disease. I do not know what they would have wanted. I do not know what I would want, but I do know that I want everybody to have the choice that they want. The time has come when we should recognise this petition and what it asks us to do, and look at a very narrow form of agreement to assisted dying when someone has a terminal diagnosis and has made that decision at a time when they were mentally capable of doing it, and when a medical intervention is involved. Ultimately, they get to make the last, perhaps most important and most personal decision that they could make.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
We need an informed debate on this subject, and I believe we are starting to have the level of engagement and interest that means that now is the time to bring a vote to the Floor of the House. As Health Secretary asking questions about policy, I was surprised by the paucity of information and data on this question. I asked the Office for National Statistics to start collecting some of the data. One of the things it found is that the suicide rate among those who have a terminal illness is double the suicide rate in the rest of the population. So we know that suicide happens and is more prevalent—twice as prevalent—among those with a terminal illness. Of course, we also know that many of those suicides are lonely and earlier than they would have been if we had changed the law.
I have also been informed in this debate and in coming to a view on the subject myself by engagement with others. I pay tribute to the Health and Social Care Committee for its excellent report. I was influenced significantly by Sir Paul Cosford, the late medical director of Public Health England, who was a great man. He asked to speak to me while he was emeritus medical director, and he called to tell me that he had a terminal illness—it was cancer. He knew that there was a likelihood of a painful end, and he said, “As a medical doctor, I can of course prescribe myself morphine and I know what to do with it, but you and others do not have that choice.”
I was also deeply affected and persuaded by my constituent David Minns. Today I had the honour of meeting his son, Matt Minns. David, who has now died, was in the awful situation of having a disease that he had watched his own daughter die an incredibly painful death from. To those who say that palliative care needs to be better and can be enough, my response is: of course it needs to be better, and of course people give their careers to amazing palliative care, but the best palliative care in the world cannot prevent hugely painful deaths for some.
Yes, the safeguards are vital. Internationally, we can now see many countries, such as Australia, that have brought in a narrow and clear set of rules, but the people I want to have a choice are those facing a painful death when they know that death is coming. Of course there should be protections for people with disabilities and mental ill health, but we should ensure that all of us, when we know for certain that we are facing such pain at the end, have the choice to instead have a dignified and good death. I know that I would want that choice for myself.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I very much welcome the thoughtful and sensitive way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) opened the debate. I agree with her and others that we need careful reflection on this subject.
The national health service is, rightfully, my party’s proudest achievement. It has delivered freedom from the fear of medical bills, which has blighted the lives of non-wealthy people since time immemorial. I think that changing the nature of the national health service, so that it ends people’s lives as well as sustains them, would be an absolutely fundamental change that we need to weigh very carefully indeed before introducing.
I understand the proposition that people with a diagnosis of terminal illness should be allowed help to die, but it is clear from what happens elsewhere that if that did happen, it would not remain subject to that narrow criterion. It would not end there. Indeed, the campaign to broaden the scope has already begun. Matthew Parris wrote in his column in The Times that we need assisted suicide because old people cost too much. He said:
“‘Your time is up’ will never be an order, but—yes, the objectors are right—may one day be the kind of unspoken hint that everybody understands. And that’s a good thing.”
I cannot see that that would be a good thing. It seems to me that legalising assisted dying would impose a terrible dilemma on frail people, elderly people and others when they are at the most vulnerable point in their lives, especially on conscientious frail people who do not want to die but do not want to be a burden. I do not think that there is any way to avoid imposing that dilemma. The national health service should be there to protect those people.
It is reported that in Oregon since 2017, over half the applicants for assisted dying have applied not because they want to die but because they feel that that they are a burden. The next time we have a Government committed to austerity, the temptation to cut health service costs by allowing people to choose to end their lives in a wider set of circumstances, instead of funding their care, would, I fear, be irresistible. Indeed, in Canada, the Government publish how much they save by ending people’s lives rather than continuing to care for them.
Sir George Howarth
I will be brief. Does my right hon. Friend accept that his argument reflects a very bleak view of how assisted dying would work in practice?
Sir Stephen Timms
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend that it is a bleak view, but it is supported by what we have seen happening elsewhere around the world. Unfortunately, I think it would happen here as well.
The argument I want to set out is that this road is not one that those of us who subscribe to the founding principles of Nye Bevan’s health service should be willing to go down.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). I agree with what he said. Assisted dying is a complex subject, and if we are to make any progress in discussing it we need careful reflection and informed debate. It is reasonable that reference to statistics should be made, but we need to be careful in our use of them. What people understand by the term “assisted dying” makes a difference.
In 2021 a Survation poll asked more than 1,000 members of the public what they thought the term meant. Only four in 10 correctly understood it to mean providing lethal drugs to those with less than six months to live to end their life. The same proportion incorrectly thought that it meant giving people who are dying the right to stop life-prolonging treatment, which is already legal in the UK. Worryingly, one in 10 said that the term referred to the provision of hospice-type care for people who are dying. So six in 10 people did not understand what “assisted dying” actually means. We need to ensure that our constituents are fully informed about what assisted dying means, so that they do not “run there blindly”, as Josh Glancy warns in his thoughtful article in The Sunday Times yesterday, which was movingly referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie).
Let us consider a recent Dignity in Dying poll, which concluded that 75% of Brits supported assisted dying. That had fallen from 84% in a 2019 Populus poll. But how strong is the supposed support? That recent poll found that only four in 10 of those polled wanted their MP to vote in favour of assisted dying. It seems that out of the initial 75%, almost half did not support the cause enough to want the law to change. To proclaim that nearly eight in 10 Brits want assisted dying cannot be accepted as a fair representation.
A more committed and thorough approach to understanding what our constituents think might lead us to reflect on a 2014 ComRes poll, which found that the proportion of people who supported assisted dying stood at seven out of 10 when initially asked, but fell dramatically to four in 10 when presented with the full picture of the arguments against assisted dying, and so equipped to make a more informed decision. I recall that in the 2015 debate, several colleagues had entered the Chamber without a firm view on assisted dying, but after they heard the arguments and implications of changing the law on assisted dying and what it would mean for this country, they firmly voted against it.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I welcome this much needed debate. I want to make three points. The first is to reiterate my point about inequality. The current blanket ban on assisted dying does not just rob dying people of any meaningful choice, but it perpetuates inequality. We have heard about the £15,000 that it costs to go to Dignitas. People often have to go alone, as the law prevents assistance from their loved ones, as we know, so that they might face prosecution when they return. People go much earlier than they need to because they have to be well enough to make the journey, so they die too soon.
For those who cannot afford to travel abroad, the choices are fewer. They might be subject to a lottery of compassionate but illegal co-operation from their healthcare providers. Others might feel forced to take things into their own hands in violent and lonely ways. Some choose to hasten their deaths, with the support of doctors, by refusing food and water. Rather than keeping people safe, we are inadvertently permitting assisted dying in a way that lacks any regulation or oversight, or indeed compassion.
Safeguards are important. I know some people have concerns about how, for example, assisted dying could inadvertently reinforce the discrimination that people with disabilities already face, so I want to be clear that resourcing and enabling disabled people to live dignified, full and long lives must be an absolute priority for us all, irrespective of our views on assisted dying. I want to be clear, too, that the proposals being considered are explicitly and purposefully for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. In other words, disabled people without a terminal prognosis would be deemed ineligible for an assisted death at the first stage.
The current law does not eradicate demand for assisted dying. It just drives the practice overseas, or behind closed doors where there are no safeguards in place to protect people. In fact, introducing a strictly safeguarded law with tight restrictions is the best way to protect those who are at risk of pressure to hasten their deaths against their wishes.
It is wrong to think that current practices in end of life care do not already demand the medical profession to be alert to the possibility of coercive control. A change in the law could strengthen doctors’ skills in that area and enhance our understanding of and ability to protect against it. For example, we could have in place mandated training so that doctors recognise even more easily the signs of coercion and, critically, we could create a specific criminal offence for the act of coercing a person into an assisted death.
Some have argued that more resources for palliative care are the answer, and of course I want to see that, but even the best palliative care cannot help everyone. We have seen growing evidence from places such as France and Queensland in Australia that the introduction of assisted dying can be a powerful catalyst to improve palliative care.
Palliative care and the hospice movement need more funding, but that does not take away from the importance of giving people choice at the end of life. I am proud that the Green party will commit to supporting a change in the law in our manifesto for the next general election. I hope very much that other parties will do the same.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I invite Members to look around. Westminster Hall is packed; extra seating has been brought in. I will wager—with apologies to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—that there are more colleagues here than there are in the main Chamber. This is a big day.
As chair of the APPG on bereavement support, I very much welcome this debate and I congratulate Esther Rantzen and the whole of the Dignity in Dying campaign on bringing this issue to our attention today. We rightly call this place the mother of all Parliaments and we are a proud global exemplar of how policy is debated, advanced and so on, but on this issue the people have had to nudge us in Parliament by way of the petition that brings us all here today. However, I do believe that we are starting to do justice to it by the quality of this debate, in which I am pleased to participate.
We must now have the courage to take this issue further, because the legislation is out of date. Under the Suicide Act 1961, anyone involved in assisting another person’s death could be subject to a 14-year custodial sentence. The world has changed since 1961. First, medicines significantly extend life, so we keep people alive longer, but their quality of life is not necessarily the same; and of course, as we are illustrating here today, attitudes are changing. A poll suggests that 77% of people in Bournemouth are supportive of changing the law.
Since the establishment of Dignitas in Switzerland in 1998, some Britons have chosen to travel to Zurich and pay £10,000 to £15,000 in order to say goodbye to their loved ones on the family’s terms, and I understand that for the last decade, the Crown Prosecution Service has not charged anyone for assisted dying. The law as it stands is not working; it is not enforced. The UK Parliament has not kept up with the contemporary thinking in Britain, or, as we have heard, with other countries—France, New Zealand, Australia, Spain, Austria, Holland, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and, of course, Switzerland. The world’s position is changing and modernising, and we must do the same here.
The current system fails on three counts. First, with a terminal illness, there is the potential to experience pain and mental hardship as the body slows and loses strength. Secondly, it obliges families and loved ones to witness that deterioration, causing its own stress. Finally, as I heard from members of Dignity in Dying just an hour ago, there is the added anxiety of not knowing for sure whether there will be a knock on the door from the Crown Prosecution Service. We can and must do better.
Debates come and go in Parliament—policy is discussed, and it is all written up in Hansard—but occasionally there are big days when the public are watching and we remember where we are and what is said. Today is one of those days. Let us make today’s debate count. Let this be the start of a process that gives real choice to those who are terminally ill. It is time to change the law, with Government legislation.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Guardian is not known for its conservative zeal on any campaigning issue, but in a brilliant article on 7 April, Sonia Sodha outlined some things that I think should be compulsory reading for anyone engaging in this debate. She deals with the issue of coercion and she comments to the effect that we are in a day and age when coercive control is the norm for many in relationships. She blows a hole through the notion that we are in a free society to make these decisions. Many in our society are in fact not free at all. They are coerced, subject to conditioning and influenced by what becomes wrongly called the new cultural norm in our society.
One third of suicides of females in the United Kingdom are related to intimate partner abuse—just think about that. We have all read the stories, seen the court reports and heard from our constituents about coercive and abusive control of females in our society: “I hate you”; “You’re not worthy of my love”; “Your children hate you”; “Are you still alive?” We know what that does to people and what it drives them to do. It controls them and creates a very ugly environment for them to live in. That type of abuse is all too prevalent in our society. The elderly are similarly abused: “Mum had a good life, you know”; “You know, they’re done, really”; “It’s going to be very costly to keep them in this health service.” All that pressure builds.
All those people who tell us that there is no coercion, anti-disability prejudice, emotional abuse or financial abuse in this society are wrong: there is, and all those factors influence people to say, “Maybe I should end my life.”
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Can the hon. Gentleman explain whether a doctor who diagnoses a terminal illness is part of that manipulative coercion?
Ian Paisley
That is actually a brilliant point, because I want to turn to the issue of safeguards. Some Members have said, “There are going to be brilliant safeguards,” yet every single one of them has told me and this House over the years how rubbish and useless the law is—how it has failed here and is deficient there. Yet they say we are going to come up with the best, most brilliant, most wonderful law on this matter that no one has ever seen before—on this occasion, we will achieve it. The very same people who tell us that we will have safeguards tell us every single day that they cannot create those sorts of safeguards.
Look at what happened in Canada. It was said in 2016 that its legislation would have a very narrow scope, but that narrow scope has turned into discussions about disability, sick children and chronic mental illness. Those are all now within the purview of the Canadian law, but of course they were never supposed to be.
I think we are doing a huge disservice to palliative care and to the doctors and nurses who care, give their life to this and want to see compassion at the end of life. I believe, as some Members have said, that there should be a national conversation about this issue. It should be a long debate, because we really need to get into the weeds of the matter, but to think that because some people have signed a petition, suddenly this nation is ready to make the health service the service that will result in the end of people’s lives is folly, and we should avoid it.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Living with terminal illness is distressing and difficult for the person involved and for their family and friends. The cases we regularly hear about are truly moving and evoke the highest degree of compassion. When and how someone passes from this life is challenging and a very emotional topic.
When I raised this issue in Parliament back in 2011, I expressed my concern about how the practice of withholding water and food in order to accelerate someone’s death had been deemed lawful in court, although I was relieved that after the Neuberger review that was effectively stopped across the country. Assisting or encouraging suicide is a criminal offence under section 2 of the 1961 Act. That Act was updated by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and there was an attempt then to change the law to make assisted suicide legal in this country.
I was not in the House at the time of the 2009 Act’s passage, but fortunately that attempt failed. What did come, though, were guidelines for the Crown Prosecution Service, put in place by the then Director of Public Prosecutions—now the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition —which seem to have stood the test of time. Back in March 2012, when this House debated those rules, it voted against the proposal to make them statutory guidance while adding its support for palliative care and hospital provision.
There has been a lot of talk about how somebody comes to the end of their life, but there is an overwhelming difference between clinicians knowingly giving medication to help accelerate someone’s death—mindfully setting out to kill—and giving something that may help deal with the pain. However, I think such ethical issues need to be considered as stand-alone Bills. Unfortunately, there are too many attempts to make quite significant changes to ethical issues through Government Bills that are often rushed through, and so significant changes happen with very little debate, if any at all.
On 11 December 2015, 330 MPs voted against changing the law, which is three quarters of the MPs who voted that day. That was not an insignificant debate, and 70% of the House participated in that Division. Since then, no Member of Parliament has come forward with a Bill for the House to consider, either through the ballot or by presenting a Bill. While I know that a lot of constituents would like a change in the law, I still think that the House would not make one. We have seen the issues that have put doubt into people’s minds.
Many Members have talked about the experiences of other countries. The evidence of the acceleration that has happened around the world shows exactly why we should not change the law. In Washington state in 2009, a quarter of people applied because they thought they were a burden. That rose to 59%.
Fiona Bruce
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the same time that this country’s Parliament voted against legalising assisted suicide, a different decision was made in Canada? In 2016, the first year of medically assisted deaths, 1,000 people chose to have one. By 2022, more than 13,000 people had availed themselves of that law, representing a 30% year-on-year increase.
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend points out how this starts to increase quite significantly. It was also in Canada that a distinguished Paralympian who was looking for help with their disability was offered assisted dying as an alternative to adaptation of their home.
There has been a lot of discussion today about elderly people, but we are not just talking about elderly people. We are talking about vulnerable people. We are talking about people with disability. We are talking about people who could be taken advantage of to end their lives early and who may have that element of being considered a burden. People in this House have put forward the view of Matthew Parris that it is perfectly rational to say that you are a burden, and that you should potentially end your life. No one should feel such a burden on their family, their friends and society that they should end their life early.
While I will upset some of my constituents, I hold a different view from them on this matter, as I have done consistently, and I will continue to want to leave the law as it stands.
Damien Egan (Kingswood) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for her introduction. I feel privileged to follow so many compelling and thoughtful contributions.
We do not have to speak to many people before we hear painful stories of the torturous and brutal deaths that people’s loved ones have had to endure, often through extreme pain. I always thought that I would be one of those people who said that a form of assisted death would not be for me or something I would encourage for loved ones. This weekend, I talked to a lot of people about this debate, and my nan—a very wise woman—shared the story of her mum, who died of breast cancer at 61 and had a very difficult death. That made me feel that what I thought before was naive. Yesterday, on a very different visit, a woman from a local “save our green spaces” group said to me that we do not treat our pets in the same way that we do people, and let them have such cruel deaths. I did not have an answer for that, which made me feel that surely we can do better.
As we move forward in this debate, I would like to add my voice to the call for us to exercise caution. With over 400 million people around the world living in countries and jurisdictions that have introduced a form of assisted dying, there is much to learn from. I do not yet know the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure, but it is something that needs considerable thought and time. On one extreme, I was taken aback by examples from the Netherlands of people ending their lives due to mental illness. I worry about assisted dying being seen as an alternative to palliative care, about people feeling like a burden on their families, and of course about coercion.
[Mrs Pauline Latham in the Chair]
However, I bring Members back to the example of Oregon, where legislation has existed for 27 years, and has not actually been extended. Assisted dying is limited with strict safeguards: people must have a terminal illness, life expectancy of less than six months, and there must be cooling-off periods. Interestingly, a third of people who start that route never take end-of-life drugs, but they are reassured that they have that choice, if needed. It would need interrogating, but in 2019, the executive director of Disability Rights Oregon said that they had not received a complaint about coercion of disabled people. It has come with very good palliative care, and more than 90% of those who died under Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act 1997 were enrolled in hospice care—
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
A couple of years ago, on the near continent, a young woman of 23 years was euthanised, having suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder since 2016. Although physically uninjured, she had witnessed school friends being blown to smithereens in the bombing of Brussels airport. I put it to Members that if we use assisted dying as a therapy to end suffering for which other therapies exist, we will have made a profound transformation in assisted dying, changing it from being a means of ending suffering in death, to a means of ending suffering in life. I suggest that the trajectory is in that direction, as it has been in all those jurisdictions that have introduced it.
I debated this subject against Baroness Meacher at Durham University, at the time when she had a Bill in the House of Lords. She was determined to constrain the debate to all the provisions she had made in the Bill on safeguarding, diagnosis, the number of doctors giving assent and all the rest, but she was completely hijacked by her seconder, who was a psychiatrist representing an organisation called My Death, My Decision. They were determined that this was a therapy—a provision; a service—that should be available to absolutely everyone.
I only want to make one further point, aside from the fact that I accept we have not voted on this for three Parliaments. We should determine what our position is; I would welcome a vote, but we should be careful what we wish for. Oregon has just released its statistics for last year. By far, the largest cohort of applicants for the service—52%—are those who say they wanted it because they did not want to be a burden, far exceeding those who wanted it to avoid pain in death. There is a profound danger that what begins as a choice will end as an expectation, and so proceeding, we will end up with what Matthew Parris has said, and then it is not much of a jump to “Logan’s Run”. If you do not know what that is, Mrs Latham, google it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this very poignant debate as the DUP spokesperson on health. The issue is of great importance and must be in line with our obligations to uphold and protect the sanctity of life. I will say clearly that I am a Christian and I have a Christian faith; that faith is what drives me and it is why I am here to represent my people. And I represent the thousands of my constituents who are opposed to assisted suicide.
Introducing so-called “assisted dying” would fundamentally and irreversibly change the relationship between doctors and patients, and how we think about healthcare. The duty of a doctor is to save life, not end it. It is there in the words of the Hippocratic oath—to “do no harm” and not to:
“administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so”.
Even the modernised versions of the Hippocratic oath, which all doctors must take, clearly state:
“I shall never intentionally cause harm to my patients, and will have the utmost respect for human life.”
So, that is very clear from the doctors’ point of view and it is what I want to speak about.
I have been struck by the fear felt by those over 70 who are found to have cancer—
Sir George Howarth
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that “harm” to human life can involve someone existing in pain and acute distress?
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I will give him the example of a lady over 70 who has cancer and of those people who have to apologise for waiting for treatment to fight their cancer. This lady is 72. She says that she really wants to fight the cancer if they will give her the chance—those are her words. However, she says that she felt guilty for taking resources and guilty for wanting to continue to live her life and help her daughter to raise her child. So, imagine the conversation about introducing assisted suicide. That would only increase the fears of vulnerable people and further damage the important trust between doctor and patient.
The Isle of Man statistics are very clear; I do not have time to refer to them. The Royal College of GPs continues to oppose assisted suicide, after the results of a consultation. The British Medical Association did the same. It was said that
“When the votes were analysed by the BMA, it was found that majorities of members whose work brought them into close and regular contact with terminally ill patients, including palliative medicine doctors, geriatricians and GPs, were opposed to legalisation, while respondents who had voted for legal change contained a majority of retired doctors, medical students and those in branches of medicine which involve little or no contact with terminally or otherwise incurably ill patients.”
Ian Paisley
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Regarding safeguards, we are told that one of the ideas for future legislation is that two doctors and a judge will ensure that there are plenty of safeguards. Does he agree that our courts have so far been utterly useless in finding family abuse in many situations and so they do not offer a safeguard at all?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and he is absolutely right; again, he iterates the issue. I will give two examples. In Belgium, courts have ruled that doctors have an obligation to make effective referrals even if they themselves are unwilling to take part in assisted dying. Canada is the very same. My goodness! The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who spoke before me, made the point very clearly that in other words there is a duty to inform patients that an assisted death is an option. That should never ever be the case.
It is not too hard to see how, in such a context, vulnerable people may feel that they ought to end their life early to avoid being a burden or because of medical advice. Assisted suicide can never be just about one person and their own choices. It would irreversibly transform the role of the NHS and the patient-doctor dynamic.
I will finish by saying that we must not allow this change of law to happen. The duty of doctors in society as a whole is to care for the vulnerable and therefore we must continue to resist attempts to introduce assisted suicide. As lawmakers in this House, we must err on the side of caution to ensure that the option of assisted dying does not lead to pressure on those who are older, vulnerable and feeling that the best thing for them to do would be to go quietly, to save people money and to save putting pressure on the NHS, when instead they could have 10 more years to live a full life, enriching the lives of their family and their community.
This is a very serious debate; we all know that and we have different opinions. But I am clearly on the side of supporting people to have a longer life and assisted suicide is not something that I can ever support.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I greatly respect the campaigners who are proposing a change in the law and the people who signed the petition. Nevertheless, it is not the case that the majority of the public support what is euphemistically called “assisted dying”. When the details of the proposed law change are explained to people, a majority of people oppose a change in the law. Crucially and most importantly, the doctors who work with the dying—people in palliative care and geriatric care, and GPs—overwhelmingly oppose a change in the law, because they know what we are talking about. Nor is it the case that in countries that have legalised assisted dying—
Paul Blomfield
When the BMA consulted its members, more doctors supported a change in the law than opposed it.
Danny Kruger
The BMA has decided to be neutral on this matter. Most of the doctors who supported a change in the law are do not work with the dying and the elderly. I accept that a majority of doctors have now accepted a change in the overall position. What I am talking about is people who know what they are talking about—I say that with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who I understand has a lot of knowledge of this topic, as well. My point is that while there might be overall polls that suggest public support, in fact, when professionals, members of the public and MPs get the chance to look at this closely, they end up opposing a change in the law, and for good reason.
Palliative care services do not rise in countries that have legalised assisted dying compared with countries that have not; they flatline. Of course, all palliative care services are going up because the population is ageing, but they decline in countries that have legalised assisted suicide.
Paul Blomfield
Has the hon. Gentleman not read the Select Committee report? We looked at every single jurisdiction. There was no evidence that palliative care declined in countries that adopted assisted dying. There was only evidence that it had opened a debate that had led to an increase and improvement in palliative care.
Danny Kruger
The point I just made is not that it declines, but that it does not increase compared with countries where assisted dying is not legal. Often, the increase and investment in palliative care is actually because there is more spending on assisted dying, which has now been legalised in those countries. I am very happy to take up this point offline, because it is very important, and I recognise the Select Committee looked closely at it in its report. However, there is an important point about the investment in palliative care in countries that have assisted dying and those that do not.
I am not sure whether this point was in the report, but what does go up in countries that have legalised assisted suicide is suicide itself in the general population. The fact is that suicide is contagious. Suicides among people who would not be eligible for assisted suicide increase in countries that have legalised it. I am afraid that is understandable when we consider that the Government have told society that some people would be better off dead. We have policies in this country to prevent suicide—we want to stop people committing suicide. It is important that we recognise the potential implication of a change in the law for others.
As that suggests, this is a profoundly moral question. I recognise that there are people with deeply held beliefs on both sides. There is a quasi-religious belief in the notion of autonomy and choice as the only moral question in this debate, and I have heard that suggested. It is important to acknowledge that the people with the least agency and autonomy—the vulnerable, the disabled, the mentally ill, the frail, the lonely—are the ones who suffer in every country where the law has been changed. It is not surprising that every country that legalises assisted suicide starts with very tight restrictions, and then the scope and the access expands. I will demonstrate that offline after the debate, because it is true.
Paul Blomfield
We looked at this in detail as a Select Committee. Not a single jurisdiction that has defined its law in terms of terminal illness has chosen to broaden it.
Danny Kruger
The definition of terminal illness is incredibly difficult, and people can always find a doctor to demonstrate it. That has happened in Oregon, in Canada and other countries. Again, let me take this up offline. [Interruption.] I respect position of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, but I stand on the point that the scope, access and eligibility expand, and of course it does, because expansion is implicit in the principle.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I note from the Health and Social Care Committee’s “Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide” report that:
“Wherever the boundaries are set, evidence from other jurisdictions shows that the boundaries are eroded and criteria expanded, with concomitant escalation in numbers, most markedly seen in Canada.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the concern he is trying to express?
Danny Kruger
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. These things are very contentious, and there are issues around definition. But I stand on the principle that there is implicit expansion in the scope of any law. [Interruption.] Am I being given extra time for the interventions I am taking?
Danny Kruger
Then I will not take one now.
Baroness Campbell, herself a wheelchair user, said that:
“The existing law…rests on a natural frontier”,
namely that we do not kill people. She asked:
“What the proponents of 'assisted dying' want is to replace that clear and bright line with an arbitrary and permeable one…If terminal illness, why not chronic and progressive conditions? And, if chronic and progressive conditions, why not seriously disabled people?”
It is impossible to make distinctions between those terms. That is why the law always has the scope for its own expansion within it. That is why we should oppose the change.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I am grateful to speak on this important issue, and it is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger).
The supporters of the petition want to alleviate suffering at the end of life. That is a commendable motivation, and something we can all agree on. However, making it legal for doctors to help people to kill themselves is simply not the answer. It is so important that we are all clear about what we are talking about today: we are dealing with assisted suicide, not assisted dying. We need to be clear, because politicians and the public need to know what they are being asked to consider. We are all in favour of helping people in their dying moments, comforting them and relieving their pain, but that is categorically different from bringing in a law that says that killing yourself is an acceptable thing to do.
Like many today, I find this topic emotional to deal with. On 11 June last year, my dad passed away aged 66, having suffered from cancer for almost five years. Loved beyond measure, my dad had great faith and never feared dying because he knew he was going to his heavenly home, but his cancer was absolutely horrendous. It was a thief, and it caused him immense pain and suffering, particularly in the last years of his life, but despite the suffering my dad knew there was an appointed time for him—for his home-calling—and that it was not for him or any other to decide on that time.
The palliative and cancer care that my dad received was exceptional. With further investment, such care could be even better. I speak today not as someone who has not experienced a loved one’s suffering from terminal illness—I know the journey, but I also know the one thing that these people do not need is the law telling them that their lives are not worth living or that they are costing too much. We need to tell such people that they are valued, that they are important, and that we care for them—no matter the cost. We must put our money where our mouth is and ensure that all those who need it can access high-quality, specialised palliative care.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Lady for sharing her story, which I understand is very personal. Does she not accept, though, that the choice her father made would never be taken away from him by changing the law? The choice for some would be to end their life, but the choice for those happy to continue their life until it came to an end would never be taken away from them.
Carla Lockhart
As we have heard and as I will go on in my speech to say, when the law is introduced it is expanded and the potential safeguards are not safeguards at all—it is a slippery slope. By investing in social care, by continuing to be a world leader in palliative care, and by being a society that respects life and upholds the dignity of the elderly and of people with disabilities, we can give hope to the hopeless and create a society where assisted suicide is not needed.
The consequences of introducing assisted suicide are not a matter for speculation. The practice has been implemented in other countries not unlike ours, and when assisted suicide is permitted, it is a slippery slope. Whenever assisted suicide has been legalised, however tight the initial safeguards and however sincere the assurances that it will be a narrowly defined law for rare cases, the practice has rapidly expanded.
Carla Lockhart
I am going to make progress. In Canada, it took only five years from the 2016 introduction of assisted suicide for those whose death was “reasonably foreseeable” to be expanded to the ill-defined “serious and incurable illnesses” criteria in 2021. In Oregon, in the US, people have been given assisted deaths because of diabetes, hernias, arthritis and anorexia, with the “terminal illness” interpretation now wide and wieldy. In the Netherlands and Belgium, child euthanasia has been legalised, as well as euthanasia for mental illness and dementia.
I conclude by quoting the national Danish Council of Ethics. Having considered the issue in detail, including examining the evidence from supposedly safe places such as Oregon, it concluded:
“The only thing that will be able to protect the lives…of those who are most vulnerable in society will be a ban without exception.”
It is time to invest in better palliative care and support those who go over and above to support those in their dying hour. Leave the law as it is. We must resist this change.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Latham.
Five hundred and eighty-one people in my constituency have signed this petition—make that 582, as I want to put on the record for the first time my support for the principle of assisted dying. I recognise the arguments on both sides, but my personal view is deeply held. It was strengthened recently when I strolled around Sidmouth, where I live.
An older gentleman was tending to his garden, when he decided to strike up a conversation. He explained that the garden was his wife’s pride and joy. She was now in a local care home, so it was his turn to do some pruning. At this point, I could see that he wanted to cry. In a very British way, he apologised, but went on to explain why he felt so emotional. His dear wife, the love of his life, is terminally ill, has no quality of life and lives in constant pain. She cannot leave her bed. He visits her every day, and every single day she tells him that she does not want to be here any more. It was clearly breaking his heart. The gentleman suddenly straightened up, looked me square in the eye and asked me if I supported assisted dying. The look of relief when I said yes was palpable. We shared an emotional moment together. I will never forget that conversation.
As I continued my stroll, one thought rang constantly in my head: “My view shouldn’t matter.” Assisted dying, with appropriate safeguards, should be the law now. Who is any of us to deny people that ultimate freedom, that choice to end the pain? The blanket ban on assisted dying forces people to suffer against their wishes. The only legal solution involves going abroad at enormous expense, which is out of reach for most people. Dignity in dying should not be available just to the privileged few.
Assisted dying does not replace palliative care and end-of-life services, as we have heard today. Someone approaching the end of their life or living with serious illness should be provided with the care and treatment they need to maximise their quality of life and minimise any suffering or distress. In my view, assisted dying should be an additional choice that terminally ill, mentally competent adults with six months or less to live should be able to make because they want more control over the manner and timing of their death.
Currently, there are terminally ill people in constant pain who are living against their wishes. That is cruel. If I was terminally ill, was in unbearable agony and had no quality of life, I would want a choice. Whatever happens next truly frightens me, but I want there to be that freedom: a decision in my hands, and no one else’s. Suffering should not be inevitable. I hope to one day vote in favour of a policy that ends a cruel reality for far too many people.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for bringing forward this important debate. I also thank the petitioners, including 645 in Somerton and Frome, and everyone who reached out to me ahead of the debate. Your experiences have touched me deeply, as have the experiences of hon. Members here.
One constituent wrote to me about her son, Jonathan, who died in a hospice at the age of 46. His family told me that the tragedy of his death was made so much worse by the lack of provision for assisted dying. Jonathan’s mother, Denise, gave me a quote that I think sums up today’s debate very well:
“It’s not about ending life, it’s about shortening death”.
I want to mention Dorothy House, which offers free palliative care and end-of-life care across much of my constituency. It remains neutral on this issue, but shared its ethos with me earlier today:
“Dorothy House has a vision of a society where death is a part of life”.
I cannot thank Dorothy House enough for the support that it provided me and my partner while we were caring for my partner’s mother in her final few months, as she was dying of cancer. Having cared and watched this strong, independent and dignified woman fade away in considerable pain, unable to have the dignified death that she wanted, will forever haunt me.
The UK public have stated that they would support provisions to make assisted dying legal in the UK. Research carried out in January this year by Dorothy House, which gathered 401 responses, showed that 69% of respondents would support the law being changed to allow assisted dying for someone suffering from a terminal illness. The findings are backed up by a recent Opinium poll for Dignity in Dying, which showed that 75% of people in the UK support assisted dying. The analysis showed that there is majority support for assisted dying in every constituency in the country. In the new constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton, 80% of people support the change, which is the third highest level of support in the country.
I am committed to championing the freedom, dignity and wellbeing of individuals, and respecting their right to freedom of conscience, but the issue is complex and divisive—hence why it is vital that any legislation that provides for medical assistance to die in particular circumstances is subject to rigorous safeguards and regulations. That is also why it is important that this topic is debated fully in Parliament, and that any new legislation is robustly scrutinised. I hope that we can be reassured today that we will see progress over forthcoming parliamentary Sessions.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
This debate will always provoke many feelings and emotions—ones that, no matter what side of the argument one is on, we should respect. Whatever one’s views—I have heard nothing today that has convinced me otherwise—we cannot argue on one’s personal sovereignty. An individual has the right to choose, and they should have the dignity to choose how to end their suffering, provided that there are the right safeguards.
Often in this place it is said that if you speak with a level of passion about a subject that you care about, the speech will resonate more. I lost my stepfather—my dad—suddenly in July 2019. It was just five months before I was elected to this place. He was well-known all over north Norfolk, and I know that my dad would have been proud of the accomplishment that saw me to this place, which he sadly never got to witness. He was the inspiration for my foray into local politics. He never imagined that I would get here, but without him I would not have risen through those ranks in local politics just to serve that community.
My stepfather had a heart attack on Good Friday 2019. In his usual style, he just dismissed it—it was just one of those things—but actually he needed a quadruple heart bypass. Just weeks later, he suffered a sudden, unexpected and dreadfully debilitating stroke. Just a few days later, he passed peacefully, back in his own home, in his own bed and looking out into his own gardens, where he wanted to be. We were lucky—I say that because my stepfather always knew that he did not want to suffer for years on end if this sort of eventuality ever happened to him. He had a vision for what he wanted and how he wanted to die, and he had a living will that the doctors in the hospital adhered to and respected.
This was a proud man, rooted in his community, who spent 45 years building up his own business in the town that was his home. He did not want to be pushed around in a wheelchair and fed by somebody else, or for his grandchildren to be sat on his knee and him not even to recognise them any more. If he had a condition, a stroke or any other terminal illness, he would rather not be here. I know that I speak for millions of people around the country who would also want the dignity and respect to pass peacefully if they so chose.
I am lucky that one of my constituents, Zoe Marley, has come here today all the way from north Norfolk. She has been a tower of strength in her determination to see a change in the law. Zoe lost her mother and her husband in a couple of years, both to painful terminal cancers, and they both assisted themselves to die after a battle with their cancer. I thank her for all her determination on assisted dying.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I commend the petitioners for allowing us to have this debate, because many, many of my constituents believe that we should be pro-choice in specific ways and not in the current no-choice situation of most people. People who do not have the means to go to Switzerland have no choice but to suffer in pain or try to have secret, illegal conversations with medical people who make it difficult for everybody to be able to endure and allow them to have a good-quality death.
My good friend and colleague Debbie Woodward asked me to fight for assisted dying. Debbie had terminal cancer; tumours meant that she could not swallow or digest food any more. She was as bright as a button, determined, passionate and an excellent local councillor who we lost too soon.
In the last week I met Debbie before she died, I said to her, as many people do when they are with their friends, “What can I do to help? Is there anything you need?” She said, “Yes. You are in just the right place. I need you to fight for assisted dying.” She texted me the things that she wanted me to say:
“I believe we should fight for euthanasia for certain illnesses. I have Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma (had to be jewellery related with me) they also sometimes refer to Goblet cell Carcinoma. Not really sure why they give them the names they do, because when I see the pictures, I see no resemblance to either. I wish I had more time, I have not done all I want to do yet.”
In her last week, Debbie was in a lot of pain but she knew what she wanted. The last thing she said to me was:
“You asked me what you can do for me. Please support assisted dying. Give people who have terrible illnesses like me the choice as to when and how to die.”
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I am grateful to be called and to have been able to attend the statement in the main Chamber earlier. We last debated this issue nearly a decade ago—in 2015. The Commons vote failed to reflect public opinion then, but MPs could do so now. It is my view that we should have a thorough and fresh debate, especially as other places increasingly have experiences to share about how assisted dying laws can work well, as we have heard from the Health and Social Care Committee. It is notable that none of the 31 countries that have put these laws in place has repealed them.
I speak in favour of the proposition, and I am very pleased that the petitioners have brought it to us. I voted as such in 2015, and I will make the same arguments now. I was in the minority on that day, but I hope that there will shortly be a majority for the proposition. I believe that terminally ill people who are mentally sound and near the end of their life should not suffer unbearably against their will. They should have the option of requesting medical help to end their lives with dignity through a safe and compassionate system with strict criteria and safeguards. It is their life, their death and their choice—not anybody else’s. Under the core proposal, it is not only a choice; it is also not compulsory.
Without such a provision in our law, too many people are taking matters into their own hands with absolutely tragic consequences. People are forced to take often hidden, undignified and desperate action. They should be able to have an open conversation with their doctor instead. It is not okay that they have to refuse food or be able to afford to go to Switzerland.
The problems in our law are twofold: it is not just that it forces honest people to go underground, but that it is not currently neutral. This debate is about a choice that has already been taken in law. We are not starting from neutral ground, but we have to apply our best work to it as legislators. The main problem with that lack of neutrality is that it is heartbreaking to make carers risk a charge on top of their grief. One constituent said to me:
“In the 21st century we should be having an adult debate about this. We should protect family members or friends who risk prosecution for assisting.”
Another added:
“This is a subject that as a caring and civilised country we can no longer ignore. I hope this issue can finally be addressed in Parliament.”
I agree with my constituent: we should bring these quite awful ethical choices into the light, and give people dignity and support. People are suffering cruelly, and I hope the next generation of MPs will take courage.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
On 7 May, surrounded by her family, Shanti Di Corte was euthanised. She was 23 years old. Six years earlier, on 22 March 2016, Shanti had been at Brussels airport when terrorists set off bombs. Her assisted death has been added to the number killed in that atrocity. She suffered immensely with PTSD.
At 2 pm on Friday 26 February 2018, 29-year-old Aurelia Brouwers was allowed to end her life on account of psychiatric illness. Zoraya ter Beek has chosen euthanasia because of crippling depression; she is 28, and she is scheduled to die in May. Does anybody here want to be part of a decision that allows a young person to schedule their death? I do not.
In the Netherlands, euthanasia now accounts for 5% of all deaths. I cannot support a policy that takes life, because life is God-given and precious. The thought of killing someone just because they are old or in poor health makes me feel desperate for the state of our society. It also makes me see how naive our society is becoming—naive that, if this policy ever came into force, it would remain tightly controlled.
As we have seen in other countries, assisted dying starts with the terminally ill, but too often the scope is widened to include disabled individuals and, as with the three women I mentioned, individuals with mental health issues. How many among our population are struggling with their mental health at present but will no doubt, after a relatively short period of time, be back to having a good and meaningful life once more? Yet sadly, if we follow the example of these countries, we will be ending the lives of young people in their 20s and 30s. To anyone who thinks this would never happen on their watch and that it would only ever be for the terminally ill, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you are wrong.
None of us will be in this place forever. We will not be able to control where this legislation ends, but we will have been the ones who started it, and therefore, we will be forever culpable. We cannot and should not start on this journey. As I stated at the beginning, I cannot support the Bill, because I believe that life is precious—far too precious. It is God-given, and only He should ever take it away.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
First, I give my thanks to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for introducing the debate on behalf of those who signed the petition. It is really important that we represent the people who write to us, and like many colleagues here, I have had lots of emails and letters on this subject.
I want to make two points. My first would be a note of caution. As parliamentarians, it is our job not only to represent those with a voice—those who are motivated, interested, engaged and who grab our attention. Our job is also to represent those without a voice—those who are vulnerable, who cannot speak or who speak with a very quiet voice. It is our duty to represent their interests and consider their situations as well. That is an important balance we must bring to this debate, and I make no apology for that. I want to commend the hon. Member for Gower for bringing that balance to her opening remarks. If we are to have these debates, it is important that they are done in the right way. The tone she set was very helpful, so I thank her for that. I also thank the Health and Social Care Committee for its report, which I found very helpful, with the facts it presented and the approach it took. I commend it to all to read, as there are many good and useful points in it.
There is very little time available, so I will finish with my second point. Some might characterise this as a slippery slope or the thin end of a wedge, and I, too, was appalled at what Matthew Parris wrote. I found the way in which he wrote and presented it to be crude, and unnecessarily so in such a debate. However, I want to speak about the issue of normalising. The point has been made in other places that suicide rates in countries where this legislation is introduced go up, and it is that normalising that I am particularly concerned about. In Scotland, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill includes a definition of terminal illness, which could be seen to include things like type 1 diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis. To quote the Health and Social Care Committee’s report again, it states on page 45:
“Wherever the boundaries are set, evidence from other jurisdictions shows that the boundaries are eroded and criteria expanded”.
Chloe Smith
I was following these arguments very carefully earlier. The citation my hon. Friend makes is a quote from a campaign group rather than a finding of the Committee.
Robin Millar
I thank my right hon. Friend for that. It stands as it is, and I refer every interested reader to the context of the quote.
Robin Millar
I will give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and then to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Paul Blomfield
I think it is necessary to have accuracy in this debate. I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 7 on page 96 in which the Select Committee says:
“We also conclude that jurisdictions which have introduced AD/AS on the basis of terminal illness have not changed the law to include eligibility on the basis of ‘unbearable suffering’.”
Jim Shannon
To add to the hon. Member’s concerns over what is coming out of Scotland, it has been suggested that even young girls with anorexia could find themselves in a position where they might feel constrained to do this. I make this very important point. The health service saved the life of one of my constituents. When she was in difficult times, she went to St Thomas’ Hospital across the way and they saved her life. It could very well have been the other way round.
Robin Millar
That speaks to my concern about normalisation. If we introduce legislation that says, “It is acceptable to end life for a wider range of conditions”—the evidence before us in Scotland is that that interpretation is correct—we risk normalising suicide as a prescription.
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is making a perfect point in terms of clause 2 of the proposed Bill going through the Scottish Parliament at the moment. There is no mention of 12 months and no mention of a person dying at a particular time. It is simply about aspects of a condition from which someone is not able to recover and could reasonably expect a premature death. The worry that we have is the interpretation of the law. It has undoubtedly expanded around the world such that we have seen an increase in the number of people with assisted suicide.
Robin Millar
I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. I will conclude with this: we must never get to a point where assisted dying is seen as a prescription. We must never get to a point where we see death as a treatment.
Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)
The wind-ups will now begin. I call Ruth Cadbury.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Latham, and an honour to speak for the official Opposition in this e-petition debate that calls on the Government to allocate parliamentary time for a debate and a vote on assisted dying. The debate follows the campaign by Dignity in Dying, the Daily Express and Dame Esther Rantzen, and the petition signed by more than 200,000 UK residents, including over 200 of my own constituents.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for her considered opening speech. I also thank members of the Select Committee for the work that they have done in informing this debate.
I should start by making my own view clear. I support reforming the law in favour of assisted dying. I voted for reform in the private Member’s Bill debate in 2015 and I have spoken in previous debates on the subject in this Chamber.
Today we have heard powerful, deeply held views from many right hon. and hon. Members, some supporting change, some not, and some still with an open mind. This has been a truly cross-party debate in the very best traditions of this House. As I speak from the Opposition Front Bench, I can reiterate that both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care have said that, if elected, a future Labour Government would provide parliamentary time and a vote on changing the law.
The process in issues of conscience means that it would be for a Member of Parliament rather than the Government to introduce the change in law. It would be debated and refined on a cross-party basis with each Member free to speak and vote according to their own conscience. Any Government must ensure that any proposal carries with it proper and strong safeguards. It damages the cause if such reforms are rushed through with inadequate consideration. If any reforms do not recognise the concerns that many people have, including those who support reform in principle, we will not receive the consensus that any change must have.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) addressed the concern that in Canada and the Netherlands, issues of cognitive impairment or mental illness might be reasons for people to consider assisted dying. We must listen to those concerns. We must also listen to those who are or who represent the elderly, people with disabilities and those who face life-changing conditions.
Steve Brine
There has been a lot of talk about Canada today, so I just want to place something on the record. It is true that Canada did extend the MAID—medical assistance in dying—provisions to include those who are suffering from a mental illness. However, on 29 February this year, Bill C-62, as they name them there, received Royal Assent, postponing that eligibility until 17 March 2027. My point is that lawmakers can change the law; that is what we are here for. The slippery slope argument is often made, but actually, the slippery slope would have to be engendered by politicians and by this Parliament.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that very helpful contribution.
Ruth Cadbury
I want to crack on so that both the Government and the mover of the debate can have their chance.
We have heard concerns about vulnerable adults nearing the end of their life who could be at risk of pressure from either family members who feel incapable, for whatever reason, of providing care and support for a terminally ill person, or, as eloquently touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth), those with even worse motives. If reform is offered, it is essential that there is a plan for robust and effective safeguards against those issues.
Matthew Parris’s article has been referenced by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). Unlike the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), I believe that the article is not a reason for doing nothing—I hope I have got my negatives right. Change must be backed by evidence. Safeguards must be backed by evidence that they work, so we must learn from international experiences and look at how reform has played out in other jurisdictions that have implemented such a law change.
I want to address palliative care and hospices, which is an issue I had hoped to speak about in the Chamber last week as I recently visited the Shooting Star hospice used by my constituents. We know that we need to improve palliative care in this country. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), said that a law change in other jurisdictions has led to significant improvements in palliative care in those countries. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) addressed the issues of loneliness and poor social care. It is so essential that everyone, whatever their choices, has a good end of life experience. Irrespective of what happens with the law on assisted dying and what choices we take, we must improve end of life care in this country.
I was moved by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, who described the difficulty in getting adequate morphine for his mother-in-law as she was nearing her end. As the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), said, even the best palliative care cannot remove the trauma and terrible pain of some health conditions. The issue of choice has been mentioned many times by Members. I will paraphrase the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who said, “Please don’t impose the choices of others upon me.” The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and others have addressed the fact that going to Dignitas is expensive and out of reach for many, and those who do go are not able to have close family with them because that would risk police investigation, as Esther Rantzen mentioned this morning on the radio.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan) said that, in Oregon, a third of those who initially choose the option of assisted dying do not actually take that route. Again, they have the choice at the end. The issue about choice was described most profoundly when the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) read out her friend’s letter and described what her friend had said to her in her last painful weeks. That really came home to me in a very moving way. We have had other considered and thoughtful contributions from a number of Members, which I do not have time to list, but I thank them, and I listened carefully.
To conclude, only by reforming the law, and introducing safeguards to address the concerns that hon. Members have raised today, can we move the law forward—a law that is about personal freedom and morality. As the Supreme Court has decided, only Parliament can make the change. I want to restate our clear commitment that a future Labour Government would make time for a private Member’s Bill so that Parliament can have the final say through a free vote following a full debate and a process of amendments. This place is at its best when it rises to the occasion and takes a cross-party, consensual and evidence-based approach to issues, and that is the approach that we need on this vital issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for opening the debate, and I thank the Petitions Committee and the 200,000 people who signed the petition. I pay particular tribute to Hanna Geissler and to Dame Esther Rantzen for the way that they have articulated their own very moving cases.
It has been a privilege to listen to this debate. I will say at the outset that it calls into conflict two fundamental values—the right to individual autonomy and the sanctity of life. It was genuinely a privilege to hear voices on both sides of the debate, even when the disagreement was profound, acknowledging the moral difficulties and challenges that we face on this as parliamentarians.
Before turning to individual questions, I will set out the Government’s position. Our view remains that any relaxation of the law is an issue of conscience for individual parliamentarians, rather than one for Government policy. In the tradition of all conscience matters where the Government maintain a neutral stance, that is typically achieved through a private Member’s Bill.
As others have observed, the last occasion when the House of Commons debated legislative proposals on this subject was in September 2015. Then, just under nine years ago, the Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill was rejected on Second Reading, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) pointed out, by 330 votes to 118. However, this is not an area where opinion is static, and nor is the composition of Parliament a static thing. It was because of the growing strength of feeling on this issue that the last debate on this subject took place in this Chamber, less than two years ago, on 4 July 2022. I recall that because I was there, and it too resulted from an e-petition, calling for a change in the law, that also attracted many signatures.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend eloquently summarises the difficulties on both sides of the debate, but it has also been expressed today that perhaps there is not the sense of faith that a private Member’s Bill would do justice to the details that we have been discussing in depth here today. How we get around that, I do not know, but I am now of the mind—I did not come here thinking this—that this needs to be done in Government time, so that it can go through the full Committee process, and so that we can do our job. We have illustrated that we can do that here today, but I do not think that tacking this on through a private Member’s Bill is the process that we should be pursuing.
Laura Farris
I do not for a moment disagree that this is a subject that would require extensive time in the House. Everybody knows that we are now in the months leading up to a general election, and there is significant Government legislation already planned. However, with those caveats in mind, I hope that I can address more of the substance of the debate, which is what this is really about. I should add that, if it becomes the clearly expressed will of Parliament to amend or change the criminal law to enable some form of assisted dying, then, of course, as the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government will ensure that the legislation is delivered in a way that is legally effective. However, it is within the context of the Government’s neutral position that I wanted to set out and summarise the contours of this debate.
I could pay tribute to so many speakers, so hon. Members will forgive me, I hope, if I whittle the list down to a few. I will start with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who talked about his father, and then talked about constituents. Similar points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who is no longer in her place. They talked about people with terminal diagnoses making the decision to take their own lives in circumstances that were premature because they anticipated reaching a point where they would no longer be able to do that.
The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), said that, when he looked at the data, he saw that people with terminal diagnoses were twice as likely to commit suicide. The point was made powerfully by myright hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis), that we cannot disregard the fact that there is another route already taken by those with means: when they are at an early stage and have the resources, they can go to the Dignitas clinic. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire called it “business class”, and we cannot ignore that.
It is also true to say, as many have observed, that the view of the medical profession has shifted or is shifting, with the BMA moving from a position of opposition to one of neutrality. In a “Moral Maze” programme on assisted dying for Radio 4, Michael Buerk said that he had recently chaired a series of medical conferences where doctors tried to reach an agreed position on assisted dying. The majority of doctors there said that they had not gone into the profession to kill people, but at the same time thought that they might choose assisted dying for themselves. The moral ambiguity was not lost on them.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Having been diagnosed with bowel cancer last year, I know that doctors already provide an option. They provide an option of whether to have the operation or not, which is why I asked, “Will I die if I don’t have this operation?” When the doctor said, “Yes,” I said, “Well, I want to live, so let’s get on with it.” When moving into chemotherapy, they also provide the option of whether to have it or not. Why not have that last control where, if someone is terminal, they have that option of whether to die or not?
Laura Farris
May I say that I did not actually know that my hon. Friend had had that diagnosis. I am so sorry to hear that.
I will just repeat that although those from the medical profession said that they did not wish to be tasked with assisted dying, they also thought that they might want assisted dying for themselves. They recognised that was a morally inconsistent position to take, which was a point echoed by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). We must recognise that this tension exists in the medical profession.
There were also counter-arguments elegantly expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), for Devizes (Danny Kruger), for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), to name a few. One of them more or less echoed the decision that was reached by the divisional court in the Noel Conway case in 2017, which said that section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 served to
“reinforce a moral view regarding the sanctity of life”
and
“to promote relations of full trust and confidence between doctors and their patients”.
That position was echoed by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As parliamentarians, we cannot duck the difficult issues that this question engages.
Kit Malthouse
The Minister has talked about the medical profession and the various arguments for and against, but she is a distinguished member of the legal profession. One of the things that many people suffering with terminal diseases find so confusing is that the law as it stands is inconsistent and a mess. We have a situation where it is technically illegal to accompany somebody to Switzerland, but upon return, the Crown Prosecution Service has a policy of not prosecuting. We have the example of Mavis Eccleston, who agreed a suicide pact with her elderly husband, but survived. She was prosecuted in court, effectively for murder, but was acquitted, having gone through this dreadful experience. The current law is a mess, and I wondered if we could have the Minister’s professional view on that.
Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the House. The sitting is suspended for fifteen minutes.
Laura Farris
I was about to respond to the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire about consistency in the law. Yes, I agree that consistency is a good thing.
I want to touch on four arguments made by Members who hold an opposing view on this issue. The example was given of Canada, where the law was changed, and the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, made the point that no change had been implemented; but it is true to say that in 2016, when the Canadian medical assistance in dying legislation was introduced, the threshold was whether the individual suffered from a grievous and irremediable medical condition, where death was reasonably foreseeable. What has been delayed but none the less agreed is removal of the requirement that death be foreseeable. Canada is also mulling over whether the Act should apply to circumstances in which there is no physical disease at all—in other words, where the condition is mental.
Laura Farris
I think I have not got very much time, so I am going to crack on; I am sorry.
Laura Farris
Well, I have been told I do not.
The other issue is evolution of the wider principle. What if a right to die evolves, perhaps slowly and imperceptibly at first, into a duty to die? My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy put it beautifully. Once we have allowed people to rationalise the quality of their life, how do we avoid it becoming incumbent on them to do so? There are also the hard cases: some of the cases described in the Chamber today are heartrending and sound clearcut, but we cannot ignore the difficult ones. One in particular jumped out at me in relation to something that the hon. Member for Gower said: the case in Belgium of Nathalie Huygens, who ended her life because of the extreme psychological suffering that she experienced after she was raped. The hon. Lady—I mean this very respectfully—said we should give people the choice to take themselves out of suffering, but that is exactly what Nathalie Huygens would have argued she was doing. We cannot ignore these difficult cases.
Kit Malthouse
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way and I appreciate the point that she is making. However, around the world, different countries have legislation to deal with abortion, and there are different time limits and different attitudes to it. For example, in Canada, it is technically legal to have an abortion up to the point of birth. The fact that other countries have different rules, or indeed different cultural nuances around this or any other issue, surely does not mean that we should not have and design our own framework for the same purpose.
Laura Farris
I am not presenting any particular argument; I am reflecting the arguments that were made. I accept that we would not be in any legislative straitjacket, but these are the concerns raised by Members and they deserve to be ventilated in my summing up.
The final issue was manipulation or coercion. The hon. Member for North Antrim made the point very powerfully. I was listening carefully to what the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire both said: that a majority of people are well meaning and love their relatives, but implicit in that is that a minority do not. Some people live in dysfunctional families, or may not have loved ones; we must consider the consequences or the potential risks for them, too.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and, I think, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the subtle coercion that a person might experience from being made to feel a sense of guilt at the cost that their illness is imposing on family members, not just in terms of money but in terms of stress and time; they could feel that they are becoming a burden. It is right, necessary and incumbent on us as parliamentarians to contemplate and recognise the enormity of the proposition, given the moral and ethical and medical issues that it engages.
I thank the Health and Social Care Committee for its excellent report. One of the Committee’s recommendations is that the Government consider how to respond to potential changes in other jurisdictions in the UK and the Crown dependencies. Of course, should they move on this issue, we will work closely with them to consider the practical implications for England and Wales.
Finally, I emphasise that end of life and palliative care is of the utmost importance. In the Health and Care Act 2022, the Government added palliative care services to the list of services that an integrated care board must commission. Our response to the Health and Social Care Committee’s report was published today. The report’s recommendation 5 was a request for a national strategy for death literacy. I do not think that we went that far, but I reassure the Committee that the Government have committed to including palliative and end of life care in wider strategies.
To conclude, I thank everyone who has spoken and assure the House that the Government will reflect carefully on everything that has been said today. In the meantime, I thank all hon. Members for their sincere and heartfelt contributions to the debate.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the Minister, who has rightly set out a measured response to the petition. Obviously, it is difficult for her to commit to a debate on the Floor of the House, because there is an impending general election and much business to do, so I hope that an incoming Labour Government will have that opportunity.
I also thank the petitioners, the petition’s creator, Hanna, and Dame Esther Rantzen. Today has shown our ability to come to this place with a range of strongly held views and have a debate in an informed manner. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has sent me a note commenting on the balanced tone of my introduction to this debate on assisted suicide. His comments mean the world. Haven’t we done a sterling job in this House today? That is what we are here for, and that is why we are voted in. I feel strongly about that, as I have said before.
The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) talked about the voiceless and the people who do not have a voice in this debate. I am very good friends with the Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson and Baroness Ilora Finlay, who hold different views on this matter. They are well informed and well spoken and have been in the media on the matter. That does not mean that this House cannot give any potential legislation the sunlight that it deserves. It is incumbent on us to do so. We do so from a place of privilege, because we are elected to this House.
On that note, I thank everybody. I thank the petitioners and campaigners, and I thank you, Mrs Latham, for chairing the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 653593 relating to assisted dying.
Written Correction
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
...Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to our high commissioner and her brilliant team at post in Islamabad, but also in making clear our continued gratitude to the Government of Pakistan for the incredible flexibility that they show in facilitating both ARAP and the ACRS?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
It is a pleasure to be able to discuss this issue in a new way with my right hon. Friend. We have been working closely on these issues within Government, and his commitment to ensuring that those eligible for these schemes have been able to come to the UK has been, without exception, incredible. Let me just add that since October last year we have been able to complete 24 chartered flights, and have relocated more than 5,500 individuals under the ongoing ARAP scheme.
[Official Report, 17 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 330.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan):
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
It is a pleasure to be able to discuss this issue in a new way with my right hon. Friend. We have been working closely on these issues within Government, and his commitment to ensuring that those eligible for these schemes have been able to come to the UK has been, without exception, incredible. Let me just add that since October last year we have been able to complete 24 chartered flights, and have relocated more than 5,500 individuals under the ongoing ARAP and ACRS schemes.
Written Statements
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Government Security
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Government take the security of the UK’s citizens, systems and establishments extremely seriously and we have a range of measures in place to scrutinise the integrity of our arrangements.
This was demonstrated in our recent updates on steps to prevent potential security risks materialising in light of the increasing capability and connectivity of visual surveillance systems.
Our approach is preventative to manage and mitigate any potential risk materialising in the future.
That is why in November 2022 the Government instructed all Departments to cease deployment of such equipment on to sensitive sites, where it is produced by companies subject to the National Intelligence Law of the People’s Republic of China.
Departments were also advised that no such equipment should be connected to departmental core networks and that they should consider whether removal and replacement of such equipment should be expedited rather than awaiting any scheduled upgrades. In June 2023, during the Report stage of the Procurement Act, the Government also committed to setting out a timeline for the removal of such equipment from sensitive sites.
Work on the removal of these devices is currently ahead of schedule. To date, it has been identified that the vast majority of sensitive sites never deployed such equipment. Of the small proportion that did, approximately 50% of sites have now had that equipment replaced. Work is pressing ahead to remove remaining devices, with approximately 70% of sites expected to have their surveillance equipment removed by October this year, and all remaining sites on track for complete replacement no later than April 2025. The Government will always keep the security of our personnel, information and estate under constant review and, again, these preventative steps were taken in line with that approach and to manage against risks materialising.
[HCWS431]
Health and Disability Reform
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
I wish to inform the House that my Department has today published a Command Paper launching the public consultation entitled “Modernising support for independent living: the health and disability green paper”. The consultation seeks views on options to fundamentally change the personal independence payment.
PIP was introduced in 2013 to provide non-means-tested cash payments to disabled people and people with health conditions, to help them live independent lives. The intention was that PIP would be a contribution to extra costs arising from their disability and a more sustainable, dynamic benefit that would also pay greater attention to mental health than its predecessor, the disability living allowance.
This Government’s priority is to make sure that our welfare system is fair and compassionate—fair on the taxpayer by ensuring that people of working age who can work, do work, and fair on those who are in most need of the state’s help. Welfare at its best is about more than just benefit payments; it is about changing lives for the better. However, our current disability benefit system for adults of working age is not providing support in the way that was intended.
We know that any additional costs arising from a disability or health condition—which PIP is intended to help with—can vary significantly and are unique to the individual’s circumstances. Some people on PIP may have relatively small one-off or ongoing additional costs related to their disability or health condition that are fully covered by their award, while others may find that the current system does not provide enough support to meet their needs. However, the current system operates a one-size-fits-all model and does not channel people towards bespoke support tailored to an individual’s needs. We want to understand whether there are other forms of support that may be more suitable for everyone, including people with mental health conditions.
In the decade since the introduction of PIP, the nature and understanding of health and disability has also changed profoundly, and the clinical case mix has evolved in line with these broader changes; for example, there are many more people applying for disability benefits with mental health and neurodivergent conditions.
Costs and case loads have risen in line with this. In 2019, there was an average of 2,200 new PIP awards a month in England and Wales where the main disabling condition was mixed anxiety and depressive disorders. That has more than doubled to 5,300 a month in 2023. Over the coming 5 years, PIP spending is expected to grow by 63% (£21.6 billion to £35.3 billion, 2023-24 to 2028-29). Each month there are now 33,000 people joining the benefit, around double the rate before the pandemic. The forecast spending on people of working age with a disability or health condition for 2024-25 is £69 billion.
We believe it is the right time to look again at ensuring Government support for people with disabilities and long-term health conditions is focused where it is most needed.
This Green Paper looks at whether there are ways we can improve how we support people in a way that is also fairer to the taxpayer than the current system is. Our approach to transforming the benefits system for disabled people and people with long term health conditions is guided by three important priorities. These are:
Providing the right support to the people who need it most.
Targeting our resources most effectively.
Supporting disabled people to reach their full potential and live independently.
This Green Paper will explore changes we could make to the current PIP system to ensure support is targeted where it is most needed. These options include:
Considering options for amending PIP eligibility within the current functional assessment framework.
Exploring the option of an alternative assessment model focused more on a person’s condition.
Looking at different models that could be used to meet the extra costs disabled people and people with health conditions face.
Exploring greater alignment of the support offered by PIP with existing local services.
Responsibility for health and disability benefits lies with both the UK Government and devolved Administrations. We will continue to work with the devolved Administrations to consider the implications of the proposals in this Green Paper in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
We will always be committed to supporting the most vulnerable. We believe that now is the right time to look again at ensuring that Government support for people with disabilities and long-term health conditions is focused where it is most needed.
[HCWS432]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill [HL]
Monday 29th April 2024
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 56-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (25 Apr 2024)
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
“(ia) where the litigant is a litigant in person, expenses incurred by that litigant, or”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the definition of litigation funding agreements includes agreements under which a funder agrees to fund expenses incurred by a litigant in person.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I will address Amendment 1 alongside government Amendment 2 in one moment. I need not repeat in detail why this Bill is important, as we debated it so recently, just two weeks ago at Second Reading, but I want to address some of the points raised. I wrote to noble Lords—and to noble and learned Lords—but thought it important to put those matters on record here as well.
Clause 1 makes it clear that the Bill will have retrospective effect. The Government have carefully considered the point and decided that the Bill should have retrospective effect, meaning it will apply to litigation funding agreements in place before the PACCAR judgment and to any that may have been made between the judgment and the Bill becoming law. I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, King’s Counsel, who is not in his place today.
There were concerns about the possibility of claimants who negotiated new funding agreements following the PACCAR decision, having believed their first agreement to be unenforceable, facing the prospect of two funding agreements that could be enforced once the Bill comes into effect. In addition, reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, King’s Counsel, to a suggestion that the Bill’s retrospective effect may interfere with the Government’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. That was raised in the context of the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, King’s Counsel, which was shared among noble Lords ahead of Second Reading. On behalf of the Lord Chancellor, I thank noble Lords for raising this issue and assure them that the Government are looking into the questions raised and hope to provide a further update on Report.
I regret that I cannot say much more than that at this stage, to allow the Government to review the matter, but I welcome the continued engagement from across the House, of which this Committee is a part.
I should also like briefly to mention the forthcoming Civil Justice Council review of third-party litigation funding, which was discussed by a number of noble Lords, and to address particularly the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, KC, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who raised a series of important questions on potential regulation of the market and limits on funders’ returns. As the Committee may be aware, since Second Reading, the Civil Justice Council published its terms of reference for the review on 23 April, which provide further detail on scope and timing. I thank noble Lords for their interest. If any noble Lords have further material they wish to share, I encourage them to contact the Civil Justice Council directly, which will doubtless welcome their contributions and expertise.
With those points addressed, I turn to the amendments. The Bill contains two clauses. Clause 1 amends Section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Its subsection (2) amends the definition of a damages-based agreement to provide that an agreement
“to the extent that it is a litigation funding agreement … is not a damages-based agreement”
—a DBA. Subsection (3) defines an LFA for the purposes of Section 58AA. Subsection (4) provides that the amendments are to be
“treated as always having had effect”.
The amendment addresses only the Supreme Court’s finding that certain LFAs are DBAs and does not seek to reverse the finding that litigation funders provide claims management services.
The Government have tabled two amendments to this clause. Amendment 1 remedies a perceived gap in the current draft definition of a litigation funding agreement, or LFA. As drafted, the definition of an LFA does not include reference to an agreement to pay the expenses of unrepresented litigants, which may occur where, for example, an unrepresented litigant receives funding for an expert report—a report from a skilled witness. Since the expert would not be providing “advocacy or litigation services” within the meaning of the legislation, an agreement to provide funding in this instance would not qualify as an LFA within the current draft definition.
The Government therefore believe that this should be addressed by bringing a small technical amendment to the Bill. This amendment will ensure that an LFA of the type rendered unenforceable by PACCAR, which is used to fund items of expenditure where the litigant is unrepresented, will be enforceable between the funder and the litigant. This reflects the policy objective of the Bill, which is to restore the position to that which existed before the Supreme Court ruling in July 2023, so that those LFAs of the type affected by the judgment are enforceable.
The second amendment tabled by the Government also addresses an ambiguity in the draft definition of a litigation funding agreement. As currently drafted, the definition of an LFA includes an agreement for
“the payment of costs that the litigant may be required to pay to another person by virtue of a costs order”.
However, there is a legitimate concern whether the expression
“by virtue of a costs order”,
may be interpreted too narrowly, and therefore be a source of litigation around its meaning regarding LFAs which neither specifically fund court or tribunal proceedings or envisage the issue of costs being determined by the court.
This amendment, which is, again, a small technical change, is designed to make it clear that the payment of adverse costs the litigant may be required to pay to another party, which would be funded under an LFA, includes the payment of costs following court, tribunal or arbitration proceedings, or as part of a settlement.
Clause 2 explains the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill, as I specified at Second Reading. I hope that noble Lords, and noble and learned Lords, will support these technical amendments, and I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will speak now because I have tabled the only non-government amendment before the Committee. It is a probing amendment.
The Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, mentioned briefly the discussion about this Bill since the Second Reading debate—mostly in the context of the letter that he and the Secretary of State helpfully circulated—and the publication of the terms of reference for the review. That has been part of a wider discussion, and questions have been asked by a number of briefings. The briefing process for this Bill in relation to members of the public and interested or affected parties has been late; that has been a feature of the discussion, which has centred largely around questions on the need for regulation of the litigation funding market generally and on the issue of retrospectivity for the principal provision of the Bill, which the Minister mentioned.
I hope I will be forgiven for running through some of the arguments that were canvassed at Second Reading, largely in the light of the lateness of the briefings that we have had and the expressions of concern that there have been. A powerful argument has been advanced by some clients of litigation funders. They make the point—I foreshadowed it at Second Reading—that, in an unregulated market, litigation funders can effectively impose their terms on clients. This can mean that successful clients end up with only a very small part of the damages awarded to them, with the litigation funders taking the lion’s share; indeed, in one case that was brought to my attention and that of other noble Lords, funders have been in a position, following a case that they have funded, under their contracts of not only retaining all the damages awarded to the claimants but actively pursuing those claimants—their clients, in effect—for substantial costs that they incurred over and above the damages that were recovered. The clients say that that is most unfair; one can see their point.
The same people point to the DBA regulations—the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013—and say, again with considerable force, that lawyers who enter into DBAs with their clients may not retain for themselves more than a prescribed proportion of the damages awarded, and that such lawyers are bound by other prescriptive regulations as to what they can set for their clients or in the contracts between them and their clients, the litigation funders having the upper hand in any negotiations of such agreements. They ask: why should similar restrictions as are imposed on lawyers in damages-based agreements not be imposed on litigation funders? They also say that, in any event, lawyers are already limited in the terms of what they can agree and are subject to comprehensive professional regulation, whereas litigation funders are not.
Noble Lords may remember that, at Second Reading, I said that, in the absence of regulation, there was
“a bit of a jungle out there”,—[Official Report, 15/4/24; col. 818.]
and that that should not be permitted to persist. Those expressing these concerns call for regulation of the litigation funders’ market generally, the primary purpose being to ensure more of a level playing field between funders and clients and the argument being that, if regulation of DBAs is appropriate for lawyers, why is it not for litigation funders?
As is well known to this Committee, the PACCAR decision gave legal effect to the essentially political argument that litigation funders should be subject to the DBA regulations. As we all know, this was because the Supreme Court decided that, if LFAs did not comply with the DBA regulations, which they generally would not, they would be unenforceable because LFAs involve the provision of case management services.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will say a very few words that may help the debate. I wholly support the government amendments spoken to by the noble and learned Lord; they clarify the Bill in a way that was required.
I will just go back to something the noble and learned Lord said about what I had said at Second Reading about the Human Rights Act consequences. I referred to the opinion that had been given to us—again, very late in the day, like most representations in this matter—written by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. I am sure we all understand why he is not taking part in these debates; he feels that professionally he cannot because he gave an opinion, a view that I think all practitioners here would support. He said in that opinion that the convention rights arguments with which he was presented in his instructions were “arguable”—that was his word. That is not the highest level of certainty that those of us who have written a lot of opinions would ever put at the end of an opinion if we felt sure. They may be arguable, but they are not strong, and the Government are perfectly entitled to act as they are in that regard.
Then there is the question of retrospectivity. The answer to that is very simple. The Bill would be absolutely pointless if it were not retrospective, because it was created to right a wrong that nobody expected, and it is simply restoring to people the legal rights which they already had. I hope that we will not spend an awful lot of time in other stages of the Bill talking about retrospectivity.
I note that the Civil Justice Council’s new review—I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said about its terms of reference—has had support from the Bar Council and the Bingham Centre, in a very well-argued piece that I think was circulated to most Members of the Committee. It was also supported by what we might call the interest groups: the Association of Litigation Funders and the International Legal Finance Association, which have taken a pretty objective view of the proposals in this Bill. All are of the view that the Civil Justice Council, as it is set up by the terms of reference, is the appropriate place for the review to take place. Of course, it leaves some flexibility and some obligation, because a rule-making body such as the Civil Justice Council can change the law in small ways to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed.
For reasons which some noble Lords will recognise, I am an enthusiast of independent reviewers—because I have been one—but I am not an enthusiast for an independent reviewer in this situation. Although an independent review would undoubtedly be fascinating, it would have no power whatever. We need to get nearer to the rule-making powers to ensure that the law in this area is clear, followed, applied by the judges and, above all, understood clearly by the courts.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly, acutely aware of the legal weight in the Room, to which I add not a gram—although I cannot help noticing the gender balance. I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb spoke in the Second Reading debate but she is currently taking part on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill in the Chamber. I listened very carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, who is satisfied with the review process that we have going forward, and I will be guided by that.
I want to stress that where we are going now is still not an adequate solution to the problems at hand. At Second Reading, my noble friend said that we need to put
“energy into thinking about a better solution”.—[Official Report, 15/4/24; col. 810.]
We have to do that in the context where we have a crucial, huge inequality of arms—Horizon is the obvious example—in an economy dominated by an increasingly small number of oligarchic, giant, often multinational companies that are deciding how things work in our economy and society, of which people are very often the victims. We have a structural problem: the law now is not equipped to deal with the structure of our economy and society. I conclude only by noting that justice unfunded is justice denied, and there is far too much justice denied to individuals in our society when they are crushed by the weight of corporations or the state.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, like others here today, I support the Bill and the amendments which the Government have laid. Like others, certainly including the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, I am grateful for the Bingham Centre’s helpful briefing note. It sets out the issues clearly, in particular in respect of retrospectivity and the need for the Government to give good reasons for that, which I believe they have done.
What is important in this case is that before 19 July 2023, government policy endorsed the use of litigation funding agreements. There had been discussion about whether they should be regulated and how they should be managed, but the policy was absolutely clear. I referred to that at Second Reading. The Supreme Court, for good reason, did not have to address that issue of policy as it was not appropriate, but the effect of its decision is that litigants have lost much-needed support. If we are to ensure access to justice, particularly against monopolists, we now require a statute to undo that Supreme Court decision and do the best we can to restore the status quo ante. We have to hope that this legislation does not induce a spate of future litigation of the wrong satellite nature, but simply allows matters to proceed as they were until July last year.
For good constitutional reasons, retrospective provisions are not the norm, but when Parliament reaches a considered decision to pass legislation that is fully retroactive and does so for good reasons then, providing the legislation is drafted carefully, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not contrary to our constitutional norms. In that respect, I refer to its decision in AXA General Insurance Limited and others v Lord Advocate and others, reported at [2011] UKSC 46.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that we should not fear challenge at some later date in the ECHR. The balancing reasons are absolutely clear: this is for access to justice. There may be no perfect answer, but this is the right route—or the least bad route. I am confident that the Government will look further at the detail of the retroactivity provisions and will not bring this Bill to finality without taking care to ensure that it is properly addressed. In doing so, they will have weighed the public interest in access to justice and in established positions that might be damaged by the Bill. It is pretty clear to me, and I think to others here, that the overwhelming public interest is in allowing matters to be restored to the general form of what everybody thought they were in the summer of 2023.
While I am sympathetic to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and his amendment, I am persuaded and now agree that the appropriate course is to leave this to the Civil Justice Council. It is now seized of the matter and will have the benefit shortly of the report from the European Law Institute—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is a member—and will guide this country into making good regulations. Regulation will not be straightforward, but it has been managed with some trial and error in conditional fee agreements, and we are now without problems there. It has been managed in damages-based agreements, so I would be surprised if it could not be managed in litigation funding agreements, albeit that I am sure that some lawyers will do well out of satellite litigation in the early stages.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Government again for bringing this matter with such expedition before this Committee. I wish to make two observations. First, I warmly welcome the Constitution Committee’s report, which is helpful and will no doubt help the Government further on the retrospectivity point.
Secondly, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, put forward his amendment because it enables us to thank the Civil Justice Council and the Government for putting the terms of reference in such broad forms. As I mentioned at Second Reading, there is a lot of experience worldwide on that, but since then I have discovered more about the position in Australia and hope that the work done by the European Law Institute will in part reflect the substantial Australian experience. The Civil Justice Council will be able to look at that. Having heard what has been said in Australia, one has to take care, as not all are as responsible as the members of the litigation funders’ body. Others are tempted to enter into this area, so one might see that Australia has a lot of experience of how to deal with this, looking not to the creation of yet another regulatory body but to whether the courts themselves, through the Civil Procedure Rules, can be given the powers and guidance necessary to deal with the issues.
No doubt we will return to this in the autumn of 2025 for a very interesting debate.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I just want to probe the Government to an extent on the involvement of the House once the Civil Justice Council has finished its review. It is an independent body. It is not itself a rule-making body; the rules are made by the rule committee. While I absolutely welcome the opportunity for the Civil Justice Council, with its expertise, to carry out its review, no changes to the rules will be made without a statutory instrument. My question for the Minister is: at what stage in the process will we have an opportunity of commenting on any recommendations made by the Civil Justice Council? That includes, for example, what my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd has just said on whether a recommendation is made to deal with the question of regulation through amendment of the civil justice rules.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I will make the briefest of comments. I welcome the amendments put forward by the Minister. I very much take to heart the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the Bill would be pretty pointless unless there was an element of retrospectivity to it. I read the information that we were sent by the Bingham Centre, which was informative and interesting, and by the Bar Council. I absolutely understand the primary purpose behind this legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, commented on the legal balance in this Committee. I join her, as a non-lawyer; I cannot match her for gender, I am afraid. However, I can talk about the clients who are paying for this. I might have made the point at Second Reading that, by my understanding, the bulk of the people who take advantage of this type of funding would be at the sort of middle to large-sized company where I was chief executive. It is a way of cash management, in essence, because you do not know what litigation is on the horizon and you do not want to spend too much time on the litigation because that takes time away from running the business. So having these ongoing litigation funding arrangements is a way of managing risk. For me, that was the main purpose of occasionally entering into those agreements, rather than the litigation itself.
The other primary point worth repeating is that a lot competitors out there would like this business—Singapore, Australia, Dubai and elsewhere. I was very aware of that when I was running a business. I was regularly approached by people wanting to reach alternative ways of resolving any disputes that may arise.
Nevertheless, given those thoughts from a client’s perspective, I welcome this legislation. The English and Welsh model should be as up to date and competitive as possible. In that sense, I welcome the Bill and the Government’s amendments.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords and noble and learned Lords for all their contributions today. I will try to respond to the substance of the points that noble Lords have raised.
The Supreme Court judgment in PACCAR rendered many litigation funding agreements unenforceable. Uncertainty around litigation funding risks having a detrimental impact on the attractiveness of the England and Wales jurisdiction as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration, as well as on access to justice more broadly.
Through this Bill, we will restore the position that existed before the Supreme Court’s ruling in July 2023 so that litigation funding agreements affected by the judgment are enforceable. This will also ensure that claimants can get access to litigation funding in order to bring big and complex cases against bigger, better-resourced corporations, which they could not otherwise afford. In saying that, I reflect the principled concern raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in her brief comments and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. It is a leitmotif that ran through much of our discussions at Second Reading; we are all seized of the difficulties to which inequality of arms can give rise.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on Thames, which went over much of the history of litigation funding as we now have it—or as we had it up to the point of PACCAR—gave us a useful reminder of some of the issues at stake. It is also of use for us to consider the background to the rise of litigation funding and to bear in mind the objections that law has traditionally had against third-party litigation of this sort—the traditional objections to the pacta de quota litis, which would allow someone else a controlling hand in the manner in which litigation was carried out, perhaps to the detriment of the person in whose interest that litigation was nominally being pursued.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I have seldom had such pleasure in not pressing an amendment. As the noble and learned Lord said, the CJC review is precisely what we were looking for. Having looked at who is concerned and how they will deal with it, I have no doubt at all that it will be thorough, and we have had some very helpful remarks from everybody this afternoon, so I will not press my amendment.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the definition of litigation funding agreement includes agreements under which a funder agrees to pay costs relating to litigation that arise by virtue of an arbitration award or a settlement agreement, as well as by virtue of a costs order.
House of Lords
Lord Speaker’s Statement
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, last week 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 noble Lords will understand how important it is that we do say not anything in this place that might prejudice a criminal trial relating to a matter of national security.
Start-up Companies: Tax Incentives
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the pressure experienced by start-up companies arising from delays in accessing tax incentive schemes designed to support them, including the Enterprise Investment Scheme and Research and Development tax credits.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register of interests.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, HMRC is currently exceeding its published customer services aim to process R&D claims and EIS applications within 40 working days. In some cases, this will involve contact with a company to undertake further checks, rather than immediate approval or payment. This is necessary to ensure that relief is claimed only by those who are eligible.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I understand the need to check claims in certain areas. I am chair of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee of the Economic Affairs Committee, and we have reported on extensive R&D fraud, but there is no history or evidence of fraud in respect of EIS. However, there is evidence of heavy-handedness by HMRC in restricting claims, so will my noble friend agree to set up a working party that includes EIS fund managers to consider best practice and to reduce costs and unnecessary delay in granting EIS relief?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I know that HMRC regularly engages with industry and endeavours to work collaboratively with industry to improve guidance such that EIS applications can get through as quickly as possible. I hear his plea to set up a working group. I am not entirely sure whether a formal working group will be possible, but I will very happily take back his request that perhaps he and some of his colleagues can meet officials from HMRC to outline their concerns.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, there appears to be a dissonance between the Minister’s answer and the experience that industry is reporting to us. I spoke to Tech UK this morning and it said it had recently made representations to the Treasury, with worked examples of real-life situations that absolutely uphold the issue the noble Lord has raised today. This is not just about payment; it is about retrospective payments and it really puts businesses in danger when their cash flow dries up in these situations. So I ask the Minister to harness her natural curiosity, go back to her department and dig a little deeper, because it may be publishing results, but the experience on the ground does not match that.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I hear what the noble Lord is saying and I will very happily look at the evidence that he has provided to officials in the Treasury. Perhaps he would like to join the meeting with my noble friend Lord Leigh.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, in January the National Audit Office reported that error and fraud in SME research and development tax credits had increased to 24.4% or £1.04 billion. It added:
“There are too many examples where these reliefs either do not achieve their economic objectives or are subject to significant error and fraud costing the Exchequer billions of pounds”.
Can the Minister explain why the Government have failed to monitor benefits of tax reliefs?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government have actually monitored the benefits of the tax reliefs and indeed published independent reports at the 2023 Autumn Statement into EIS and SEIS. We have also published annual reports into R&D on whether the schemes are appropriately designed. However, the noble Lord raises a really important point. He is right that there has been an enormous amount of error and fraud, so HMRC has taken action and has boosted the number of people working in fraud from 100 to 500 people who are very much focused on those things. It was also the case that much of the fraud or error was happening using nominated bank accounts. HMRC has now closed the ability for companies to use nominated bank accounts, which will have an impact.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, further to the previous question, I ask the Minister: when will the Government conduct an impact assessment on both the EIS and SEIS investment schemes, specifically on the sustainability of businesses funded through these tax incentives? I ask because start-ups have a failure rate of around 90% and we should be clear about the costs/benefits when some £30 billion—so far—of taxpayers’ money has been involved.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I said in answer to the previous question, an independent report has been published fairly recently on the design of the two schemes. It is the case that start-up companies sometimes fail and we need to make sure that we get the best value for money for the taxpayer. The Treasury is very focused on that.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, when these start-up companies grow, they may need additional funding. However, one of the main sources of capital for them in the past—the UK’s Small Cap stock index—is shrinking as firms list overseas or go with private equity. So I ask my noble friend the Minister: what are the Government doing to reinvigorate the Small Cap index, help our start-ups and keep them here?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
London remains one of the leading financial centres in the world. The Government are incredibly focused on our domestic equity markets to ensure that they meet our ambitions of ensuring we have capital available to small companies. My noble friend will know that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, did a review into UK listings and we are taking forward his recommendations.
My noble friend will also know that the Government are proceeding through looking at all our regulation to ensure that it is fit for purpose for the UK and UK listings under the smarter regulatory framework. He will also have seen the reforms announced by the Chancellor in Edinburgh and at Mansion House. We are seized of the opportunity we have with domestic equity markets, whether they be for large cap or small cap companies. However, we recognise that there are things we can do to make them better.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, speak to any SME owner or business network and you will hear concerns about HMRC: contact wait times of over an hour, backlogs to review tax credit applications, delays of eight months to claim tax reliefs and phone lines closed for an entire summer. Tax incentives are a lifeline for many young companies. With nearly 50,000 SMEs reported to be in financial distress, does the Minister believe the problems at HMRC are now hindering economic activity?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think the noble Lord has conflated a number of issues there into one thing. HMRC is an enormous organisation that deals with many types of individuals and corporates. Companies can contact HMRC via the corporation tax helpline—that phone line has not been closed at all—where they can get general advice on R&D or on EIS.
HMRC has also set up non-statutory advance assurance services for both elements under debate today. It means that companies can get in touch with HMRC before they make an application to make sure that, when they do make an application, it gets through first time—and, as I said in my opening answer, HMRC is working to its aims.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The noble Baroness told us earlier that small businesses occasionally go out of business—which I think is something of an understatement. In the last 25 years of these tax-supported schemes such as EIS, can she tell us what percentage of those businesses are still in business? If she does not have the data to hand, could she write to me?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I would very happily write to the noble Lord with that data; I do not have it to hand at the moment.
Lower Thames Crossing: Development Consent
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Colgrain
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they expect to meet the statutory timeframe within which a decision on the Lower Thames Crossing Development Consent Order must be made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, the statutory deadline for a decision on the lower Thames crossing is 20 June 2024. While the department always attempts to meet its statutory deadlines, I cannot comment further on what is a live planning application.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his reply. He will know that the Dartford Tunnel on the M25 has reached its term design life and is having to be closed for repairs with increasing frequency. In anticipation of serious delays on the M25 or around the motorway network, the lower Thames crossing option was first studied by his department in 2009, with the final route announced in 2017. There have been eight subsequent public consultations with more than 100,000 respondents, with all spending on the project to date costing over £800 million.
The largest bored tunnel in Europe is now ready for commissioning, with contractors poised and with approval from all seven Kent and Essex MPs whose constituencies are affected. Can my noble friend tell the House why there is even a possibility that this project, which is forecast to make a £40 billion contribution to GDP over the next 60 years, could not receive its long-awaited and overdue consent order?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is a large infrastructure project. By its nature, it is very complex and requires years of planning, consultation and analysis before it is ready to move into the delivery phrase. It is important that the Government plan projects properly, are open about the challenges and natural uncertainty of delivering a project of the size and scale of the lower Thames crossing, and learn the lessons of other major projects.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, does this issue reflect the general incompetence of the Government in dealing with large infrastructure projects, or is it due to the fact that over the last 14 years, skills shortages in the construction industry have been underestimated and not dealt with by the Government?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
As I have said, this is a very complex issue. It takes time. It requires years of planning, consultation and analysis: it is as simple as that. Further than that, I cannot comment.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister ready to concede that progress with this project is of great importance and will at least provide evidence to people in East Anglia that they are part of the levelling-up programme?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I recognise that this is a very important project. It will be of great advantage to many people, both north and south of the Thames.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, is this not a classic case of how the planning system in Britain is fundamentally broken? It started in 2009 and we do not have a decision by 2024. How can it make sense to have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on a project when the Government have not actually given the final go-ahead?
In the 1930s, when Herbert Morrison faced opposition to the plans for Waterloo Bridge, he described the Conservatives as “Mr Dilly, Mr Dally and Mr Can’t”. Is that not the case with this Government—dilly, dally, can’t?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
That is a wonderful history lesson; I am most grateful to the noble Lord. The majority of decisions made by my department and applications for development consent orders have been issued within the three-month statutory deadline that starts from receipt of the recommendation report. That will hopefully be the case with this.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Surely my noble friend recognises that this crossing, which complements the Dartford Crossing, is vital to our exports. After Question Time today, will he find out exactly when that decision will be made and publicise it for the nation’s exporters, if for nobody else?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Several references have been made to the Dartford Crossing. Approach roads from the west and the east are already heavily congested, so traffic would not be able to reach a new crossing provided at Dartford. The approach roads and the M25 are in a heavily built-up area; increasing their capacity would be massively expensive and require the demolition of many houses and other buildings. All options at Dartford require rebuilding junctions and widening the A282 and the M25, which would be very disruptive over a long construction period.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister been over the Dartford Crossing recently? Does he know how difficult and congested it can be? I agree with the comment that it is very damaging to the economy to have a massive collective traffic jam day after day. If the Government fail to make the statutory decision by the due date that the Minister has given, what will happen? Have the Government taken into account the economic damage done by the existing situation at the Dartford Crossing and the benefits that the new Thames crossing will bring?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I know the crossing well and I am very conscious of the issues around it. It is a large infrastructure project, so we must get it right.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, the simple fact is that this is one of the largest planning applications that has been put before this country; I believe it runs to more than 359,000 pages of requirements. Perhaps my noble friend can reassure us that, following this project, there will be a review of the way in which planning applications are handled. It is very reassuring to hear people from Liberal and Labour Benches say that it should be facilitated much faster. I am not sure whether the local Liberal party has been as supportive of this project as the Liberal Benches in this House seem to be today.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
It is a huge project at £800 million, and the current most likely cost of the project is estimated to be £8.3 billion. I will take the noble Lord’s comments regarding planning back to the department.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister comment on the situation with regard to the Hammersmith Bridge, which is a much smaller project but is creating great difficulties for emergency vehicles in reaching hospitals and for police in reaching people living in certain parts of south-west London?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am very conscious of the issue around the Hammersmith Bridge, but it is of course an issue that concerns the local authorities; it is a matter for them to resolve.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister reflect on a more recent history lesson relating to the present Question—the experience of HS2? The planning application was delivered, the parliamentary procedures were concluded and considerable—if not vast—expenditure was made on the purchase of properties and costs involved in the route. Yet this Government—at a minute to midnight of the project’s completion—pulled the plug, on a Prime Minister’s whim. What hope is there for any other major infrastructure policy being completed under this Government when that lesson has not been learned?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I note the noble Lord’s frustration over planning, but HS2 is outside the scope of this Question.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I have a question about the Hammersmith Bridge. The Minister quite rightly referred to Hammersmith and Fulham’s responsibility, but the Government also have a major responsibility and they set up a task force. Can the Minister say when that task force last met?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I recall answering this question from the noble and right reverend Lord some time ago. I cannot remember the date, but I will certainly look it up and write to him.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not currently answering Questions from the Front Bench, although I hope that it is simply a matter of time.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
Can the Minister tell the House how many people in his department are currently working on this important project and how many of them he fears might lose their jobs to pay for the increased defence spending?
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister remember that, when the Conservative Government took power, they ended the concept of a national policy group that would look at major infrastructure schemes and make sure that Britain was able to deliver those schemes in a quick and meaningful way? Does he agree with me that that was a massive mistake and that they should look at this issue again?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I hear what the noble Lord says and will take his views away to the department.
Road Pricing
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to replacing excise duty on fuel with road pricing.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to consider road pricing. As set out in the letter to the Transport Select Committee in January 2023, the Government are focusing on delivering their core priorities.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, road pricing clearly touches a raw nerve in the body politic. The OBR has recently said of the Government’s policy on electric vehicles that it is
“rapidly eroding the £39 billion”
a year
“revenues from petrol and diesel”
taxes. That will leave a large hole in the Budget. The Transport Select Committee in the other place, with a government majority, said that work on road pricing should start straightaway. When I was Transport Secretary 30 years ago, I floated the idea, which is now much more feasible because of technological progress. If taxes made through the fuel duty are not replaced with something else, public transport will become much more expensive, undermining a sustainable transport policy. Should the Treasury be quite so hostile?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Treasury sees that there are many options going forward for the fuel duty and many broader motoring taxes—and indeed for all taxes. As we transition to net zero, the Government will need to ensure that the tax system encourages more EV uptake and that revenue from motoring taxes keeps pace while remaining affordable.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the introduction of road pricing with modern technology would mean that vehicles could be priced on the basis of their consumption of fuels and that differentiation could be made between goods vehicles and passenger vehicles, so that it would be a much fairer system? Does she also agree that road pricing would enable the police very much more easily to detect vehicle crime, particularly on motorways, which has raised car insurance premiums so much recently?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I recognise what the noble Lord says. Many think tanks and other groups have done a lot of work on road pricing. Jurisdictions around the world are looking at it; however, as yet, very few have managed to introduce it successfully. From the Treasury’s perspective, we welcome work from external stakeholders on road pricing and all other taxes.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has done good job of telling us what the Government are against but a less good job of telling us what they are in favour of. In light of the reduction in fuel duty revenues that will arise from the UK’s ambitions to shift to electric vehicles, can she tell us what concrete plans the Treasury has to replace those losses in a way that is positive for the environment and fair to rural communities?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
At the moment, fuel duty raises around £25 billion annually. That is forecast to increase in nominal terms to £30.5 billion over the scorecard period to 2029. The change in fuel duty is a medium-term to long-term problem which will allow everybody who has an interest in this to have their say—including taking into account the shift to electric vehicles—and an appropriate solution will be found.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, many of our motorists feel badly done by, with the extra cost of motoring all the time and the extra cost of insurance for motorists. If the Government have any idea of road pricing, would it not be fairer to look at all those who use our roads apart from those who merely pay the vehicle excise duty?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend raises an important point about the cost of motoring. That really is top of mind for the Government. It is why we have frozen fuel duty since 2011 and had a 5p cut on fuel duty since March 2022. We recognise that for many people—particularly those in rural communities—using their car is essential, and it can be quite costly.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that, were the Government ever minded to introduce road pricing, rural communities and those who drive on rural roads—particularly in North Yorkshire, where we have the longest transit routes for people on their way to work or pleasure—would be protected?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I said at the outset, the Government have no plans to consider road pricing. Therefore, I cannot give my noble friend that assurance, because it would be purely hypothetical.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, the state of Britain’s roads has been described as being at breaking point. A recent survey suggests that local roads are in their worst condition for more than 30 years, and the backlog for repairs has risen to a record high. The AA estimates that pothole damage is costing Britain’s drivers nearly £500 million every year. Is the Minister aware of figures compiled by the LGA that show that Labour councils invest 83% more per head on road maintenance than Conservative councils?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
What I can say is that this Government have invested significantly in local highway networks. For example, since 2015, we have invested £11 billion and, as part of Network North, £8.3 billion has been earmarked for local road maintenance over the next 11 years.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my interests as set out in the register. Many economists like road pricing because it relies on the principle of “polluter pays”. As we shift from polluting vehicles to EVs, hydrogen, et cetera—more environmentally friendly vehicles—we might move from “polluter pays” to the principle that those who contribute to the wear and tear of our national infrastructure have to pay as drivers. I know that the Government have ruled it out at this stage, but in the longer term, have they done any planning on how we pay for upkeep of the roads? Perhaps those who contribute to wear and tear could make a contribution.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not aware of any work in that area, but, of course, my noble friend raises a very important point. There is the issue of wear and tear on the roads, which all vehicles contribute to, but what is sometimes overlooked is the impact of particulates that come from tyres. That might be from an internal combustion engine vehicle or from an electric vehicle—it is another source of pollution.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, over the years, Ministers frequently say that they have no plans to do anything, and then, within a short period, they change their minds. This may well be one of those instances. Does the Minister agree that road pricing would have another benefit, in that it could be used to ease congestion on motorways? There would be different charges for peak times and for off-peak times. Would that not be helpful?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I said in my opening remarks, the Government have no plans to consider road pricing. I really cannot say more than that.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I find it difficult to fault the analysis of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, because he points to an inescapable gap in revenue receipts for the Treasury from fuel duty receipts. I have a difficulty in understanding the Treasury’s opaqueness in responding to this analysis, for which I do not blame my noble friend the Minister. Is that opaqueness attributable to fiscal timidity or dogmatic blindness?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, it is not opacity. What is going on here is simply that a number of options can be taken forward as taxes shift and change over time. All taxes shift and change over time with regard to the amount of money they bring into the Exchequer. The Government have forecasts as to what will happen to fuel duty and are considering all sorts of ideas as to how that would be plugged. For example, noble Lords will have seen that electric vehicles will start to pay VED from April 2025. It will not be at the same level as for an ICE vehicle, but it is right that EVs start to pay their way.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, putting aside road pricing for a second, average car insurance costs in the UK have neared £1,000 after prices rose by 58% this year. Does the Treasury intend to look into whether these increases are justifiable?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
It is concerning to see such large rises in insurance. Officials are monitoring it. The Treasury is unlikely to intervene in what is a private market. However, I will write to my noble friend, because there are various helplines and advisers who can sometimes help people to find cheaper car insurance.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is impressive in her attempts to explain away the huge fiscal holes that this Government are digging for themselves and for future Governments. Can she comment on the rather strange leaflet that many residents of London have received, apparently from the Conservative mayoral candidate, purporting to be a penalty notice for a road pricing scheme that does not exist and is not planned by the current Mayor of London? Given that the Government are so opposed to this, does the Conservative mayoral candidate in London not know what Conservative policy is, or is it that she has enormous faith in the ability of the London government to deliver something that the Minister has said is incredibly complicated?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am seeking out the question in all that, but I think that all noble Lords will be aware that transport in London is devolved. Whether the current mayor will introduce road pricing within the Greater London area has been a matter of speculation for some time. If there was a Conservative mayor, the current candidate would certainly rule it out and ensure that the extension to ULEZ was rolled back, because that is causing significant hardship towards the outer boroughs of London.
Indeterminate Sentences
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many (1) women, and (2) persons who were under 18 years of age when their index offence was committed, are serving an indeterminate sentence for public protection and have never been released on licence.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, as of December 2023, there were nine women serving an IPP sentence and 33 prisoners serving a detention for public protection sentence, who are in custody having never been released on licence. The IPP action plan aims to promote sentence progression for all those serving the IPP sentence. Provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Bill will give more offenders the opportunity to have their sentences terminated, so that they can move on with their lives.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on having achieved some reduction in these numbers over the last two years, although noble Lords will, in some cases, still be surprised that there are women serving IPP sentences who have never been released and that there are people who committed their crime aged under 18 who have never been released; the majority of the latter are now 10 years or more over their tariff. In that light, does my noble and learned friend agree that while it is perfectly reasonable to have a Parole Board public protection test for prisoners serving a definitive sentence, since they will be released into the community at the end of their sentence, it is less appropriate for IPP prisoners, as the alternative for them is remaining in custody indefinitely, potentially for decades more? Should not this test, advanced in the current Bill, be modified for IPP prisoners?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the IPP action plan, which the Government have promulgated, remains the best vehicle to deliver support to all IPP and DPP prisoners, so that they can progress towards a safe release—safe for them and for the community into which they will be released. The IPP action plan provides continued focus on supporting those serving IPP and DPP sentences in custody and in the community, ensuring that each has an effective sentence plan tailored to their individual needs by supporting those in the community on licence to comply with their conditions.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his crusade for justice for these prisoners. The Government rejected resentencing of DPPs and IPPs, as the Minister knows, arguing that the Parole Board has consistently not backed these prisoners so therefore they should just lie in prison and rot there. However, the former head of the Parole Board, Martin Jones, now the Chief Inspector of Probation, is one of many experts calling for resentencing to end the nightmare injustice of imprisonment without end. What is the Government’s real reason for rejecting resentencing? Is it because they do not want to be seen as soft on crime ahead of a general election?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, it is not the case that the Government are acting out of that reason—the position on resentencing has been rejected twice by the Government at different times. Instead, we take the view that as there is a public protection aspect to these sentences, it is apt that they continue to be treated in the current way. I reject the noble Lord’s proposition that people are being left to “rot” in prison. The action plan has achieved the extension of the scope of the psychology services so that they can continue to support some of the more complex IPP cases. The safety team in HMPPS has developed and issued a safety toolkit concentrating on the needs of IPP prisoners and HMPPS has also commissioned new IPP delivery plans to roll out in May 2024. The Government are not inactive in this area.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, these 33 DPPs referred to by the Minister are 33 people who have never had a shot at adult life in the community. They are all well past their original tariff, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, and passing one’s tariff date is a time when mental health often drops off a cliff edge. Does the Minister agree that we should give them the same kind of holistic and multidisciplinary wraparound care that Section 117 prisoners get to help them get through the gate and out into supported life in the community?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, provision of just such multidisciplinary approaches is precisely what the Government are accomplishing in their approach to these people. I fully accept the noble Baroness’s considered point that persons who have not experienced freedom will suffer extreme and acute mental health difficulties from time to time. With that in mind, I can advise the House that the Government remain committed to improving outcomes for individuals with mental health needs, including such IPP prisoners. The IPP safety team has devised a dedicated safety briefing. A special IPP toolkit has been issued so that persons dealing with such prisoners across the level of the prison system can concentrate on their needs. There is also a national partnership agreement on health and social care in England, published in 2023, which sets out a shared priority work plan to deliver safe, decent and effective care, improving health outcomes for people in prison and on probation. To conclude, I congratulate the noble Baroness, my noble friend and all noble Lords on their concern for this often-overlooked group of prisoners.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, recently in Lincoln prison I met a man who has been continuously in the prison system for the last 48 years—since I sat my A-levels. He is not mentally ill in any obvious way. He told me that he keeps sane by keeping God between himself and the other prisoners—that was the gist of what he said anyway—but that he is so socialised by being in prison for so long that he has almost forgotten what he was in there for. He asked that if he were to be released could there be specialist units in nursing homes where there would be the proper care for someone who has not known freedom in his entire adult life?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate’s example will strike a chord with noble Lords across the House and engage their sympathy. The work the Government are carrying out to establish psychology services is, as I said, multidisciplinary in nature and involves not only expert psychologists but dedicated probation officers, specialists in their field and those who have looked at the problems of suicide in prison. We are working in particular with a group called UNGRIPP and a Mrs Donna Mooney, who has done great work in this field. We are engaged with the Howard League for Penal Reform. There is also a commitment to working with the Samaritans to provide further assistance for persons coming out of the prison estate.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, do the Government not feel ashamed of the obvious injustice of the continuing 16,000 former IPP residents in prison who are still on IPP sentences? This is a gross injustice that lingers in people’s lives, who are in a place of permanent panic and unable to get on with their day-to-day existence because they are looking over their shoulder, wondering whether they be tapped for a recall. In the past 10 years I have visited 73 prisons up and down the UK and met hundreds of IPP people inside prison, and I have not encountered a single one who was not worthy of release tomorrow. The system is so badly broken. It needs a kind of approach that we had for the Post Office that clears out the residue of this long, unjust sentence, which was described as a great evil by two former Home Secretaries.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the number of IPP prisoners are down to 1,312 as of 30 June 2023, from a maximum of 6,000. I hear the noble Lord’s views on the worthiness for release of those whom he has met, but it is not something which can be consigned to an individual; it is a matter for consideration by persons holding a wide range of specialisms and experience. I do not share the view that the Government should be ashamed of their response. The latest review by the inspectorate found that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is taking “proportionate” and “necessary” decisions to recall offenders on an IPP licence for public protection.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, to be clear, the Labour Party does not support the resentencing of IPP prisoners. Our view is that it would put the resentencing judges in an impossible situation when there have been multiple recent reviews of those IPP prisoners. Nevertheless, the Government constantly tell us that there is a review of the sentencing plans for those IPP prisoners. Can the Minister tell us how many of the IPP prisoners have had their sentencing plans reviewed?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I cannot provide the noble Lord with that information directly, but I will be able to do so in a very short space of time. I gratefully acknowledge the statement he gave on behalf of his party relating to the approach that has been proposed of resentencing such offenders. His views are at one with those of His Majesty’s Government.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill
Monday 29th April 2024
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill 2023-24 View all Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 March 2024 - (6 Mar 2024)
High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill
Monday 29th April 2024
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill 2023-24 View all High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 April 2024 - (26 Apr 2024)
Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Bill
Monday 29th April 2024
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 View all Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 March 2024 - (20 Mar 2024)
British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Bill
Monday 29th April 2024
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024 View all British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 April 2024 - (17 Apr 2024)
Genocide (Prevention and Response) Bill [HL]
Monday 29th April 2024
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Genocide (Prevention and Response) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Genocide (Prevention and Response) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
That the order of commitment be discharged.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or indeed to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill
Monday 29th April 2024
(7 months, 3 weeks 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-III(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (26 Apr 2024)
“Power to establish a Right to Manage regime for freeholders on private or mixed-use estatesIn Section 71 of the CLRA 2002, after subsection (2) insert—“(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to enable freeholder owners of dwellings to exercise a right to manage in a way which corresponds with or is similar to this Part.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) 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 new Clause would permit the Secretary of State to establish a Right to Manage regime for freeholders of residential property on private or mixed-use estates.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group concentrate on yet another aspect of the regime that fleeces home owners with unexpected and extortionate charges, but in this case, they are levied on residential freeholders living on private and mixed-tenure estates.
I had one or two such encounters as a councillor. In one case, there was a five-year battle to get an estate through-road adopted as a public highway because the residents were facing extraordinary and unaffordable costs for highway repairs; and in another, a series of children’s play spaces were abandoned by developers as soon as their sales were completed, with no provision made for maintenance, health and safety checks or upgrading to meet the latest safety standards. But it was not until I campaigned for my honourable friend Alistair Strathern, now the excellent MP for Mid Bedfordshire, that I saw the volume of housebuilding that had gone on with the assumption that new residents would be responsible for a wide range of maintenance to highways and public spaces, and other exceptional costs that had clearly not been set out in a transparent way at the time of purchase.
As my honourable friend put it,
“Across the country, homeowners in a state of adoption limbo are being left exposed to exploitative and often unaccountable management companies. Despite their warm words, sadly the Government did not take any of the actions that the Competition and Markets Authority urged them to take in order to end the issue of fleecehold once and for all”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/24; col. 631.]
My honourable friend pointed out that residents of estates across the constituency are trapped in extortive relationships with unaccountable private management companies, while their estates go unadopted.
Of course, this sharp practice is not limited to Bedfordshire. The Conservative MP Neil O’Brien has written of this:
“Across the country many people are moving into new build homes, only to discover something nasty which they didn’t expect.
Often the first they know of it is when a large bill comes through the door, from an obscure company they’ve never heard of.
The bill demands that they pay a large sum for the maintenance of their new estate, and warns them that they could lose their house if they don’t pay up.
These bills can be of a scary size, and the bills often escalate sharply over time.
To add insult to injury, residents often find that the work they are paying for isn’t actually done, and then find that trying to get any redress is impossible: the firm sending the bills is opaque and uncontactable. People are sometimes billed for baffling things”.
Mr O’Brien went on to look at the large numbers of those affected. The estimate is about 20,000 housing estates, so this could affect up to 1.5 million home owners. The Competition and Markets Authority has examined this in great detail, and commented on the fact that
“over the last five years 80% of the freehold properties built by the 11 largest housebuilders … are likely to be subject to such charges”.
Our amendments in this group seek to address the fleecehold issues still outstanding, which we believe the Bill must address to avoid a continuation of this escalating trend, which is simply providing another method of extorting money from hard-pressed home owners, effectively making them leaseholders of the public space on their estates. As my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for housing said in the other place,
“Underpinning all those issues of concern is a fundamental absence of adequate regulation or oversight of the practices of estate management companies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/23; col. 193WH.]
and the fact that residential freeholders currently do not enjoy statutory rights equivalent to those held by leaseholders.
There was cross-party support for the fact that this situation is untenable, so I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to amendments in this group so that we can make some progress. Our Amendment 64 would give residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates the same right to challenge the reasonableness of estate management companies and their charges as leaseholders have. As Matthew Pennycook said in Committee:
“We also believe that it is right in principle that there is parity between residential leaseholders and freeholders when it comes to the right to manage”.—[Official Report, Commons, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill Committee, 30/1/24; col. 436.]
Our Amendment 87 would prevent developers building to a lower standard. The government amendment would remove estate charge costs that should be borne by local authorities, and then expect private management companies to pay for them themselves, as they can no longer pass the costs on to the occupants. However, this would motivate developers to leave degradation of buildings rather than repairing them. Further, our amendment would put the onus on the developer to ensure high standards are in place from the moment they pass the estate over.
Amendment 93 asks the Government to carry out a review of such non-standard terms and charges included in freehold deeds, including those relating to estate management companies. The alternative is that the Government implement the recommendations so clearly set out in the report of the Competition and Markets Authority.
We support the other amendments in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, which are essentially driving at the same issue of tightening up on those dreadful fleecehold practices. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, relate to the kind of issue I mentioned earlier, when developers sometimes provide public amenities that are not of an adoptable standard. It is not reasonable for leaseholders to be required to make up the difference. The noble Baroness’s second amendment refers to the money-for-nothing culture of leaseholders being charged for services that they do not receive. We would support both of those amendments, and we look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and to hearing the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. I shall speak to Amendments 87A and 87B, in my name. The first amendment seeks to prohibit future freehold “fleecehold” estates, where freehold home owners can be tied into expensive maintenance costs for public amenities and open space, without recourse. I recognise and welcome the provisions in the Bill that currently provide additional redress for people trapped in fleecehold, but it is important to make sure that no more people become accidental fleeceholders. Fleecehold has become prevalent not because of any policy decision by an elected Government but rather as a way for developers and managing agents to make more money at the expense of unsuspecting home owners. My honourable friend Neil O’Brien has spoken out many times about the fleecehold estate scandal. He has compared it to the Post Office scandal, in that it is an injustice that has ruined so many people’s lives, yet nothing has been done.
The way that the fleecehold system works is now well known. In recent decades, the builder would normally build a new estate, make sure that the roads and other facilities were up to spec and pay a Section 106 charge, and the council would then take over the running of it. Under the fleecehold model, however, the developer agrees to hand over the company to another company, which it may or may not own, to run many parts of the estate, such as roads, open spaces, play areas and even sewers. The developer thus pays less in Section 106 charges and the council abdicates the responsibility to maintain the road and other amenities but not, of course, council tax. The developer and council, in essence, split the profits while the residents and new tenants get the bill. This is not only collusion between the council and the developer but an extremely inefficient way to run things. Many of the people on these estates end up with a huge bill to sort problems that have arisen because the amenities were not sorted properly in the first place.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am pleased to say the good news is that we are all on the same page in this regard. The noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Finn, have set out the context and the evidence for this. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, I too had many meetings in my former role about the fact that this issue affected individuals, whether with regard to roads or, in one particular acrimonious case, to playgrounds. So I think we all know which way we are going.
I shall speak to the amendments in my name and make a few general comments about this whole set-up. Amendments 86 and 91 deal with what we now know as the fleecehold issue. As has been said, we all know exactly what that entails. The commercial substance of the arrangement that is eventually arrived at really is a leasehold. Homeowners are often fleeced by the management company, which charges exorbitant fees for maintenance, and may be unable to force directors to hold annual general meetings or provide proper accounts, which I feel should be a basic right. However, leaseholders do not want to publicise the issue because it will reduce their ability to sell the property when they leave, a matter that has not been touched on. You do not want to tell a potential buyer what they are letting themselves in for, which is why the transparency measures in the Bill are important.
Management companies are often non-profit-making, passing on costs of maintenance to owners of homes, but are controlled by the original developer and outsource maintenance work to businesses connected to that developer. There is a body of evidence showing that that leads to increased costs, as local companies could often do the work far more cheaply. A significant problem is that homeowners do not have the resources to take the company to court or force it to hold meetings or to get competitive quotes for required work. In many cases their conveyancing solicitor was recommended by the developer, so the initial advice given was not truly independent.
Amendment 91 would ensure that residents could take ownership of an estate management company if the company had not provided residents with a copy of its annual budget, invited residents to an annual general meeting or acknowledged correspondence from residents. There are existing provisions that allow leaseholders to gain control of their freehold or the right to manage their own lease, but freeholders are assumed not to need that kind of provision. This amendment seeks to address circumstances where freeholders are trapped in a situation where they are being taken advantage of. Crucially, it would allow them to take control of the assets that are vital for the proper enjoyment of their homes.
I say to the Minister that I note the Government are bringing forward the appointment of a substitute manager, which I think is very similar, beginning in Clause 88. However, the householders in that situation would have to prove to a tribunal that the existing management was at fault, which can be difficult. It is the complexities in getting a substitute manager appointed that my amendment highlights. They may be up against the other side’s lawyer, and it is not unusual for KCs to be brought into tribunals in circumstances like this. It is indeed a fault-based policy, and it is a very complex matter to get redress. You cannot just sack the company if you want to take control with your own residents’ management company. Simply put, the amendment is a short cut to being able to take control without such complexities and is less adversarial.
Similarly, Amendment 86 would mean that services or works that would ordinarily be provided by local authorities were not relevant costs for the purpose of estate management charges. I make no apology for saying that this amendment is our statement of principle; we believe it is a matter of principle. The amendment would prevent freeholders being charged twice, first through council tax and then through their management company, for essential services such as roads and pavements. We are aware that there are significant issues as to how and why this situation has arisen, and we urge the Government to look into it further.
Among the other amendments, I single out Amendment 87 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which seems entirely sensible. It seeks to ensure that householders are not bailing out private developers for shoddy construction or defective homes. It is not right that someone who has paid a premium for their home is then expected to pay maintenance costs to sort out the mess left by the original developer cutting corners or, in some instances, breaching building regulations.
On the other amendments in this group, the Minister is well aware of the thrust and direction that we are all pushing in. I am aware that the business models for development are predicated on whether or not these assets remain the responsibility of the freeholder, the developer or the local authorities. The arguments for this are very varied, ranging from—and I have heard this said—“Local authorities are strapped for cash and we do not want to maintain these amenities” to “Local authorities are asking for impossible standards that are not set centrally and that will add to our costs”, or “Local authorities set standards that mitigate against creating decent workplaces that people want to live in”. A similar example that I had to deal with was there being no trees on the pavements because the local authority felt that they were too difficult to maintain and added cost for looking after both the pavements and the trees. Who wants to live on an estate with no trees?
We need to return to this issue on Report, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said—otherwise, we are piling up problems for tomorrow.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, the themes that have been touched on by the three noble Baronesses who have spoken to this group are familiar to me as a professional. They all pivot around these common realm assets—if I can call them that—that are left behind or, at any rate, put into some sort of park mode when the rest of the estate has been built out. These are things that have not been adopted and are placed in the care of an estate management company.
Local authorities may have all sorts of good reasons, within their own scope, for not wanting to adopt novel surfacing, additional lighting, planters or special features. But alongside this there are allied issues because, if they do not adopt, the construction cannot be guaranteed to meet adoption standards—by that I mean roads, drains and all the other things that would normally meet standards that are very often laid down in legislation.
This is an open goal for corner-cutting, which goes on. I cannot tell your Lordships how many times I have been asked to advise on the fact that there are defective drains outside the property, somewhere in the common realm—under the road, common parking areas or landscaped areas—and nobody knows what has happened. It can be not only drains and road construction but engineered embankments, landscaping and ponds: these do not necessarily get constructed to the right standards either, but it can be hugely expensive to try to fix them after the event, and that is where the problem is. The question of just parking them in a management company that then charges whatever it likes goes to the heart of standards, responsibility and the funding of the maintenance of them.
The accountability of management companies seems to be in many instances next to zero. The burden on the freeholders, where the costs charged to them reach that magic figure at which lenders start putting their ears back and question whether they want to lend, results in the sort of lock-in that we well know affects leasehold flats subject to remediation.
I very much support this group of amendments, although they probably need to go further in establishing responsibility and funding. That is something of which the Government really need to take notice, because this is an absolute scandal—not just for the fact that it has gained this moniker of “fleecehold” but because it affects people in their own homes and cannot be allowed to persist.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their various amendments on the freehold estates and for the thoughtful debate.
Amendments 86 and 87 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seek to prevent costs being passed over to home owners. Amendment 87 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, seeks to prevent home owners having to pay any contribution towards the costs where work is required to rectify defects during the estate’s original construction. I fully agree that it is important that communal areas, whether a new road, a playground or open space, are built out to a proper and reasonable standard.
In some cases, elements of construction and maintenance that are subject to an estate management charge may have been delivered via a Section 106 planning obligation or through a planning condition. The local planning authority has enforcement powers to ensure that the relevant infrastructure is built out to the required standard, and it will discharge the obligation when it is satisfied that it has been properly delivered. Some Section 106 agreements may have in them a remediation clause, which will confer responsibility to rectify any problems back to the developer. When there is no remediation clause and management of the estate has been transferred to an estate manager, it will be for that manager to resolve the issue and take legal advice as to the best way forward, when appropriate. This may involve recourse to legal challenge in the courts.
In some cases, it may be relevant if the estate manager has an extant insurance policy that covers the particular issue—for example, subsidence—in which case the insurer might pay for the remediation works then pursue the developer itself. There may be some facts and circumstances where the home owner is not directly liable even though the costs of insurance, for example, may ultimately be passed on to the home owner. However, in cases where remediation or construction issues are not dealt with in a Section 106 obligation and this is not covered by building insurance, it will be for the home owners to pursue any claim for negligent construction through the courts. Furthermore, the potential financial and reputational damage of being challenged through the courts should provide a deterrent so that the developer delivers construction of the site to the required standard.
There are also some unintended consequences that mean I will not be able to accept this amendment. The first concern is the burden of proof. It may be very difficult to prove that the construction defect is the responsibility of the construction company, especially if it has been signed off by the local authority. Secondly, during the period of a dispute, what is expected to happen to the alleged defect? Without any means to raise funds to remedy it, there is a risk of those defects remaining unattended to until the estate manager has concluded the dispute with the construction company. While this litigation is under way, it could mean that the defects on the estate are not being rectified, potentially pushing the estate into further disrepair. This in turn could intensify the problem, creating more disputes between the home owner and the estate manager over whether costs are payable, because they are not relevant costs.
We also need to consider the safety of all those who use the estate. There may be a higher risk of injury to members of the public during a period in which defects are not resolved and, in the event of an incident, the estate manager may be liable. This liability could also sit with the residents themselves where they are members or directors of an estate management company. I recognise that there are, sadly, cases in which initial work is not of the expected quality. However, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is aware that there are significant challenges to consider with regard to preventing estate managers reclaiming costs from home owners.
Amendment 86 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would clarify that an estate management charge is a relevant cost only if it covers services or works that ordinarily would not be provided by the local authority. The impact of this amendment is that home owners on a new or existing managed estate would not be liable for any costs that a local authority would normally carry out. This might include maintenance and the improvement of roads and public open spaces. However, this term is difficult to define. For example, would it include insurance costs of the local authority?
I recognise the many concerns expressed here and in the other place about the fact that local authorities are not required to adopt new developments. I know that mandating adoption of new estates is a key recommendation of the Competition and Markets Authority as part of its recent market study into housebuilding. The question of adoption is very important, but unfortunately it is not something that this Bill can fully address. This is because legislation governing public amenities, such as roads, drainage and open space, is covered by other legislation outside the scope of the Bill.
Furthermore, on its own this amendment has considerable implications. For example, while it may stop payments by existing home owners, it does not take away responsibility for the upkeep of the area under the terms of the property deeds. These home owners would not have any means of raising funds to pay for such upkeep, because they would cease to be treated as relevant costs. This would prevent home owners complying with their legal obligations.
It would also be detrimental to existing home owners, as the condition and upkeep of communal areas may rapidly diminish, impacting on the condition of the area and the well-being of all the residents. This could make it very hard to buy or sell these properties. I should also stress that there would be no contractual obligation for local authorities to take on the management of an existing estate. They are extremely unlikely to do so unless they can ensure that they have sufficient finances to manage and maintain it.
Amendments 64 and 91 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Thornhill, seek to achieve the laudable aim of empowering home owners to take over management of the estates on which they live. While I support every effort to drive up the accountability of estate managers and empower home owners on existing estates, I hope I can persuade the noble Baronesses not to press these amendments.
We recognise the benefits of Amendment 64 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. It would mean that a new right for home owners on freehold estates could be introduced in legislation to take on the obligations and liabilities associated with running an estate. There would, though, be many detailed practical issues to work through to deliver a right-to-manage type regime, particularly as estates contain different tenure types, such as leasehold and freehold houses, leasehold flats and commercial units. These issues would all require careful handling as they affect not only property rights but existing contract law.
I would like to reassure Members that we are listening carefully to the arguments being made for the Bill to go further to empower residents on existing freehold estates and, before Report, I would welcome further contributions on this, if noble Lords have them.
Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would enable residents to take ownership and possession of the estate management company where an inadequate service is being provided. The grounds presented to invoke this, although well-intentioned, seem unreasonably narrow. Many of these failures are company law issues or are already being dealt with through the Bill. Furthermore, there would need to be solutions for important issues, such as how to address the legal costs of transfer, as well as consequences for the company’s solvency if its equity is removed and it is assessed at a nominal value.
I do not consider that the reasons set out in the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, provide sufficient basis for a nil-cost transfer. We are concerned that this very simple and broad power is not an appropriate way to address the significant substantive policy issues involved in transferring responsibility. As Members of the Committee will know, we are introducing measures in the Bill to empower home owners and make estate management companies more accountable to them for how their money is spent, including the ability to apply to the appropriate tribunal to replace a failing managing agent.
Amendment 93 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would require the Government to carry out a review of the extent and impact of non-standard terms and charges imposed by estate managers in property deeds and leases. We are aware that there are many different types of language in deeds and leases, but I do not think this review is necessary. First, home owners will face different obligations depending on what amenities the local authority is or is not responsible for. Secondly, where home owners are responsible, we are driving up the accountability of estate management companies with regard to how they spend the money they charge home owners. These reforms bring in significant protections to prevent exploitation of home owners, and we will of course keep these arrangements under review. I fully recognise the noble Baroness’s desire to provide further support to help home owners living on these estates, particularly in light of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recent report. However, I do not believe that these amendments are the right way of delivering the desired outcome, for the reasons I have explained, and I ask the noble Baronesses not to press them.
My noble friend Lady Finn’s Amendment 87A seeks to deliver the recommendation in the Competition and Markets Authority report that the Government prepare common adoption standards and mandate local authorities to take over responsibility for these public amenities once these standards are met. These are very important issues that must be carefully considered, but, as I mentioned previously, they are not things the Bill can fully address. Legislation on planning considerations and liability for governing public amenities are covered elsewhere and are outside the scope of the Bill. The Government’s thinking on this issue will be set out in our response to the CMA report.
On Amendment 87B, also tabled by my noble friend Lady Finn, it is right that estate managers should be held accountable for the poor delivery of services they provide. However, I do not think this amendment is necessary, as the Bill already contains adequate protections for home owners. Clause 72 makes it clear that any estate management costs must be reasonable and that services or works should be of a reasonable standard. Clause 75 grants home owners the right to apply to the appropriate tribunal for a determination on whether those charges are reasonable. Taken together, these clauses will incentivise estate management companies to charge the correct fees from the outset, thereby reducing the number of home owners being overcharged for works and services on their estate. However, I understand my noble friend’s concerns and those of other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I can reassure them, as I said before, that we are carefully listening to these arguments. Given these considerations, I ask my noble friend not to press her amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, and I am grateful to her for going through each amendment in detail. However, having spent many hours in this Chamber debating what is now the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act before this Bill, we hear the same refrain again: things are either too complex to deal with, they are the subject of another Bill or they need further work.
Today’s debate has indicated yet again—and I am sure there will be later debates in a similar vein—that these types of Bills need very effective pre-legislative scrutiny so that the great expertise contained within this Chamber can be used to make the Bill better before it comes to the House. It would mean that we are not faced with being told something should be in another Bill or needs further work. The subject of this Bill has been a manifesto commitment of the Government since 2017, so there has been plenty of time to do the other work before the Bill came before the House. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the other Government amendment to this clause.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will now speak to Amendments 66, 68 and 70 in my name. I start by noting that I fully recognise the challenges facing leaseholders, with rising service charges caused by the increased costs in managing and maintaining buildings. The Government are clear, however, that any increase in charges must always be reasonable. We also recognise that the existing statutory protections leaseholders have do not go far enough, which is why we are introducing measures in the Bill to empower leaseholders and help them better scrutinise and challenge the costs they are asked to pay.
Amendment 68 is a technical amendment to Clause 51. It provides further clarification on which parts of the regulatory regime should continue to apply only to landlords who charge and leaseholders who pay variable service charges. These are charges which will vary year on year, depending on the actual cost of providing services.
As currently drafted, the Bill provides such clarity only in respect of measures in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This amendment makes it clear that certain measures and protections in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 should also apply only to leaseholders who pay variable service charges. These include, for example, the ability to appoint a manager and the requirement to hold service charge contributions in trust. Amendments 66 and 70 are minor consequential amendments because of these further changes to Clause 51.
I turn to Amendments 71 to 75 in my name. Amendment 71 clarifies what steps are required to ensure that the written statement of accounts is prepared properly. It follows feedback from and discussions with expert stakeholders after publication of the Bill. We are grateful for their observations. The amendment places an obligation on landlords to provide leaseholders with a report prepared in line with specified standards for the review of financial information. This report must also include a statement by the accountant that the report is a faithful representation of what the report purports to represent.
The amendment also makes it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that leaseholders must make a fair and reasonable contribution towards the costs of the report. This permits landlords who are unable under the terms of the lease to recover such costs through the service charge to do so, to avoid financial difficulties. This may include right to manage or resident management companies.
Amendment 72 implies a term into the lease where the cost of the preparation of the report is to be payable through the variable service charge. Amendment 73 is a consequential amendment required because of the change to new Section 21D(2)(b).
Amendment 74 allows for the appropriate authority to expand the definition of
“the necessary qualification”
in Section 28(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This will allow the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to widen the description of people who are deemed capable of preparing the written report. Amendment 75 makes it clear that any regulations made will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
We will work closely with leaseholders, landlords and professional bodies to ensure we prescribe the right standards to be applied and the right level of detail. I beg to move Amendment 66 and hope noble Lords will support the other technical and essential amendments in my name. I look forward to hearing from noble Lords on their amendments relating to service charges.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I do not think I am actually the next in line to speak on this, but I have Amendments 78C to 78G and 80A and 80B standing in my name. The intentions behind the Bill in relation to greater transparency and fairness are welcome, but, in my view, they do not go far or fast enough to deal with the current crop of egregious monetising schemes, where there seems to be no end to the inventiveness of the worst offenders.
My amendments go further than the Government’s proposals, for this reason. Some of what is in the Bill will take time to work through and, during that time, the same old abuses—or variants of them—will continue. I want the worst ones to stop immediately the Bill receives Royal Assent. It is part of an essential consumer protection package.
Amendments 78C to 78G, which I will deal with first, seek to close loopholes in the current law, require landlords to achieve value for money in the management of their buildings, promote competition in the property management sector and clamp down on the charging of unnecessary ancillary fees. Amendment 78C clarifies that the costs are to be treated as incurred as soon as there is an unconditional obligation to pay them, even if the whole or part of the cost is not required to be paid until a later date.
The moment when costs are incurred is particularly important in relation to Section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. That section prevented tenants being charged costs incurred more than 18 months before a demand for payment was made, unless they were informed that costs had been incurred and therefore would be payable.
Surprising as it may seem to your Lordships, there are conflicting decisions as to when costs are incurred for the purposes of Section 20B. In Jean-Paul v Southwark London Borough Council in 2011 in the UK Upper Tribunal, Lands Chamber, reference 178, it was held that costs are incurred only when payment is made; but, in OM Property Management Ltd v Burr in 2012, in the UK Upper Tribunal, Lands Chamber, reference 2, it was held that costs are incurred on the presentation of an invoice or on payment. Both leave it open to landlords to ask a supplier to delay the presentation of an invoice, or themselves to delay payment, to postpone the commencement of the 18-month time limit. I do not see this amendment as controversial, as it prevents abuse of the system and brings landlord and tenant law into line with accepted accounting practice.
Amendment 78D covers a situation under Section 19(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, where service charge costs are payable
“only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred”.
This amendment replaces the “reasonably incurred” test in relation to service charges with a stricter one of providing “value for money”.
It is established case law that, if a landlord has chosen a course of action that has led to a reasonable outcome, the costs of pursuing that course of action are reasonably incurred even if there was another cheaper outcome that was also reasonable. This wide margin of appreciation leaves leaseholders at risk of overcharging. A value for money test would require landlords to interrogate all options before spending leaseholders’ money. It is not an unreasonable test; it is one that most people use in daily life when considering any significant purchase.
Amendment 78E requires landlords to provide tenants with a range of information, and to update it regularly. It goes further than the Government’s Clause 55, under which landlords are required to provide information only on request. If leaseholders are to be encouraged to take greater interest in the management of their buildings, I do not think we should place obstacles in their way. It should not be difficult for a landlord of a well-manged building automatically to provide and keep up to date a data room of information.
Amendments 78F and 78G continue the consumer protection theme of these amendments by promoting competition in the property-management sector. Amendment 78F prevents landlords contracting with related parties or connected purposes, thus removing an obvious conflict of interest. The danger for leaseholders if a landlord company places contracts with its subsidiary is well illustrated by the Charter Quay case, in which the managing agent, which happened to be owned by the landlord company, was roundly criticised by the tribunal for placing onerous service contracts with other subsidiaries.
In the same vein, to promote competition through regular retendering, Amendment 78G places a maximum contract duration of five years. Although under current law landlords must consult leaseholders before entering into a qualifying long-term agreement—that is, a contract of more than 12 months—there is no limit on its duration. In practice, even limited consultation requirements are relatively easily avoided. Contracts between a holding company and one or more of its subsidiaries, or two or more subsidiaries of the same company, are not qualifying long-term agreements; neither are contracts for a year or less, even if they have been regularly renewed.
Amendment 78H seeks to reduce costs on leaseholders by setting out in statute details of cosmetic works that can be undertaken without approval from a landlord. Most leases contain very tightly drawn provisions in this respect, which are against undertaking virtually any type of work, no matter how insignificant, without the landlord’s consent. Provisions such as a prohibition of the
“cutting, maiming or injuring, or suffering to be cut, maimed or injured, any roof, wall or ceiling”,
are very common. The fees for consenting to some minor works often run into hundreds of pounds, so this amendment attempts to find a way to streamline that.
One may debate at length the areas where a more relaxed regime might impair the amenity of other residents, but I seek to establish the principle of getting away from the monetisation of consent for every mortal thing—from pets to paint colour, and light fittings to lino floors—and putting it in the past. There ought to be greater freedoms for leaseholders but, in noting that the Law Commission report implied that consent for floor coverings should be relaxed, I would only observe from experience that engineered timber floor finishes in particular are often a potent source of noise transmission affecting other residents—so the matter is nuanced. At this stage, I simply wish to sound out the Government’s willingness to draw up, say, a code of practice, or otherwise take steps to free up this area.
I now turn to Amendments 80A and 80B, which are really rather different. I would have had them disaggregated had I been a bit more alert on Friday afternoon, because they relate to insurance moneys. Amendment 80A requires landlords to pay the proceeds of a building insurance policy into a separate fund that is held on trust for leaseholders. It also requires landlords, on receipt of insurance proceeds, to begin immediately to repair or rebuild a building, as far as reasonably practicable.
Service charge funds already have to be held on trust for leaseholders and I contend that building insurance payouts should be treated in the same way. As noble Lords are aware, I have raised my concerns about the risk of landlord insolvency. It has been suggested to me that, if a landlord became insolvent, any insurance proceeds held by the landlord on entering insolvency would form part of the company’s insolvent estate, leaving leaseholders in a damaged or destroyed building as unsecured creditors. Holding insurance proceeds on trust would go some way to protect them from risks relating to landlord borrowings—of which more in relation to Amendment 80B.
Most leases require landlords to reinstate damaged buildings—as, I think, does statute in the case of damage caused by fire. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 80B places that duty beyond doubt. It requires landlords to move quickly to repair or rebuild the damaged or destroyed building. It goes some way to closing a loophole commonly found in leases that gives landlords the right to terminate where it is not possible to reinstate a building within a certain period. That is often three years, which is likely to be insufficient time to effect reinstatement of a larger or complex building.
Amendment 80B closes what I consider to be another loophole for insurance. Most leases require that the landlord insures the building, with the cost charged to leaseholders. However, what concerns me is the ability of landlords to assign the proceeds of insurance policies as security for their borrowings.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I will be very brief. Some of the costs that have arisen are as a result of Fire Safety Act and Building Safety Act provisions set up by the Government. Some time ago, I asked the people I work with to set up an online resource, which I commend to noble Lords. It is www.buildingsafetyscheme.org. I hope that it will help a number of people to unpick what is a very complex situation.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the number of amendments discussed today highlights just how many issues there are with the exploitation of leaseholders. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned the option of some pre-scrutiny with people who have expertise in this area—although I am not suggesting that I am one of them. That might have benefited this legislation.
Normally, with leasehold properties, people think that they are buying a house or a flat, but then they are laden with decades of financial obligations to a landlord who can charge a ridiculously long list of things to the leaseholders. That does not seem to be a very fair system. There are far more problems than your Lordships’ Committee will be able to resolve, so there is clearly a need for further legislation when a new Government come to power. I hope that the new Government will consider the issues raised in Committee, including my Amendment 78B, which shines a light on the growing trend of public assets being funded by leaseholders. For example, green spaces, play areas and roads are often being charged to leaseholders, even when they are freely accessed by the wider community.
These leaseholders are facing a double taxation: they are paying their council tax, which is used to fund play areas and roads provided by the local authority, and they are also being charged by their landlord for play areas and roads that are within the estate. There seems to a case for these publicly available assets to be brought into local authority management, ownership and funding. I would appreciate it if the Minister, and any budding future Ministers, could give their thoughts on the issue and perhaps undertake to look at it further.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, my main focus so far has been boosting leaseholder control over service charges by removing barriers to the right to manage. However, we must dramatically reform the law for leaseholders who cannot gain this control and who wish to stand up to their freeholder on service charges. It is positive that the Government are enforcing service charge transparency and disclosure with the new right-to-inform scheme in Part 4, Clause 55, which makes changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but I believe we need to go further and make it easier for leaseholders to challenge rip-off freeholders with their service charge.
Tribunals are very stressful: they take a long time and often do not have the power to enforce their decisions. This leaves leaseholders in a very strong predicament. Leaseholders normally have to file another application with the county court to get their money back for any overcharging, at least as they see it. My Amendment 78A is all about enforcement and giving teeth to tribunals’ decisions, where it has been determined that the service charges that the leaseholders have paid were not payable or were unreasonably incurred.
Various rules in Parliament have been passed in an attempt to regulate this behaviour of freeholders; again, I mean poor freeholders—the whole market is not like this. Often, these work only when leaseholders have the time, money and energy to enforce them at tribunal, which then is not always guaranteed when residents are up against armies of layers. Freeholders often hold many freeholds and have a big financial backing behind them and can just tire out leaseholders—they can work them into the ground and threaten them with forfeiture, for instance, should something go wrong. The Secretary of State was right to say that we need to put the squeeze on freeholders, but that means making freeholders actually fear leaseholders bringing cases against them at tribunal.
In my Second Reading speech, I mentioned that research from Hamptons has shown that leaseholders paid £7.6 billion in service charges. Many of those service charges were overcharge, and we want to create a situation where leaseholders can fight back. The annual service charge for flats in England and Wales has increased by 8.4% since the beginning quarter of 2023. Around 270,000 leaseholders are now paying more than £5,000 a year in service charges, which could quickly become a second mortgage for many leaseholders.
My Amendment 78A seeks to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 regime for service charge disputes to try to make service charge tribunals against freeholders more serious by taking three important steps. One is by providing an opt-out. At the moment, leaseholders have to sign up for a case to benefit. Even if the tribunal determines that they have been overcharged, unless they have signed up their neighbour may receive a payment but they will not because they did not sign up. That is unfair in modern life: you could be elderly; you could have children; you could just be away when all these things are going on. Your neighbour would receive benefit and you would not, even though you would also have overpaid. That is why we need an opt-out, not an opt-in, to make it more serious.
Secondly, after a successful Section 27A challenge by any leaseholder in a block, the freeholder would be under a duty to account to all leaseholders within a two-month period of the decision being handed down. This means that any money overpaid would have to be paid back within two months, because leaseholders—many of them owning a place for the first time, many of them young people, many of them elderly people on fixed incomes—have paid out this money which they often could not afford. They should get it back in a speedy fashion.
Thirdly, there should be interest after a two-month period if the freeholder has not paid back money owed to the leaseholders. This is to give the sanction some bite and to make sure that a freeholder does not just wait out hapless leaseholders because they have all the power and the financial power.
I would like to see some more action in this Bill to deter and punish bad behaviour by freeholders and ensure that leaseholders can swiftly get their money back where overcharging has been determined by a tribunal. My Amendment 78A gets us closer to that position.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 78 is about one part of service charges that sometimes gets neglected: the lack of consultation about major works that remain uncapped, opaque and difficult to challenge. This mainly affects those who have brought homes where the landlord or freeholder is a council. The amendment is also about the failed attempts by the law to help them in the past and whether we can use the Bill to rectify that.
In Committee last Wednesday it was implied that leaseholders are mainly wealthy home owners of luxury flats. These leaseholders deserve fair treatment, however wealthy they are, and they should not be ripped off, but many leaseholders do not fall into that category, with 49% of leaseholders being first-time buyers. We also have right-to-buy leaseholders who bought their own council homes, and leaseholders who bought former council homes because they were cheaper and therefore home ownership was within their grasp, rather than them being priced out of the market. I declare an interest as one of those people.
Leaseholders living in former council homes now face enormous refurbishment bills of tens of thousands of pounds, despite a legal cap being introduced 10 years ago, which is being circumvented by local authorities. The reason for major works is no doubt exacerbated by years of weak investment and cuts. Social housing estates do need to be maintained, and I understand that councils have difficulty doing that. However, neglect builds up and leaseholders end up being the ones who pay the price. The bill for entire blocks has been divided between the local authority and individual leaseholders because council tenants cannot be charged. Therefore, we end up with situations such as that of George and Alma, a couple who were suddenly landed with a £45,000 bill for windows in the roof of the estate, which do not even affect them, making them sick with worry. As has already been discussed, the disrepair that accumulates on estates ends up not just increasing service charges but coming as one large bill. George said, “I pay a service charge and I have not seen any work being done on a yearly basis—then suddenly we get this big bill”.
I am a Haringey leaseholder of a maisonette. I noted one extreme case that came to light during lockdown, when 76 leaseholders in Wood Green were told to find between £56,000 and £118,000 to cover Haringey repairs and improvements. One young woman, when she bought her maisonette in 2015, was told that major works planned would cost £15,000. Instead, after losing her job because of lockdown, she ended up with a bill of £110,000. Another couple, when buying their property, were given an estimated bill for major works of £12,500. Mid-completing buying their house, that had swelled to £25,000 with no explanation whatsoever for the increase, and they could not find out why. There was then stalling for five years, again with no explanation. Haringey then added in some other major works—roofs, windows and door replacements—so now the final bill is a whopping £108,450. To quote them, “We will be ruined”. The bill will be a third of what they paid for their home.
This is happening all over London, and councils’ responses have been complacent. Lambeth Council said: “We appreciate that major works can place a financial burden on leaseholders, which is why we offer a number of repayment options”. However, even those which break it down over five years, for example, which is one of the options available, can almost double some people’s mortgage, and this is even beyond increasing service charges.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on his high-speed gallop through a large number of his Friday afternoon amendments. They were quite technical, and anyone who managed to keep up with them all deserves a prize. It was very good indeed. I will address one of them, Amendment 78F. It is very short but very important.
Much of this Bill is designed to protect leaseholders from freeholders and their managing agents acting in concert in any attempt to inflate service charges. These in-house relationships are ripe breeding territory for dishonest behaviour and abuse, of which the noble Earl gave an example, in the opaque realm of service charges—something we look forward to being reversed or changed by this Bill. It is a money-making business model, albeit morally and actually dishonest. We should ban any close links of this kind between managing agents and their freehold clients, and inflict suitable penalties that are strong enough, or high enough in financial terms, to be a deterrent. If the Government really want to protect leaseholders, connected relationships giving rise to such potential abuse must be banned.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 77 and make a few brief comments on other amendments. Amendment 77 would allow leaseholders to apply to the appropriate tribunal to ensure that freeholders who do not provide the agreed estate management services and allow a block to become run-down can be subject to a penalty at the sale of the freehold. There is clearly an issue of absent freeholders and little penalty when a managing agent is not appointed or adequate estate management services are not provided. The amendment would create a mechanism by which a penalty could be placed on the enfranchisement value and mean that leaseholders who have suffered from freeholder failures and consequently had to take the step towards acquiring the freehold should pay a lower cost for the collective enfranchisement of that freehold. This would reflect the freeholder’s dereliction of duty if a tribunal deemed it was warranted.
The Bill aims to remove barriers and rebalance legal costs for leaseholders to challenge freeholders at tribunal. Clause 56 addresses the enforcement of freeholders’ duties relating to service charges, and it includes provisions for tenants to make an application to the appropriate tribunal and the measures tribunals may put in place. As such, the amendment would just add to that. As well as having a power to make a landlord pay damages to a tenant for failure to carry out duties related to service charges, a tribunal would also have the power to apply a penalty to the enfranchisement value at the sale of the freehold to leaseholders. It does not seem fair, after having taken action to gain control of the freehold due to an absent freeholder, that leaseholders then have to compensate the freeholder with no penalty for that dereliction of duty. This is a modest amendment that would leave the judgment in the hands of the appropriate tribunal as to whether a penalty was warranted.
On Amendments 67 and 69, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, it is only right that leaseholders with old leases that have fixed service charges can challenge the reasonableness of those fees at tribunal. Evidence of costs being passed on in service charges is evident. This also ties in with Amendment 98D from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
We on these Benches support Amendment 69. We do not agree with the Government having a power to remove certain landlords from being subject to basic service charge transparency rules; all leaseholders are owed clarity on what they are paying for. We do not understand why that should not be the case.
I turn to Amendment 78 from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. We agree that leaseholders should be fully consulted on major works that they pay for; the noble Baroness showed that some of these costs are eye-watering. We agree with her proposal to restore the major works scheme in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which was eviscerated by the Daejan ruling by the Supreme Court in 2013, which the noble Baroness mentioned. We agree with the dissenting Lord Wilson in that decision, who said that the majority had subverted the intention of Parliament. It is not right that landlords no longer have to involve leaseholders in the decision-making process. We should use this Bill to at least restore the position to pre-Daejan so that transparency and accountability on major works are increased for leaseholders.
Amendment 78A, from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, would require a landlord who had lost a service charge determination, and who was meant to return the money to the leaseholders, to pay up in two months or else face compound interest. While Section 19(2) of the 1985 Act requires that overcharges be returned to leaseholders, landlords can and do ignore this. The same applies to similar provisions in leases. Where a tribunal has determined that a service charge or portion of it has been excessive, it should be relatively straightforward for leaseholders to get that money back. We on these Benches support that part of the thrust of the amendment—to ensure that landlords are under pressure to account to leaseholders in a timely manner, or otherwise experience financial penalties, as debtors in other parts of our economy do.
I turn to the mighty avalanche of amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. For us, Amendments 78D and 78E stand out. Amendment 78D provides for a new, tighter and more objective test of value for money to replace the current test of “reasonably incurred”, which could be open to a wide range of interpretation—obviously, this is in relation to service group charge costs. Amendment 78E pushes the Government to go further in the entitlement of leaseholders to have more and better information. Given the rationale behind the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, we believe it is worth the Government giving them serious consideration.
Finally, although we have not yet heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, we are minded to agree with his amendments, as right-to-manage and residential management companies are thinly capitalised. Unlike big freeholders, they will not have lending facilities, so would be unable to pay legal costs up front to take non-paying leaseholders to tribunal or county court. Right-to-manage and residential management companies are non-trading companies and have nothing except the service charges in their coffers. I look forward to the Minister’s responses.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 67, 69, 76, 78I and 78J, in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Noble Lords across the House have been emailed and briefed in relation to some very troubling real-life examples in the area of service charges—in fact, we heard earlier from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, about an unscrupulous situation.
In the other place, honourable friends have shared some horrific casework examples which clearly expose the unfit and unjust system leaseholders have been subject to. My honourable friend Matthew Pennycook MP, said:
“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 … 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?”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/24; col. 636.]
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness takes the Dispatch Box, I apologise to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in particular. Due to lots of pieces of paper, I commented on two amendments that are actually in group 4, so I reassure the Committee that I will not be repeating those comments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I apologise in advance for the length of my response. This is a large group so I might go on for quite a long time. I apologise for that, but I think it is important that I respond to all the amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, who spoke to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. Amendment 67 seeks to give the right to challenge the reasonableness of a service charge to leaseholders who pay a fixed service charge. I recognise that leaseholders who pay fixed service charges do not have the same right to challenge the reasonableness of their service charges as leaseholders who pay a variable service charge. However, there are good reasons for that. The main sectors where fixed service charges exist are the retirement and social housing sectors, where households are often on limited or fixed incomes; certainty over bills is paramount for these homeowners. Leaseholders, especially on low incomes, who pay a fixed service charge have more certainty over the amount of their service charge compared with those who pay a variable service charge. They will know about and understand the level of the charge before they enter into an agreement.
Landlords benefit from not having to consider tribunal applications, but in return they have a clear imperative to provide value for money: if they underestimate the costs, they will have to fund the difference themselves. They will still need to provide the quality of service as set out in the lease since, if they do not, they may be taken to court for breach of that lease.
By giving the right to challenge fixed service charges in a similar way to how variable service charges can be challenged, there would likely be operational and practical challenges. For example, if landlords underestimate costs in one year but overestimate them in another, it is feasible and reasonable to be able to challenge the unreasonableness only in the year when costs are overestimated. It is not proposed to give the landlord an equivalent right to apply to seek to recover the balance of an underestimated cost on the basis that it would be reasonable to do so. There is a possibility that landlords may move to variable service charges, and that could have unintended and undesirable consequences for leaseholders with a fixed income who benefit from the certainty of fixed service charges.
Through the Bill, leaseholders who pay a fixed service charge will be given additional rights. Landlords will be required to provide the minimum prescribed information to all leaseholders. I consider that the additional rights given to leaseholders who pay fixed service charges will allow them to better understand what their service charges pay for, and to hold their landlord to account. I hope that, with that reassurance, the noble Lord will not move the noble Baroness’s amendments.
I thank the noble Lord for Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which seeks to remove the provision that enables the appropriate authority to exempt certain categories of landlords from the requirement to provide a standardised service charge demand form to the leaseholder. I recognise the importance of all leaseholders receiving sufficient information from their landlord to enable them to understand what they are paying for through their service charge. Requiring landlords to provide leaseholders with a standardised service charge demand form contributes to increased understanding. However, I am aware that there could be instances now or in the future where it is necessary to exempt landlords from that requirement. It could be too costly or disproportionate to expect certain categories of landlords to provide that level of information. As the Minister for Housing mentioned in the other place, one example might be the Tyneside leases.
Prior to any exemptions being agreed, we will consult with stakeholders to determine whether an exemption is justified. I emphasise that the list of exemptions is expected to be small—if it is needed at all, in fact—and full justification will be required for any agreed exemptions. I note the noble Baroness’s concerns but I hope that, with this reassurance, the noble Lord will not move the amendment.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, for Amendment 76, which would create a power for the appropriate authority to prescribe the maximum costs that landlords may pass on to leaseholders for providing information. I recognise that leaseholders can face increasing service charge costs and that not capping costs for providing information could drive landlords to charge unreasonable amounts.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I know that the Minister has been speaking for a while, but I want to press her on this important point as we are talking about charges. There is a huge, fundamental area of concern in that the ground rent consultation has yet to be published. I know that it is unreasonable for me to ask the Minister to talk about any leaks or media announcements. However, how will this House be able to scrutinise it at this late stage of the Bill’s passage?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We debated ground rents last week, and I do not have anything to add. If there are any changes to the Bill, we will give sufficient time for all noble Lords to consider them.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(7) The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (“the LTA 1987”) is amended in accordance with subsections (8) to (10).(8) In the provisions referred to in subsection (9), in each place they occur—(a) for “service charge” substitute “variable service charge”; (b) for “service charges” substitute “variable service charges”.(9) The provisions are—(a) in section 24 (appointment of manager by tribunal), subsections (2) and (2A);(b) in section 35 (application by party to lease for variation of lease), subsections (2) and (4);(c) in section 42 (service charge contributions to be held in trust), the heading and subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (8).(10) In section 35(8), for ““service charge” has the meaning” substitute ““service charge” and “variable service charge” have the meaning”.(11) In section 167 of the CLRA 2002 (failure to pay small amount for short period)—(a) in subsection (1), for “service charges” substitute “variable service charges”;(b) in subsection (5), for “service charge” substitute “variable service charge”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would, in light of the amended definition of “service charges” in section 18 of the LTA 1985, make amendments to provisions in the LTA 1987 and CLRA 2002 that use that definition so that they refer to “variable service charges” (and accordingly preserve the current effect of those provisions).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendments to clause 51.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(b) that, on or before the account date for an accounting period in respect of which a statement of account is provided, the landlord must provide the tenant with a written report about the statement prepared by a qualified accountant, which—(i) is prepared in accordance with specified standards for the review of financial information, and(ii) includes a statement by the accountant, in a specified form and manner, that the report is a faithful representation of what it purports to represent;(c) that the landlord must provide adequate accounts, receipts or other documents or explanations to the accountant to enable them to provide the report; (d) that, if the landlord incurs costs in obtaining the report, the tenant must pay the landlord a fair and reasonable contribution to those costs.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that the obligations of the landlord are to obtain a report from a qualified accountant as to the accuracy of the statement of account and to provide adequate documents to the accountant, and would require the tenant to contribute towards the costs of the report.
“(4A) An amount payable under the term implied by subsection (2)(d)—(a) is a variable service charge for the purposes of section 18, and the provisions of this Act relating to service charges apply accordingly;(b) is payable irrespective of whether a lease, contract or other arrangement provides for it to be payable as a service charge.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would subject any costs payable under the new section 21D(2)(d) to the restrictions relating to variable service charges.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to new section 21D(2)(b).
“(aa) for subsection (2) substitute—“(2) A person has the necessary qualification if the person—(a) is eligible for appointment as a statutory auditor under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006, or(b) satisfies such other requirement or requirements as may be specified in regulations made by the appropriate authority.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow an appropriate authority to expand the meaning of “the necessary qualification” in section 28(2) of the LTA 1985.
“(c) after subsection (6) insert—“(7) Regulations under this section—(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;(b) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases;(c) may make different provision for different purposes;(d) may include supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section (whether alone or with other provision) is subject to the affirmative procedure.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make provision about regulations about the meaning of “the necessary qualification” in section 28(2) of the LTA 1985.
Lord Bailey of Paddington
“(2) In section 26(1) (Exception: tenants of certain public authorities), omit the words “but section 25 (offence of failure to comply) does not”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to preserve the ability to crowdfund private prosecutions of rogue landlords, which should help get section 24 orders for abused blocks. It also extends the protection of the criminal sanction to council leaseholders.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
At Second Reading, I said that leaseholders should not be expected to become serial litigators in the same manner that the sub-postmasters had to in order to get some justice for themselves. We should seek to increase the rights of leaseholders, not strip them of existing rights and protections.
My amendment seeks to preserve the criminal sanctions against landlords withholding critical information about service charges. The Bill in its current form does away with these sanctions, which function as a backstop for the current scheme of service charge accountability. The Bill instead introduces a new scheme of service charge regulation, superior in many respects but lacking the critical ability for leaseholders to prosecute landlords who refuse to provide evidence that the services they have charged for were actually delivered.
Currently, under Section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, leaseholders have the right to pursue a private prosecution against their landlord if their request for service charge accounts or receipts has been refused or the landlord denies them the ability to inspect and copy the relevant documents. Without criminal sanctions, landlords will comply with the law only if it suits their financial interests to do so. A Bill capped at £5,000 of damages will not deter many and may mean that leaseholders now have to spend time and effort proving how much money they have lost.
I am not precious about this amendment, but I want to probe the Government on this and urge them to ensure that leaseholders will continue to have the right to bring private prosecutions against perpetually bad landlords under this legislation. I have mentioned Section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 a few times; it criminalises breaches of Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the same Act. These Sections 21, 22 and 23 are repealed by the present Bill, so my amendment would make a practical difference only until these repeals were brought into force.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
We fully understand the passion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, about criminality and having a last resort. We must think of it in regard to the worst rogue landlord offences, of which there are many, and I am sure several noble Lords have seen things worthy of that description. While we do not entirely go along with the noble Lord, we are interested to understand why the Government are using the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to do away with a long-standing leaseholder right to bring a private prosecution against a landlord who has refused service charge and accounts transparency; it is surely a sign that they are trying to hide something.
The Government are bringing forward a new regime for service charges, under which landlords’ failure to comply with the requirement will be subject to damages of no more than £5,000 per leaseholder, which to us feels too low. Why does this policy have to strip leaseholders of a right to pursue a persistently abusive landlord with a private criminal prosecution? If the right was poorly drafted in the first place, surely it should be retained and made effective in the Bill?
We agree to a certain extent with the amendment’s attempt to bring local authorities into scope. As we know from past tragedies, local authorities are often treated far too leniently by leaseholder legislation, receiving exemptions from basic requirements. We broadly agree, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to the amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, for his passion on this matter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. It is appropriate to bring a probing amendment on this, to seek out some clarification from the Government about their intentions. It is clear that service charge accountability sits right at the heart of much of the Bill, and we would not want to do anything against that. It does seem a little odd that part of the Bill’s intention is to remove that right of private prosecution, so I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The other point raised by the noble Lord was that we are going to have a hiatus when the Bill is passed, because it is not going to come into force until 2025-26. Can the Minister comment on what leaseholders can resort to in that interim period, in order to get matters justified if they have a persistent rogue landlord? Otherwise, we will have a gap where the original provisions are repealed and these ones have not yet come into force.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about council leaseholders. There are other protections in force for council leaseholders. The health and safety Act and its provisions should sit there to protect council leaseholders from any poor landlord practice from councils—I know they have not always done so, but they should.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to this very good probing amendment.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington for Amendment 76A, which seeks to retain the existing enforcement provisions concerning a landlord’s failure to provide information to leaseholders. I am grateful to other noble Lords who took part in this very brief discussion.
I fully agree with my noble friend that it is important to have effective enforcement measures in place where a landlord fails to provide relevant information to leaseholders. The existing measures, including the statutory offence under existing Section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, have historically proven to be ineffective. Local housing authorities, as the enforcement body, are reluctant to bring prosecutions against landlords, and the cost and complexity of doing so are a significant barrier to leaseholders bringing a private prosecution. That is why we are omitting Section 25 and replacing it with the more effective and proportionate proposals set out in Clause 56 of the Bill. Therefore, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment. Not only does it require—
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
In regard to the cost of leaseholders bringing a case, people are now using modern technology, such as crowdsourcing, to raise the funds to take on a landlord. When you have a persistently rogue landlord, this could be your last roll of the dice. It is not an entirely strong argument to talk about leaseholders not having the means; that is often the case, and what most of the discussion has been based on. For leaseholders in these very extreme cases—and they are extreme—this is a last resort, and that is why the word “backstop” was used, but people can club together to deal with these situations.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend. I will address the rest of the issues, and hopefully I will pick up some the points he made. Like others, I am grateful for the passion with which the noble Lord speaks about this issue and his own experience of it.
I am afraid we cannot accept this amendment. Not only does it require us to return to the previous arrangements; I would respectfully say that it is not workable. This is because a local housing authority cannot take action against itself; they are one body. That said, I can assure my noble friend and others in the Chamber that there are very strong merits in his argument about the appropriate tribunal not being able to make an order for damages where the landlord is a non-compliant local authority. As has been said, it is not right that local authorities should be exempt from the same standards expected of other landlords. Both the department and the Minister are carefully considering this issue.
I will respond to a couple of points raised by noble Lords, including my noble friend. He raised the issue of damages; we believe that £5,000 strikes the right balance between a deterrent and an effective incentive. I believe it is higher than the existing provisions that a court can award on a summary conviction. The noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Thornhill, asked about the hiatus, or interim, period; I assure noble Lords that it will not change until the new regime is ready. Therefore, with these reassurances, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington
“(5A) The regulations must specify a broker’s reasonable remuneration at market rates as a permitted insurance payment.(5B) The regulations must exclude any payment which arises, directly or indirectly, from any breach of trust, fiduciary obligation or failure to act in the best interests of the tenant.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require “permitted insurance payment” to include payment of a reasonable sum to a broker at market rates for placing the cover, and to exclude any payments which have arisen from wrongdoing.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
A lot of the Bill relies on secondary legislation coming through at a later date, meaning that we must all wait for many of the details of individual policies and cannot fully scrutinise them now. Last week we heard from the Minister that the commencement will be in 2025-26. In January last year, the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, announced his intention to ban freeholder and managing agent insurance commissions—or “kickbacks”, as they are colloquially known—that fatten leaseholders’ insurance premiums and pad their service charges. He was right to do so.
In recent years, there has been a series of truly horrific stories about leasehold building insurance, including bribes, kickbacks and commissions galore. When the Financial Conduct Authority did its investigation into this recently, it found that broker remuneration had increased by nearly 40% in three years, with at least 80 million leaseholder-funded commissions going to other parties. Brokers passed on more than half the commission to the freeholder, or the managing agent in 39% of cases. Brokers could not provide any evidence to support the claim that those payments were fair value. The FCA says:
“The level of commission is high, with typical commissions of 30%-49%, and … up to 62%. We have also seen that remuneration is shared with the freeholder or property managing agent (PMA) in many cases, with 37-42% of commission being paid away”.
That is damning. The commissions are clearly excessive and totally out of kilter with other classes of business.
The total commission going to freeholders or managing agents can be as high as 60% of the cost of the premium paid by leaseholders. This comes back to my core problem with leasehold: the people paying the bills do not have control over those bills and lack the ability to fire the rip-off companies they have to deal with—unlike flat owners under different arrangements almost worldwide, who have far more power and control. As the FCA observed, policies are being
“selected on the basis of commission rather than product quality. There is a lack of pressure on freeholders, PMAs and insurance brokers to search for the policy that offers the best value-for-money or to switch to better-value policies which may benefit leaseholders. This is because they can recover costs from leaseholders. We have seen instances of freeholders, property managing agents and insurance brokers having commercial arrangements with particular insurers which benefit them but not leaseholders”.
That brings me to my concern. I am doing this on behalf of leaseholders countrywide and campaigning for insurance professionals who have a conscience. The crux of this matter is: are the Government not inadvertently entrenching commissions by rebadging them as “transparent fees” and having them disclosed?
I am no lawyer, but I understand that if a secret profit has been made, every penny is owed to the wronged party—the principal under the law of agency. If the Government were to force all the kickbacks to be disclosed, as the Bill proposes, would that not just weaken the position of leaseholders, because they would no longer be secret profits? Another point is that freeholders hold money on trust for leaseholders, so if they have made a secret profit they open themselves up to legal challenge on breach of fiduciary duty.
How will the Government decide the level at which the permitted insurance payment is set? How will that be set and who will be in charge? What will be the mechanism? Will it be someone’s will, or will we have an algorithm that does that? Is this not just a backdoor for freeholders to extract more money from hapless leaseholders?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
Does the noble Lord wish to move his amendment?
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I beg to move. Excuse me—I am dyslexic, and procedure is massively hard for me. One day I will get it all right—and all at the same time.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
The problem is evident and not disputed, but the solutions are clearly debatable.
We support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, as we share his concerns. The insurance scheme in the Bill, without the permitted insurance payment being set at something nominal such as £5 or £10 a year, could become another cost centre for freeholders. We know how difficult it is for freeholders, especially on larger developments, to get like-for-like quotes. Often, brokers will not even quote, which makes challenging at tribunal very difficult, especially when the freeholder claims that their fees are for works done and not pure commission. It is good for there to be a backstop in the insurance scheme in the Bill, so that brokers are fairly remunerated, while ensuring that other parties in the distribution chain, including freeholders, are banned from profiteering from the captive leaseholders who pay but do not get to choose the policy.
Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and signed by my noble friend Lady Pinnock,
“would prohibit landlords from claiming litigation costs from tenants other than under limited circumstances determined by the Secretary of State”.
Clause 60 puts limits on the right of landlords to claim litigation costs from tenants. When the Bill was in the Commons, the Minister said that
“unjust litigation costs should not be incurred”—[Official Report, Commons, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill Committee, 25/1/2024; col. 347.]
by leaseholders—and we agree—but the Bill as drafted does not go far enough in preventing that happening. There will be circumstances in which it is appropriate for leaseholders to bear those costs, but we believe that Amendment 82 makes provision for that. The presumption should be that the costs are not borne by the leaseholder, unless in circumstances specified by the Secretary of State.
My noble friend Lady Pinnock’s Amendment 80 would require the Financial Conduct Authority
“to report on the impact of the provisions in the bill around insurance costs in order to monitor progress on reducing costs passed on to leaseholders”.
I am pleased to say that the Law Society also supports the amendment. Rising insurance premiums have sent service charges soaring in the last few years, mostly due to the costs associated with remediation works following the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire. That means that even the leaseholders who can access funding to help them pay for vital works to their buildings are still paying the price to remedy a problem that they did not cause.
Clause 57 places a limitation on the ability of landlords to charge insurance costs to leaseholders. This is a very welcome step in the right direction. It is essential that this provision works as intended to protect leaseholders from extortionate costs. The Financial Conduct Authority’s report into insurance for multi-occupancy buildings, published in September 2022, found not only that premiums were rising, with mean prices increasing by 125% in the period from 2016 to 2021, but that the level of commission rates for brokers was
“an area of significant concern”,
with eye-watering rates of up to 60% being seen.
The FCA also found that brokers were sharing commission with the freeholder or the property management agent, meaning that they were unfairly profiting from leaseholders. Commission—and not cover or costs—was therefore the driving factor in the choice of policy. The provisions in the Bill to limit the ability of landlords to charge insurance costs to leaseholders, alongside the Bill’s increased transparency requirement, should—one hopes—go a long way to protect leaseholders. We also note that as of 1 January this year, the regulator will force insurance firms to act in leaseholders’ best interests and to treat them as a customer when designing products. They will be banned from recommending an insurance policy based on commission or remuneration level. It is clearly very early days, but we hope to see some improvement from that.
There is, of course, the argument that the Government should go further. A cap on service charges for leaseholds, especially at a fixed amount rather than as a percentage, has been suggested as a way to properly protect leaseholders from unreasonable costs. We would, therefore, want to place a requirement on the FCA, whose thorough report provided the impetus for these provisions, to assess whether it has had an impact in reducing costs for leaseholders and preventing freeholders and managing agents profiting off them. We hope that the provisions of the Bill will provide the necessary relief for leaseholders, who are clearly facing exorbitant costs. It will, however, be essential that the Government keep a close eye on the impact of Clause 57 and take action if it is not going far enough.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, does have some amendments in this group—I looked very worriedly at this point. On the surface, they appear to be about making the process simpler and easier, which is probably a good thing and worth consideration. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord says.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I had assumed that the noble Baroness had risen to speak to the amendment standing in the name of her noble friend Lady Pinnock. I will speak to the amendments in my name in this group. Although there are eight of them, they fall into three broad topics, so I hope to dispose of them fairly quickly.
The first are Amendments 81 and 81A. These relate to the ability of right-to-manage companies to bring legal proceedings and charge the costs to the service charge. The effect of the Bill is that freeholders will not be able to charge legal costs to the service charge unless they obtain a ruling from a tribunal. In the case of right-to-manage companies exercising the functions of the freeholder, they have no source of income apart from the service charge. If they are not able to charge their legal costs to the service charge, then they will not be able to bring legal action at all. In fact, without that ability, they would not even be able to initiate legal action unless the directors of the company were willing to fund the preliminary legal activities from their own pockets. If they were willing to do that, and they proceeded to court, they might find that the court or tribunal did not find that they were entitled to recover their costs or find that they could recover only part of their costs as a result. Again, they would have no recourse to any source of funds apart from their own individual pockets in such circumstances.
The second amendment, Amendment 81A, would extend this provision not just to right-to-manage companies but to residential management companies. Right-to-manage companies were established under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, but there are other residential management companies that exist that are not right-to-manage companies under that Act. These two amendments are alternatives; they are both probing.
I have heard that the Government are aware that this is a problem and are willing to do something to address it, so I hope that this particular probe will find a positive response from my noble friend on the Front Bench, because it cannot seriously be the Government’s intention to make it virtually impossible for anyone to become a director of a right-to-manage company without having to face serious personal financial risks that were never envisaged when RTM companies were established in 2002.
Amendments 81B, 81C, 81D and 81E all work together. They relate to a different problem, which is that the Bill allows a court or tribunal to award costs to a freeholder in certain circumstances specified in the Bill. However, if these costs are not paid, the only recourse the freeholder has is to go back to the court and seek a new judgment to have the costs awarded to them, whereas the normal method of dealing with such a matter is to make a simple online claim for a judgment in default. That course of action is precluded, as I understand the Bill, in the case of freeholders seeking to recover the legal costs that have been awarded to them. All this will do is burden the courts with more applications, which can and should be, and are normally, dealt with through an online process that takes a few weeks to go through. That surely should be available to freeholders.
The third topic in this group relates to Amendments 82A and 82B. These, again, are probing amendments to understand why the Government are extending the protection in relation to legal costs to all leaseholders, when surely the intention must be to extend it to those leaseholders who are home owners—that is, who own the property that is the subject of the legal dispute. The Bill has the effect of giving this protection also to investor leaseholders—those who hold the property entirely as an investment. I do not understand the Government’s logic in doing this, and these amendments probe that by suggesting that it should benefit home owners only.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, for introducing this group, setting the context for this debate about insurance payments and asking for clarity in relation to his amendment, which I am sure was also the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in asking for clarity with one of his amendments and probing efficiency in his other amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about the extortionate increases in insurance charges passed on to leaseholders. We found that the risk price that insurers charged between 2016 and 2021 pretty much doubled. The brokerage charge increased by more than three times. The service charges added on increased by about 160%, so they more than doubled, and those charges were passed on to leaseholders.
I will quickly speak to Amendment 82, in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. This new clause would prohibit landlords from claiming litigation costs from tenants other than in limited circumstances determined by the Secretary of State.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lord Moylan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for their amendments in this group. I will take them in turn.
Amendment 79, moved by my noble friend Lord Bailey, aims to ensure that insurance brokers’ remuneration is linked to market rates. It also aims to prevent wrongdoing. We share the intent of this amendment and are committed to introducing a fair, transparent and enforceable approach to insurance remuneration. We also recognise that insurance brokers are an important party in the provision of insurance. Given that, this amendment pre-empts the content of secondary legislation. Following Royal Assent, we will consult on what would constitute a permitted insurance payment, then lay the necessary secondary legislation before Parliament. This will clarify what remuneration will be permitted by those involved in the arranging and managing of insurance. My noble friend Lord Bailey spoke with his customary passion. We continue to welcome his views and the Minister remains keen to meet. I hope that, with that reassurance, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 80 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I assure all noble Lords that this Government are committed to banning building insurance commissions for landlords and managing agents and replacing these with transparent handling fees, to address excessive and opaque commissions being charged to leaseholders. The amendment seeks that within one year of the day on which Clause 57 comes into force, the FCA conducts a report into the impact of this clause in reducing instances of unreasonable insurance costs being passed on to leaseholders.
We agree in principle with monitoring the impact of the clause and, more widely, that insurance costs must be reasonable. The FCA has been closely monitoring the multi-occupancy buildings insurance market in recent years, has strengthened its rules on fair value, and provides regular updates. The most recent update to the Secretary of State was published on 29 February. We will continue to work closely with the FCA and other stakeholders to develop our secondary legislation and in monitoring buildings insurance. Please be assured that this is an area on which we, and the FCA, are keeping a close eye. I hope that with this reassurance, the noble Baroness will not move this amendment.
Amendments 81 and 81A were tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan; I will take them together. Amendment 81 seeks to exempt right-to-manage companies from the requirement for landlords to apply to the relevant court or tribunal to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders through the service charge. This amendment would apply where the right-to-manage company is exercising the functions of the landlord. Amendment 81A seeks to exempt “non-profit entities” from the requirement for landlords to apply to the relevant court or tribunal in order to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders through the service charge. The amendment provides examples of types of “non-profit entities”, including resident management companies and right-to-manage companies.
Clause 60 seeks to protect leaseholders from being charged unjust litigation costs from their landlord. It does this by requiring landlords to successfully apply to the relevant court or tribunal in order to recover their litigation costs, either through the service charge or as an administration charge. The court or tribunal will make an order that it considers just and equitable in the circumstances.
We understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendments. The Government recognise the position of resident-led buildings. That is why the reforms also include provision to set out in regulations those matters which the relevant court or tribunal must consider when making an order on an application. The Government will carefully consider the detail of these matters with stakeholders and the tribunal, including where a building is resident-led. We would be concerned that the exemption provided by Amendments 81 and 81A would leave leaseholders with little protection from paying unjust litigation costs where a resident management company or a right-to-manage company is in place. I ask my noble friend not to move his amendments. However, it goes without saying that this is a complex area of reform and we are considering the issue carefully.
Lord Moylan (Con)
It is unsatisfactory if this is to be left to secondary legislation. Bearing in mind that the directors of the right-to-manage company are elected by the leaseholders, and can be replaced by them, and that they are really one entity, what is to happen if the tribunal decides not to make an award of costs? How are the directors to recover that money and who would become a director in those circumstances if they did not have that assurance in advance?
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I will have to pick that up at a later date. There are a number of variables in that circumstance. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for not having an answer to hand. I will certainly take this up with the department, rather than saying something that is incorrect at the Dispatch Box. My noble friend is absolutely right to raise it as an issue. It is under certain circumstances that those individuals find themselves in that situation, but I am more than happy to take that away and then write to my noble friend.
I turn to Amendments 81B to 81E, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. As I have previously said, Clause 60 seeks to protect leaseholders from unjustified litigation costs by requiring landlords to successfully apply to the court or tribunal to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders. This replaces the right that leaseholders currently have to apply to the courts to limit their liability for landlords’ litigation costs. The relevant court or tribunal will make an order on a landlord’s application that is just and equitable in the circumstances.
Amendments 81B and 81D seek to amend the provision that allows the court or tribunal to make a decision on the landlord’s application for their litigation costs that it considers
“just and equitable in the circumstances”.
Instead, the amendment stipulates that where a landlord is successful in relevant proceedings, the court or tribunal will allow the landlord to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders—unless the landlord has acted unreasonably. We understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendments—to minimise the amount of court or tribunal hearings. However, the Government have a few concerns with the amendment.
The amendment would mean that the court or tribunal would always need to make an order that the landlord can recover their litigation costs from leaseholders where the landlord had been successful in proceedings in whole or in part. The only exception is where the landlord has acted unreasonably. Of course, where a landlord is successful in bringing or defending a claim, we would expect that the court or tribunal would allow them to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders. However, there may be a range of variables and nuances that occur in disputes which need consideration on a case-by-case basis.
The Government think the relevant court or tribunal is best placed to assess applications for costs, taking into account the circumstances of each case. In addition, the measures currently provide for regulations to set matters which the court or tribunal will consider when making a decision on costs applications, which we will consider carefully with stakeholders and the tribunal.
Amendments 81C and 81E seek to allow landlords to recover their litigation costs, where allowed under the lease, without needing to make an application to the relevant court or tribunal in certain circumstances. These circumstances include where proceedings before the county court are subject to a judgment in default, where litigation costs have been incurred in relation to forfeiture proceedings or where proceedings against a landlord have been struck out or are settled before the first hearing. Again, the Government have concerns about these amendments. For example, if a landlord is unsuccessful in proceedings of forfeiture against a leaseholder, this amendment would allow them to recover their litigation costs from a leaseholder regardless. These amendments would also make the provisions more complex, with different rules applying to different scenarios. We completely understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendments. However, for these reasons, I ask that he does not press them.
Amendment 82, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Pinnock, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, seeks to prohibit landlords from recovering their litigation costs from leaseholders apart from in excepted circumstances to be set out in regulations. Clauses 60 and 61 already seek to rebalance the litigation costs regime for leaseholders in an effective and proportionate way. As I have previously noted, Clause 60 will require a landlord to successfully apply to the relevant court or tribunal in order to recover their litigation costs from a leaseholder. This applies whether the landlord is seeking to recover their litigation costs as a service charge or an administration charge. I also note that Clause 61 gives leaseholders a new right to apply to the relevant court or tribunal to claim their litigation costs from their landlord. For both landlord and leaseholder applications, the relevant court or tribunal will make a decision on costs in the circumstances of each case. Taken together, these measures will rebalance the litigation costs regime and remove barriers to leaseholders challenging their landlord. We believe the Government’s approach strikes the balance of being robust but proportionate. Therefore, I respectfully ask that they do not press this amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 82A and 82B from my noble friend Lord Moylan. Currently, in the tribunal and for particular court tracks, leaseholders can claim their litigation costs from their landlord only in very limited circumstances even when they win. This may deter leaseholders from being legally represented or from challenging their landlord in the first place. As I have previously said, Clause 61 gives leaseholders a new right to apply to the court or tribunal to claim their litigation costs from their landlord where appropriate. As with the landlord application for costs, the court or tribunal will make an order that it considers just and equitable in the circumstances.
Amendments 82A and 82B seek to amend the new leaseholder right so that it applies only to home owners rather than investor leaseholders. Amendment 82B provides the definition of a “homeowner lease” so that the leaseholder right applies only to a leaseholder of a dwelling which is their only or principal home. Exempting certain leaseholders from this right would restrict access to redress where we are seeking to remove barriers. For example, there may be instances where a leaseholder who privately lets their flat needs to take their landlord to court because they are failing to maintain the building, which is impacting their property. In these circumstances, we would want the leaseholder to feel able to hold their landlord to account. Providing leaseholders with rights, regardless of whether they are home owners or investors, is in line with the approach we have taken throughout the Bill. Such an exemption would be out of step and will add complexity to the measures. Therefore, I ask my noble friend not to press his amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
May I ask the indulgence of the Committee? I should have declared when I spoke—as I did earlier in debate—that I live in a building which is run by a right-to-manage company of which I am a director, as is shown in the register of interests. I should have said that in my opening remarks, but I hope I will be forgiven for adding it now.
The Earl of Lytton
“Building trustee(1) A prescribed building must have a building trustee.(2) In this section a prescribed building is—(a) a higher-risk building as defined by section 65 of the Building Safety Act 2022, or(b) a building where—(i) 50 per cent or more of the internal floor of the building (taken as a whole) is not occupied for residential purposes, and(ii) the total service charge payable for the building exceeded £250,000 in the last financial year, or(c) a building where a recognised tenants’ association has requested the appointment of building trustee, or(d) a building where a court or tribunal has ordered the appointment of a building trustee.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the definition of prescribed building.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) In this section—“building” means a self-contained building, or self-contained part of a building, in England that contains at least two dwellings;“prescribed” means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State;“recognised tenants’ association” has the same meaning as in section 29 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires higher-risk buildings (over 18m), and buildings where 50% or more of the floor space is not residential and with a total service charge of more than £250,000 to have a building trustee. A building trustee may also be appointed at the request of recognised tenants’ association, or by a court or tribunal.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I move Amendment 82C and will speak to Amendments 82D to 82M standing in my name. These draw on good practice in the management of multiunit developments in Australia, Europe and North America and seek to replicate best practice here. They are also designed to address some of the concerns raised in earlier debates, particularly in the context of the proposed change to the threshold for enfranchisement in mixed-use developments from 25% to 50%. I suggest that similar amendments to a future commonhold Bill would go some way to meeting concerns that have been expressed about the risks associated with a wholesale move to that tenure.
The amendments provide for the appointment of a building trustee. It is proposed that this should apply in the largest and most complex developments. Building trustees might also be appointed at the request of a recognised tenants association or by the courts. The building trustee will be an independent and impartial figure whose primary role of auditing performance would ensure that interest rights, responsibilities and performance of the landlord were properly balanced with those of leaseholders and, more importantly, that the building is properly maintained and the service charge provides value for money. I noted in our earlier discussions the Minister’s comments to me about value for money, but it is the benchmark used by the National Audit Office for local authority finance, I believe—I eyeball noble Lords who have experience in that line of business.
Amendment 82C sets out the buildings this would apply to, and Amendment 82D outlines the trustee duties—I will rattle through the amendments at some speed. Amendment 82E is about the appointment process of the building trustee. Amendment 82F sets out the trustee entitlement to documents and information.
There is, of course, the question of who pays for the building trustee. It would be unreasonable—particularly during a cost of living crisis—to burden leaseholders, especially as many of the buildings covered by Amendment 82C are already facing increased service charges owing to the new safety requirements under the Building Safety Act. Instead, Amendment 82G provides that the costs of building trustees would be covered by a levy on providers of commercial and residential mortgages and block landlords, excluding enfranchised building and tenant right-to-manage companies.
Amendment 82H sets out what would be the baseline value-for-money benchmark. This is necessary because there is a risk of inevitable bias in the management under the auspices of a party to the leasehold arrangements. This might be perfectly reasonable in terms of the person instructing the management, but still fall well short of the optimal.
One of the Bill’s key aims is to make it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to enfranchise. I welcome that. My amendments are designed to augment these plans by providing a light-touch oversight to ensure effective, efficient and economic management of a building. This backstop would require reassurance to lenders, leaseholders and other stakeholders that a freeholder-managed or resident-managed building will be properly looked after.
The reassurance offered by the building trustee is needed, as there is strong evidence that, monetising policies by a few freeholders apart, leaseholders themselves are often reluctant, unable or lack the skills to take on the responsibility and liabilities for the management of increasingly complex buildings, or to direct the professional managers adequately. Indeed, some complaints reaching my mailbox are about residents’ own management companies, and the Government’s own research found that leaseholders were concerned about issues of working with neighbours, lack of time and reluctance to take on additional responsibilities beyond those necessary as a home owner.
That touches on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in a previous group, because although most leaseholders will appoint a managing agent to undertake the day-to-day running of a building, they themselves remain responsible for key decisions and setting priorities, such as service charge levels, authorising maintenance schedules and dealing with arrears. It can be difficult to get collective agreement on these issues, with resultant detriment to the management of the building fabric. According to data from the Scottish House Condition Survey, half of all housing is in what it describes as “critical disrepair”, and almost half demands “urgent attention”. The situation is most acute in tenements, so I appreciate that this probably relates to older buildings, but paying for common repairs or maintenance was the most frequent cause of disputes in these buildings.
By taking a whole-life view of the building, the building trustee can seek to avoid that Scottish experience by providing an independent assessment of maintenance needs and condition, and ensuring sufficient provision is put aside to maintain the building properly. Amendments 82I and 82J would require landlords to provide a 10-year plan of anticipated expenditure on capital works and building maintenance, and to establish a sinking fund to avoid leaseholders facing large, unanticipated bills. The plan and the fund would be subject to an independent audit and assessment by the building trustee to ensure that necessary works, and only necessary works, were planned for and adequately funded.
In an open letter to lenders on taking commonhold as a security, dated 21 July 2020, the Law Commission recognised that
“the value of a lender’s security is inherently linked to the management and maintenance of the building in which a flat is located. A failure to keep the building in repair, to insure it properly, or to keep sound finances all have significant potential to jeopardise the value of a lender’s security”.
The same is, of course, true for leasehold buildings. That is why I believe that professional landlords and lenders should cover the cost. It is the banks and the building societies whose capital is at risk. The building trustee should provide a cost-effective way of reassuring them that the flats they have lent on are being properly managed, and of maintaining the value of the security. The same is true of commercial lenders on mixed-use developments. I envisage that the Secretary of State would outsource the appointing of building trustees to an external body, as provided for in Amendment 82E.
Two significant further powers would be conferred on the building trustee through Amendments 82H and 82K. Amendment 82H would allow the building trustee to apply to the tribunal on behalf of leaseholders to seek refunds of expenditure that does not provide value for money. Amendment 82K would allow the building trustee to adjudicate in disputes between landlord and leaseholder, and between leaseholders. One of the main areas where I see this provision being used is service charge arrears. It is particularly important in leaseholder-managed blocks that do not have the wider financial resources of the major landlord groups that service charges are paid promptly. Failure to do so prevents a building being managed properly, and in extreme cases places all residents at unnecessary risk. If essential safety works could not be undertaken or building insurance obtained, that would create real problems.
Evidence from other parts of the world suggests that condominium statutes do not have sharp enough teeth to recoup outstanding contributions efficiently and effectively. In England and Wales, we currently fall between two extremes. I have sympathy with those noble Lords who argued in a previous debate that forfeiture, with the exorbitant windfall that it can offer landlords, is inherently unreasonable. Equally, I recognise the point the Minister made in previous discussions that civil debt recovery proceedings can be lengthy. The building trustee’s power to adjudicate offers a faster and less formal route of dispute resolution than the court, and supports the building’s cash flow.
Amendment 82L would provide for the building trustee to take over the management of a building if its landlord becomes insolvent. Historically, this has happened to very few landlords. However, the Committee will recall that I have previously raised concerns that not all landlord groups have the funds needed to meet the building safety remediation liabilities and could therefore become insolvent. The financial position of these groups may get significantly worse, depending on the Government’s decision on ground rents. Some of the country’s largest landlord groups—I refer to E&J Estates, which is landlord to around 40,000 homes, Long Harbour, which is landlord to around 193,000 homes, and Regis Group, which is landlord to around 30,000 homes—have significant borrowings that are due to be repaid from ground rent income over the next 40 to 60 years.
To the best of my knowledge, the Government’s final position is still unknown but, based on press comments on the Secretary of State’s own preference, it is reasonable to assume that the finances of landlord groups dependent on ground rent income to repay their borrowings will come under further, if not fatal, stress. This is not just my view; it is also that of the Government, whose own impact assessment states that
“there may be potential insolvencies/forfeiture and associated costs where the freeholder defaults on contractual obligations as a result of the cap”.
However, it does not seem that there has been further assessment of just exactly what this would mean in practice.
The collapse of a major landlord group would be without precedent and could cause tens of thousands of leaseholders in hundreds of buildings to be in serious trouble. In blocks subject to intermediate leases, it is likely that contracts covering everyday management and maintenance would be at risk because there would be no landlord to provide instructions. Conveyancing and lending transactions, which are already under stress, would be paused as there would be no one to process essential documents such as notices, deeds of covenant, landlord certificates and leaseholder deeds of certificate. The ability of the building trustee to assume the management of a building in such circumstances, and prevention of possible management contract termination, is an essential backstop that prevents leaseholders being left in limbo for months while they try to set up an alternative arrangement for managing their buildings and/or await the outcome of the administration or liquidation.
Finally, Amendment 82M would simply ensure that the building trustee has relevant qualifications for the task.
I hope your Lordships will see the merit in these arrangements, and that the Minister will be able to agree that measures such as this are a necessary complement to the Bill’s intentions. While I commend these amendments to the Committee, I simply say that I am not set on this particular structure, but the principle needs further examination to provide the point that I have constantly been on about—namely, consumer protection. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 95A. The Long Title of the Bill is very clear. It includes the phrase
“in connection with the remediation of building defects”.
Much of the debate has been on the management and funding of remediation and maintenance, but the early identification of defects is clearly really important in order to avoid some of the problems that can occur, as, tragically, we have seen, for instance, in the Grenfell Tower fire.
That fire was caused by a faulty electrical appliance, but there is also a large number of fires caused by faulty electrical installations. Indeed, the charity Electrical Safety First has calculated that there are around nine such fires every single day in England and Wales. On average, they cost about £32,500, but they have in many cases ruined lives, and on a few occasions have meant, tragically, that people have lost their lives. Quite clearly, it makes a great deal of sense to identify faults at the earliest possible opportunity.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my Amendment 104 is very much part of the amendments I have—both today and on other days—that look at the way the law, as it was previously made, might not be doing what it is intended to. I am interested in restoring Section 24 management for leaseholders suffering at the hands of some predatory freeholders, suffering sky-high service charges and run-down buildings—some of the things we have been talking about.
Like many other noble Lords here, I still have the scars from scrutinising the Building Safety Bill when I first arrived here. It was the most hugely complicated piece of legislation, but it went through the House relatively quickly because of the importance of the topic. As I think we are all aware now, that speed probably led to a number of unintended consequences that have since come to light. One surely unintended consequence of the Building Safety Act is the way that its accountable person regime undermined Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Due to the wording of the Act’s accountable person policy, Section 24 court-appointed managers are barred from assuming their duty-holder role. Until that point, these tribunal-backed managers would be entrusted with all of the building’s management, when it was determined that the freeholder could not be trusted to remain in control of a development and leaseholder service charges.
I am not commenting in general on the accountable person policy per se, although there are problems with it. But it is odd that there is such a wide range of entities that can be the accountable person, including leaseholder-controlled resident management companies and right-to-manage companies, yet strangely, the Act prohibits a Section 24 manager from taking on the role, despite the fact that a Section 24 manager would have been appointed by a tribunal panel, which was satisfied that they had the credentials and experience needed to steward a development that had fallen foul of a poor freeholder. I do not understand how this happened, or why.
It is important to note that Section 24 has been a lifeline right for ripped-off leaseholders unable to buy their freehold or claim the right to manage because of costs or strict qualifying criteria. This is an attempt to ensure that Section 24, which is the ultimate backstop scheme, is restored in the Bill, to give leaseholders a clear route to remove freeholders and their management agents if it has been shown that they have actually been ripped off and it is the only route open to them.
This issue came to my attention in February, when Melissa York in the Times reported a devastating story of Canary Riverside in Tower Hamlets. This story really made an impact on me, because there the leaseholders have benefited from court protection, with Section 24 management, since 2016. A Section 24 manager was installed because the freeholder, a Monaco-based billionaire, John Christodoulou, had lost the confidence of the tribunal due to his company’s seeming financial mismanagement and poor estate maintenance. After years of fighting by the leaseholders, in March this year the Upper Tribunal found that the freeholder had used a related firm to overcharge the development by £1 million in secret insurance commissions—the kinds of issues we were discussing earlier today.
Yet despite this and other well-evidenced service charge abuses, and the fact that the leaseholders have benefited from independent Section 24 management, The Times reports that
“an oversight in the new Building Safety Act means the same court that removed his management company could put Christodoulou back in control of service charge moneys and safety works, including £20 million for cladding remediation”.
It seems to me that the Building Safety Act’s seemingly arbitrary exclusion of Section 24 managers from its accountable person regime did not intend to do this, but its effect is that those Canary Riverside leaseholders, among others, are faced with the prospect of their landlord staging a comeback and regaining control over block management, even though the leaseholders’ work over years, accumulating evidence to prove fault, has been accepted at tribunal level. That work is now undermined because a statutory right that leaseholders relied on for years is now blocked by the Act.
This is so frustrating, and it needs to be tackled in Parliament, as the courts are bound by the laws we make here. In December, in the first test case on this—Canary Riverside—the First-tier Tribunal confirmed that the Building Safety Act does not allow a Section 24 manager to be the accountable person. In March the Upper Tribunal agreed. Despite those tribunal decisions going against them, I commend the leaseholders at Canary Riverside, and say all power to them. They are still appealing in order to keep their Section 24 protection.
This is heroic work, which should remind us all of the real-life toll of the sort of issues leaseholders have to take on. They are ordinary people who bought leasehold flats, and who have ended up going in and out of court regularly—and there is not just the toll, but the costs. Nearly £200,000 has been committed in legal fees already. This is a sharp reminder that the unintended consequences of laws we make here can have wide-reaching, even devastating, effects on real people’s real lives.
We need to put right this wrong, here in Parliament, and to use the Bill to do so. The Section 24-accountable persons clash was raised in January with MPs on the Public Bill Committee by Free Leaseholders, End Our Cladding Scandal and Philip Rainey KC, who all drew this to our attention. As a consequence, the MPs Nickie Aiken and Barry Gardiner moved amendments on this issue in the other place. I would really appreciate it if the Minister looked into fixing this, because I do not think it is what we ever intended to do with the Building Safety Act. It is a loophole, and it has the most devastating consequences for leaseholders, which I am sure we could simply put right.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I admire the persistence of my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath in his indefatigable pursuit of the perhaps unsexy but very important issue of electrical safety defects, as evidenced in his Amendment 95A.
The first group of amendments relates to building safety—a subject that we have debated many times in this Chamber in recent years, following the tragic events of the Grenfell Tower fire. Amendments 82C to 82M, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, relate to a proposal that higher-risk buildings should have a building trustee. The trustee would be an impartial figure, whose role would be to ensure that the interests, rights and responsibilities of the landlord and leaseholders were balanced, that the building was properly maintained, and that the service charge provided value for money—a practice that exists elsewhere. We find the noble Earl’s proposal interesting, and certainly worthy of consideration in the future. However, it is quite a detailed proposal which may not have the chance to be scrutinised further in the context of the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to our Amendment 103, and comment on others in this group. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his careful and thoughtful consideration of how we might use the Bill to rectify some of the glaring building safety omissions that are an unfortunate legacy of the Building Safety Act. His proposals on building trustees warrant close consideration, especially as he has carefully set out how they might be funded. Taken together with proposals in later amendments for a property regulator, this could deal with a number of the loopholes that have caused an overall descent into property chaos, which has been the subject of much debate in this House, by matching independent local oversight with a national property regulator.
The noble Earl set out in his customary forensic way his justification for the amendments. I respect his professional expertise in this area, and I do not think I need to say any more than to welcome the issues he has covered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, those could have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny—but sadly, they were not. As was said earlier today, it is a mark of how your Lordships’ House can contribute to legislation that we have them before us today. It is a shame they could not have been incorporated at an earlier stage, because it is late now to debate such detailed proposals. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope she will, as she always does, take the amendments seriously and tell us what the Government are going to do when they consider them.
Noble Lords would have received the excellent briefing, as I did this morning, from the National Residential Landlords Association. It says that “it is more critical than ever, in the context of the Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill” that the building safety remediation scheme “is implemented without further delay to resolve the failings of the Building Safety Act’s leaseholder protections”. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that he is not particular precious about this structure but, if we do not have it, what will the Government put in its place to do that?
We are now seven years on from the dreadful tragedy at Grenfell. It is shameful that so many leaseholders are still living with the fear of fire risks and the unbelievable pressure from the uncertainty around the financial commitments that they will face for their building remediation. It is the most terrible indictment of this Government’s failure to recognise the unconscionable impact on the lives of those affected, let alone the issues raised so many times in this Chamber of those who live in non-qualifying buildings but, nevertheless, have the leasehold sword of Damocles hanging over them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, already mentioned the excoriating article in the Times this weekend. Martina Lees gives an incredibly thorough and well-researched account of the impact of the cladding scandal. Her investigation points out that
“15,000 residents have been forced to leave homes due to fire or fire safety defects”,
and that escalated last year with the evacuation of at least 21 buildings. She also says:
“Despite £9.1 billion of government grants being set aside to help fix homes, only £2.1 billion has been spent. The building safety crisis has trapped 700,000 people in dangerous homes and left almost three million owners with flats they cannot sell. Almost all are properties built or refurbished since 2000, with defects such as flammable cladding systems, combustible balconies and faulty fire barriers”.
I am familiar with faulty fire barriers from Vista Tower in Stevenage. She also points to government manipulation of figures, in that they
“cite a total of 4,329 buildings or 248,000 flats over 11 metres high with unsafe cladding. Of these, 23 per cent have been fixed”.
However, as Ms Lees points out,
“previous government data added up to 375,000 flats over 11m, making the number fixed just 8 per cent. The new total excludes more than 1,000 buildings where the developer must pay for repairs but does not know whether work is needed. It also precludes hundreds of blocks that did not get taxpayer help because they had the wrong type of fire risks … or were deemed below 18m … It leaves out up to 7,283 mid-rise buildings that the government had previously estimated to be unsafe”.
I am sure that the Minister will tell us that she does not respond to press stories in the Chamber, but the headline issues raised here are that affected leaseholders continue to endure this misery, with some having to pay rent for properties that they have been evacuated to, on top of the thousands of pounds of service charges that they face. Amendments in this group would at least provide some longer-term solutions to these issues.
My Amendment 103 seeks to recognise that financial pressure and ensure that there is at least a cap on the charges that leaseholders are expected to bear. Our preference going forward would be that developers are held ultimately accountable for any fire or other safety defect remediation in the buildings. In future, we hope that even greater consideration is given to how that might be achieved.
We also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foster; it is surprising only in that it is not already the case that buildings with electrical defects cannot be sold. If that is the case, surely this should be urgently rectified through the building regulations regime. I hope that we do not have to wait another two years to implement that.
Amendment 101 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, although he did not speak to it. It seeks to impose a deadline of June 2027 for remediation of fire safety defects. That is not an unreasonable target, as it would mean that an entire decade had passed since the Grenfell tragedy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very powerful case for the unintended consequence of the removal of the Section 24 manager. Her amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, seek to improve accountability. As this is one of the stated aims of the Bill, we look forward to the Minister’s response to their proposals.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their various amendments on building safety and for the debate. I will respond to the amendments in turn.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his amendments relating to a building trustee. Amendment 82C requires some buildings to have a building trustee, while Amendments 82D to 82M cover the process of appointment, duties, rights to information and how these trustees will be funded. The building safety trustee will either replace or complement the functions carried out by the landlord or a managing agent. I fully agree with the view that landlords and managing agents must manage and maintain buildings for which they are responsible and provide a good-quality service to tenants. However, I believe that this proposal would create additional complexity with little relative gain. The proposed mechanisms for funding these trustees increase the risk of pushing more landlords into escheat and it is hard to see how the levy proposals can be delivered. Secondly, we consider that there are better ways to deliver the desired outcome. As I have previously mentioned, we are bringing measures forward in the Bill that will drive up the accountability of landlords and their agents, so we do not agree with the noble Earl’s amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his amendment, which seeks to improve electrical safety standards in buildings by identifying whether there is an electrical defect prior to sale, and for his continued interest in this very important issue for housing safety. This amendment would require a specified person to acquire an electrical installation condition report or electrical installation certificate prior to marketing the property, unless it is being sold for demolition or a full electrical rewire has been completed in the last five years. This is an important issue; we know that improving electrical safety is paramount to helping prevent fires and making sure that occupants feel safe in their homes.
As the noble Lord said, the Government have already taken firm action in the private rented sector by requiring PRS landlords to acquire an EICR at least every five years and to organise remediation works where necessary. We have also consulted on equivalent electrical safety standards in the social housing sector through our 2022 consultation and call for evidence. Here, we examined proposals to require social landlords to obtain an EICR for their rental tenants at least every five years and then to carry out remedial works within a set timescale. Our call for evidence also explored extending the proposed requirements to owner-occupier leaseholders within social housing blocks, so that the whole block is subject to these increased standards. We are aware of the noble Lord’s concerns about the sector that we have not yet hit—the owner-occupied sector. The Government are still considering responses to the consultation and the call for evidence, and we will update this House in due course.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, for their Amendments 104 and 105B—I will also speak to Amendment 98, although my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is not here—relating to changes of the definition of accountable persons under Section 72 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and other changes protecting the position of managers appointed under Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
I trust that noble Lords will understand that the Government cannot accept the proposed amendments. First, defining a Section 24 manager as an accountable person would move financial and criminal liabilities away from the existing accountable person to the Section 24 manager. It was the intent of the Building Safety Act that financial and criminal responsibilities for certain aspects of maintaining the building should always remain with the accountable person, and the accountable persons cannot delegate this responsibility to a third party. As drafted, the amendments could also mean that Section 24 managers would not be able to recover funds from the accountable person for the incidents of remediation works. I assure noble Lords that the Government are looking closely at this issue and at options to ensure that Section 24 managers can take forward building safety duties and get funding, where needed, from the accountable persons.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, it is my privilege to thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this group. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his contribution. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, he has been a doughty campaigner on this issue without pause for breath. It is absolutely right to consider electrical safety in buildings.
I also particularly mention the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for her important contribution. It raised something that has bothered me for a long time—namely, that I do not see a long queue of people wishing to be the accountable person. Indeed, I do not think this has been correctly thought out. There is an assumption in the Building Safety Act 2022, and again in this Bill, that somehow these things are going to be accepted and fall into place. When it comes to liabilities, they do not automatically happen and they do not just fall into place.
I thank the Minister very much for her comments on my amendments. She said they would create additional complexity for very little gain and that there were better ways to deliver the outcomes. I am not sure what she thinks those better ways are, given that we are dealing with a situation that is a legacy of the Building Safety Act—which is getting on for two years old—but has not been fixed, and meanwhile people are in great difficulties in their homes as a result. There needs to be legal responsibility, proper accountability without gaps and resource in terms of funding, from wherever that will come. There is a necessity to identify that secure and adequate resource, but we do not have that at present.
I will very likely return to these amendments—or these subjects, anyway—at later stages on the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on clause 67 repealing section 172(1)(a) of the CLRA 2002, which is amended by section 112(7) of the BSA 2022.
Baroness Fox of Buckley
“Marketing of residential leasehold property(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations to regulate the marketing of residential leasehold property.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may—(a) require residential leasehold property without a share of the freehold to be marketed and sold as “lease-rental”,(b) require that residential leasehold property without a share of the freehold be advertised with a disclaimer containing the words that “leasehold is a lesser title and management and service charges at this property are controlled by a third-party entity that is not subject to democratic resident control”,(c) provide information about the rights and responsibilities of leaseholders and landlords under a long lease to be given to prospective home buyers by sellers and property agents in the form of a document produced by the Secretary of State or another person,(d) require sellers and property agents to clearly state material information, including lease length, ground rent and service charge, in the marketing of residential leasehold property,(e) define “prospective home buyers”, “sellers” and “property agents”,(f) provide that the document to be given is the version that has effect at the time the requirement applies, and(g) specify cases where the regulations do not apply.(3) 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 provide for a scheme to regulate the marketing of residential leasehold property. The scheme involves requiring leasehold homes without a share of the freehold to be marketed and sold as “lease-rental”, which adopts a key recommendation of the leasehold report by the House of Commons’ Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, published on 11 March 2019.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Last week, after I spoke in the debate, I received a message from someone I know quite well. It said:
“I’m currently in the final stages of trying to buy a leasehold flat and am pretty worried about what I’m getting myself into. The freeholder, a Housing Association, has increased the service charge by 27% since I had my offer accepted and there seems to be nothing to stop them doing so again. They claim they just do it to cover costs … I get the impression this is a rentier business pretending to be something else”.
The aim of the amendment, which in some ways might appear to be quite glib, is that everyone should stop pretending this is something it is not. When you become a leaseholder you are not actually buying a home, and I want to clarify that to say so is mis-selling.
Of course, I am hopeful that the Government will accept my earlier amendment for a sunset clause on leasehold and that commonhold will become the new normal, but in the meantime those buying homes on leasehold should be frankly told what they are buying into. I have noticed in this Committee, and in the wider debate on the issue, that developers and big freehold often defensively retort when we complain about treatment of leaseholders, “You knew you were buying a leasehold property. You knew the rules. Why didn’t you read the small print?” It is a form of victim blaming—“This is what leasehold is”—but it is disingenuous.
I want to tackle that by regulating the marketing of residential leasehold properties so that they are sold as lease rentals, which in fact was a key recommendation of the leasehold report by the House of Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee that was published in March 2019. I stress that when you buy a leasehold property, you think you are buying a house or entering into the home-owning classes. That is how it is sold to us by politicians. For example, a DLUHC spokesperson, defending the mess that is shared ownership, stated:
“Shared ownership has a vital role to play in helping people onto the property ladder, and since 2010 we have delivered 156,800 new shared ownership homes”.
The whole idea, when you buy into shared ownership or you buy a leasehold flat, is that you are joining the property-owning classes. You think of it as the aspiration to own your own home, and all that that entails. That is what you are buying.
We need to consider the ideology of home ownership. I thought about that particularly when watching an excellent lecture entitled “Making our homes our own” by Professor Nicholas Hopkins, a Law Commissioner for property, family and trust law. When you are renting somewhere to live, there is a sense of dependence on a landlord. You have no conception that you own the property, and it is all very clear. I remember my father saying to me, “It’s time to grow up and stop renting”, and eventually I bought a flat—not until I was 40, mind. It was a leasehold flat, and I thought, “I’m all grown up now. I’m taking responsibility. No landlord—it’s up to me”. Little did I know.
When you buy a home, you think you are buying independence, autonomy and control. Yes, it provides greater security, stability and permanence, but what about what Professor Hopkins calls the “x-factor” benefits—the idea that you buy a property, make it your own and personalise it? Do noble Lords remember those symbolic new front doors that everyone put on their council flats after right to buy came in? It was like saying, “I bought mine, so I’ve got a red door”—it meant something. I am not saying that in a sniffy way; it did mean something. It was about saying, “I’m going to take pride in maintaining this. I’m going to improve it”. People were in control over their houses, how and when to dispose of them, and so on—they had taken that grown-up responsibility. The notion that there is no landlord controlling your home is very important, but it is an illusion in relation to leasehold.
When the Commons Select Committee did an inquiry into leasehold in 2018 to 2019, it
“found a system which stacked the odds in the favour of developers, freeholders and managing agents, leaving leaseholders with all the financial responsibilities and without matching safeguards to protect them. Leaseholders were too often treated not as homeowners or customers, but as a source of steady profit”.
That is exactly what it feels like, but they do not tell you that at the estate agents. They do not say that the leasehold form of home ownership means that, while you pay for the maintenance of your home, you have no control over the amount, quality or cost of work undertaken. The whole experience is disempowering. You are being done to—the object of other people’s decisions.
I will give an example. When Storm Eunice battered Britain a few years ago, the roof of one lady’s top-floor two-bedroom leasehold flat started to leak badly. She said that rain was coming down through the light sockets and switches. Most home owners would try to get someone in as soon as possible to identify the leaks and get the problem fixed urgently via a claim on their buildings insurance—there is a storm, there are leaks and it is dangerous, so you get it fixed properly. But, because Liz’s flat is leasehold, she had to rely on a managing agent to sort things out. Despite countless calls and emails, she could not get anything done. Eventually, the water stopped—they stemmed the flow—but that failed and mould started to grow in the increasingly sodden flat, so Liz had to move out. There was more pleading with the managing agent to find suitable temporary accommodation, and eventually they did, albeit to a dodgy area in which Liz said she did not feel safe.
The Minister said earlier that one reason she was nervous about giving consultation rights to leaseholders in relation to local authorities was that the leaseholders might hold up works and that, somehow, the freeholders would be rushing to get them done. Is there a historic example of that ever happening? Generally, what has happened is that leaseholders are in a rush to sort out problems in their own homes and would know how to do so, but the freeholders, or their managing agents, are less inclined to.
Mis-selling leasehold properties as property ownership is, in my opinion, a con in so many ways. People who save hard for a deposit, and who budget and work hard to get a mortgage, see their new home as a financial asset: a home to pass on. But, as Professor Hopkins explains, the effect of leasehold, in essence, is to put financial value in the landlord’s hands at the expense of the leaseholders, and
“the more a person’s home is used as a financial asset to benefit their landlord, the less it is an investment for the individual. The more a leaseholder’s money is providing an investment for their landlord, the less their money is providing an investment for their own future, their family and their next generation”.
So, for leaseholders, the question is: would they buy that flat if their home was actually a source of investment for someone else—a profit for someone else—and not even something they could easily pass on to their family?
When you look in an estate agent’s window, there are two sections: for sale and for rent. There is no mention, under “for sale”, that there is a two-tier system of property and that leaseholders do not get sold their homes outright but are tenants of a freeholder who owns the land. Would-be buyers may hear their solicitors mumble the word “leasehold”, but the implications are not spelled out. For example, Natalie Walton explained in an article that, when she bought her new-build two-bedroom flat in Wakefield for £105,000, she had no idea that, on top of her £1,600 annual service charge—uncapped—her ground rent would be increased every 20 years. She said:
“It’s not easy when you’re a first-time buyer to understand all of the implications of ground rents. I had a copy of the lease but the solicitor didn’t go through any of it with me”.
So, yes, I know that the paperwork exists, but, without signposting it, and a regulated demand for honesty and frankness through the buying and selling process, many more people will be hoodwinked until we get rid of leasehold for good.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 84, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. There is no doubt that mis-selling of leasehold homes is going on. Indeed, some developers insist that you can buy a flat from them only if you go with one of their approved solicitors. These solicitors will most likely not alert you to the negative aspects of that lease. Public awareness and understanding are low, as the noble Baroness showed from personal experience. The noble Baroness mentioned estate agents. I went on to Rightmove’s website and found that it provides buyers no search function to differentiate between freehold and leasehold homes, which I mention because, apart from this feeling disingenuous, it highlights that the problem starts at the very beginning of the process.
As has been mentioned, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee did an inquiry into leasehold in 2018-19. Its report said:
“Many leaseholders reported that they were surprised to learn that they did not own the properties they had purchased in the same way as they might have owned a freehold property. One leaseholder, Jo Darbyshire of the National Leasehold Campaign, told us there was ‘a fundamental lack of understanding about what leasehold tenure means to consumers out there.’ Shula Rich, from the Federation of Private Residents’ Associations, described leasehold as ‘the fag end of a timeshare … it is not owning anything’ and called for greater clarity from the Government and industry that purchasing a leasehold should not be sold as the ‘ownership’ of a property in the same way as freehold”.
They are leaseholders, not home owners, and they did not get help to buy or anything other than the right to live in a building for the term of the lease.
It is important that key information is provided in ways that are accessible and easily understandable for consumers. We believe that managing agents and landlords should provide key information about leasehold properties at the marketing stage in a standardised format. The information should include the lease length, estimates of enfranchisement costs, the ground rent and service charging information, as required by National Trading Standards for marketing a property.
There are clearly significant differences between freehold and leasehold tenures, but these are not always apparent to prospective purchasers at the point of sale. It has been mooted that it would be more appropriate to refer to this tenure as “lease rental”. We agree with that—it would at least be honest.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for introducing Amendment 84. The arguments that the noble Baroness made were the very reason why we should end leasehold and move towards commonhold. I hope the Minister can clarify some of the important concerns that she has raised.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for her Amendment 84, which seeks to ensure that potential property purchasers understand the ongoing obligations of a leasehold property they are thinking of purchasing. I share the noble Baroness’s concern that purchasers should know about service charges and ground rent before they move into their home. Speaking personally, I completely understand the stress and frustration when you receive a bill that you knew nothing about.
The National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agency Team has developed guidance for property agents on what constitutes material information when marketing a property. This information should be included within property listings to meet their obligations under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The guidance specifies that tenure and the length of the lease are material and therefore should be included in the property listing. Ongoing charges, such as service charges and ground rent, are also considered material, as they will impact on the decision to purchase. This means that purchasers get information on the lease and expected level of ongoing financial obligations when they see the property particulars, so before they have even viewed the property, let alone made an offer. In addition, the measures that we are including in this Bill to require leasehold sales information to be provided to potential sellers mean that conveyancers acting on behalf of sellers will be able to quickly get the detailed information they need to provide to potential purchasers. This would include information about service charges and ground rent, as well as other information to help a purchaser make a decision, such as previous accounts.
The Government support significant provision of advice for leaseholders through the Leasehold Advisory Service, an arm’s-length body providing free, high-quality advice to leaseholders and other tenures by legally trained advisers. The Government have also published a How to Lease guide aimed at those thinking of purchasing a leasehold property, to help them to understand their rights and responsibilities, providing suggested questions to ask and suggesting how to get help if things go wrong. This guide will be updated to reflect the provisions in this Bill.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
Is my noble friend the Minister comfortable that that information is freely distributed? It would take only a very cursory conversation with leaseholders to find out that they know nothing of most of leasehold law—anything from ground rent to the fact that your service charge can be changed from underneath you. That means that the information that is there has clearly not been absorbed. What attempt will be made to make that information universal? People are talking about changing what leasehold is called, but this is the first time that I have heard that. I think it is a good idea—but all that information is good for nought if people are not compulsorily seeing it before they sign to buy the property.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My noble friend asks for clarity. I can completely understand some of the circumstances that people face; that is something on which we share the concerns of the noble Baroness in what she is trying to do, and it is something that we will continue to look at—ways of ensuring that people are aware of the information when they are purchasing a property. We will continue to look forward to engaging with all noble Lords in this House. With that reassurance in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, will agree with me that this proposed new clause is not necessary, and I respectfully ask that it is withdrawn.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the proposed new clause is totally necessary—I disagree with the Minister on that—but I understand the need to withdraw. The only thing that I would just clarify is that all the organisations that are run for leaseholders are no good to people who do not know what a leaseholder is when they buy their flat and then find out that they are leaseholders. You do not think of yourself as a leaseholder; you think that you are a home owner. The only people who call themselves leaseholders any more are activists who have discovered how awful it is to be a leaseholder, who then get a different identity. That is what I am getting at.
The Government’s information is very good, and they should make more of it. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, was saying—why do they not plaster it around a bit? It is not fair on first-time buyers, who are the people who are being sold out by this. I know that the Government do not want to do that, but they should do something about it. I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Fox of Buckley
“Prevention of leaseholder abuse in retirement housing(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must publish a report assessing the state of the United Kingdom’s retirement leasehold sector with special regard to the treatment of elderly and vulnerable leaseholders.(2) The report must consider whether the government should introduce legislation on retirement housing to address consumer detriment while encouraging downsizing, a larger, healthier retirement housing sector and a better functioning property market.(3) The report must also include—(a) an assessment of the extent to which the following factors harm leaseholders in retirement housing—(i) service charges not subject to resident control;(ii) inability to easily switch managing agents to remove predatory or poorly performing service providers;(iii) license and permission fees;(iv) short leases;(v) shared ownership structures;(vi) exit and event fees;(vii) resale values, and(b) an update on the government’s implementation of the recommendations in the Law Commission report “Event Fees in Retirement Properties”, published on 30 March 2017,(c) the Older People’s Housing Taskforce report and a statement on the government’s implementation of its findings,(d) legislative options to address the significant financial loss and emotional distress of leaseholders in retirement housing and those of their families, and(e) a recommendation as to whether the housing-with-care model, license to occupy schemes and commonhold developments should be promoted by the government as preferred alternatives to leasehold tenure in the retirement sector.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would require a Minister of the Crown to publish a report to establish the experience of leaseholders in retirement housing and to outline legislative options to improve consumer outcomes in this sector.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am bored of my own voice, too, so bear with me. It is just that I think that this is an important issue. Through this amendment, I am asking the Government to bring out a review of the specific leasehold property market for pensioners and the elderly, which I would have thought would be of particular interest to all of us in this House who might be looking in that market area.
To be serious about it, I became interested in the issue after watching a “Pensioners Against Leasehold” video, one excellent example in a series of investigative campaign films produced by Free Leaseholders. Jane, who presented the video, made me realise that leasehold is especially devastating for those selling their family home and downsizing into a flat then realising that, rather than doing the sensible thing, they have potentially bought into a debt trap. I have just been talking about first-time buyers, and I am now talking about buyers who are very experienced home owners but who are buying into a new type of home. For example, there is Nick from Bournemouth, who is in the film, who bought into a retirement block of 61 flats and who described having a toxic relationship with management agents.
The other reason why I raised this was that the mother of a friend of mine made that big decision to move later in life and into an Anchor property—and Anchor’s motto is “later life is for living”. All I can say is, “If only”. Having made that big decision to move into a special category of living accommodation and selling up her house, she is faced suddenly with huge service charges and the burden of worry. One resident facing all this said, “We just feel as though they’re waiting for us to die, because we’ve become a nuisance”. Somebody else made the point, “The whole point of selling up and moving into this retirement home was because I didn’t want the burden of worrying about things—and now we spend all of our time checking on our management committee, because they keep ripping us off”. So I think there is something going on.
Retirement properties in Britain are typically made up of individual flats with communal areas and access to emergency health support. They are almost always sold as leaseholds by builders, who then sell the freehold to a management company. Those companies are entitled to charge leaseholders fees for upkeep along with ground rent. They are a novel form of tenure, which I am quite enthusiastic about in some ways, but the system is open to misuse—and, over recent years, there have been a number of scandals, suggesting that we need a close look at this sector. It is taken as a given that retirement homes should be granted exemptions from leasehold reforms in a lot of the discussions, but actually a lot of the problems in this sector are created in exactly the same way as leasehold creates problems.
Newspapers have been full of tales of exploitation of those buying retirement homes. They are sometimes seen as easy targets, perhaps because they are older and suffering bereavement or illness. They certainly see these homes as appropriate for the latter part of their life, and we would be scandalised in any other circumstances if older people were being exploited.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 85 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. This amendment calls for a government review of the retirement leasehold sector, covering a range of issues of special relevance to elderly and vulnerable leaseholders.
It is possible that some of the questions raised in this amendment will be covered by the forthcoming report from the Older People’s Housing Taskforce referenced in the amendment. This report is expected to be published in the summer, but I understand that it will be ready for Ministers to consider in the next few days. This government-initiated report, which fulfilled a promise to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Housing and Care for Older People, which I co-chair with Peter Aldous MP, may answer some of the questions implicit in the noble Baroness’s amendment.
The amendment enables us to put on record the need for special support for leasehold housing designed and managed exclusively for older people. For example, I am hoping to see a recommendation in the task force report to tighten up on consumer protection for older people’s shared ownership leasehold schemes. Our APPG has heard horrifying stories of leaseholders, and their heirs and successors, finding themselves trapped into liability for fees and charges that make sales of the property impossible.
It would also be good to hear this evening of any news the Minister can bring us on implementing the recommendations of the Law Commission’s 2017 report Event Fees in Retirement Properties, aimed at developers which have been less than transparent in informing leaseholders of the exorbitant charges for which they would be liable.
A number of the issues highlighted by the amendment could be addressed by my later amendment on the regulation of property agents. The need for a regulator is of particular relevance to leasehold schemes for older people, who may be especially vulnerable to bad behaviour and incompetence of property agents. For all existing leaseholders, creating a properly regulated managing agent sector would weed out cases of poor conduct and ineptitude. The list of factors within Amendment 85, listing possible harms for older leaseholders, provides a helpful checklist for the issues which should be covered by a new regulator.
Meanwhile, those working in this field see a need to go further than the establishment of a regulator of property agents. ARCO—the Associated Retirement Community Operators organisation—which we heard about earlier, points to the different legislative structures in other countries. A Bill to switch future schemes from leasehold to what might be termed commonhold plus would enable new models of retirement housing to flourish; for example, there is a system of licences to occupy that has worked well in New Zealand, Australia and several US states. Indeed, an arrangement of this kind has worked extremely well for the retirement village in York created 25 years ago by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, for which I had some responsibility.
After the Retirement Villages Act in New Zealand, which heralded a new framework for older people’s housing and care, production rose threefold, achieving all the well-known benefits from encouraging rightsizing: bringing previously underoccupied family homes into use for the next generation and providing an environment for older people that is sociable, affordable, safe and secure. Similar legislation in this country could achieve comparable results.
Sadly, at present, progress towards a major expansion of older people’s housing, preferably with care services on tap, is moving very slowly in the UK. Potential demand is estimated by Professor Les Mayhew at up to 50,000 homes per annum; but actual output is around 7,000 homes this year. The Older People’s Housing Taskforce should raise the profile of the relevant issues, and the review recommended in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, would take the matter forward. It would be great to hear from the Minister that, in the context of this Bill, elderly leaseholders can expect positive and specific changes for the better in the months ahead.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
In the interests of time, I shall be very brief. I agree with much that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and, of course, by the noble Lord, Lord Best, who has, as always, put his finger right on the key issues with his considerable expertise. We look forward to the task force report he mentioned. Successive Governments have, quite rightly, promoted downsizing: the freeing up of a house for families who desperately need a larger family property. However, we have not done anything like enough to investigate the state of retirement housing in this country and certainly not yet got policies right.
Many of the problems in the retirement housing sector have already been mentioned: high service charges and management fees actually hit elderly residents hardest. They are also suffering withdrawal or reduction of the in-house resident manager, who is frequently now off-site. Their property is more difficult to sell because prospective buyers are obviously a smaller target group, but mainly because of the so-called exit fees or event fees charged when the house is sold. So people can find themselves in a position where a retiree’s heirs are locked in to paying for the flat years after their parent has died, because they simply cannot sell it. Ultimately, all this is related to the iniquities of leasehold tenure, which should and must be abolished.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that this will not finally be resolved until we get rid of this leasehold regime. Some of the most heart-rending cases I dealt with as a councillor were from older leaseholders, often on fixed incomes and subject to the most extraordinary hikes in service charges, ground rents and all sorts of other charges that were imposed on them. I have cited cases in previous debates in your Lordships’ House. The experience of the 90 year-old cited by my noble friend Lord Khan earlier today was from Hitchin in my local area.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for her Amendment 85, which seeks to commit a Minister of the Crown to publishing a report assessing the state of the UK’s retirement leasehold sector within one year of the passing of this Act.
The Government recognise that leaseholders make up a significant proportion of the retirement sector, and are committed to ensuring that older people have access to the right homes in the right places to suit their needs. That is why the independent Older People’s Housing Taskforce was established in May 2023. The task force has been asked to look at the current supply of older people’s housing, to examine enablers to increase supply and to improve housing options for older people later in life. The task force has been commissioned to run for up to 12 months, and over this period has undertaken extensive engagement with stakeholders and gathered a great deal of evidence to inform its thinking and recommendations. The task force, as we have heard, will make final recommendations to Ministers this summer. I say to noble Lords who say we already have the review that I am not aware of that.
In addition, the Government have previously agreed to implement the majority of the recommendations in the Law Commission’s leasehold retirement event fees report. This includes approving a code of practice as soon as parliamentary time allows, to make event fees fairer and more transparent. The code will set out that these fees should not be charged unexpectedly, and developers and estate agents should make all such fees clear to people before they buy, so that prospective buyers can make an informed decision before forming a financial or emotional attachment to a property.
More widely, the Bill already introduces many elements that will help leaseholders, including those who live in retirement properties. As we move forward, the Government will continue to be mindful of the needs of leaseholders in retirement properties. The Government’s aim is to make sure that older people can live in the homes that suit their needs, help them live healthier lives for longer and, crucially, preserve their independence and their connections to the communities and places they hold dear. To reiterate, we have committed to making event fees fairer and more transparent and will bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. With these reassurances in mind, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, will agree with me that this proposed new clause is no longer necessary, and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Briefly, I thank those who have spoken, as it is the last group of the day. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has made some excellent contributions throughout, but really summed up why I tabled this amendment in the first place. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has obviously been reflecting on this issue too, as has the Minister. Particular thanks go to the noble Lord, Lord Best, who made the speech I wish I had made and obviously understands the issue in far greater depth than I do: I appreciate it. I hope that, none the less, the amendment has been useful in raising the profile of the issue.
I want to clarify one other thing. There is always a danger when we talk about the elderly as vulnerable people who might be preyed upon. We here are in a situation in which we might notice that people who are older can be the most ferocious and active, and not remotely vulnerable. In the film from the Free Leaseholders I was talking about, it was more that the elderly people interviewed said they had made a decision to be less active in fighting for their rights and maybe relax a bit and go into a lovely flat. They then found themselves in a situation where they had to become civil liberties fighters all over again, or lawyers or whatever, and that took up all their time and drained them. I do not want to want in any way to sound patronising. I want the sector to grow, but I do not think it will with leasehold. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would align the terminology used with terminology used elsewhere in Part 5.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would align the terminology used with terminology used elsewhere in Part 5.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(1A) But “administration charge” does not include an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling in a case where all of the following conditions are met—(a) the tenant’s lease specifies that only a person who has attained a minimum age may occupy the dwelling;(b) the amount is payable under a term of the tenant’s lease or is otherwise payable in connection with the tenant’s lease;(c) the amount is payable if—(i) the tenant’s lease is granted, assigned or terminated,(ii) a lease of the dwelling which is inferior to the tenant’s lease is granted, assigned or terminated, or(iii) there is a change in the person or persons occupying the dwelling; (d) the amount is fixed or is calculated by a method determinable in advance;(e) any other conditions specified in regulations made by the appropriate authority.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for “administration charge” in clause 81 to exclude “event fees” (which will generally be “fixed” service charges subject to the provisions regulating those charges inserted by Part 4).
Child Poverty
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bird
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to address the root causes of child poverty across the United Kingdom.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, as dinner break business is now the last business of the day, the allocation of time is now 90 minutes. Therefore, the Back-Bench speaking time has increased from four minutes to eight minutes.
Lord Bird (CB)
I welcome the chance to sort out the problems of poverty in an hour and a half. I welcome the idea that, in such a short amount of time, we can sort out the problem that a third of all our children are in or around poverty—that is 4 million children in the United Kingdom.
I alert people to my belief that, in the seven or eight years I have been in the House of Lords, I have never come to a debate or discussion where the root causes of things are dealt with. I believe strongly that one of the main problems we have is that Governments, Oppositions and people who have worked for many years in and around poverty are always dealing with the effects of poverty; they do not deal with the root causes of poverty. So when I proposed this small debate, I was actually trying to be revolutionary. I was trying to move the House of Lords—and, I hope, the House of Commons—towards the idea that instead of continuously dealing with the effects of poverty, we move the argument towards the root causes of poverty.
Throughout the world—it is not just the United Kingdom—in the region of about 80% of all money spent on social intervention is spent on dealing with the emergency and problems of coping with poverty. There is very little money spent on prevention or cure—the two opposites. Since the time I came into the House, I have been like a scratched record; I have gone on, again and again, asking when we are going to spend our time on eradicating poverty rather than ameliorating it and trying to accommodate it. That has been my real argument.
I think that His Majesty’s Government and His Majesty’s Opposition, and the previous Governments and Oppositions, have always dealt with the terrible reality poverty throws up. Tonight, I want to be a revolutionary and ask why we do not all look at something quite real. Why is it that, for all our efforts over decades—my decades go back to the end of the Second World War—we have always tried to deal with the obnoxiousness that is thrown up by poverty but we have never done a scientific analysis of the root causes of poverty? We have never had a Government or an Opposition, or an argument within our universities and charities, or among those who get involved in the struggles of the poorest among us, ask when we are going to do something about eradicating poverty.
I am sorry if I sound a bit Joan of Arc. I came into the House of Lords with one strict instruction from the people who encouraged me to come here, which was to help to dismantle and get rid of poverty, not to shift the deckchairs on the Atlantic. My instruction was not to make the poor more comfortable but to actually get rid of the concept of poor people.
I come from poverty, and maybe that is what drives me on. I come from people who came from poverty, who came from poverty and who came from poverty. The interesting thing is that when I grew up, I realised that they were surrounded by poverty; they could not get away from it. The mind-forged manacles that go with poverty meant that they perpetuated it. I have done my best within the lives of my own children to get rid of poverty in their futures, but the larger part of my family is still perpetuating poverty. Why? Because the root causes of poverty were never dealt with in the course of their lives.
To me, the big problem with poverty is the inheritance of poverty. In the United Kingdom, about 4 million children—a third of our children—are in poverty. It is interesting that a third of our children are in and around the problems of poverty, and in spite of all our efforts they remain so. What are we, the Church, the charities or the political parties going to do about it? Will they wake up one day and say, “Actually, we’re getting no nearer”? We know that in the last year, 100,000 more children have arrived in poverty.
We need an enormous mind shift, but I do not see it happening. I do not see anybody building the intellectual appliances or the university courses to find out why we are always trying to address the problems of poverty as if a bit more to the poor will actually change anything.
I came into the House of Lords and was astonished at the number of people who wanted me to get involved in agitating to give poor people more. I was determined, however much it would damage my reputation, not to do that. If the only thing you inherit is poverty, how do we break that situation so that you do not inherit it?
Can I just check: if we have more time, does this mean I can speak for another five minutes?
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
Speak for ever, as long as you let me speak for ever too.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I announced at the beginning of the debate that rather than an hour, we have an hour and a half. That extends Back-Bench speeches, but the noble Lord may have a few more moments above the 10 minutes for which he has spoken now. He can carry on.
Lord Bird (CB)
I love democracy.
I was born in the London Irish slums of Notting Hill, but we moved to Fulham. On my road, I fell into being a friend of a guy whose family, like mine, came from Ireland. His father had accumulated a number of jobs. He was a very clever guy, even though, like my family, he was ill educated. He became very wealthy and bought his house, so he had a house in Fulham Broadway at a time when my family were living around the corner in social housing—what was called council housing. He became very prosperous and employed 20, 30, then 50 Irish people to make money for him, so that he could buy a house, then a bigger one. There were two kinds of poverty. That guy did not inherit poverty, but my family inherited it and made damn sure that we and other members of my family inherited poverty and the mind-forged manacles that go with it.
What do we actually do to break that situation so that people in poverty are given something—a “je ne sais quoi”, a little thing—that will mean they do not imitate the inherited poverty of their own family? To me, that is the big issue: Patrick Crowell and his mum and dad built a business, made money and became middle class and prosperous, but my family remained in poverty. Their children and their children’s children are still in poverty and stuck in social housing, having all sorts of problems.
I want to know how the House of Lords and the House of Commons, with all their great brains, can help us dismantle the mind-forged manacles that come with poverty and its inheritance. That is my passion. Over the next few months, as we move towards a general election, I will be campaigning through my work in the Big Issue, and in Parliament in general, for a reinvention of social housing.
Do noble Lords know that there are so many people in this world who are defenders of social housing? These people absolutely love it and think it is absolutely brilliant. But do noble Lords know that the children of people who live in social housing rarely finish school, get their qualifications, get skilled and move out of poverty? Do noble Lords know that a fraction, an infinitesimal number of people in social housing, ever get to university or college so that they can then start living a fuller life away from poverty? Do noble Lords know that in housing associations, on average 70% of people are unemployed? I do not want to be interpreted as rude or insensitive, but if you really wanted to condemn somebody to poverty for the next 100 years, you would give them social housing.
Lord Bird (CB)
Forgive me—I am now going to stop—but I wanted to move on to say that this is why I am campaigning to change the way we deal with poverty. We have a situation in which eight government departments are dealing with poverty, but we do not have a convergence to dismantle it. Some 40% of government expenditure is spent on poverty; we really need to change it. I am calling for the creation of a ministry of poverty prevention. I thank noble Lords very much for their time.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for securing this important debate.
As we have heard, by the Government’s own estimate there are 4.3 million children—or to put it another way, 30% of all children in the UK—living in relative low-income housing, after housing costs. That is clearly a most alarming statistic. I truly believe that by addressing child and parental ill health, in addition to child and parental qualifications, we have the ability to solve long-term worklessness and low earnings.
The key to solving child poverty is to get people into work, and the data backs this up. Children living in workless households are more than six times more likely to be in absolute poverty, after housing costs, than those in households in which adults work.
Step one would be to empower children and parents to make the right food choices, which is the building block to eradicating child poverty. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the phrases “gut instinct” and “you are what you eat”. What we put into our bodies is what drives us. If we put unhealthy food that is high in calories and saturated fat into our system, it is highly likely that we will be overweight, feel ill and lack motivation, positivity and the will to succeed. We have to find a way to educate both children and their parents on healthy eating. Fortunately, there are charities such as Chefs in Schools, whose mission is to help
“schools serve up generation-powering, mind-opening, society-changing food and food education that fuels the future—all within school budgets”.
We can go much further. Feeling good is roughly 70% diet and 30% exercise. We have to encourage both parents and children to take exercise. Physical exercise and sport make a hugely positive contribution to society, to the extent that for every £1 spent on sport and physical activity, around £4 is generated in return across health and well-being, strengthening communities and the economy. “PE With Joe”—Joe Wicks—transmitted during the pandemic, proved that you do not need to go to the local sports centre to stay fit and healthy. It can be done in your flat or in the local park, and it costs no more than a pair of trainers and shorts, and a t-shirt. It is essential to get the message out about the importance of physical exercise.
To drill down on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about inherited poverty, my third area of focus is that we can eradicate child poverty, particularly generational poverty, through financial education. Assuming that families can find success with food education and physical education, they will be back in work, feeling good and able to save even just small amounts of money. Financial education is now crucial, because it is possible to grow those small amounts into life-changing sums. Using tax-free allowances, it is feasible to turn £10 per week into £160,000, using a medium rate of return over a 50-year timeframe. That £160,000 could be enough to take the next generation of a family out of poverty and into home ownership, mortgage free. Saving £20 per week at a slightly higher rate of return can produce £645,000.
My Lords, four minutes was a narrow window; I could speak in much more detail, but please let me finish by asking the Minister what the Government will do to address food education, physical education and financial education for both children and parents currently living in poverty.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for securing this debate.
While individual circumstances and actions may represent proximate contributary causes, the root causes of child poverty are systemic and as such are amenable to government action. Unfortunately, for the most part, over the past decade or so, government actions, particularly with regard to social security, have served not to prevent or alleviate child poverty but to worsen and even deepen it.
No doubt the Minister will refer to this month’s benefits uprating to defend his Government’s record; we hear about it constantly from Ministers. While it is welcome that, this year, the Government are doing the right thing, it has to be understood in the context of the significant cut in the real value of working-age and children’s benefits since 2010. The recent Work and Pensions Committee report on benefit levels referred to the wide range of evidence received which suggests they are “too low”, and called for the development of a framework of principles, following consultation with stakeholders—and here I would include social security recipients themselves—to inform proper consideration of the adequacy of benefits.
The impact of overall cuts in real value has been aggravated by the imposition of what the Resolution Foundation described as the “catastrophic caps” of the two-child limit and benefit cap, which have been identified as key drivers of child poverty today. As such, any child poverty strategy will be strangled at birth so long as they continue.
While I welcome the six-month reprieve for the household support fund, could we not use that time to design a longer-term statutory programme that combined the fund with the existing discretionary local welfare assistance scheme—which, at the last count, 37 local authorities no longer run—so as to ensure a proper safety net at local authority level?
In the last poverty debate, led so successfully by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, the Minister reminded us that the Government’s approach is based on the importance of the role of paid work in lifting people out of poverty, which was echoed today by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. While there is general agreement that access to paid work is important, it has to be good work and have proper regard to caring responsibilities, and it should not be imposed through the use of punitive mechanisms. Unfortunately, none of those conditions applies at present.
Moreover, when two-thirds of children in poverty are in families with at least one parent in paid work, it can only be a partial solution. In response to a recent Oral Question, the Minister responded to my call for a comprehensive cross-government child poverty strategy with the rather tired argument that it could drive action that simply moves the incomes of those “just in poverty” across the poverty line,
“while doing nothing to help those on the very lowest incomes or to improve children’s future prospects”.—[Official Report, 26/3/24; col. 576.]
Yet incomes are important and have been shown to make a real difference to children’s life chances. Depth of poverty indicators could, and indeed should, be included in any future targets, but the point of a comprehensive cross-government strategy—local as well as central— is that it would address the many facets of poverty that blight both childhood and children’s life chances. It would include all children, including those of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, whose poverty is the focus of a joint report to be published tomorrow by the APPG on Poverty and the APPG on Migration.
In conclusion, last week we lost a valiant crusader against child poverty, Lord Field of Birkenhead. It is shameful that the situation is worse today than it was when he and I worked at the Child Poverty Action Group in the 1970s.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, the share of children living in absolute poverty has risen by its highest rate in 30 years. DWP figures show that that increase was the largest since records began in 1994-95. As the Library briefing tells us, UN findings show that the UK is an outlier compared to other countries, but it is clear from those reports that, with political will, child poverty can be significantly reduced. For example, Poland, Slovenia, Latvia and Lithuania have reduced poverty by more than 30%. In contrast, five countries—France, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom—saw increases in poverty of at least 10%; for the United Kingdom, the increase was actually 20%. Perhaps we need to look more closely at what others do as part of our strategy for eradicating poverty.
In the UK, we see disadvantaged groups becoming even more disadvantaged and deprived. Some 40% of children in Asian and British Asian families were in poverty as well as 51% of children in Black/African/Caribbean and Black British families, and 24% of children in white families. Some 44% of children in lone-parent families were in poverty—they are doubly disadvantaged, having only one parent—and 34% of children living in families where someone has a disability were in poverty.
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, said that he knows what the experience of poverty is, so he wants to look more at the causes. As far as I am concerned, the urgency of the situation needs to be appreciated, including how difficult it is for so many. As a former teacher, I have seen the situation for parents, for whom anxiety about how to feed their families, choices about paying for heating or food, and depending on free school meals and food banks to feed their families all contribute to intense stress. Yet 69% of children in poverty are in working families. This is not just about unemployment and what we hear about universal credit being about making people work; those in work are also suffering intense poverty.
Benefit rates take no account of the cost of a healthy diet for children who are growing and developing. A poor-quality diet based on cheapness often results in obesity, poor health and future lifelong health problems. The Government guide to a healthy diet would cost a family on benefit around 70% of its non-housing income.
Children may be directly disadvantaged in their development through a lack of equipment, such as IT to do schoolwork and homework, and by not attending educational visits and trips. Many experience a lack of confidence through social isolation, which can continue through life, affecting levels of ambition. Not surprisingly, areas of high poverty are also the areas with lowest attainment and educational outcomes.
Hunger is debilitating: insufficient food on a continual basis affects mental and physical health, as well as the capacity to learn. The economic cost of poverty is also high, as poor children become poor adults, needing more support from public services. The Child Poverty Action Group puts the cost of that at £39 billion a year.
Many of the root causes of poverty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, lie with the benefits system, which, as she said, actually worsens the situation for many families. The notorious two-child limit has been the subject of much research, most recently carried out by Nesta. It shows that, by 2035, 750,000 families will be affected by this policy. The two-child limit has hugely increased pressure on and mental health problems for parents and has a detrimental effect on children’s development. Ending the two-child limit would take 500,000 children out of poverty.
A long-term strategy to tackle child poverty must address this as well as the inadequately financed benefit system. Public spending on families is only 60% of what it was in 2010. The strategy must also address low-paid work with zero-hours contracts, no sick pay and the lack of affordable childcare. Parents with children as young as three, even lone parents, are required to look for work. I support the aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and thank him for his campaigning work on poverty and for securing today’s debate. Sadly, there are lots of questions and although his passion is very clear, we are still seeking the solutions. I do not think that any of us has a magic cure, but we would all be willing to join him in his campaign.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for facilitating this much-needed debate. In a country boasting a record number of billionaires and where the top 1% has more wealth than 70% of the population combined, condemning 4.3 million children to poverty is really a political choice. There is no economic necessity for it whatever. Governments have bailed out banks and energy companies and handed billions in subsidies to rail, oil, gas, auto, steel and internet companies. They can eradicate child poverty too, if there is appropriate political will. Rescuing people from poverty will also stimulate the economy because poor people tend to spend more in the local economy, which has a considerable multiplier effect.
This Government have accelerated poverty by cutting real wages. The average real wage is now lower than in 2008. Austerity, unchecked profiteering, and the two-child benefit cap, accompanied by regressive tax policies, have deepened poverty. The poorest pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the richest. The richest fifth of households pay 31% of gross household income in direct taxes, compared with 14% by the poorest fifth. The richest fifth pay 9% of their disposable income in indirect taxes, compared with 28% by the poorest fifth. Can the Minister explain why the Government have not reduced indirect taxes, which would help the poorest households?
The Government actually have numerous policy options. They can reform corporate governance. For example, evidence shows that having worker-elected directors on the boards of large companies helps to secure equitable distribution of income and to lift families and children out of poverty. Since 2010, the Government have handed £695 billion of quantitative easing to capital market speculators. Will the Minister also support a call for QE to alleviate poverty? Why not?
The Government can also remove the two-child benefit cap and inflation-proof benefits by eliminating anomalies and the tax perks of the rich. For example, they can cap tax relief on charitable donations for donors at 20%. At the moment, the rich get tax relief at 40% and 45%. By capping this tax relief, the Government could generate £740 million a year extra, which could easily fund free school meals for children. By taxing capital gains at the same rates as wages, another £12 billion a year of extra revenue could be raised. Similarly, by taxing dividends at the same rate as wages, another £4 billion to £5 billion a year could be raised in revenue. By capping tax relief on pension contributions to 20% for all, the Government could generate an additional £14.5 billion a year of revenues. These are just some examples of how the Government could generate resources to alleviate child poverty, and, of course, I could offer up further options, if the Minister so wishes, either in this House or even privately. I hope the Minister will consider these things.
Finally, will the Minister acknowledge that child poverty is a political choice by the Government and not an economic necessity?
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for securing this debate and for his passion and his challenge. Like the noble Lord, I come from a poor London Irish family, but from south of the river, if that is allowed. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about the causes of child poverty and that they are systemic, and about the potential for changing them—not by exceptionalism, as may have applied in our cases.
As the Bishop of Lincoln, I am very conscious that in greater Lincolnshire I see vibrant resilient communities but, in the midst of a commendable spirit, there are considerable challenges. The effects of deep poverty feel widespread and tangible in a way that I have not seen since I began as a priest in the mid-1980s. Damp, low-quality accommodation, particularly in the private rented sector, has an impact felt particularly by children at crucial stages of their development. In response to this, the Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community set out five values for good housing: it should be safe, sociable, sustainable, satisfying and secure. Failure to deliver this only serves to entrench child poverty.
I worry particularly about the impact of intergenerational poverty. In many of our communities, the lack of employment and social opportunities is apparent. The industries that used to sustain towns such as Grimsby have changed. We have a fishing plant but no longer a resident fishing fleet. That affects employment prospects and a sense of pride in place. Children are profoundly affected by that context as they grow up.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies recently published a report to mark the 25th anniversary of the introduction of Sure Start centres, highlighting the extraordinary difference that these made to the educational outcomes of children who engaged with them or even those who lived near them. This second aspect explains why children living in poverty in rural areas in other parts of Lincolnshire and elsewhere did not benefit as much as those in urban areas. It is simply because those living in the countryside did not have the same access.
Partly this is a question of infrastructure—the transport links to ensure that services can be accessed. However, I wonder whether it is also a question of priorities of government and others. The recent Hidden Hardship report noted that disadvantaged young people in remote rural areas are 50% less likely to gain two or more A-levels or enter university than those living in major cities. A similarly ambitious approach to child poverty 25 years on from Sure Start must always keep in mind the rural context. What assessment is being made of the particular needs of rural communities as the Government assess the root causes of child poverty?
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, issued a challenge to the Church in relation to doing away with poverty, particularly child poverty. There is a crisis of capacity in the voluntary sector. Churches will continue to run toddler groups and open warm spaces where they are needed. Yet churches do not have an endless supply of volunteers. The real challenge for all of us is to think about what facilities we can make not just for children’s physical and food education, not only for their access to services and schools, but to think about what access they have to relationship-building and hope. A generation of hope is one of the most important things in this—giving children the possibility of confidence. One of the hidden areas of poverty in terms of relationships is the number of children who are child carers, looking after their single and sick parent. This is not being acknowledged much at all publicly. Often, one child is responsible for all their younger siblings.
One of the most impressive places which I visited recently, having done so several times, is the St John St Stephen & Shalom youth centre in Grimsby, in East Marsh, which has been celebrating its 50th anniversary. I never witnessed this before, but there is a plaque on the wall outside commemorating those former members of the centre who have been murdered or have died through drug-related incidents. This is the place where, over 50 years, 5,000-plus children and young people have been offered hope and the chance to build successful relationships with safe adults outside of their immediate family. I applaud this and hope that examples such as St John St Stephen & Shalom youth centre give us an incentive and hope not to give up on these children but to work with them and for them, in that way to transform our whole society.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for securing this debate and for introducing it in his typically powerful, inimitable style. However, I am afraid that I have to disagree with him that poverty is a characteristic of individuals, families or communities. It is a condition imposed on individuals, communities, families, cities and countries by an economic system that directs large amounts of resources to the few and denies them to the many. People are robbed of the shared resources that have been created by past generations and maintained by the labour of the current generation, many of whom are now living in poverty.
If we think back to the Covid pandemic, there was a focus on essential workers such as delivery drivers, supermarket shelf stackers, and care workers, and many of their children are those who are living in poverty. I also have to disagree with the noble Lord about social housing. Decent housing is a human right. It should be an essential service provided by our society. We have almost forgotten that back in 1979 almost half the British population lived in social housing. Back then, the rate of poverty was 13.7%; in 2023, the figure was 22%. The destruction of social housing is a significant factor in that.
I want to address the term “child poverty”. We have become used to “poverty” coming with a qualifier. We often talk about food poverty, energy poverty, period poverty and hygiene poverty. There is a risk with those qualifiers that we lose sight of the essential situation. We have a society that is riven with poverty, with lives right across the age groups blighted by the inability to access the basics of a decent life.
The State of Ageing report released last November showed that 20% of retired people do not have enough income to meet their basic needs and 25% of people aged 60 to 64 are living in poverty. That pretty well matches the figures that have already been cited for children. One in five—2.6 million in total—are living in absolute poverty before housing costs, with one in four—3.6 million—in poverty after housing costs.
Many in this House if asked to define a successful economy would use that hoary old chestnut, gross domestic product, and point to the growth from 2010 when the current governing party came to power. In 2010, the GDP was £1.87 trillion; in 2023, it was £2.27 trillion. Apparently, that is a sign of progress and success. Yet, I and the Green Party say that the job of our economy and our society is to meet everybody’s basic needs, while caring for the environment on which all our lives and “the economy” depend. If we use that as a judgment, what a failure that growth has been.
Why is that the case? The noble Lord, Lord Bird, challenged us with the “why”. I am going to use the “D” word—distribution. We have a society that profoundly misdistributes our resources, not to mention destroys our environment. Growth over decades has benefited the few, while the lives of the many have gone backwards. The root cause of child poverty—and poverty—is our failure to distribute fairly the goods and services of which our society has plenty. Our current economic system and our benefits system have failed. We have failed to maintain and support the basic physical and social infrastructure of our communities.
There are, however, many reasons why child poverty is a particular tragedy. Anyone now under the age of 18—a child—has had no part in creating the system they have to live in. Anyone under the age of 22 has had no say in our Westminster politics, yet they live every day with the consequences. They suffer not just from poverty and a lack of access to resources but from a lack of access to power.
That poverty is defining the shape of those children’s bodies and of their lives. As the head of an education trust in east Yorkshire, Jonny Uttley of the Education Alliance, reported, what does child poverty mean? It means regularly going to school hungry. It means not having the money for lunch. It means not being able to wash your sports kit. It means being unable to sleep at night because of cold, and how do you study the next day if you have not been able to sleep?
It is important to draw on the work of the Centre for Cities, acknowledging how this maldistribution is regional as well as by household. It found that the cities where the child poverty figures are the worst are overwhelmingly concentrated in the north of England and the Midlands. A child in Burnley is four times as likely to be in absolute poverty as a child in Cambridge, and a child in Manchester is twice as likely to be in absolute poverty as a child in London—yet we have had lots of growth.
We need a plan to tackle child poverty. We need first to acknowledge a failure of our economy, the failure of our society and, at its base, the failure of our politics, not just over the last 14 years but over decades. Power and resources are concentrated here in Westminster; Westminster has failed. The politics and the ideology since the Second World War have failed. We need a new kind of politics and a new political system.
Given I have a minute more, I will focus on one issue that a number of noble Lords have already raised, which is the two-child benefit cap. Six out of 10 families affected by that have at least one member in work. Almost half are single parents. If we continue with the current plan, half of families with three or more children will be in poverty by 2028-29. That is up from a third in 2013-14, when the policy was introduced. I give as a case study Frances, who lives in London. Her third child was a baby when her relationship broke down. She now has children aged 11, six and three. She had to leave her job because she could not afford childcare. She was a business administrator. She was not in any way a classic person in poverty, yet the two-child benefit limit is putting her in poverty. The Minister has already been challenged on this and I am afraid I am going to challenge the Labour Front Bench: surely Labour will have to abolish the two-child benefit cap in government.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak in the gap, because, like the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Meacher, and many others, I worked for Frank Field for four years. I was paid a poverty wage—£12 a week. I was not born in poverty, but I spent 10 years of my life immersing myself in the issues of poverty at the CPAG, encouraging families below the poverty level to keep expenditure diaries. That revealed that if you do not know where the next penny is coming from then you cannot possibly spend economically. Of course, you can budget carefully if you have a stable income, but if you have no idea when you are going to be in work or out of work, in your house, with your partner or without your partner, and maybe you have not had the best education, it is really difficult.
Interestingly, I will remember for ever a West Indian woman working below the poverty level who budgeted and fed her children nutritiously, but she had been brought up understanding about poverty in the West Indies. She came from a culture of poverty that could cope, unlike so many others. It is an interesting point about how you can give people the equipment to manage and to cope.
This was a time of working poor. Keith Joseph, later Lord Joseph, who basically made me a Tory, introduced family income support. It was a time when the trade unions were not at all keen on family benefit. I went to the T&G with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, to try to persuade that union to support child benefit going to the woman—a stable income. It was very reluctant because it liked supporting income for the man, and all the trade unions then were really male dominated. The world has changed.
There were three people in my life who really cared about poverty. Lord Keith Joseph was the first to talk about the cycle of deprivation. I was at the Pre-school Playgroups Association AGM in Church House when he made his speech about the cycle of deprivation—leaving school early, having no qualifications, having your first child early, and a vicious cycle of poverty. He was criticised for it, but I think few would doubt it now.
The next person who cared about poverty was the late Lord Frank Field. He did not talk only about benefits. My noble friend—sorry, the noble Baroness; she is my friend, but I should not refer to her like that—knows all there is to know about benefits; she has a forensic knowledge. But Lord Field had a wider view. He used to talk about being a five-star parent. He felt strongly about parenting and about families.
The third person is the noble Lord, Lord Bird. Now, I do not agree with a word he says, but I absolutely agree with his passion. To say there are no university departments that take poverty seriously is daft—go to Hull, to LSE, to Essex. To say that the Resolution Foundation, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation do not know all about poverty—they do, and they are very knowledgeable. But what the noble Lord is so right about is that he is passionate, and he is not going to give up.
Now, remember the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bird. He talked about his probation officer, who basically told him to get a grip and get a job. He talked about Baroness Wootton, a great heroine of mine and juvenile court chairman. My concern is that we can be very patronising and dismissive about poverty, but why do some people get through? Last week, I was with Alan Johnson, who certainly ought to be Lord Johnson; why has the Labour Party not put Alan Johnson in the House of Lords? Please do so, urgently. He is now the Chancellor of the University of Hull, where I was for 17 years. His upbringing was appalling: he was brought up by his mother, who died very young, and then by his sister. How has he become such a success? Some of this relates to the individual, and the ability of people to get through.
I will ask the Minister two questions, because I know I have gone on for too long. A lot of this is about parental conflict, and he leads the department’s Reducing Parental Conflict programme. What can the Minister tell us about reducing parental conflict? I want him to tell us about child maintenance developments, and the childcare programme.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and when he grows up, I hope he will become as good as Lord Field.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, we should all congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on enabling us to have this debate, because it is timely, in view of the fact that within a few months, we will have had a general election and there will be a new Government. In my view, that Government must see that reducing child poverty should be a very high priority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, said, the root causes of child poverty are systemic. She is right.
The debate has been extremely interesting, in that it has thrown out a range of ideas that we might look at. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for example, said a number of things about school, diet and finance that could be explored further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, talked about Lord Joseph, who knew that we had to do something about the cycle of deprivation. The problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said, is that we still have that, in that we have the inheritance of poverty. We have the inheritance of wealth on the one hand, but the inheritance of poverty on the other. How do we break out of that? Given that 10% of our young people aged 16 to 24 are not in education, employment or training, you have to intervene at an individual level to assist those who want to be in work, education or training, but who cannot be, for a variety of reasons. I would like to think that one might have individual work coaches for those not participating in the opportunities available to them.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about social housing. I understand the point he is making, but children need a secure, decent home, and for many that will only be—
Lord Bird (CB)
I agree with the noble Lord. Children do need a secure home, but the real problem is that all the conditions that lead you to need social housing mean that you never have a full life. I say to anybody in this House: try living in social housing, and then try to get to university or into a skilled job. That very rarely happens; that is the only problem. For me, the problem is not that social housing is not one of the most beautiful things in creation. The question is: what are we going to do to make social housing the foundation for a growth away from poverty and need?
Lord Shipley (LD)
I take the noble Lord’s point, and I understand. Perhaps that is why we need a broader, longer discussion. From my perspective, housing waiting lists are so long, and the quality of so many homes in the private rented sector is so poor, that the need to build decent homes within the sector for social rent seems imperative. Without that we will never solve the housing crisis.
Social housing providers can have a responsibility for providing wider support services, particularly for getting people into work and for giving help and advice to those who suffer from ill health. Estate officers can often do things to assist families or individuals that they would not be able to do if it were not for social housing. Maybe we need to have that longer debate.
I understand totally what the noble Lord was saying about a ministry of poverty prevention. Of course, all Whitehall departments are supposed to be doing things to reduce poverty, but the main one is the Treasury. It is about persuading the Treasury to invest more in things such as social housing that might help to reduce poverty.
There is an issue around income disparity. The first thing that has to be done to reduce poverty is reducing income disparity. That is why we have to deal with low pay, and make every effort to increase the minimum wage and the living wage above the rate of inflation so that those in lower pay brackets have more.
Mention has been made of absolute poverty and relative poverty. The truth is that too many children are being brought up in households with very low incomes. That is always poverty, whether it is absolute, relative or deep. We have heard the figures of 4.3 million children living in relatively low-income households and 2.9 million children in deep poverty—a household where income after housing costs is below 50% of median income.
All those tests are based on income, whereas child poverty derives from long-term unemployment, low qualifications, ill health, poverty of aspiration and poverty of opportunity. All those need tackling by the different Whitehall departments that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, talked about.
If levelling up is to be a success for the Government, child poverty needs to be addressed. The point is that levelling up is about people, not places. It is about individual children, and hence the two-child limit seems wrong. It was introduced in 2017, seven years ago. The Resolution Foundation has told us that it increased poverty, particularly for families with three or more children. It should cease, as it is increasing poverty in poor households. All the organisations that one can think of—the National Association of Head Teachers, the Church of England, Save the Children, the Child Poverty Action Group and Barnardo’s—say that it should cease.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln reminded us, Sure Start was a success. It was introduced in 1999 to improve child development. Some 250 projects were created, concentrated in places where high numbers of children under five were living in poverty. Those centres helped with play, learning, health and childcare. I recall that, when I was leader of Newcastle City Council, we had a major success with our Sure Start centres. It is about aspiration and addressing some of the issues that the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, reminded us of.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies said in a recent report that the programme of Sure Start paid for itself with better GCSE results, improved skills in literacy and numeracy, personal development, and fewer interactions with the police and criminal justice system. It is a means of achieving what the noble Lord, Lord Bird, set out asking us to do, which is to spend more money on prevention rather than on solving the problems that poverty has created. There was too short a judgment in 2010, when there was a change of Government and an end to Sure Start. Too many people thought that it had not proved itself but, if a longer timescale had been taken, they would have known that it had.
Something needs to be created in a new Government. It may be called Sure Start or something else, but we need something like that, which intervenes with those who live in poor households.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for securing this debate and all noble Lords who have spoken. Before I say anything more, I add my reflection to those of my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, in memory of Lord Field. He was an example to all of us of what it means to take a whole lifetime and yet, at the end, never cease to be outraged by the level of child poverty in a rich country. We all owe him a debt.
Tonight’s debate has highlighted the multifaceted nature of poverty. Whenever we have debates on poverty, there is always a temptation for some people to say that it is not about money and other people to say that it is only about money. Manifestly neither is correct. It is not just about money but it is not not about money either. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and other noble Lords made a very clear point of explaining what happens when you simply do not have enough money. If that is the case, all the strategies and all the preventive work in the world does not help you feed your kids that night; you simply cannot afford to do it.
On the basic level of access to resources, Britain is not in a good place. Over a fifth of our population lives in relative poverty. I know that the Government prefer absolute poverty as a measure, probably because it normally falls as real incomes rise, but, in the latest statistics in the document Households Below Average Income, we learned that the share of people living in absolute poverty is going up again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, pointed out. There are 600,000 more people, half of them children, living in absolute poverty, in what is still one of the richest countries in the world by global standards. We should not be in this space.
Look at how this cashes out. The IFS has been pointing out that the number in material deprivation rose by 3 million in the three years to last year. In that same time, the proportion of those who could not adequately heat their homes jumped from just 4% to 11%. I must say to the Minister that, although the Government chose to give people cost of living support, they gave the same amount of money to everybody, whether a single person living in a studio flat or somebody with a family living in a larger house. As a result, the official statistics said:
“Incomes for those with children reduced the most. This reflects the flat nature of the cost of living and additional support payments, meaning for larger households they are split between more household members”.
Have the Government reflected on the best way to support people in these circumstances?
I fully accept that it is about not just incomes but support and opportunity. But child poverty has combined with the impact of 14 years of public service neglect, frankly, and the differential impacts of the pandemic to produce an attainment gap between children who experienced deprivation and their peers, with a lifelong impact on their life chances.
What should happen now? The last Labour Government lifted 2 million children and pensioners out of poverty. I know the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said at the start that he thinks, essentially, “A plague on all your houses. None of you has done anything”, but I am proud that the last Labour Government introduced Sure Start. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, pointed out, not only did it have an effect at the time but children had better GCSEs later as a result of having been part of Sure Start back then. I had a privilege of being part of the Treasury team working with Gordon Brown on questions of poverty when Sure Start was being introduced.
Lord Bird (CB)
I just want to say that I used Sure Start. In spite of appearances, I was a very young father, and it was the most wonderful thing. I lived on the largest housing estate in south London and Sure Start was absolutely brilliant, so I am 100% behind it.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that. One of the most depressing points of my career, frankly, was coming into the Lords in 2010 and having to sit on the Opposition Benches watching everything that I had worked on introducing being dismantled stage by stage in the name of austerity. However, we are where we are.
What should happen now? If the British people were to trust Labour again in an election—and obviously I hope they will—then we would want to introduce a mission-driven Government, and one of our five key missions would be to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child at every stage, with a strategy to tackle child poverty. It would be the responsibility of all government departments to tackle the fundamental drivers of poverty. We would address that by having cross-departmental mission boards looking at exactly how that was being driven across departments.
We would focus on increasing the number of young people in education, employment or training. We would look to reform childcare and early years support, introduce free breakfast clubs, and improve school standards. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, about the importance of the nutritional content of school food and of access to sports.
On financial education, I am split. I agree with the noble Earl about the importance of financial education. However, recently I have met people who work for charities that traditionally have given debt advice. They told me in the past they would bring people in, sit them down, look at all the sources of income and all their outgoings, and help them to manage their budgets. They are now saying that more and more—sometimes most—of the people they come across literally do not have enough money to do it. Their budgets cannot be balanced; even the charity workers cannot balance them, with all their skills in financial education and management. So we have something of a crisis here. We need people who can manage to be taught how to manage well, while those who simply cannot manage it, however good they are, need to be helped to find a way through that. We would therefore want to support our social security system, strengthen rights to representation at work, improve social security and extend sick pay. We would boost wages by removing the minimum wage bands and expanding the remit of the Low Pay Commission.
We would want to tackle the housing crisis by retrofitting homes, strengthening renters’ rights and building more social and affordable housing. I take the underlying point that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, is making: decent, affordable and safe housing is a necessary but not sufficient condition to enable people to move out of poverty. It is both of those things. It is necessary because many of the people who would not be in social housing would otherwise be in bed and breakfasts, insecurely housed or, even worse, out on the streets.
We need nothing short of national renewal in this country. It will not happen overnight and will not be easy, but it should surely be the priority of any Government to guarantee opportunity to all our children. That is something I think we can all get behind.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to close this important debate on addressing the root causes of child poverty. It will be interesting to check with Hansard on whether this is indeed a first, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said, in focusing on root causes as a subject.
I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions and the noble Lord, Lord Bird, in particular, for securing this debate, as well as the debate on a similar topic in February. Once again, his s=-peech was a tour de force, reminding us why the noble Lord is in this House. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Bottomley for giving us a historical perspective on this subject, with a few namechecks that went back, I think it is fair to say, several decades.
I echo the words of several Peers about Lord Field of Birkenhead. The first line of the statement given out by his family, which was issued by his parliamentary office, was interesting:
“Frank was an extraordinary individual who spent his life fighting poverty, injustice and environmental destruction”—
that is rather telling. As Sir Tony Blair said in his statement, he was an “independent thinker”, and we must applaud that. I would like to say that he was a thoroughly decent man and, crucially, one of our country’s great influencers. That is an important point to make.
As I said earlier, this is an important topic, and I believe we all recognise that child poverty is a complex issue that can be associated with a range of factors, including worklessness, poor educational attainment, inadequate housing, parental conflict and poor mental health. Many people who experience poverty face a range of barriers, which can make it difficult for them to manage and move on with their lives. I will say more about this later in my speech, and I acknowledge the different reasons for poverty that have been spoken to.
I will mention the annual statistics published last month. On the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I doubt we will ever agree, but I took note of what she said. None of us wants to see child poverty increasing, and I share the concern expressed about this. The latest statistics cover 2022-23—please note that period—when global supply chain pressures, partly linked to the war in Ukraine, led to high rates of inflation, averaging 10% over the year, and food price inflation that reached a high of 19.1% in March 2023, which is not so long ago. These factors are reflected in the latest statistics.
In response, the Government provided unprecedented cost of living support worth £96 billion over the period 2022-23 and 2023-24, including £20 billion for two rounds of cost of living payments. This additional support prevented 1.3 million people, including 300,000 children, falling into absolute poverty—our measure—after housing costs in 2022-23. Since then, we have taken further action to support those on low incomes, including uprating benefits and pensions by 10.1% last year. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, may not like the fact that I am reminding her of this, as she said. The latest statistics show that 1.1 million fewer people were in absolute poverty after housing costs in 2022-23 than in 2009-10, including 100,000 fewer children. I will stick with those statistics.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who is not in his place, asked about the two-child policy. We believe that those on benefits should face the same financial choices when deciding to grow their families as those supporting themselves solely through work. On 9 July 2021 the Supreme Court handed down the judicial review judgment on the two-child policy, finding that it was lawful and not in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I question the point about making a choice about having a child. People fall into poverty and need benefits after they have had a child. What do they do then?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Of course, and the noble Baroness will know that I have spoken at length on this matter and that there are a number of exceptions to this particular policy. But I stick to our view that there is a balance to be struck between helping those people in the way that we do, not having the two-child policy and, equally, being fair to the taxpayer. I know that the noble Baroness will never agree to that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that many of these families are taxpayers and in paid work?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Absolutely. As I have said before, I do not think that we will agree at all on this—but, as I say, we are not minded to move on this policy. Both noble Baronesses will be well aware of our position on this.
There are encouraging signs that the economy has now turned a corner. Inflation has more than halved from its peak, delivering on the Prime Minister’s pledge, and is forecast to fall below 2% in 2024-25. Food price inflation is at its lowest since January 2022, at 4%, and wages are rising in real terms. We remain committed to a strong welfare system for those families who need it, and have uprated working-age benefits by a further 6.7% from this month and raised the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile of local rents, benefiting 1.6 million private renters in 2024-25.
Some questions were raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and also alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about social housing, which is an important subject. Their questions were linked to items of damp and mould; they asked what the Government were going to do about this. The Government have now introduced Awaab’s law through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, which gives the Secretary of State powers to set out new requirements for social landlords to address hazards such as damp and mould in social homes within fixed time periods. We are now analysing the responses to the consultation, and then we will publish a response setting out findings and bringing for secondary legislation as soon as possible.
What I should say, which think was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is that everyone has a right to a safe and decent home. Since 2001, the decent homes standard, the so-called DHS, has played a key role in providing a minimum quality standard that social homes should meet. We are currently reviewing the DHS to ensure that it sets the right requirements for decency, and we will publish a consultation on a proposed new standard soon.
Lord Bird (CB)
I am not against social housing—I am for social housing—but I want to break out of the situation whereby, if you get into social housing, you tend to fall behind everybody else. On what the Minister is saying about how they are going to change the requirements on social landlords, social landlords should be turning their tenants into people who can have a larger life and can get out of poverty. For most of them, even if they get into work, it is always in the low-wage economy, and they stay there. What are the Government doing about breaking the low-wage economy that many people in poverty find themselves in, who are often in social housing?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed, I will allude to the cross-government work that is going on. It may be that it requires a letter to write on that point, but I shall allude to it later, if I have the time.
Altogether this year we will have spent £306 billion through the welfare system in Great Britain, including around £138 billion on people of working age and children. This includes additional support to ensure the best start in life for children. For example, we have extended free school meal eligibility several times and to more groups of children than any other Government over the past half century. They are now claimed by more than 2 million of the most disadvantaged pupils. In addition, healthy food schemes provide a nutritional safety net for more than 3 million children. For those who need extra help with essentials, as inflation continues to fall, we are providing an additional £500 million for the extension of the household support fund in England, for a further six months, including funding for the devolved Administrations.
While it is right that we maintain a strong welfare safety net, we know that having parents who work, particularly full-time, plays a key role in reducing the risk of child poverty. My noble friend Lord Effingham mentioned this. In 2022-23, children living in workless households were more than six times more likely to be in absolute poverty after housing costs than those where all adults work. This is clear evidence of why, with more than 900,000 vacancies across the UK, our focus is firmly on ensuring that parents get the right support to find work and succeed in work. Our policies include: our generous universal credit childcare offer for working parents; our in-work progression offer; further increases to the national living wage to £11.44 an hour; and national insurance cuts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about making the housing support fund permanent. The HSF is not the only way we are supporting people on lower incomes. April’s benefit uprating of 6.7% will see an average increase in universal credit of £470. Raising the national living wage will deliver an increase of over £1,800 to the gross annual earnings of someone working full-time on that wage. Uplifting the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile of local rents, as mentioned earlier, will benefit 1.6 million private renters by an average of £800 per year.
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Bennett, asked whether we accepted that a strategy was now needed. I did promise to try to answer this. We have consistently set out a sustainable long-term approach to tackling child poverty, based on evidence about the important role of work in substantially reducing the risk of child poverty. I am very aware of the interest that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, takes in this, and I reassure the House that Ministers continue to work across and beyond departmental boundaries to ensure that we take a co-ordinated approach to supporting vulnerable and low-income households. This includes a cross-government senior officials group on poverty, as well as bilaterals and meetings with external anti-poverty stakeholders. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is right that Treasury input to this is vital.
I return to the question of childcare raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley. She asked what extra support we are providing to parents. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education work closely together to ensure that there is a comprehensive childcare offer that reflects different family circumstances, covering children over a range of ages.
Earlier, I mentioned some of the problems families in poverty face which mean that they can struggle to move into work and improve their financial circumstances. This Government offer a range of programmes to help people address these complex underlying challenges, so that they can take their first steps towards securing better outcomes for their families.
I applaud my noble friend Lord Effingham for making a number of interesting points. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, put it well when he said that they were interesting contributions to the debate. I agree with many of the points that he made.
The pupil premium funds schools to help improve educational outcomes and close attainment gaps for disadvantaged children in state-funded schools in England. Funding for this is increasing to over £2.9 billion in the year 2024-25. That is £80 million more than last year.
We are taking significant action to improve children’s health, which is another important point. This includes dramatically reducing sugar in children’s food, investing over £600 million to improve the quality of sport for children, and encouraging healthy diets for lower-income families through schemes such as Healthy Start. We are also investing £2.3 billion a year in mental health services.
The Money and Pensions Service’s UK Strategy for Financial Wellbeing is a 10-year framework to help everyone make the most of their money. It has set out five goals to be achieved by 2030, including to see 2 million more children and young people receiving meaningful financial education.
One example of the support that we are giving is the Supporting Families programme, which is now the responsibility of DfE. This has funded local authorities to help almost 637,000 families experiencing multiple disadvantages to make sustained improvements with their problems.
A network of 300 supporting families employment advisers, specialist DWP work coaches, work with the programme, providing employment support that is helping almost 10,000 families, resulting in around 200 job starts every month.
My noble friend Lady Bottomley mentioned Reducing Parental Conflict. This is very close to my heart—I am directly responsible for it in government—and we have £33 million-worth of funding available from 2022 up until next year, 2025. This programme has enabled local authorities to support couples to address conflict in their relationship, which has helped to deliver positive impacts for children over no less than three major evaluations at the end of last year. We are also looking to see how we can ingrain that in the Child Maintenance Service, which again is my responsibility. I feel very passionate about it, and the work we do, by the way, helps to take 160,000 children out of poverty each year, and there is always more to be done.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Bennett, spoke about childcare, and I want to give a quick response. The department is aware that, for some universal credit claimants, childcare costs present challenges to entering employment. To support people to become financially resilient by moving into work and progressing in work, eligible UC claimants can claim back up to 85% of their registered childcare costs each month, regardless of the number of hours that they work, compared to 70% in tax credits.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln is not in his place, and I am not sure why. I think I will write to him rather than answer him when he is not in his place. He asked about rural communities.
I shall conclude, given the hour, by reassuring the House again of the importance we place on this matter. The early years, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, are vital to securing good outcomes for children, and that is why we continue to work across government to ensure the best start for all children, including through our early years childcare provision and funding for school breakfast clubs. We understand that many families still face challenges, we are not shying away from that, and we will continue to work to ensure that the welfare system supports families who need it. To conclude, with inflation falling towards target and the economy beginning to turn a corner—perhaps green shoots; I do hope so—it is right that we continue to support parents to meet their responsibilities towards their children by seeking employment opportunities wherever that is possible.