House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
The Government deliver wide-ranging support for disabled people, including in work and education. We continually seek to enhance support—for example, via improvements to the health and disability benefits system, and in the accessibility of homes and transport, and through delivery of the national disability strategy and the disability action plan.
Debbie Abrahams
The United Nations has found that the Government have breached the rights of sick and disabled people, including their rights at work, and the UK’s own equality watchdog has said that the Department for Work and Pensions has discriminated against sick and disabled people. Given that only 2.7% of participants in the Government’s work and health programme have a successful job outcome, what meaningful proposals do the Government have to reduce the 29% disability employment gap?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her point, which takes me back to our time on the Work and Pensions Committee. I genuinely feel disappointed about that report, and the Government strongly rejected its findings in 2016, but we will continue to implement the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the Committee’s recommendations through many of our policies to improve disabled people’s lives, whether that is WorkWell, our disability employment advisers, or the work we are doing on fit note reform. We are absolutely determined to support disabled people in work. Indeed, in the first quarter of 2024 there were 10.3 million disabled people in employment, which is an increase of 400,000 on the year before.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I know that my hon. Friend is absolutely committed to disability employment, but can she please outline exactly what she is doing, both at the DWP and in her wider role across Government, to ensure that inclusion is embedded in policy and leadership so that disabled people—particularly those who are neurodiverse—are supported into civil service jobs?
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend for her point and for her work in this area. We are delivering on the Buckland review, and all ministerial Departments are signing up to Disability Confident, progressing to Disability Confident leader status and having evidence independently validated on that work. Arm’s length bodies are also signing up to Disability Confident, and we are working with parent Departments to encourage more of them to do the same. One in 10 senior civil servants declare themselves to be disabled, and since 2013 the proportion of civil servants with a disability has increased to 16.8%.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I am already a little confused by the Minister’s answers this morning. In December I raised the issue of the disability pay gap, and she replied from the Dispatch Box that the Government were closing the disability employment gap. She has mentioned this morning that that is apparently happening, but the numbers tell a different story: in the period from January to March 2024, 100,000 fewer people with disabilities were in employment compared with the same period 12 months earlier. Why does she think the plan is not working?
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady and I could trade statistics, but what I am interested in is opportunities for disabled people and people with health conditions, hence the work we are doing on the Buckland review, and indeed on entrepreneurship and the Lilac review—there will be further updates on that to the House shortly. If the hon. Lady is ready to listen, I can reassure her that we are working on the Disability Confident scheme and are doing further work on the employment goal, and I will update the House soon.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
In March last year we appointed Helen Tomlinson as the Government’s first ever menopause employment champion. She has been working up and down the country, visiting businesses large and small and giving them advice on policies to support menopausal women in the workplace. She recently published her 12-month review, “Shattering the Silence about Menopause”.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful for that reply. Labour is the party of women’s equality. The previous Labour Government did more to advance equality than any other, and the next one will match that record. We are committed to supporting women experiencing menopause to thrive at work by requiring large employers to adopt menopause action plans. Will the Minister do the same?
Maria Caulfield
As usual, this Government have already done all of that work. In England we have the Wellbeing of Women pledge, which the NHS, the civil service and this Parliament have signed. We will take no lectures from Labour on women’s health. While we have had a women’s health strategy for two years, Labour-run Wales has no health plan for women.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Research shows that one in 10 women with menopausal symptoms have left work due to a lack of support. In some cases, this will have been due to discrimination. Women experiencing menopause know that this is because of their age and sex, but the law does not protect them on that combined basis. Why not?
Maria Caulfield
The Equality Act 2010 already protects women on the basis of sex, age and disability. It is this Government who are changing the experience of menopause by rolling out women’s health hubs in every integrated care board across England, so that women can access menopause support. We also have our hormone replacement therapy prepayment certificate, which is available for just under £20 a year for women to get all their HRT prescriptions. Over half a million women in England have bought one of those certificates.
Anneliese Dodds
The Minister referred to Labour’s Equality Act, which of course includes protections against dual discrimination, but the Conservatives have refused to enact those protections. Labour would put that right. We would also require large businesses to produce menopause action plans, which the Government have refused to do, and we would also publish guidance for smaller businesses. We would set a new investment target for women-led start-ups, and we would transform the rights of women at work with a new deal for working people. The Minister for Women and Equalities has suggested, of course, that menopause at work is a left-wing issue. Does this Minister agree?
Maria Caulfield
The shadow Minister fails to mention the Help to Grow portal, which has a menopause resource hub that enables employers to use that information to better support women in the workplace, whether with flexible working—under laws that this Conservative Government have introduced—or through simple measures such as recognising that even the uniform a woman wears in the workplace can make a difference. This Conservative Government have raised the bar on menopause health and support in the workplace and in healthcare, while Labour for many years could not even define what a woman actually is.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
In this country, we believe in religious freedom. Everyone should be able to express their identity, faith and beliefs. However, this must be done in a way that respects the rights of others. Community cohesion in many of our towns and cities has been strained in recent months, following the 7 October attacks in Israel. The boundaries of acceptable behaviour in the public sphere are being tested. That is why on 18 December 2023 I published new guidance for public authorities, reminding them of their legal obligations under the public sector equality duty, and specifically that they should consider how they contribute to the advancement of good relations in communities as they deliver public services.
Andrew Rosindell
My right hon. Friend will know that, in Romford, our national, country and county flags—the Union Jack, the cross of St George and the flag of Essex—are flown with great pride as inclusive symbols of our shared identity. Does she agree that all public buildings, schools and organisations should be encouraged to fly the appropriate flags as symbols of unity, patriotism and equality, rather than of division?
Kemi Badenoch
I do agree with my hon. Friend. The Union Jack and the cross of St George are symbols of unity, not division, and of course, as an Essex MP, I am also particularly fond of our county flag. The point is that national pride should be celebrated, not shunned. That is why anyone in the UK is able to fly any of our national flags without needing the consent of their local authority, as per Government regulations that exempt national flags.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. On community cohesion between different ethnicities, what plans does she have to make funding available to enable community events whereby each member of a community can demonstrate their culture and heritage, with all ages and all groups, and to build relationships in a similar way to what we are doing in Northern Ireland?
Kemi Badenoch
We encourage every celebration of the diversity in ethnicity that we have in this country. In particular, the Government want to emphasise equality under the law, the fact that there are not protected groups but protected characteristics, and that everyone should be free from discrimination. We know that in many events up and down the country, including in Northern Ireland, that is what is being celebrated, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that in the House. We encourage all local communities to do just that.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
The Department engages regularly with the Cabinet Office on the different options for reshaping the current welfare system set out in the health and disability Green Paper, including on the potential impact on claimants with different health conditions.
Chris Stephens
The proposed reforms to personal independence payment unjustly target disabled people in a cost of living crisis. The Multiple Sclerosis Society found that nearly two in three people with MS said that the application process had a negative effect on their physical and mental health. Instead of pursing reforms that risk worsening inequality, will the Minister make representations to scrap informal observations to any PIP changes, as has already been done with the adult disability payment in Scotland?
Mims Davies
We want to understand how best to target support for disabled people and those with health conditions, to provide the right kind of support for those who need it most, and to ensure value for the taxpayer. Providing the right support to people who need it most, and understanding long-term health conditions and how people want to live independently and reach their full potential, is key to that. We must also ensure that disabled people feel understood and have a voice, which is why I strongly urge people to be part of that consultation and have their say. We want to hear from disabled people—that is what they say to me: they want to be heard and understood.
Alan Brown
In November, when I raised the concerns of Parkinson’s UK about changes to the work capability assessment, the then Minister agreed to meet the organisation. Six months on, there has been no meeting, and the Minister has replied to my follow-up written questions with standard answers about meeting a number of organisations. Will she step up to the plate and meet Parkinson’s UK to hear directly its concerns about the changes to welfare reform for those suffering from Parkinson’s?
Mims Davies
I try not to give standard answers, and I will not give a standard answer to that question. I recently met people who were diagnosed with Parkinson’s early—perhaps as young as 35—and I am happy to meet more broadly with Parkinson’s UK. I recently met Mind, and as much as my diary allows, and at events in the House, I engage with advocates for disabled people and those with health conditions. I am happy to pick up that meeting, because if it is not already in my diary, it should be soon.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recently concluded that the UK Government have
“failed to take all appropriate measures to address grave and systematic violations of the human rights of persons with disabilities and has failed to eliminate the root causes of inequality and discrimination.”
With those damning findings in mind, will the Minister confirm whether an equality impact on the proposed welfare reforms has been carried out, and if so, can we expect it to be made public?
Mims Davies
I will write to the hon. Lady on that question. I can reassure her that I have met her and my counterparts in the devolved space regarding PIP reforms and the wider consultations, to ensure that we are hearing voices from everyone. As I said earlier, the UK is a signatory to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, and we remain committed to ensuring that the UK is one of the best places to live and work as a disabled person. I come from caring and a family that lived with disablement. We must listen to disabled people, stop scaremongering and ensure that they are understood. That is exactly what our reforms and engagement are all about.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions continue to have regular discussions about state pension inequality. We introduced the new state pension in 2016, which improves outcomes for many women. Outcomes will equalise for men and women by the early 2040s—more than a decade earlier than under the previous system.
Mohammad Yasin
Some WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women in Bedford are living in severe financial hardship, having had their pension income stolen, in some cases twice. Their right to compensation has been tested and won. Given that a WASPI woman dies every 13 minutes, does the Minister agree that a compensation scheme needs to be set up immediately? It should not be a one-size-fits-all package, but it must be simple, clear and easy to operate.
Mims Davies
I know that this issue is very emotive. For all of us with constituents who are worried about their pension age, I remind them that pension credit provides a safety net for people on low incomes, so they should look at the benefits calculator on gov.uk. There will be a full debate on the ombudsman’s report tomorrow, and the Government will take all views into account as we identify and implement the next steps. The ombudsman’s report is complex and substantial, and the investigation covers 30 years. I appreciate that all parties want to see the situation resolved as quickly as possible. As the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said, there will be no undue haste, and we will be listening to everyone.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
NHS England plans to make further changes to reporting on sex and gender in national datasets once the unified information standard for protected characteristics has been approved and published. This will unify reporting on eight of the nine protected characteristics, including gender reassignment and sex.
Rosie Duffield
I know that the Secretary of State agrees that vulnerable women with learning disabilities and all women should be able to access same-sex care, particularly with regard to intimate physical care. That is especially important in the light of the shocking report by the Women’s Rights Network and Jo Phoenix on rape and sexual assault in hospitals and care settings. That is why the proper collection of data based on sex is vital. Does the Minister agree?
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We are currently consulting on the NHS constitution, which will give women not just the right to same-sex accommodation in hospitals, but the right to ask for someone of the same sex to conduct intimate examinations. There are safeguards, and we are looking at some of the incidents in trusts in order to better protect patients and staff. She is absolutely right to raise the issue of data collection and ensuring that that is happening.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
The Government have worked to advance equality of access to start-up opportunities, irrespective of social background or race. We have a range of business support programmes and Government-backed financial support through Help to Grow: Management, growth hubs and the British Business Bank. The success of our endeavours to engage and support diverse business leaders can be seen in the data. In 2023, 44% of the 30,000 people in England helped by the business support helpline were from ethnic minority backgrounds.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for that response, although I found it a little difficult to hear. Bristol has a thriving and entrepreneurial Somali community, but one of the things they constantly come across is almost an expectation that they will set up businesses that serve just their community, rather than being part of mainstream regeneration efforts and the general commercial life of the city. What is the Equalities department doing to try to ensure that those people can make that breakthrough from just being community-based projects?
Kemi Badenoch
It is interesting that a number of people have that perception that they should stay in their lane. This Government do not support any sort of activity that is segregationist. We believe that we must treat people equally under the law. All of our access programmes are available irrespective of ethnicity. People should be encouraged to serve the entire community, not just people who look and sound like them. Some of the schemes that I mentioned in my earlier answer are available. The hon. Lady should know that the Start Up Loans Company reported that in her constituency 42 start-up loans were issued to ethnic minority-led start-ups, for about £315,000, so there are opportunities out there. I am happy to write to her with more information if she needs it.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
Institutions should be able to operate free from ideological pressures. I am delighted that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has retained its accreditation as an A-status national human rights institution, denoting full compliance with the Paris principles, despite Stonewall’s attempt to have it stripped of its status at the UN. As I have said before, Stonewall does not dictate the law in this country, or indeed in the UN. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, having retained its A-status, retains its independent participation rights at the UN Human Rights Council and remains able to report directly to the United Nations on human rights issues.
Rachel Hopkins
Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that 25.3% of women are economically inactive, compared with 18.4% of men. Many women say that access to flexible working could see them return to the paid workplace. What steps is the Minister taking alongside her Cabinet colleagues to ensure that all workers have access to flexibility in their working hours?
Kemi Badenoch
There is a lot that my Department in particular is doing. We have put out multiple bits of legislation that will help to entrench workplace equality, whether that is around flexible working rights or sexual harassment in the workplace. We are doing more even on the trade side, where we continue to ensure that we have provisions that advance gender equality in our free trade agreements because we want to break down barriers and create opportunities for female entrepreneurs.
Mr Speaker
I call Andrew Jones. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] A popular man.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. There are various reasons why women and men should be able to access single-sex spaces, and public toilets are no exception. We are updating building regulations so that toilets in non-domestic buildings offer safety, privacy and dignity for all people who use them. There is often confusion between gender-neutral toilets and unisex toilets. We support unisex toilets, but through these new building regulations we are trying to get rid of toilets and bathrooms where men and women share the same space.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Kemi Badenoch
The Online Safety Act 2023 introduced new offences that criminalise sharing or threatening to share an intimate image without consent, which includes deepfake intimate images. The Government are working to ensure that we are ready to respond to the full range of threats to our democratic processes, including through the defending democracy taskforce. If deepfakes are discovered by users on social media, they should report them directly to the platform. In the case of elections, they should be reported directly to the Electoral Commission, because it is already an electoral offence to make false statements of fact about the character or conduct of a candidate during an election.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Having endured an induced coma and six rounds of chemotherapy, 17-year-old Leoni Miller launched her new business at a WayfinderWoman event last month. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing Leoni every success and outline what support and advice is available so that other young women see running their own business as a real prospect?
Kemi Badenoch
I wish Leoni every success. My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. In March, we proudly announced the launch of the invest in women taskforce, whose mission is to make the UK the best place in the world to be a female founder. Since the taskforce’s launch, its members have been working with the private sector to begin raising funds for female founders just like her constituent.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
It is this Conservative Government who have commissioned the patient safety commissioner to do a report on what redress would look like. It is important that we take those recommendations in detail. We are looking at that and we aim to respond to the commissioner in the coming weeks.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Some sporting bodies have interpreted the Equality Act 2010 in such a way that they believe they cannot lawfully ban males who identify as girls or women from competing in women’s sport. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that interpretation is not correct and that it is lawful to exclude all males from female sport to achieve safety and fairness for women and girls?
Kemi Badenoch
I agree. There is so much misinformation out there and incorrect guidance that creates confusion. I recently had a roundtable with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and she and I agreed that sports bodies in the UK need to tackle this area more strongly.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Lord
Residents across the eastern villages of Woking, in Byfleet, West Byfleet and Pyrford, have seen a large number of proposed developments in recent years. Of particular concern is an area of beautiful fields near West Hall, where more than 1,000 constituents have written back to me in recent weeks, expressing their deep concerns about the lack of provision of local infrastructure and the potential effects on the local environment. My residents and I will fight on, but does the Prime Minister agree that Labour’s proposals to concrete over vast swathes of the green belt in Surrey and the south-east would be a complete calamity?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unlike both the Liberal Democrats and Labour, who believe in top-down targets that would decimate the green belt, we believe in local people having a say over their local communities. That is why we are ensuring that we make best use of brownfield land and that we conserve and enhance our precious countryside for generations to come.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
On Monday, the Prime Minister treated us to his seventh relaunch in 18 months. He vowed to take on the dangers that threaten the country, so it was good to see the Minister for common sense immediately take up that mantle by announcing a vital crackdown on the gravest of threats—colourful lanyards. Meanwhile, in the real world, after 14 years of Tory Government, the prison system is in chaos. Does the Prime Minister think that his decision to let prisoners out 70 days early makes our country more secure?
The Prime Minister
Civil service impartiality is an important principle that we are right to support—perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could ask his chief of staff about that. What I did on Monday was outline the serious security threats that our country faces from an axis of authoritarian states: Russia poisoning people on our streets; China targeting our democracy; and Iranian proxies firing on British ships. Yet he will not back our plan to increase defence spending and we all know why—especially since the deputy leader and the shadow Foreign Secretary voted to scrap our nuclear deterrent. It is clear that you simply cannot trust Labour with our country’s security.
Keir Starmer
I appreciate that the Prime Minister has been busy on the frontline of the war against lanyards. He must have missed that I was the first to call for 2.5% on defence spending. The last time that happened was under the last Labour Government. It needs a credible plan, not his fantasy economics.
I am disappointed to see that version 7.0 of the Prime Minister’s time in office does not extend as far as answering questions or giving any information on those prisoners he is releasing early—basic details such as how many, where are they and what crimes have they committed. Will he at least guarantee that none of the criminals who he is instructing prisons to release early is considered high-risk?
The Prime Minister
There are strict eligibility criteria in place, with exclusions based on public safety. No one would be put on the scheme if they were deemed a threat to public safety. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about 2.5%, but if he thinks that is important—I think he just stood up and acknowledged that it was the right thing to do—we have a fully funded plan to deliver an increase in defence spending. He and his party have refused to match that commitment.
Keir Starmer
Just like his £46 billion—fully funded! If anyone was looking for the perfect metaphor for this shambolic Government, we saw it on Monday. The Prime Minister woke up deciding his latest rebrand was “Mr Security”, but within hours the Tory party was being investigated for accidentally publishing the personal details of hundreds of people. He must be the only tech bro—brother—in the country who cannot work a debit card or send an email. [Interruption.] But he has not answered my question, so I will try again. Are any of the prisoners he is currently letting out early considered to be high-risk?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman just showed spectacularly why he is just not fit to lead this country into the future. This country has a proud tradition of leading the world. We led the world when it came to the industrial revolution, but if he was around he would have probably called James Watt the steam bro. What we are doing is preparing the country for the future. He talks about the prison scheme. Let me be crystal clear: no one would be put on the scheme if they were deemed a threat to the public. Offenders are subject to the toughest of licensing conditions and, if those conditions are broken, they are back in prison for considerably longer. But what is his record on this? He voted against tougher sentences for violent criminals. He actually opposed new powers for the police to tackle violent crime and voted against new laws that have arrested 1,000 criminal people smugglers. The message is crystal clear: he cannot be trusted to keep this country safe.
Keir Starmer
I appreciate that all this rebranding has taken all the Prime Minister’s time, but he may want to read the recent inspection report into Lewes prison on this topic, which I have asked him twice about. It documents, on page 5:
“high-risk prisoners…being released at short notice without sufficient…planning”.
Page 46 states:
“a high-risk prisoner had his release date brought forward…despite having a history of stalking, domestic abuse and…a restraining order.”
In the report’s words,
“He was a risk to children”.
Does the early release of stalkers, domestic abusers and those considered a risk to children sound like the work of someone who is making the country more secure?
The Prime Minister
As I said, no one should be put on the scheme if they are a threat to the public. Let me be crystal clear: it does not apply to anyone serving a life sentence, anyone convicted of a serious violent offence, anyone convicted of terrorism, or anyone convicted of a sex offence. Crucially, in contrast to the system Labour put in place, governors in the prison service have an absolute lock so that no one is put on the scheme who should not be. Labour’s scheme let out thousands upon thousands of violent offenders on to our streets and even two terrorists. Thankfully, we have toughened up sentencing against those criminals with new legislation, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against it.
Keir Starmer
Well, I am glad to hear that those on life sentences are not being released early. The Prime Minister may not think that releasing domestic abusers is a problem, but Labour has repeatedly called for domestic abusers to be exempt from the scheme to release prisoners early. His Government have shamefully ignored those calls. Now that we have the evidence that domestic abusers are being released early—the Lewes report—will he finally change course and back Labour’s calls?
The Prime Minister
I have been crystal clear. There is an absolute governor lock on people who are put on the scheme, in contrast to the last Labour scheme. Prisoners were let out with no supervision, no electronic tags. In fact, 80,000 offenders were let out—16,000 were violent, leading to multiple murders committed. We fixed that system. When it comes to this question, not only are we building the biggest prison programme in history, but we are deploying rapid deployment cells. On the Conservative Benches, we understand the importance of prison, unlike one of his Front Benchers, who said, “Prison doesn’t prevent crime”. It is always the same with the Labour party: soft on crime and soft on criminals.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister is literally letting criminals out early. The only answer to the question that I have asked—whether domestic abusers should be exempt from his early release scheme—from anyone who is serious about security is yes.
Perhaps the most ludicrous part of the Prime Minister’s speech on Monday was when he said that he would not accept the idea that any of the problems people were facing had been caused by 14 years of Conservative Government. He will not say how many prisoners the Government have released early; he will not say whether they are burglars, abusers or stalkers; he will not say where they are or what support their victims are getting. Yet he thinks he has the right to tell people that they cannot blame his Government for any of it. Does he not think that, rather than confiscating lanyards like some jumped-up milk monitor, he should stop issuing “Get out of jail free” cards to prisoners who are considered to be a risk to children?
The Prime Minister
Another week with no ideas and absolutely no plans for the country! The Opposition have had 14 years to think about nothing but the future, but all they can do is talk about the past.
I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not bring up what has happened in the week since we last met. Statistics have confirmed that we have had the joint fastest growth rate in the G7 this year. The Bank of England has said that the economy has “turned a corner”, EY has said that our growth is “impressive”, and the chief economist at the independent Office for National Statistics has said that
“the economy is going gangbusters.”
The shadow Chancellor may want to copy and paste their comments into her next speech—or does she think that they are all “gaslighting” the British public too?
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for rightly championing the views of his constituents on this important topic. Network operators must follow legal obligations when deploying their networks and Ofcom can, in fact, investigate reports of failure to follow those obligations. I know that the Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), met representatives of the sector and Ofcom recently to raise concerns about reports of poor pole siting and asked operators to share infrastructure, and I will ask her specifically to give my hon. Friend a more detailed update.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
On Monday, the Prime Minister outlined what he considers to be extremist threats to our society, and in doing so he actively compared North Korea, Iran and Russia with those people in Scotland who believe in independence, so can I ask him to rise, once, to the standards befitting his office, and apologise for those puerile and pathetic remarks?
The Prime Minister
That is not what I said, but I will say to the hon. Gentleman that his party is indeed a threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom. I hate to remind him that that is literally its entire purpose. When the people of Scotland accepted the referendum result in 2014, it was the SNP that didn’t. It went on creating a Minister for independence, focusing on constitutional wrangling and ignoring the needs of the people. Education standards are falling and taxes are rising. It is the right hon. Gentleman who should finally do the right thing: end the obsession with independence, and put the needs of the Scottish people first.
Stephen Flynn
Let us be clear. What the Prime Minister did was not just equate my colleagues and I to dangerous despots across the world; he proactively compared almost half the Scottish population to a war criminal like Vladimir Putin, and he did so as their Prime Minister, as the man who represents them on the world stage and as the man who on these isles is tasked with defending their liberties and their democracy. We know that his sorry time in office is rapidly coming to a conclusion, but is this really how he wants to be remembered?
The Prime Minister
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman is distracting from the actual record of what the SNP is doing in Scotland. This obsession with independence means that Scottish schoolchildren are being let down, plummeting down international league tables; the Scottish NHS is the only place in the United Kingdom where funding is actually falling in real terms; and taxes are going up for ordinary hard-working families and small businesses. That is what the SNP is doing in Scotland while this UK Government are delivering for them.
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Uxbridge College and the West London Institute of Technology on their collaboration with MIT. This is equipping students with the skills of the future that local businesses require, and that is very much the story of this Government, with the biggest long-term settlement for post-16 education in this country in years and a proud record of creating over 5.5 million apprenticeships since 2010—providing opportunity for all, while the Labour party wants to halve the number of apprenticeships and put a brake on people’s aspirations.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
My party, Plaid Cymru, has secured a crucial win for our farmers as Labour in Wales is forced to pause the sustainable farming scheme. We have done our bit for farmers; now it is time the Prime Minister did his. Harmful trade deals and Brexit checks are hitting our world-famous Welsh lamb and beef. Will he therefore guarantee to Welsh farmers that he will never again sign a deal that threatens their interests?
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. Lady cares about Welsh farmers, perhaps she should stop propping up the Welsh Labour Government. It was actually the work of the Welsh Conservatives that ensured that there was a spotlight on the Labour Government’s proposals in Wales, which would have led to thousands of job losses and less food security for our country, and destroyed rural incomes. Farmers rightly described it as “bleak”, “damaging” and “shocking”, just like the Labour party’s approach to rural Britain.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to hear about the new community diagnostics centre at my right hon. Friend’s local hospital. We are working tirelessly to reduce the overall NHS waiting list, which has come down by around 200,000 since September last year. That is an achievement in light of the pressures from industrial action, but she is right: there is more to do. Our productivity plan will free up clinicians to spend more time with patients and, to her point, our long-term plan for the NHS will ensure that we train more doctors and more nurses to meet the workforce requirements of the NHS for the future.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, unlike the US, the UK Government do not directly sell arms to Israel, and neither do the UK Government offer any military lethal aid packages to Israel, as the US does. He should not conflate these issues.
As part of the Government’s robust arms control regime, we regularly review advice to ensure compliance with international law, and Ministers act in accordance with that advice. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our position with regard to export licences is unchanged following the most recent assessment, and it is, indeed, in line with other partners, including the United States.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work as a commissioner on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. He raises an important point about authoritarian states with different values from ours becoming increasingly assertive. It is right that we build our security in uncertain times to defend and protect our country, our values and our interests. That is why we made the generational decision to increase our defence spending. It is crystal clear that only the Conservative party can be trusted with our nation’s security.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Prime Minister
As I have repeatedly said from this Dispatch Box, it is imperative that banks and building societies recognise the needs of all customers, including those who still need to use in-person cash services. That is why we legislated to protect access to cash as part of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. As a result, customers can access cash and banking services through a wide range of channels, including post offices, ATMs and telephone and community initiatives such as banking hubs.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I commend my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on this case. I know the whole House will join me in recognising the horror of the crimes committed by Colin Pitchfork and in sending our condolences to the victims’ families.
We are reforming the parole system to add a ministerial check on the release of the most dangerous criminals, and we are changing the law so that, for society’s most depraved killers, life means life. I will, of course, arrange for the findings of my hon. Friend’s survey to be properly considered, and I will ensure that he meets the Justice Secretary to discuss his proposals further.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We do support, and I do support, Israel’s right to defend itself and remove the threat that Hamas, the terrorist organisation, pose to its people. But I am also deeply concerned about the growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and I have consistently made that point at this Dispatch Box and to Prime Minister Netanyahu. We must see further action to ensure that more aid gets to people who desperately need it; the Rafah and Kerem Shalom crossings must be open to allow more aid in. We are doing everything we can, trebling our investment; trying to get aid in by land, air and sea; and currently working with allies to build a temporary pier. The hon. Lady can rest assured that the Government will continue to do everything we can to get support to the people in Gaza who need it.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) is a tireless campaigner for the Wylfa nuclear site in her constituency. As she knows, at the spring Budget the Chancellor announced that Great British Nuclear has reached an agreement to purchase the site at Wylfa, and it and one other site will be vital to achieving our aim of more energy security from nuclear power. Decisions have not yet been made on the final sites to be used, but, as ever, she makes a very strong and compelling case for her area. I know that as soon as a decision has been made the Energy Secretary will be keen to update her at the earliest opportunity.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As I said to the House last week, I understand the strong feelings across the Chamber about these matters and the desire for urgency in addressing them. Following the ombudsman’s multi-year investigation, it is imperative that we take the time to review the findings thoroughly; I am not entirely sure I agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of all of them so far. Broadly, we are committed to making sure that pensioners have the dignity and security that they deserve, including through the triple lock, which is increasing pensions by £900 this year. I welcome tomorrow’s debate on the ombudsman’s report and we will, of course, take all views into account as we identify and implement next steps.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, I care deeply about the future of our community pharmacies. There are over 10,500 community pharmacies across the country and they are working incredibly hard to serve their patients. I am pleased that about 80% of people live within a 20-minute walk of a pharmacy. That is why we are backing them with Pharmacy First, with £645 million of extra funding, whereby people can now go to see their pharmacist, rather than their GP, to get treatments for the seven most common ailments, such as ear infections and the like. Not only will that ensure that they can get treatments closer to home, but it will help to deliver our plan to cut waiting lists and get people the care they need more quickly.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the case. As she knows, the Department for Education has provided extensive support and funding to all those schools that have RAAC, which in the end was less than 1% of all schools that could have been affected. More generally, there is the very significant amount we are investing in school rebuilding and maintenance. I am sure the Education Secretary will have heard her concerns and will write to her in due course.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. Particularly at a time of increasing geopolitical risk, we must protect this nation’s food security and our most valuable agricultural land. We can achieve our solar deployment targets by using brownfield sites and rooftops away from our best farmland. I know he looks forward to the Energy Secretary’s statement later today, which will ensure we avoid using our best agricultural land. Like him, I agree that we should be backing British farmers to produce more food. That is good for our country, our economy and our food security.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We are committed to ensuring that our armed forces personnel and their families have safe and well maintained accommodation. At this point, 96% of service family accommodation meets or exceeds the Government’s decent homes standard. Last year, we put aside an extra £400 million of investment to improve things. The Ministry of Defence has set up a dedicated hotline to ensure that when issues are reported, those complaints are investigated by a professional surveyor. I know there have been several improvements made specifically to accommodation in the hon. Lady’s area. We are able to continue backing our armed forces personnel and the job they do for us because the Conservative party is the only party in this place that is committed to increasing our defence spending.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
This week, the all-party parliamentary group on birth trauma published our first report, called “Listen to Mums: Ending the Postcode Lottery on Perinatal Care”. This was the first national inquiry by cross-party politicians on the issue. We received more than 1,300 testimonials from the public. I thank the Health Secretary for attending our report launch on Monday. I am delighted that she has agreed to our headline recommendation for a national comprehensive maternity strategy, to be published by NHS England. Will the Prime Minister fully back our report and implement all our recommendations, to ensure that all mothers in this country get the aftercare that they deserve?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her incredible campaigning on this issue. When we met and discussed the issue, she presented me personally with a copy of this important report. I am hugely grateful to her and the APPG on birth trauma for carefully considering the issue, and to all the brave women who have come forward to share their stories. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the chief executive officer of the NHS both support the overarching recommendation for a comprehensive national strategy to improve maternity services. We will update the House on next steps in due course, but we are fully committed to improving the quality and consistency of care for women throughout pregnancy, birth and the critical months that follow.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
When adult rape cases take two years, on average, to complete, it is no wonder that 62% of all rape survivors drop out of the process. Given that just 2.5% of rapes recorded last year resulted in a charge and fewer still will end in conviction, it is no wonder that the Victims’ Commissioner, Rape Crisis and others have argued that rape has been effectively decriminalised in this country. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that, because of his Government’s failings, victims and survivors are being put through a living hell in our criminal justice system?
The Prime Minister
While it is right that the hon. Lady raises this incredibly important topic, I completely disagree with her characterisation of how this Government have treated it. It is actually this Government who previously introduced the rape review action plan, which is now showing significant improvements in how we treat rape, end to end, through the criminal justice system. Violence against women and girls is now a strategic policing requirement for the first time ever. We have rolled out Operation Soteria, so that police forces have the expertise that they need. We have actually quadrupled funding for victim support, with more independent domestic sexual violence advisers. There is new 24/7 support for victims. We have ended the digital strip search and provided pre-trial cross-examination. All of that has meant improvement to the process, and we have seen an increase in the average sentence for rape by a third since Labour was last in office—and by the way, Mr Speaker, we did that using a power that the hon. Lady’s party voted against.
Ukraine and Georgia
(6 months, 1 week 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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Russia’s aggression relating to Ukraine and the situation in Georgia.
The Minister for Armed Forces (Leo Docherty)
We are on day 811 of Putin’s so-called special military operation—an operation that was supposed to last for three days—and he has failed in all of his objectives. The conflict is, of course, evolving and challenging. Russia’s newly formed northern grouping of forces has attacked Ukraine’s Kharkiv region, taking control of several villages. By opening up an additional axis of attack, Russia is almost certainly attempting to divert Ukrainian resources away from other parts of the frontline and to threaten Kharkiv, the second largest city in Ukraine.
We will not be diverted from our commitment to providing Ukraine with the support that it needs to prevail—because Ukraine will prevail. In April, the Prime Minister announced our largest-ever and most comprehensive package of equipment from the United Kingdom, including equipment relating to long-range strike, air defence, artillery, reconnaissance, protected mobility, development of Ukraine’s navy, airfield enablement, and munitions to support the introduction of the F-16.
The Prime Minister has also announced £500 million of additional funding, which takes us to £3 billion of military aid to Ukraine this financial year. We continue to work with international allies and partners to ensure coherence, and to co-ordinate our support to Ukraine, including through the international capability coalitions; we co-lead the maritime and drone coalitions. We recently announced a complete package of £325 million for cutting-edge drones. That will deliver more than 10,000 drones for the Ukrainian armed forces.
In March, we were pleased to congratulate the first 10 Ukrainian pilots who completed their basic flying training in the United Kingdom. Those trainees join more than 65,000 Ukrainians who have received training in the UK since 2014, including more than 39,000 recruits trained since 2022 through Operation Interflex.
Turning to Georgia, we continue to observe with concern the events in Tbilisi, including yesterday’s violent clashes in and around the Georgian Parliament and the intimidation of peaceful protesters. The United Kingdom, along with our partners, is committed to the right of peaceful protest, and we are concerned about the introduction of the law on transparency of foreign influence. The UK is a close friend of Georgia, and as such, we call for calm and restraint on all sides. We hope to continue to work with Georgia, with which we have a deep and long-standing partnership, and to support the legitimate aspirations of the Georgian people, as they pursue a free, sovereign and democratic future.
Jim Shannon
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting a UQ on this important issue; it is much appreciated. I also thank the Minister for his helpful response, and all right hon. and hon. Members who have stayed in the Chamber.
We woke up to reports of Ukraine attempting to push back in the Kharkiv region, and then heard the Russian Defence Ministry claim that its air forces have destroyed 10 long-range missiles, known as ATACMS—army tactical missile systems—that Ukraine’s military launched at Crimea overnight. The media reporting may have settled down, but the situation there is as volatile as it has ever been, and the ripple effect across the entire region continues. Secretary Blinken from President Biden’s Administration is visiting Ukraine to give it physical and military assistance and encouragement. The Minister will know that Georgia is also pushing forward legislation, as Russia tries to restore its empire of old and control all its former satellite states.
The Russian threat is clearly undermining democratic processes in the entire region. I understand and agree with the UK’s clear public stance of support for Ukraine, and I congratulate the Government and the Minister on what has been done, and what will be done in future, but the situation demands further action. I am keen to get the Minister’s response on what that further action will be. Will he make clear what further, enhanced help we can give to facilitate the democratic process, aside from our vital military aid to the region? The war that began in 2022 is on the precipice. How can we ensure that the result is a victory for democracy and freedom—not simply for Ukraine but for Georgia, and for all of us globally?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking an extremely good and valid question that puts the issue of Ukraine in regional context—in the context of the influence that Russia has sought to exert over its former satellite states. He is right that the frontline in Ukraine is turbulent. A full picture is yet to emerge, but we can be certain of our continued resolve to ensure that our Ukrainian friends prevail; that is the unavoidable direction of travel. The ongoing visit of Secretary Blinken reminds us of the remarkable heft and scale of western support, in which we play our part very proudly. The resolute support of the friends of Ukraine will help it to prevail, despite turbulence and Russia’s attempts to create a new dynamic on a very turbulent frontline.
The hon. Gentleman asks cogent questions about Georgia. He is right that Georgia knows more than any other country about the depredations of a Russian invasion, following the horrifying events of 2008. We are clear that Georgia has the sovereign right to pursue its own autonomous path. If it seeks to turn its eyes to the west—towards NATO membership, and maybe membership of the European Union—it is the sovereign right of Georgia to forge its own destiny. We will continue to co-operate in earnest and sincere partnership with the Georgians, with whom we have a very meaningful defence relationship. I have had the pleasure of visiting Tbilisi twice as a Foreign Office Minister, and of seeing the tremendous institutional work that we do with the Georgians, who have a fine defence tradition.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government share my view that just as Soviet failure in Afghanistan led, to a considerable extent, towards the downfall of the Soviet empire, Putin’s failure in Ukraine could have a similar effect on his future and ambitions; and that it is no coincidence that this renewed Russian attack takes place before the aid that America has belatedly decided to give Ukraine has had a chance to arrive?
Leo Docherty
The answer is yes. One can see the extraordinary mobilisation of the Russian state and society, and the huge expenditure that Putin is having to incur to maintain momentum in his failed military operation, as confirmation of long-term weakness.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this urgent question. It is 811 days since Putin began the full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. Russia has opened a renewed offensive in the Kharkiv region, but Ukrainians are continuing to fight with huge courage. The UK is totally united in support of Ukraine. The shadow Defence Secretary and shadow Foreign Secretary were in Kyiv for the last two days, and reaffirmed that Labour’s commitment to Ukraine is ironclad.
If Putin wins, he will not stop at Ukraine. That is why the Government have had, and will continue to have, Labour’s fullest support for military aid to Ukraine and for reinforcing NATO’s allies across eastern Europe. Every commitment of UK military aid since Putin invaded has had Labour’s fullest support, and that will continue. With a general election later this year, there may be a change in Government, but there will be no change to Britain’s resolve in standing with Ukraine, confronting Russian aggression, and pursuing Putin for his war crimes.
On Georgia, we are deeply concerned by the increased pressure on civil society freedoms and by the intimidation of protesters. The proposed draft law is not in line with democratic values, and risks taking Georgia away from the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of the Georgian people. What discussions has the Minister had with the US, the EU and other regional partners on the latest developments in Georgia? Is the UK putting Georgia on the agenda for the G7 meeting in Italy and the upcoming European Political Community meeting? What steps is he taking with our allies to counter Russian disinformation and hybrid activities in Georgia and across the Caucasus, the western Balkans and the rest of Europe?
What support has been given to help Ukraine build up its air defences to stop air and drone strikes on critical infrastructure, especially in the Kharkiv region? How much of the money committed to the international fund for Ukraine has been spent and how much is left to be spent? The UK will stand with the Ukrainians for as long as it takes for them to win.
Leo Docherty
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman pointed out the remarkable courage of our Ukrainian friends in their efforts to counter the new axis of advance in the Kharkiv region, and we sincerely welcome the continued cross-party support for Ukraine.
The hon. Gentleman expressed a concern, which we share, about the new law passed in Georgia. That is on the agenda of our discussions with allies; it is beyond my scope to comment on what might be on the agenda for the G7 or the EPC, but it is certainly an issue of concern that we discuss with trusted partners, and we have done so very frequently recently.
A huge amount of institutional effort from our side is going into countering disinformation across the entire region, as well as in the western Balkans and central Asia—the former so-called satellite states of Russia, which have a particular vulnerability to disinformation from the Kremlin. I will not go into detail about that effort, but it is a significant piece of work and will continue to be important.
The hon. Gentleman asked a good question about air defence. We have gifted thousands of units of air defence to Ukraine. There will surely be more to come. The uplift in financial support that we have announced will clearly be an issue for the Ukrainians through our gifting programme, and air defence will feature heavily in that.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important urgent question.
The brutalisation of peaceful, ordinary Georgians and the hospitalisation of opposition leader David Katsarava are utterly shameful. Can the Minister assure us that he will protest directly to the Georgian Government and call in the ambassador regarding the abuses of the public that we are seeing on our screens daily?
On Ukraine, the fall of Avdiivka at the start of this year was the shameful result of allied inaction on getting Ukraine what it needed. That falls on us. We cannot now see the same take place in Kharkiv, which is under assault for the reasons set out already in this discussion. Can the Minister please assure us that sufficient ammunition is reaching the frontline now and update us on what we are doing to procure sufficient artillery shells? Ukraine, as ever, needs us to give it enough to win and not just to survive.
Leo Docherty
We of course express our concerns about the direction of travel with regard to protest in Georgia. I know that the Foreign Office has made representations to the ambassador here and will continue to keep a watching brief on that issue.
My hon. Friend asks about Kharkiv. Of course, ammunition supply is a central component of our effort, both politically and in terms of what we are gifting and sourcing. We have given over 300,000 units of ammunition. However, we acknowledge that we must all, in the coalition of friendly western nations, mobilise to a far greater degree. That is why we think that initiatives coming from the Czech side and across all European and NATO partners are important. We must strain every sinew to ensure that the flow continues.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Those of us on the SNP Benches join the cross-party support, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the urgent question.
To follow the question from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee on what more we can do for Ukraine, does the Minister agree that now is the time for the UK to join other NATO allies in supporting the Czechia munitions programme, on top of what has already been provided?
On Georgia, the Government state that their aim is
“to advance Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic integration through…security cooperation and support for democratic reforms.”
Given the Dream party’s lurch away from democratic reform, how stable is that integration and security co-operation? Does the Minister agree that it is time for the people of Georgia to have their say on the Dream party’s agenda?
Leo Docherty
We have not joined the Czech programme because it would replicate work that we are already doing, but we commend its activities and see it as part of a broader solution to mobilise effort to increase the flow of munitions, so it is welcome.
Clearly, the political future of Georgia is a question for Georgians themselves, but we note that there is a lively debate, which has of course spilled out on to the streets of Tbilisi, about the direction of travel. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the direction of travel—whether Euro-Atlantic or anything else—should be a function of the democratic expression of the people of Georgia.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
I applaud the number of personnel trained under Operation Interflex, but does the Minister support my call to extend that operation to train Ukrainian female defender volunteers?
Leo Docherty
Yes, of course. We will train whoever the Ukrainians send us.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warned in 2014 that if we kept on feeding the crocodile, the danger was that we would be last on the menu. That is why it is so important that we get the next steps right over the next two years in making sure that Putin does not win in Ukraine. Two things still perplex me. First, why have we and our allies, as a united team, not dramatically ramped up the production of the artillery that Ukraine actually needs? Secondly, why have we yet to seize Russian state assets sitting in British and European banks to repurpose them for reparations to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine?
Leo Docherty
We are ramping up the production of artillery right across Europe and in states beyond Europe. That is a complex effort involving the military industrial base. Those steps are in place, and I am confident that we will see an increase in supply. The hon. Gentleman asks about state assets. Of course we want that to be the outcome, but the route must be legal.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
We in Britain, relative to the size of our Army, have given more military equipment to Ukraine than anyone. We have now given the Ukrainians all our heavy artillery to help them fight. Kharkiv cannot be allowed to fall. But let us be honest: all the kit that the Ukrainians needed to have won this war already—from F-16s to long-range missiles—has been sitting in American storage depots for two years. When will we get it through to the occupant of the White House that if he carries on dithering and the Russians take Kharkiv, not only do the Ukrainians lose, but he loses, too—literally?
Leo Docherty
My right hon. Friend makes a pertinent and correct point. Of course, we led as hard as we could in the aftermath of the invasion, and we led the way with the critical provision of systems such as NLAW—the next generation light anti-tank weapon. Historians will reflect on whether the months following the invasion were an opportunity missed to give a decisive advantage to our Ukrainian friends, but our focus now is on ensuring that, in the round and overwhelmingly, the combined effect of the huge package from the United States, as well as ours and that of all friendly nations, can ensure that the Ukrainians maintain their defence and, ultimately, liberate their sovereign homeland.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Some time ago, I asked the Prime Minister about our relationship with Turkey. We might have some issues with Turkey, but the fact remains that, as it is geographically next door to Georgia, its strategic position is crucial. Furthermore, Turkey has important links with many of the players in this deeply dangerous situation. What conversations is the Foreign Office having with Ankara about resolving this situation?
Leo Docherty
I think I can answer on behalf of my cross-departmental colleagues by saying that there are many conversations. We recognise the centrality of Turkey’s importance as a strong NATO ally and a nation with tremendous military confidence. It has also made a remarkable contribution to the defence of Ukraine’s sovereignty by the provision of the remarkable Bayraktar weapons system.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the Minister says that the UK Government want to continue working with Georgia—that is quite right—but is he aware that Jim O’Brien, the senior US State Department official, said yesterday that the relationship between the US and Georgia could be at risk and reviewed, and that financial and travel restrictions could be imposed? Is it not the case that all that could be avoided if the Georgian Government dropped the foreign agents law, or at least amended it significantly?
Leo Docherty
My right hon. Friend, who speaks with authority, is right in his analysis. Of course we note the US view, and we have expressed our concerns. We will continue to use our strong relationship with the Georgians to ensure that they amend, for their own interest, their behaviour.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Leeds’ sister city is Kharkiv. The people of Leeds are gravely concerned that the invasion of Kharkiv is imminent. Colleagues have already asked about artillery shells, which are in short supply, but even bullets are in short supply. What is the UK doing to supply the Ukrainian defence of Kharkiv with bullets? Are we upscaling humanitarian aid to Kharkiv and utilising it for the evacuation of civilians who want to leave? Will the UK Government supply additional visas for Kharkivians who want to come to the UK? The people of Leeds are ready to welcome them into their homes.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question—I now realise Leeds is the sister city of Kharkiv, which is interesting. We are putting more money than ever before into lethal aid support for Ukraine—an additional £500 million will take our support this year to £3 billion, and a lot of that will go on munitions—but humanitarian aid is also significant and is an important part of the picture.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
Like any bully, Russia will advance if it feels that the west is not supporting Ukraine. The Russians have seen that we in the west have not been supporting Ukraine enough because of the lack of ammunition going in. For any soldier, the supply of ammunition is—as the Minister is fully aware—crucial to confidence and morale. Can we give the biggest possible push to ensure that what the Americans have said is going to the frontline reaches it? I saw this morning that they said that some ammunition has already arrived. Has it already arrived, and what is the timetable for the rest? This is completely unfair on the armed forces out there.
Leo Docherty
My right hon. Friend’s analogy of Russia as a bully is absolutely correct. We are focused on increasing ammunition supplies. My judgment is that the $61 billion package from the US, combined with our additional support, will result in a tangible improvement in the operational situation on the frontline.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
As we know, Georgia, alongside Ukraine, aspires to join NATO. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is important that Georgia respects peaceful protest? On Ukraine, with the Russians closing in on being within artillery range of Kharkiv, what military support can we deliver now to prevent Russia from being able to bombard that city, which would be catastrophic for the civilian population?
Leo Docherty
I agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis of Georgia’s NATO aspirations—that is clear. The support we can give now is to continue our remarkable supply of lethal aid, particularly with regard to air defence.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
What Putin is doing in Georgia now is exactly the same thing that he tried to do in Ukraine 10 years ago, yet unlike the American Government, the British Government do not seem to be thinking of any recalibration at all with the current Georgian regime, which is beating up its own citizens in the streets of Tbilisi. Why has the Georgian ambassador in London not at least been summoned? What action, rather than just words, has been taken to make our views completely clear to the current Georgian Government that their behaviour and this legislation is unacceptable?
Leo Docherty
In truth, those are questions for my colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but our analysis is that the strong relationship we have with the Georgians in the defence sector is an important means of ensuring that their direction of travel is a positive one.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
There is growing concern across central and northern Europe about Georgia. Will the Minister have conversations with colleagues in government to ensure that the commitment to NATO of our partners across Europe is increased, to prepare for the undoubted expansionism that Putin is currently engaged in and that he will probably step up in the coming months?
Leo Docherty
The answer is yes, Mr Speaker. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will have observed, as I have, that the consequence of Putin’s effort to demonstrate NATO’s weakness has been exactly the opposite: NATO is now larger and stronger than it was before February 2022. We will lead the way in ensuring that all members meet the investment required to be a member of that tremendous defensive alliance.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this urgent question. The United Kingdom has led the world in supporting Ukraine militarily, economically, diplomatically and politically, and as a former Minister with responsibility for sanctions, I saw the real impact that the United Kingdom could have with its partners in working together on this issue. There is, however, a real loophole within the international strategy to cut off Putin’s finances: the United Nations peacekeeping force, of which we are a member, currently procures its military helicopters from Russia, so that money goes back into Putin’s pockets. Were the Minister or the Government aware of that fact, and now that they are, will the Government raise it at the G7 to urgently ensure we cut off Putin’s finances?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, and will ensure that my colleague, the Minister with responsibility for sanctions, takes it into account.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
We are united in our determination to support Ukraine as it seeks to defeat Putin. Labour welcomed the creation of a new UK-Latvian drone capability coalition earlier this year and the UK’s commitment to spend £200 million on drones for Ukraine. Can the Minister confirm when the first drones under that initiative will be delivered to Ukrainian forces?
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Georgia, I have watched the demonstrations in Tbilisi with no little concern. Although I have noticed no new movement of Georgia towards Russia, as some have been suggesting—whether culturally, economically or militarily—it would appear that the current Georgian Dream Government are becoming more ready to use the apparatus of the state to suppress political dissent, free speech and the media, sometimes with violence. Will my hon. Friend impress on his Georgian counterpart, as an ally and a friend, that this is not how democratic countries behave if they wish to join western institutions and participate as a free democratic values country?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend is correct: Georgia must live up to the standard required if it is to be sincere about its democratic aspirations, and we do make that point to our friends in Georgia.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
We are all rightly proud of the skills of our armed forces personnel and the training that they are providing for Ukrainians through Operation Interflex, but I understand that that programme is only designated up until this summer. Can the Minister confirm that it will continue for as long as it is needed?
Leo Docherty
Wholeheartedly, Mr Speaker. Our commitment to training our Ukrainian allies is enduring, and of course, we will always respond to the type and form of training that they themselves require.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Events in the United States, and the understandable focus on the conflict in Gaza and the unacceptable loss of life there, have led some to argue that our support for Ukraine is wavering. Can the Minister seek to put a stop to that deliberate disinformation by setting out that our support for Ukraine is absolute; that we stand in solidarity with the Ukrainians in their fight against Putin’s illegal aggression; and that in some respects they are battling on our behalf, because as we see, Putin’s aggression will not stop with Ukraine? Given that, will the Minister also set out how we will ensure that the ammunition that is so desperately needed gets to the frontline as quickly as possible?
Leo Docherty
I welcome the hon. Lady’s question. By any measure, our commitment to Ukraine is significant and unwavering—that was recently expressed by the increase in our annual support from £2.5 billion of lethal aid to £3 billion, and by the 100-year defensive alliance that the Prime Minister signed with President Zelensky on his recent visit to Kyiv.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
I thank my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this urgent question. What help and support are we as a nation giving to those countries in eastern Europe, such as Estonia, that feel under threat from the potential threat of Putin wanting to expand back into what was formerly Russian territory?
Leo Docherty
That is a very good question. The support we are giving is welcoming those countries as brother and sister countries into the defensive NATO alliance. In our case, we are very proud to have our enhanced forward presence battle group in Tallin and Estonia. Any Members who have visited that battle group, as I have, know that there is a tremendous esprit de corps generated by the tremendous joint defensive work carried out by our British soldiers alongside their Estonian allies.
Bill Presented
Delivery Services (Driving Licence Requirements) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Barry Sheerman, supported by Debbie Abrahams, presented a Bill to require a person carrying out delivery services by motorcycle or moped to hold a full licence; to provide for penalties for an employer who employs a delivery rider who holds a provisional licence; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 218).
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been my honour to be the MP for Hemel Hempstead for the past 19 years. Whenever I have had the opportunity, I have always tried to raise and honour the name of Captain Robert Laurence Nairac, George Cross, my captain in the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards. He was lost, or captured—whatever way we want to describe it—on the night of 14 May. We think, although we do not actually know, that he was murdered the following day. Today is the anniversary.
It is right and proper that this House acknowledges the work of our armed forces, particularly on Op Banner, but we should recognise that Captain Nairac was a different sort of officer in many ways—I think we would all accept that. For instance, he broke my nose for the first time while sparring in the boxing ring, I must admit, but he also left six pints of Guinness on the NAAFI bar at the end of the evening because I gave him a good dig back. That was what he was about: he was in the armed forces and in Northern Ireland because he wanted to make a difference for the people of Northern Ireland. That is something that this House should respect.
Mr Speaker
First, may I say that I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for informing me that he would raise this matter? As he knows, it is not a point of order for the Chair, but the House will understand why he wanted to put that point on record, and he has done so eloquently, as he has done in previous years.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who almost every year has visited the church of St Mary de Lode in Gloucester in order to pay tribute to and commemorate the work done by Captain Nairac, GC, whose memory is also celebrated there through a stained-glass window in his honour. I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for continuing to raise this matter year after year.
Mr Speaker
Once again, that is also not a point of order, but it is certainly on the record.
Child Sexual Abuse Material (Digital Devices)
Wednesday 15th May 2024
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Child Sexual Abuse Material (Digital Devices) Bill 2023-24 View all Child Sexual Abuse Material (Digital Devices) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I beg to move, First day New clauses and new Schedules, other than new clauses and new Schedules to be taken on the second day; amendments to clauses 1 to 17, clauses 28 to 36 and Schedules 1 and 2, other than amendments relating to abortion. Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order Second day New clauses and new Schedules relating to the police, policing and police powers, the prevention, detection and reporting of offences, management of offenders, proceeds of crime and property connected with criminal behaviour, serious crime prevention orders, begging, rough sleeping, anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder strategies, public order, retail crime or conversion practices, other than new clauses and new Schedules relating to abortion; amendments to clauses 18 to 27, clauses 37 to 89 and Schedules 3 to 9, other than amendments relating to abortion. Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration on the second day New clauses and new Schedules relating to abortion; amendments relating to abortion; remaining proceedings on Consideration. Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration on the second day
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a power to require a person to grant access to their digital devices in the course of a lawful inspection under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 where there is a reasonable suspicion that the device may contain child sexual abuse material; to provide that refusal to grant such access constitutes an offence; and for connected purposes.
I begin by outlining the scale of the problem this Bill seeks to tackle. Up to 835,000 individuals in the United Kingdom represent a sexual risk to children, according to the national strategic assessment. We also know that 85% of online offenders are hands-on abusers, too. One in four girls and one in six boys are sexually assaulted before the age of 18. Child sexual abuse material—or CSAM—is abundant online, so much so that almost 30 million unique CSAM files are known to UK law enforcement, and the number is growing all the time.
The digital age has brought with it tremendous opportunities for advancement in many areas, communication has never been easier and the world has never been smaller, but as the world has become smaller, criminal networks have grown larger. Law enforcement is still having to play catch up, and as a result—tragically, unforgivably—more and more children are becoming victims to sexual predators.
The UK Border Force is our first line of defence against people travelling with the intent to cause harm, whatever that may be. Its search powers have been sufficient to stop terrorists and drug smugglers, but they are not sufficient to stop child abusers. That is because the law governing the scope of its search powers was drafted in the 1970s—long before the digital age. A single photo taken from one of today’s smartphones could easily exceed the entire capacity of even the highest-spec 1970s floppy disk, then at the revolutionary cutting edge of computing. It was an era when it was not even conceivable that sexual predators would be travelling across borders with potentially thousands of illegal photos and videos in the palm of their hand.
The outdated law in question is the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. It grants the power for a Border Force agent to search an individual and their baggage to detect the import or export of prohibited goods. Border Force does not require reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual is in possession of prohibited goods to utilise this power of search in a port environment. While existing powers permit Border Force to require an individual to present their baggage, including their digital devices, those powers do not extend to requiring a person to open that baggage—to unlock a device. If they refuse to do so when asked, there is nothing that Border Force can do.
In previous decades, CSAM would amount to a stack of polaroids, which were often unmistakable and readily detectable. Now all this material is carried digitally, and often behind encryption software and passcodes. To expand on this point, there have been several examples of lone individuals identified as possessing belongings associated with the commission of sexual offences against children—for example, toys, lubricants, condoms and children’s underwear. In these circumstances, where it is reasonable to suspect that the individual may be in possession of digital CSAM, Border Force cannot inspect the digital device unless the individual consents. Each time this happens, we could be letting a dangerous abuser into the United Kingdom undetected. As I mentioned in my Westminster Hall debate on the same subject late last year, even when notified, it can take weeks for the police to trace an individual, and there have been cases where a suspect has raped two or more young girls before being caught.
My Bill gives Border Force the power it needs to prevent this. Under it, an individual refusing to unlock their digital devices would be subject to arrest for a new offence of obstruction. If an international passenger of any nationality arrives in or departs from the UK and Border Force reasonably suspects the individual to be involved in child sexual abuse, Border Force officers will ask them to unlock their digital device so that they can perform a scan to determine, beyond any reasonable doubt, the presence of CSAM as verified by the Home Office’s database. If the individual complies, the scan will take place, and if content is detected, the individual will be arrested under the 1979 Act. If they refuse, they commit an offence, and their devices will be seized and forensically examined by the police or the National Crime Agency.
I want to go into a little more detail on how the technology now available would be used, because I know that some hon. Members will have concerns about privacy. The power to search a device would be governed by a standard operating procedure whereby an inspection would be undertaken via a scan—not a download—that only searched a device’s memory for a file code or hashtag associated with known CSAM files. These codes are held on a Home Office database containing nearly 30 million unique files. There would be no manual device inspection or collateral searches. This also means that Border Force officers would not be subjected to any horrific material themselves, as they would likely have been in previous decades. It is worth noting that a similar power already exists for the police in relation to terrorist material under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
With these new powers, Border Force would become a full part of the multi-agency response needed to help prevent the proliferation of CSAM online. It would also mean it could meet the recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse to increase proactive detection of previously unidentified persons, and therefore safeguard children from new or further harm.
I mentioned earlier that over 800,000 people in the UK present a sexual risk to children. What I did not say is that very few of these individuals have been identified. With the new powers that I have outlined, Border Force will go from having a near-zero impact on locating offenders to playing an active role in preventing the sexual abuse of children. Furthermore, it will be able to prevent potential first-generation CSAM from making it on to the internet.
Detection at the border can be a starting point for further investigation, such as identifying other devices or items held at the suspect’s home and looking into other offences against young people. That is the case in New Zealand, a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing group, which brought in similar powers for its border force under its Customs and Excise Act 2018. It reports a near 100% increase in intelligence-led interdictions against travelling child sex offenders since the law was passed.
To conclude, for many years I have campaigned against all forms of child abuse. In February last year, the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, which I sponsored, came into force. It means that is it illegal, under any circumstances, for a child under 18 to be married. We have brought an end to this form of abuse, but it is wrong that we still have laws so outdated that they allow sexual predators and abusers to escape justice. It is also a great frustration that we must expend serious parliamentary time and resources to enact what I believe is a simple and inarguable case. Passing this Bill would give the UK Border Force the ability to play an active role in identifying previously unknown individuals who may represent a danger to children. In doing so, we would be further protecting our children from the lifelong trauma that so often results from being the victim of sexual abuse. Child abuse is happening now, and these powers should be there to confront it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Pauline Latham, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Mrs Heather Wheeler and Martin Vickers present the Bill.
Mrs Pauline Latham accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 219).
Criminal Justice Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order of 28 November 2023 (Criminal Justice Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Consideration—
(a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Joy Morrissey.)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
It is an honour to open this debate and bring the Criminal Justice Bill back to the House for consideration on Report. This important legislation is focused—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. We are considering the programme motion. Does the Minister wish to speak to the programme motion?
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the programme motion, which was tabled yesterday shortly before the rise of the House. It relates to the consideration of hundreds of amendments and new clauses to a serious and substantial Bill. Indeed, they relate to some of the most fundamental issues affecting our constituents. Today there is a debate on amendments and new clauses that cover domestic abuse, human trafficking and the transfer of prisoners to foreign prisons, yet the House was made aware of that only yesterday evening. I am sure that Members across the House will have been up late trying their best to prepare, as I was, but my duty to my constituents compels me to place on the record my shock and worry about what this means, not only for parliamentary democracy but for the quality of legislation that will be passed.
Last week there was an absurd situation when we had a deadline for tabling amendments and new clauses, yet we did not know what business the debate would cover. Then, at my last count, 134 Government amendments were tabled virtually at the last minute. Those are not unsubstantial or merely technical amendments, but include measures relating to new offences that would have potentially significant and wider reaching consequences for our civil liberties, and could even result in imprisonment.
These measures include further powers for the police to exercise without accountability. I do not need to remind the House that many of our constituents are very worried about the powers that the police already have and how they use them. It is no secret that trust in the police is already low, particularly among women, survivors and people from diverse backgrounds. Whatever the different views across the House, surely there is a consensus that measures of such significance, which could have severe and potentially life-changing consequences for our constituents, should not be passed without appropriate scrutiny, and without many of us even knowing of their existence. Accordingly, there has certainly been very little public awareness or debate.
As Members of Parliament, we have a profound duty to those who elect us regarding the scrutiny of legislation. This is not only about having a functioning democracy; this is about having workable and functioning laws. There are many questions about impact assessments, and we do not know what the full disabilities and equalities implications will be. For example, Government new clause 96 prohibits wearing or otherwise using an item for
“the purpose of concealing…identity”
in a locality designated by the police. Before even getting to a fundamental assessment of the measure as a whole, there are many questions and points of clarity that my constituents would want, at the very least, to be publicly established. For example, how will the provision impact Muslim women who wear the hijab or the niqab, because the phrasing refers to using an item “wholly or mainly” for such a purpose?
In closing, let me place on the record my alarm at this Government’s now fairly frequent tabling of large numbers of amendments on Report, and at the short notice, compressed time for debate and scrutiny, and what many of us experience as utter confusion regarding timetabling. That is a dangerous precedent to set, and it is not in the spirit of parliamentary democracy. I urge the Government to withdraw the extra substantial amendments and allow for the proper, democratic, sensible and transparent scrutiny that our constituents expect of us.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I rise to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). I understand the point she makes, but we would of course want to ensure that people listening to the debate are aware that there are two days of debate on the Bill—this week and next week—which I hope will afford some of the scrutiny that she is rightly calling for. I gently suggest to those on the Treasury Bench that they may want to hold one-to-one meetings with those of us who are interested in a number of the areas on which the Government have now tabled amendments, just a couple of days before this important Report stage, so that we can get a proper understanding of what they are trying to do. It would perhaps have been prudent to do so before Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Criminal Justice Bill
Wednesday 15th May 2024
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 View all Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 15 May 2024 - (15 May 2024)
18:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 275 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 272 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 17 / Noes: 268 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: RTA Section 27B Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling. (a) Summarily. (b) On indictment. (a) 12 months or the statutory maximum or both. (b) 5 years of a fine or both. RTA Section 27C Causing death by careless of inconsiderate cycling. (a) Summarily. (b) On indictment. (a) 12 months (in England and Wales) or 6 months (in Scotland) or the statutory maximum or both. (b) 5 years or a fine or both.””
Government new clause 62—Sexual activity with a corpse.
Government new clause 87—Manslaughter: sexual conduct aggravating factor.
Government new clause 88—Length of terrorism sentence with fixed licence period: Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 89—Reviews of sentencing: time limits.
Government new clause 94—Cuckooing.
Government new clause 95—Cuckooing: interpretation.
Government new clause 103—Restricting parental responsibility when sentencing for rape of a child.
Government new clause 104—Report on duty to make prohibited steps orders and power to repeal.
New clause 2—Removal of parental responsibility for men convicted of sexual offences against children—
‘(1) After section 2 (parental responsibility for children) of the Children Act 1989, insert—
“2A Prisoners: suspension of parental responsibility
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person (“A”) has been found guilty of a serious sexual offence involving or relating to a child or children; and
(b) A had parental responsibility for a child or children at the time at which the offence was committed.
(2) A ceases to have parental responsibility for all children, for a time specified by the sentencing court or until an application by A to the family court to reinstate parental responsibility has been approved.”’
New clause 7—Occupation or control of another person’s residence for criminal purposes “Cuckooing”—
“(1) A person commits an offence if the person occupies or exercises control over the home of another person (V) in connection with the commission of a criminal offence or offences using any of the following methods—
(a) the threat or use of force or other coercive behaviour;
(b) abduction, kidnap or false imprisonment;
(c) fraud or other deception;
(d) the abuse of power or a position of vulnerability;
(e) the giving of payments or other benefits to achieve the consent of a person who has control over V.
(2) A person also commits an offence under this section if the person arranges or facilitates the activity set out in subsection (1).
(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years,
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both).”
This new clause makes it an offence to exercise control over another person’s residence for the purpose of criminal activity by means of coercion, threats or abuse of a position of vulnerability.
New clause 8—Offence of enabling or profiting from prostitution—
“(1) A person or body corporate (C) commits an offence if they—
(a) facilitate, whether online or offline, or
(b) gain financially from
a person (A) engaging in sexual activity with another person (B) in exchange for payment or other benefit, or the promise of payment or other benefit, and the conditions in subsection (2) are met.
(2) The conditions are—
(a) that C knows or ought to know that A is engaging in, or intends to engage in, sexual activity for payment or other benefit; and
(b) that C is not a dependent child of A.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “Sexual activity”—
(i) means any acts which a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person’s purpose, consider to be sexual,
(ii) requires A and B to be in each other’s presence,
(b) “Facilitates” includes, but is not limited to, causing or allowing to be displayed or published, including digitally, any advertisement in respect of sexual activity involving A.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.”
This new clause would make it an offence to facilitate or profit from the prostitution of another person.
New clause 9—One-punch manslaughter—
“(1) A person (P) is guilty of an offence where they cause the death of another person (B) as a result of a single punch in the circumstances described in subsection (2).
(2) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) P administered a single punch to the head or neck of B;
(b) there was significant risk that the punch would cause serious physical harm to B;
(c) P was or ought to have been aware of the risk mentioned in paragraph (b);
(d) P did not administer the punch referred to in paragraph (a) in self-defence; and
(e) B’s death was caused by—
(i) the impact of the punch, or
(ii) further impact or injury resulting from the single punch.
(3) In this section “serious physical harm” means harm that amounts to death or serious personal injury for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a minimum of seven years.”
This new clause is intended to create a specific offence of “One Punch Manslaughter”, with a minimum sentence of seven years.
New clause 12—Controlling or coercive behaviour by persons providing psychotherapy or counselling services—
“(1) A person (“A”) commits an offence if—
(a) A is a person providing or purporting to provide psychotherapy or counselling services to another person (“B”),
(b) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards B that is controlling or coercive,
(c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and
(d) A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will or may have a serious effect on B.
(2) A’s behaviour has a “serious effect” on B if—
(a) it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or
(b) it causes B psychological harm which has a substantial adverse effect on B's usual day-to-day activities.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d) A “ought to know” that which a reasonable person in possession of the same information would know.
(4) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for A to show that—
(a) in engaging in the behaviour in question, A believed that he or she was acting in B’s best interests, and
(b) the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable.
(5) A defence under subsection (4) requires A to have shown—
(a) sufficient evidence of the facts, and
(b) that the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(6) The defence in subsection (4) is not available to A in relation to behaviour that causes B to fear that violence will be used against B.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a fine, or both.”
New clause 16—Amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988—
“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In each of the sections listed below, after “a road or other public place” insert “, or a private place adjacent to a road,”—
section 1 (causing death by dangerous driving);
section 1A (causing serious injury by dangerous driving);
section 2 (dangerous driving);
section 2B (causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving);
section 2C (causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, driving);
section 3 (careless, and inconsiderate, driving).”
This new clause would extend the Road Traffic Act 1988 so that a range of driving offences can be committed in private places adjacent to roads as well as on public roads or in public places.
New clause 18—Definition of unauthorised access to computer programs or data—
“In section 17 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, at the end of subsection (5) insert—
“(c) he does not reasonably believe that the person entitled to control access of the kind in question to the program or data would have consented to that access if he had known about the access and the circumstances of it, including the reasons for seeking it;
(d) he is not empowered by an enactment, by a rule of law, or by the order of a court or tribunal to access of the kind in question to the program or data.””
New clause 19—Defences to charges under the Computer Misuse Act 1990—
“(1) The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1, after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) to prove that—
(a) the person’s actions were necessary for the detection or prevention of crime; or
(b) the person’s actions were justified as being in the public interest.”
(3) In section 3, after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) to prove that—
(a) the person’s actions were necessary for the detection or prevention of crime; or
(b) the person’s actions were justified as being in the public interest.””
New clause 24—Definition of exceptional hardship—
“In section 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) In subsection (4)(b), the hardship that would be caused by an offender’s disqualification should be regarded as exceptional only if it is significantly greater than the hardship that would be experienced by a large majority of other drivers if disqualification were imposed on them.
(4B) In assessing whether the hardship arising from the offender’s disqualification would be exceptional a court may take account of—
(a) any circumstances relating to the offender’s economic circumstances or location of residence which would make it exceptionally hard for them to access essential services and facilities;
(b) any hardship that would be incurred by the offender’s family or others who are disabled or who depend on the offender to provide care for them; and
(c) any other circumstances which it believes would make the hardship exceptional.””
New clause 25—Offence of possession of guidance on creating child sexual abuse content—
“(1) Section 69 (Possession of paedophile manual) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), omit from “to” to the end of the subsection and insert—
“possess, create, share or distribute any item that—
(a) contains advice or guidance about abusing children sexually; or
(b) contains advice or guidance about the creation of content which depicts the sexual abuse of children.”
(3) In subsection (2)(b)(ii), after “sexually” insert—
“or about the creation of content which depicts the sexual abuse of children”
(4) In subsection (8)—
(a) after “sexually”” insert “(or “the sexual abuse of children”),
(b) omit “(but not pseudo-photographs)” and insert “, including pseudo-photographs”,
(c) after second “or Northern Ireland” insert—
““creation of content” includes using any tool to create visual or audio content;”,
(d) at end insert—
““tool” includes, but is not limited to, any computer or other digital technology, program, platform or application, including those which utilise artificial intelligence or machine learning.””
This new clause would expand the existing offence of possessing guides about abusing children sexually to include guides on creating child sexual abuse content, including through the use of artificial intelligence or machine learning.
New clause 26—Offence of simulating sexual communication with a child—
“(1) A person commits an offence if they—
(a) use;
(b) design;
(c) distribute; or
(d) provide access to
a tool to simulate sexual communication with a person under 16.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a communication is sexual if—
(i) any part of it relates to sexual activity, or
(ii) a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person's purpose, consider any part of the communication to be sexual,
(b) “tool” includes, but is not limited to, any computer or other digital technology, program, platform or application, including those which utilise artificial intelligence or machine learning.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable to the same penalties as apply to an offence committed under section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”
This new clause would create an offence of using, creating or sharing online or digital tools which simulate sexual communication with a child.
New clause 28—Complicity in joint enterprise cases—
“In section 8 (abettors in misdemeanours) of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, after “shall” insert “, by making a significant contribution to its commission,”.”
This new clause would clarify the definition of “joint enterprise” (or secondary liability), so that an individual must make a “significant contribution” to an offence committed by another to be criminally liable.
New clause 29—Human trafficking—
“(1) Section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “arranges or facilitates the travel of” substitute “recruits, transports, transfers, harbours or receives through force, coercion, fraud, deception, the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability, or the giving or receiving of payments or benefits”.
(3) In subsection (2), for “travel” substitute “matters mentioned in subsection (1) or to V being exploited”.
(4) Omit subsections (3) to (5).
(5) In paragraph (6)(a), for “arranging or facilitating takes” substitute “matters mentioned in subsection (1) take”.
(6) Omit paragraph (6)(b).
(7) In paragraph (7)(a), for “arranging or facilitating takes” substitute “matters mentioned in subsection (1) take”.
(8) In paragraph (7)(b), for the first “the” substitute “any”.”
This new clause brings the definition of human trafficking in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 in line with the UN definition, particularly removing the requirement for exploitation to have involved travel.
New clause 32—Aggravated offences: hostility towards transgender identity, sexual orientation and disability—
“(1) The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) For the first cross-heading under Part II, substitute “Offences aggravated on the grounds of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity: England and Wales”.
(3) In section 28—
(a) for the heading, substitute “Meaning of “aggravated on the grounds of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity””;
(b) in subsection (1), omit “racially or religiously aggravated” and insert “aggravated on the grounds of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity”;
(c) in subsection (1)(a), omit from “based on” to the end of sub-subsection (a) and insert—
—
(i) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group;
(ii) the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group;
(iii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim;
(iv) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim; or
(v) the victim being (or being presumed to be) transgender, or”;
(d) in subsection (1)(b), omit from “hostility towards” to the end of sub-subsection (b) and insert—
—
(i) members of a racial group based on their membership of that group;
(ii) members of a religious group based on their membership of that group;
(iii) persons who have a disability or a particular disability;
(iv) persons who are of a particular sexual orientation; or
(v) persons who are transgender.”;
(e) in subsection (2), in the definition of “membership” leave out “racial or religious” and insert “relevant”.
(4) In section 29—
(a) for the heading, substitute “Assaults aggravated on grounds of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity”;
(b) in subsection (1), omit “racially or religiously aggravated” and insert “aggravated on the grounds of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity”.
(5) In section 30—
(a) for the heading, substitute “Criminal damage aggravated on the grounds of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity”;
(b) in subsection (1), omit “racially or religiously aggravated” and insert “aggravated on the grounds of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity”.
(6) In section 31—
(a) for the heading, substitute “Public order offences aggravated on the grounds of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity”;
(b) in subsection (1), omit “racially or religiously aggravated” and insert “aggravated on the grounds of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity”.
(7) In section 32—
(a) for the heading, substitute “Harassment etc aggravated on the grounds of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity”;
(b) in subsection (1), omit “racially or religiously aggravated” and insert “aggravated on the grounds of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity”.”
This new clause would include offences motivated by hostility towards an individual’s disability status, sexual orientation or transgender identity (or perception thereof) in those which are aggravated under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
New clause 33—Taking of dog without lawful authority—
“(1) A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the person takes or detains a dog in England—
(a) so as to remove it from the lawful control of any person, or
(b) so as to keep it from the lawful control of a person who is entitled to have lawful control of it.
(2) No offence is committed if the person taking or detaining the dog is connected with any of the following—
(a) any person entitled to have lawful control of it;
(b) where it is removed from the lawful control of a person, that person.
(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum summary term for either-way offences or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).
(4) In this section—
“connected person” : a person is connected with another person if—
(a) they are married to each other,
(b) they are civil partners of each other,
(c) one is the parent of the other, or
(d) they are siblings (whether of the full blood or the half blood);
“detaining” : references to a person detaining a dog include the person—
(a) inducing it to remain with the person or anyone else, or
(b) causing it to be detained;
“maximum summary term for either-way offences” , with reference to imprisonment for an offence, means—
(a) if the offence is committed before the time when paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 comes into force, 6 months;
(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 12 months;
“taking” : references to a person taking a dog include the person—
(a) causing or inducing it to accompany the person or anyone else, or
(b) causing it to be taken.”
This new clause makes provision for the creation of an offence of taking a dog from the lawful control of another person.
New clause 35—Offence of failing to remain at the scene of a traffic collision—
“In section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable—
(a) if a person other than the driver of the vehicle suffered a fatal injury—
(i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years;
(b if a person other than the driver of the vehicle suffered a serious non-fatal injury—
(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both;
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years;
(c) in any other case—
(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both;
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.””
This new clause would expand the existing offence of failing to stop after a road collision to create more serious penalties for failing to stop after collisions which result in death or serious injury.
New clause 36—Time to report road collision—
“In section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, omit subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) In complying with a duty under this section to report an accident or to produce such a certificate of insurance or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, it is an offence for a driver—
(a) not to do so at a police station or to a constable as soon as is reasonably practicable, and
(b) not to do so within two hours of the occurrence of the accident in relation to reporting an accident, or within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident in relation to the production of a certificate of insurance or other evidence.””
This new clause would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to reduce the time within which a driver must report a road collision in which they were involved from twenty-four hours to two hours, and make it an offence not to report an accident.
New clause 38—Senior manager liability for neglect in relation to offences committed by bodies corporate and partnerships—
“(1) Where an organisation commits an offence under section 16, a person (“S”) also commits an offence if—
(a) S was a senior manager of the same body corporate or partnership at the time the offence was committed under section 16; and
(b) S failed to prevent the offence from being committed, or was negligent such that an offence was committed.
(2) It is a defence for S to prove that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the offence being committed.
(3) In this section, “body corporate”, “partnership” and “senior manager” have the meanings given in section 16.
(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term of 12 months;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of 5 years and an unlimited fine.”
New clause 43—Offence of creating or sharing misleading content—
“(1) A person (“P”) commits an offence if they—
(a) create, using any computer or other digital technology, program, platform or application, including those which utilise artificial intelligence or machine learning; or
(b) share, distribute, or otherwise provide access to,
visual or audio content which shows or represents, or appears to show or represent, another person (“R”), where conditions A, B and C are met.
(2) Condition A is that the words, actions, beliefs or behaviours shown or represented in the content have been artificially created or manipulated.
(3) Condition B is that the content has been created or shared for the purposes of—
(a) misleading a person viewing or hearing the content as to R’s real words, actions, beliefs or behaviours;
(b) causing offence, alarm, distress or humiliation to—
(i) R; or
(ii) any other person; or
(c) influencing the voting intention or activity of another person.
(4) Condition C is that R has not consented to the creation or sharing of the content.
(5) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”
New clause 44—Sexual exploitation of an adult—
“(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) Section 52 is amended as follows—
(a) in the title for “Causing or inciting prostitution” substitute “Sexual exploitation”, and
(b) in paragraph (1)(a) for “causes or incites another person to become a prostitute” substitute “sexually exploits another person”.
(3) Section 53 is amended as follows—
(a) in the title for “prostitution” substitute “sexual exploitation”, and
(b) in paragraph (1)(a) for “prostitution” substitute “sexual exploitation”.
(4) Section 54 is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (2) for “sections 51A, 52, 53 and 53A” substitute “section 53A”, and
(b) at end insert—
“(4) In sections 52 and 53 “sexual exploitation” means conduct by which a person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls another person to undertake sexual activity.”.”
An amendment to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, specifically in sections 52 and 53, replace “prostitution for gain’” with “sexual exploitation of an adult”.
New clause 45—Loitering and soliciting: repeal—
“Section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 (loitering or soliciting for purposes of prostitution) is repealed.”
An amendment that repeals soliciting and loitering as an offence.
New clause 46—Power of Secretary of State to disregard convictions or cautions: Loitering or soliciting for purposes of prostitution—
‘(1) Section 92 of the Street Offences Act 1959 is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) A person who has been convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence in circumstances where—
(a) the conduct constituting the offence was sexual activity between persons of the same sex, or
(b) the offence was committed under Section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959,
may apply to the Secretary of State for the conviction or caution to become a disregarded conviction or caution.”
(3) In subsection (2) after first “caution” insert “received in the circumstances set out in subsection (1)(a)”.’
A new clause that allows a process allowing the Secretary of State to disregard convictions and cautions received under section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959.
New clause 47—Grooming as an aggravating factor—
“(1) After section 72 of the Sentencing Code (supply of psychoactive substance in certain circumstances) insert—
“72A Grooming
(1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence which is aggravated by grooming.
(2) The court—
(a) must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by grooming as an aggravating factor, and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.””
Grooming to be seen as an aggravating factor in certain cases where the victim is an adult.
New clause 48—Aggravating factor relevant to offence of murder: strangulation—
“(1) Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Code (determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 9(g) insert—
“(h) the fact that the offender strangled the victim as part of the homicide.””
An amendment to instate strangulation as an aggravating factor in murder cases.
New clause 49—Reasonable force in domestic abuse cases—
“(1) Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5A) after “In a householder case” insert “or a domestic abuse case”.
(3) In subsection (6) after “In a case other than a householder case” insert “or a domestic abuse case”.
(4) After subsection (8F) insert—
“(8G) For the purposes of this section “a domestic abuse case” is a case where—
(a) the defence concerned is the common law defence of self-defence,
(b) D is, or has been, a victim of domestic abuse, and
(c) the force concerned is force used by D against the person who has perpetrated the abusive behaviour referred to in paragraph (b).
(8H) Subsection (8G)(b) will only be established if the behaviour concerned is, or is part of, a history of conduct which constitutes domestic abuse as defined in sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including but not limited to conduct which constitutes the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship as defined in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship).”
(5) In subsection (9) after “householder cases” insert “and domestic abuse cases”.”
Statutory defence for victims of domestic abuse who may have been coerced into committing certain crimes or driven to use force against their abuser, as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse.
New clause 50—Defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence—
“(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if—
(a) the person is aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence,
(b) the person does that act because the person is compelled to do it,
(c) the compulsion is attributable to their being a victim of domestic abuse, and
(d) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics would have no realistic alternative to doing that act.
(2) A person may be compelled to do something by another person or by the person’s circumstances.
(3) Compulsion is attributable to domestic abuse only if—
(a) it is, or is part of, conduct which constitutes domestic abuse as defined in sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including but not limited to conduct which constitutes the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship as defined in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, or
(b) it is a direct consequence of a person being, or having been, a victim of such abuse.
(4) A person is not guilty of an offence if—
(a) the person is under the age of 18 when the person does the act which constitutes the offence,
(b) the person does that act as a direct consequence of the person being, or having been, a victim of domestic abuse as defined at subsection (3)(a) above, and
(c) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics would do that act.
(5) For the purposes of this section “relevant characteristics” means age, sex, any physical or mental illness or disability and any experience of domestic abuse.
(6) In this section references to an act include an omission.
(7) Subsections (1) and (4) do not apply to an offence listed in Schedule [Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply].
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule [Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply].
(9) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for monitoring of the types of offence for which victims of domestic abuse are prosecuted and use this evidence to inform an annual review of the offences listed in Schedule [Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply] and any amendment to Schedule [Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply].”
Statutory defence for victims of domestic abuse who may have been coerced into committing certain crimes as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse.
New clause 55—Offence of child criminal exploitation—
“(1) A person (“P”) commits an offence if they—
(a) recruit or attempt to recruit, or
(b) ask or compel another person to recruit or attempt to recruit,
a child (“C”) for the purpose of C’s involvement in criminal activity.
(2) An offence is committed under subsection (1) regardless of whether C—
(a) engages in criminal activity, or
(b) is prosecuted for or found guilty of a criminal offence.
(3) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) to prove that P did not know that C was a child.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) if the offence for which C was, or was attempted to be, recruited was murder, to imprisonment for life,
(b) if C was, or was attempted to be, recruited for any other offence, to the penalty to which a person guilty of that offence would be liable.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
“child” means a person under the age of 18;
“criminal activity” means any activity or conduct which constitutes a criminal offence;
to
“recruit” includes by direction, inducement, incitement, coercion or compulsion.”
New clause 57—Offence of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling—
“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) Before section 28 (dangerous cycling) insert—
“27A Causing death by dangerous cycling
A person who causes the death of another person by riding a cycle dangerously (as defined in section 28) on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.
27B Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling
(1) A person who causes serious injury to another person by riding a cycle dangerously (as defined in section 28) on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.
(2) In this section “serious injury means—
(a) in England and Wales, physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and
(b) in Scotland, severe physical injury.
27C Causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling
A person who causes the death of another person by riding a cycle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence.”
(3) In section 28 (dangerous cycling), after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist includes that their cycle is equipped and maintained in accordance with regulations made under section 81 of this Act.”
(4) After section 32 (electrically assisted pedal cycles), insert—
“32A Interpretation of sections 27A to 32
(1) For the purposes of sections 27A to 32 of this Act, “a cycle” includes but is not limited to—
(a) a pedal cycle,
(b) an electrically assisted pedal cycle, and
(c) a mechanically propelled personal transporter, including—
(i) an electric scooter,
(ii) a self-balancing personal transporter (including a self-balancing scooter, self-balancing board or electric unicycle), and
(iii) any other mechanically propelled personal transporter provided for by the Secretary of State in regulations made under this section.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), mechanically propelled personal transporters are to be defined in regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section.”
(5) The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(6) In the table in Part 1 of Schedule 2, after the row beginning “RTA section 27” insert in columns 1 to 4—
New clause 59—Ban on “ninja swords”—
“(1) The Secretary of State must exercise their powers under section 141(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to amend the Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1, after sub-paragraph (t) insert—
“(u) the weapon sometimes known as a “ninja sword”, “katana” or “ninjato”, being a single-edged straight blade of up to 60cm in length with a long hilt or guard”.
(3) Regulations laid under subsection (1) must—
(a) be laid within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act,
(b) be laid following consultation on the definitions of possession for sporting use and possession of antiques, and
(c) include, subject to the results of the consultation under subsection (3)(b), exemptions for sporting use and for possession of antiques.”
New clause 60—Senior manager liability for illegal sale of bladed articles—
“(1) A person “P” commits an offence where—
(a) P is a senior manager of an internet service “C”,
(b) C commits an offence under—
(i) sections 141A or 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or
(ii) sections 38 to 42 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, and
(c) P has failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent that offence being committed by C.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “internet service” has the meaning given in section 228 of the Online Safety Act 2023;
(b) “senior manager” means an individual who plays a significant role in—
(i) the making of decisions about how C’s relevant activities are to be managed or organised, or
(ii) the actual managing or organising of C’s relevant activities.
(3) Where P is charged with an offence under this section, it is a defence for P to show that P was a senior manager of C for such a short time during the relevant period that P could not reasonably have been expected to take steps to prevent that offence being committed by C.
(4) Where P is guilty of an offence under this section, P is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).”
New clause 61—Classification of Fenethylline as a Class A drug—
“In Schedule 2 (Controlled Drugs) to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, after “Etryptamine” insert “Fenethylline”.”
This new clause would add Fenethylline – also known by the brand names Captagon, Biocapton, and Fitton – to the list of Class A drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
New clause 91—Offence of failing to meet pollution performance commitment levels—
“(1) A water or water and sewerage company (“C”) commits an offence where C has—
(a) failed to meet its pollution performance commitment level for three consecutive years; or
(b) experienced an increase in—
(i) total pollution incidents per 10,000km2, or
(ii) serious pollution incidents
for three consecutive years.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
“water or water and sewerage company” means companies which are responsible for the provision of water, or water and sewerage, services and which are regulated by Ofwat and the Environment Agency;
“pollution performance commitment level” means the level of performance on pollution that the company has committed to deliver, and which is reported against by Ofwat in its annual water company performance report;
“total pollution incidents per 10,000km2” and “serious pollution incidents” mean the relevant figures under those headings reported by the Environment Agency in its annual environmental performance report.
(3) If guilty of an offence under this section, C is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.”
New clause 92—Senior manager liability for failure to meet pollution performance commitment levels—
“(1) A person (“P”) commits an offence where—
(a) P is a senior manager of a water or water and sewerage company (“C”),
(b) C commits an offence under section [Offence of failing to meet pollution performance commitment levels], and
(c) P has failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent that offence being committed by C.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
“senior manager” means an individual who plays a significant role in—
(a) the making of decisions about how C’s relevant activities are to be managed or organised, or
(b) the actual managing or organising of C’s relevant activities;
“water or water and sewerage company” has the meaning given in section [Offence of failing to meet pollution performance commitment levels].
(3) Where P is charged with an offence under this section, it is a defence for P to show that P was a senior manager of C for such a short time during the relevant period that P could not reasonably have been expected to take steps to prevent that offence being committed by C.
(4) Where P is guilty of an offence under this section, P is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.”
New clause 93—Compensation orders: loss suffered by victim—
“In the Sentencing Act 2020 after section 138 insert —
“138A Loss suffered by victim of offence of coercive and controlling behaviour
(1) Subsection (2) applies where the court is determining whether to make a compensation order against an offender in respect of an offence under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship).
(2) The court must have particular regard to the desirability of compensating the victim of the offence for injury, loss or damage, including economic loss, resulting from the offence.””
Government new schedule 4—Cuckooing: specified offences.
New schedule 1—Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply—
“Schedule
Common Law Offences
1 False imprisonment.
2 Kidnapping.
3 Manslaughter.
4 Murder.
5 Perverting the course of justice.
6 Piracy.
Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100)
7 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—
• section 4 (soliciting murder)
• section 16 (threats to kill)
• section 18 (wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm)
• section 20 (malicious wounding)
• section 21 (attempting to choke, suffocate or strangle in order to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence)
• section 22 (using drugs etc to commit or assist in the committing of an indictable offence)
• section 23 (maliciously administering poison etc so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm)
• section 27 (abandoning children)
• section 28 (causing bodily injury by explosives)
• section 29 (using explosives with intent to do grievous bodily harm)
• section 30 (placing explosives with intent to do bodily injury)
• section 31 (setting spring guns etc with intent to do grievous bodily harm)
• section 32 (endangering safety of railway passengers)
• section 35 (injuring persons by furious driving)
• section 37 (assaulting officer preserving wreck)
• section 38 (assault with intent to resist arrest).
Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c. 3)
8 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Explosive Substances Act 1883—
• section 2 (causing explosion likely to endanger life or property)
• section 3 (attempt to cause explosion, or making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property)
• section 4 (making or possession of explosives under suspicious circumstances).
Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (c. 34)
9 An offence under section 1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (child destruction).
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12)
10 An offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (cruelty to children).
Public Order Act 1936 (1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6 c. 6)
11 An offence under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1936 (control etc of quasi-military organisation).
Infanticide Act 1938 (c. 36)
12 An offence under section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938 (infanticide).
Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27)
13 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Firearms Act 1968—
• section 5 (possession of prohibited firearms)
• section 16 (possession of firearm with intent to endanger life)
• section 16A (possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence)
• section 17(1) (use of firearm to resist arrest)
• section 17(2) (possession of firearm at time of committing or being arrested for specified offence)
• section 18 (carrying firearm with criminal intent).
Theft Act 1968 (c. 60)
14 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Theft Act 1968—
• section 8 (robbery or assault with intent to rob)
• section 9 (burglary), where the offence is committed with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm on a person, or to do unlawful damage to a building or anything in it
• section 10 (aggravated burglary)
• section 12A (aggravated vehicle-taking), where the offence involves an accident which causes the death of any person
• section 21 (blackmail).
Criminal Damage Act 1971 (c. 48)
15 The following offences under the Criminal Damage Act 1971—
• an offence of arson under section 1
• an offence under section 1(2) (destroying or damaging property) other than an offence of arson.
Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)
16 An offence under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 (assisting unlawful immigration to member state).
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2)
17 An offence under section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc) in relation to goods prohibited to be imported under section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 (indecent or obscene articles).
Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (c. 28)
18 An offence under section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (hostage-taking).
Aviation Security Act 1982 (c. 36)
19 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Aviation Security Act 1982—
• section 1 (hijacking)
• section 2 (destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft)
• section 3 (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft)
• section 4 (offences in relation to certain dangerous articles).
Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)
20 An offence under section 127 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (ill-treatment of patients).
Child Abduction Act 1984 (c. 37)
21 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Child Abduction Act 1984—
• section 1 (abduction of child by parent etc)
• section 2 (abduction of child by other persons).
Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64)
22 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Public Order Act 1986—
• section 1 (riot)
• section 2 (violent disorder).
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)
23 An offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture).
Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)
24 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988—
• section 1 (causing death by dangerous driving)
• section 3A (causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs).
Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31)
25 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990—
• section 1 (endangering safety at aerodromes)
• section 9 (hijacking of ships)
• section 10 (seizing or exercising control of fixed platforms)
• section 11 (destroying fixed platforms or endangering their safety)
• section 12 (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safe navigation)
• section 13 (offences involving threats).
Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/570)
26 An offence under Part 2 of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (SI 1994/570) (offences relating to Channel Tunnel trains and the tunnel system).
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40)
27 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997—
• section 4 (putting people in fear of violence)
• section 4A (stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress).
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37)
28 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 —
• section 29 (racially or religiously aggravated assaults)
• section 31(1)(a) or (b) (racially or religiously aggravated offences under section 4 or 4A of the Public Order Act 1986).
Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11)
29 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000—
• section 54 (weapons training)
• section 56 (directing terrorist organisation)
• section 57 (possession of article for terrorist purposes)
• section 59 (inciting terrorism overseas).
International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17)
30 An offence under any of the following provisions of the International Criminal Court Act 2001—
• section 51 (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes)
• section 52 (ancillary conduct).
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24)
31 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—
• section 47 (use of nuclear weapons)
• section 50 (assisting or inducing certain weapons-related acts overseas)
• section 113 (use of noxious substance or thing to cause harm or intimidate).
Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (c. 31)
32 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—
• section 1 (female genital mutilation)
• section 2 (assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia)
• section 3 (assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl’s genitalia).
Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42)
33 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—
• section 1 (rape)
• section 2 (assault by penetration)
• section 3 (sexual assault)
• section 4 (causing person to engage in sexual activity without consent)
• section 5 (rape of child under 13)
• section 6 (assault of child under 13 by penetration)
• section 7 (sexual assault of child under 13)
• section 8 (causing or inciting child under 13 to engage in sexual activity)
• section 9 (sexual activity with a child)
• section 10 (causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity)
• section 13 (child sex offences committed by children or young persons)
• section 14 (arranging or facilitating commission of child sex offence)
• section 15 (meeting a child following sexual grooming)
• section 16 (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child)
• section 17 (abuse of position of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity)
• section 18 (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in presence of child)
• section 19 (abuse of position of trust: causing a child to watch a sexual act)
• section 25 (sexual activity with a child family member)
• section 26 (inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity)
• section 30 (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice)
• section 31 (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity)
• section 32 (engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice)
• section 33 (causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act)
• section 34 (inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder)
• section 35 (causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in or agree to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception)
• section 36 (engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder)
• section 37 (causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception)
• section 38 (care workers: sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder)
• section 39 (care workers: causing or inciting sexual activity)
• section 40 (care workers: sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder)
• section 41 (care workers: causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act)
• section 47 (paying for sexual services of a child)
• section 48 (causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography)
• section 49 (controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography
• section 50 (arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography)
• section 61 (administering a substance with intent)
• section 62 (committing offence with intent to commit sexual offence)
• section 63 (trespass with intent to commit sexual offence)
• section 64 (sex with an adult relative: penetration)
• section 65 (sex with an adult relative: consenting to penetration)
• section 66 (exposure)
• section 67 (voyeurism)
• section 70 (sexual penetration of a corpse).
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28)
34 An offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die or suffer serious physical harm).
Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11)
35 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Terrorism Act 2006—
• section 5 (preparation of terrorist acts)
• section 6 (training for terrorism)
• section 9 (making or possession of radioactive device or material)
• section 10 (use of radioactive device or material for terrorist purposes)
• section 11 (terrorist threats relating to radioactive devices etc).
Modern Slavery Act 2015 (c. 30)
36 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015—
• section 1 (slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour)
• section 2 (human trafficking).
Ancillary offences
37 (1) An offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence listed in this Schedule.
(2) An offence committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring an offence listed in this Schedule.
(3) An offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging or assisting) where the offence (or one of the offences) which the person in question intends or believes would be committed is an offence listed in this Schedule.”
Amendment 69, in clause 9, page 7, line 36, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, publish a report on convictions for the offence introduced by this section.
(4) In preparing the report under subsection (3) the Secretary of State must consult with whichever individuals or bodies the Secretary of State sees fit.
(5) The report under subsection (3) must include—
(a) the number of convictions for offences under section 139AB of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in each year for which this section has been in force;
(b) the types of relevant weapon involved in such offences;
(c) details of how the individual came into the possession of the relevant weapon, including details of whether any laws relating to the sale or delivery of bladed or other offensive articles were breached; and
(d) recommendations on whether, in light of the findings of the report, further review is needed on existing laws and processes relating to the sale or delivery of bladed or other offensive articles.”
Amendment 32, in clause 13, page 10, line 15, after “Administering” insert “or attempting to administer”.
Amendment 33, page 10, line 19, after “administers” insert “or attempts to administer”.
Amendment 34, page 10, line 20, after “administration” insert “or attempted administration”.
Amendment 35, page 10, line 23, after “causes” insert “or attempts to cause”.
Amendment 36, page 10, line 25, after “administration” insert “attempted administration”.
Amendment 37, page 10, line 26, leave out from “life” to end of line 27 and insert
“, inflicts grievous bodily harm on them, or causes them annoyance or humiliation, and”.
Government amendments 142 and 143.
Amendment 38, page 11, line 3, leave out from “Administering” to end of line 4 and insert
“or attempting to administer etc harmful substance with intent to injure, aggrieve, annoy or humiliate”.
Amendment 39, page 11, line 6, after “administers” insert “or attempts to administer”.
Amendment 40, page 11, line 7, after “causes” insert “or attempts to cause”.
Amendment 41, page 11, line 9, leave out from “aggrieve” to end of line 10 and insert
“, annoy or humiliate the other person, or for the purposes of the entertainment of the person or any other person.”
Government amendments 144 to 150
Amendment 57, in clause 28, page 34, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert—
“(4) The court may, as part of an order under subsection (2), add conditions about the use of reasonable force, if necessary and proportionate, to give effect to an order under subsection (2).
(4A) Conditions referred to in subsection (4) may only be added if the court is satisfied that there are sufficient, properly trained and equipped staff available to give effect to the order, and the conditions added to it, safely.”
This amendment would ensure the courts satisfies itself that staff would not be put at risk when ordering a defendant to attend sentencing.
Government amendments 151 to 153
Amendment 58, in clause 33, page 39, line 14, at end insert —
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not issue a warrant under subsection (2) where—
(a) the prisoner has less than 180 days to serve of the requisite custodial period;
(b) the prisoner is serving an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment or detention for public protection; or
(c) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the prisoner should continue to be detained in a domestic prison for the purposes of—
(i) receiving instruction or training which cannot reasonably be provided in a prison in the foreign country, or
(ii) participating in any proceeding before any court, tribunal or inquiry where it is not reasonably practicable for the participation or to take place in a prison in the foreign country.”
The amendment would introduce exclusions on the type of prisoner that could be issued with a warrant to serve their sentence in a foreign country. It excludes people with less than 6 months to serve, those serving indeterminate sentences for public protection and those who need to be detained in the UK for education/training purposes or for legal proceedings (e.g. parole).
Amendment 59, in clause 35, page 40, line 41, at end insert—
“(c) report to the Secretary of State on any breaches of the arrangement made between the United Kingdom and a foreign country.”
This amendment would require the Controller to make a report to the Secretary of State on any breaches of the arrangement between the foreign country and the UK.
Amendment 60, page 41, line 3, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would ensure that the prisons inspectorate must conduct the duties specified in new section 5A(5D) of the Prisons Act 1952 and ensures its consistency with the legislative basis for its role in England and Wales.
Amendment 61, page 41, line 4, after “prisons” insert “and escort arrangements”.
This amendment would ensure that HM Inspectorate of Prisons can inspect escort arrangements under which prisoners are transferred to foreign prisons. This would bring the legislation into line with inspectorate’s powers in relation to UK prisons and escort arrangements under amendments to the Prisons Act made by the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (s.46) and ensures scrutiny of an area of evidenced risk.
Amendment 62, page 41, line 8, at end insert—
“(4) In section 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, after subsection 2(c) insert—
“(d) the deceased died while in custody or otherwise in state detention in a foreign country pursuant to a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 2024 (warrant for transfer of prisoner to or from foreign prison).””
This amendment would clarify how the government intends to apply its obligations under Article 2 (right to life) of the Human Rights Act, through ensuring the duties of the coroner also apply to any death involving a prisoner subject to a transfer agreement with a foreign country.
Amendment 56, in schedule 2, page 105, line 4, at end insert—
“66AD Faking intimate photographs or films using digital technology
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if A intentionally creates or designs using computer graphics or any other digital technology an image or film which appears to be a photograph or film of another person (B) in an intimate state for the purposes of—
(a) sexual gratification, whether of themselves or of another person;
(b) causing alarm, distress or humiliation to B or any other person; or
(c) committing an offence under sections 66A or 66B of the Sexual Offence Act 2003.
(2) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) to prove that—
(a) A had a reasonable excuse for creating or designing the image or film, or
(b) that B consented to its creation.
(3) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”
This amendment would make the creation of ”deepfake” intimate images an offence.
Amendment 160, page 110, line 14, at end insert—
“Online Safety Act 2023
21 In Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 (priority offences), after paragraph 31 insert—
“Non-consensual intimate photograph or film
31A An offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—
(a) section 66A (sending etc photograph or film of genitals);
(b) section 66AA (taking or recording intimate photograph or film);
(c) section 66AC (installing etc equipment to enable taking or recording of intimate photograph or film);
(d) section 66B (sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film).””
This amendment makes non-consensual intimate photographs and films “priority illegal content” and so subject to duties to prevent individuals from encountering such content and to minimise the length of time such content is present (as is currently the case for child sexual exploitation and abuse content).
Government amendment 161.
Government amendment 163.
Government amendments 154 to 157.
Government amendment 70.
Government amendments 158 and 159.
Laura Farris
I have heard what was said by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) and made a careful note. The fact that this debate is split over two days may have contributed to that, but I have listened carefully and will take that point away.
It is an honour, again, to open this debate and bring this important Bill back to the House on Report. Its focus is on countering developing criminal threats, intercepting serious organised crime, and protecting vulnerable victims. I thank Members across the House for their constructive engagement on the Bill, as well as the police, leading academics, practising lawyers and campaign groups, some of whom appeared before us in Committee. They have all contributed to the Bill’s development. There are many topics to discuss today, and I look forward to hearing the views of Members.
The Government are bringing forward a number of amendments that we believe are appropriate and necessary to punish offenders and enhance the protection that victims deserve. Briefly, I will explain the key Government amendments, starting with those about which I anticipate there will be no dispute: namely, the extension to Northern Ireland of our new spiking measures in clause 13, and the statutory aggravating factor for grooming activity in relation to child sexual offences in clause 30. New clause 88 provides for equivalence in sentencing for terrorist offenders between England and Wales and Northern Ireland, as a consequence of the irregularity that was identified in the case of R v. Perry.
Government new clause 89 extends the time limit for the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and will extend the overall time limit to six weeks. A request must still be submitted by any prospective appellant to the Attorney General’s Office within the usual 28 days, but the Attorney General’s Office will have an additional 14 days to consider whether the case is appropriate for submission to the Court of Appeal. In recent years the number of cases referred to the Law Officers has increased, in part due to a better awareness of the scheme. We consider it to be in the interests of justice that each application is given due care and attention, even when it is submitted close to the 28-day deadline, and we believe that the new clause is a proportionate way of achieving that.
On attendance at sentencing hearings, a change has been initiated already in the legislation in response to public concerns about high-profile cases, such as those of Lucy Letby, Jordan McSweeney and Thomas Cashman, all of whom refused to attend their sentencing hearing.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that such cases, which have rightly gained a huge amount of public traction, are ones where it is appropriate for the Government to be making further announcements and putting in measures at this stage?
Laura Farris
I agree with that sentiment entirely. We are already creating an express statutory power at clause 28 to compel an offender to attend the sentencing hearing if they have been convicted of a crime for which the maximum sentence is life, but we have also listened to those concerned about offences that might not be caught by that power. I confirm that the Government has tabled amendments 148 to 150 to extend the measure to all offences that might attract a maximum sentence of 14 years or more.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor, the Minister and other Ministers for listening to the case I made on Second Reading for extending the power. I had a case in my constituency where an offender was convicted of sexually assaulting a child under 13, which carries a 14-year sentence. They hid away in their cell and did not come to court. Under the original provisions, they would not have been captured, but under these amendments they will be, and I welcome that.
Laura Farris
I thank my hon. Friend, because the speech he gave on Second Reading played a major role in the changes we are introducing today. I reassure him that the change brings into scope most sexual assault cases, terrorist cases and racially aggravated offences, and I confirm to him that the specific case he raised on Second Reading would have been brought into scope by the change for which he has campaigned. I remind the House that the sanction for non-attendance at a sentencing hearing is up to a maximum of another two years in custody.
Government new clause 86 creates an offence of creating a sexually explicit deepfake of an adult without their consent. Members will be aware that the sharing of intimate images, whether real or fake, is already proscribed under the Online Safety Act 2023. We consider that we cannot complete the task of protecting people, principally women, unless we add the creation of pseudo-images or deepfakes to that package of protection. We are the first national legislature to take this step—if I am wrong about that, we are among the first—and we do so because we recognise the inherent risk posed by the creation of these images, both to the individual depicted and to society more widely.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I know that the Minister will have given thought to this, but does she agree that there is a problem not just with deepfake sexual images, but more widely with deepfake images that purport to show individuals and potentially even Members of this House doing and saying things that they have not and that have no sexual connotations whatever?
Laura Farris
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point. We are encountering a rapidly changing world of deepfake images that can be used for the purposes of manipulating voices to try to influence political attitudes and choices. I have to make it clear that the new clause is confined only to the creation of sexually explicit images. However, it is my hope, humbly expressed at this Dispatch Box, that it may provide a gateway and lever for the development of more law in this area, and I thank her for her intervention.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I particularly thank the Minister for this new clause. It obviously only covers adults, because producing sexual content of children is already illegal, but I am told that since the Government announced their intention to move the new clause, Apple and Google have already removed from their app stores a number of apps that were enabling users to produce deepfake nudes. Those applications have been used to create indecent images of children, as well as of adults. Disabling those apps has already helped to keep the public safe and to significantly improve the safeguarding of children. Just by tabling the new clause, the Government have already forced the industry to act in the UK.
Laura Farris
That is music to our ears. It was not lost on us that, within days of making the announcement, two of the major deepfake or nudify sites had blocked access to UK users in anticipation of the fact that even the act of using that site would become a criminal offence under our impending legislation.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her personal championing of this new clause. As she knows, the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee recommended it, and we benefited from a seminar conducted with the campaigners that Glamour magazine brought together to bring the experience of people right across the country to a focal point. They deserve credit for having brought this issue to the House, as does the Minister for championing it so brilliantly and bringing the new clause today.
Laura Farris
I have to thank the team at Glamour magazine, because they led an excellent campaign. I was halfway through trying to make the change myself when I became aware of it, but I read the material that they put out. It totally chimed with our objectives, and I know that my right hon. Friend welcomed the team to Parliament just a few weeks ago.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Intimate image abuse is an important issue to be dealt with. Can the Minister explain why she has not approached it in the same way as her colleagues approached it in the Online Safety Bill? It was a long-fought battle to have the Online Safety Bill recognise consent as pivotal, yet she has chosen not to take that approach at this stage, which I think many will find disappointing.
Laura Farris
I want to be crystal clear that, under the new clause, the offence is committed if the pseudo-image is created without the consent of the person who is the subject. That is at subsections 1(c) and 2(c) of proposed new section 66AD.
Let me talk for a moment about intent. The new clause differs from some of the content in the Online Safety Act 2023. It does not relate to intimate images, such as a person wearing a swimsuit, but applies to sexually explicit images, which are defined in legislation. It requires not only that the image is sexually explicit and is created without the consent of the subject matter, but that it is done for the purposes of sexual gratification or with the intent of causing humiliation, alarm or distress. I gently say that a similar measure was debated in the Bill Committee. I think it was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), and he will recognise that the intent of the provisions that the Government have adopted is the same as the Opposition’s.
I am aware of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke is saying about the base events. Perhaps I can allay her concerns by simply saying this: it is a novel new measure for any Government to take. She makes sensible and compelling arguments on this point, and I hope she will feel reassured if we take an iterative approach for the time being. She will recall that the Law Commission recommended that we did not introduce legislation at all, and I will come on to say a little about that. It is right to say that other countries are looking at us carefully. The Justice Secretary was at the G7 in Venice just last weekend, and other G7 Justice Ministers had noticed that we are making this change and were observing carefully. We are making this change because we recognise the inherent risk posed by these images and that the offence is overwhelmingly targeted at women, predicated on an absence of consent. As such, we consider it a gateway to more serious offending.
We make some points by way of clarification. We carefully considered the Law Commission’s recommendations in its excellent report on intimate image abuse, which has informed much of our recent work, although respectfully on this, we have diverged from its point of view. In response to some of its concerns, I would like to reassure the House. We recognise that the amendment could criminalise young people, particularly teenage boys. To reduce the risk of over-criminalisation, we believe that we have set pragmatic parameters. Creation alone will be a non-imprisonable offence, although it will incur a potentially unlimited fine. The offence of creation alone would not attract notification requirements, meaning that the offender will not be placed on the sex offenders register. As hon. Members will know, all of that changes if the image is shared. Victims of that offence will be entitled to automatic anonymity in line with all the other sexual offences and they will also be eligible for special measures at trial. We are delighted to see major deepfake websites withdraw from the United Kingdom and we encourage the others to follow their lead.
I turn to Government new clause 87, which introduces a statutory aggravating factor for manslaughter involving sexual conduct. The clause corresponds to, and potentially should be read in conjunction with, section 71 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which says that it is not a defence to argue that a victim consented to the infliction of serious harm for the purpose of sexual gratification.
We have long held concerns about killing of this nature where, by definition, the victim cannot give an account of consent, yet on occasions the court has implicitly sought to categorise the killing as a consequence of sexual choice, as opposed to the consequence of the development of social norms based on structural inequality. We invited the eminent criminal barrister Clare Wade KC to consider the issue specifically in her domestic homicide review last year. She said that cases of this nature must be viewed through the prism of coercive control and that
“the policy underpinning law ought to consider the wider harms which emanate from the behaviour which can and does lead to this category of homicide.”
We agree, and we are increasing the punishment for degrading and abusive conduct of this nature. Following careful consultation with the Sentencing Council, we are tabling a statutory aggravating factor so that sentences for manslaughter involving sexual conduct must be more severe. It will cover all cases where the act is directly attributable to sexual conduct.
I want to provide the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) with one point of reassurance. She will know from all her work, and particularly the research conducted by We Can’t Consent To This and the team, that of all these homicides almost 60% are strangulation cases. I know that that is not the point that she wishes to make with her amendment, but there is some overlap.
On parental responsibility, as hon. Members will be aware, the Government have already amended the Children Act 1989 via the Victims and Prisoners Bill to provide for the automatic suspension of parental responsibility in cases where one parent kills the other. We are making an amendment to develop the law further, providing that, where a father is convicted of child rape, parental responsibility that he may have for any child will be automatically suspended.
I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)—I think that she is in the wars at the moment—for the way in which she has presented this issue. She has advanced the compelling argument that we have long-established principles to protect children from sex offenders by placing people on the sex offenders register and protecting them from working with children, but while we have measures to protect other people’s children, the same protection does not exist for the children of the offender unless the mother goes to the family court to remove his rights.
I also pay tribute to Sanchia Berg, the journalist who revealed this issue through her work and highlighted the practical obstacles that some mothers had faced in making this application, as well as other families who have talked about their experience, including via their Member of Parliament, one example being my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti); I am not sure if he is in his place.
The father will still be able to apply to the family court to have the suspension of his parental responsibility lifted, but it is obviously fair to assume that, if he has been convicted of child rape, such an application is unlikely to succeed. We have also included a clear requirement for this measure to be reviewed after it has been in place for three years.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see in the Public Gallery some of the families who have championed this issue in the west midlands. Am I right in thinking—I really hope that I am not—that this measure covers only those convicted of the rape of a child, not other sexual offences against a child and a child aged 13 or over?
Laura Farris
The hon. Member is correct. I simply want to say again that this is a novel power that we are extending to Crown court judges, who typically do not have any knowledge of family law matters or a family law background. Once again, we think it is right that we take an iterative approach. There was a dialogue between the Mother of the House and the Lord Chancellor on this point, and she agreed with the approach. I do not want to put words in her mouth, and I am keenly aware of her absence when she should be speaking to her new clause, but I believe that she is satisfied with where we have got to. I commend the new clause and urge all colleagues to give it their support.
I turn next to new clauses 94 and 95 and new schedule 4. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his excellent campaign and dedication to crafting a new offence. I must also mention my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) and for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), who also came to see me and made a really compelling argument.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am grateful for that. The key bit about cuckooing is that the police have never been able to arrest somebody because they have taken over a house; they have to prove that there are criminal activities inside. This new offence will therefore break new ground and protect people.
There is an important point about coercion. Will the Minister guarantee that in the guidance notes attached to the Bill it will be clear to the police that they should be checking that victims are not being coerced into saying that they have given their consent? It is important for the police to know that.
Laura Farris
That is an excellent suggestion. I confirm that and thank my right hon. Friend once again.
Before I conclude, I would like to address a number of other matters that have been raised by hon. Members and tabled as amendments. I start with the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch)—
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Before the Minister moves on—I apologise if she has addressed this and I missed it—could I get from her an explanation about Government new clause 102, which seeks to remove the protections of the Human Rights Act by effectively excluding the defence of lawful or reasonable excuses? This is now the fourth piece of legislation that the Government have introduced that will remove the protections of the Human Rights Act. We understand the reasons why they could not proceed with a Bill of rights, but surely if they are to remove human rights protections, that should be done in a proper, considered manner and not through salami slicing such as this.
Laura Farris
I will have to double-check that new clause, but I simply say that, with two exceptions, all the convention rights are qualified rights, which can be restricted in reasonable circumstances. I promise that I will check that and come back to the right hon. Gentleman in winding up the debate, if I may.
I was in the process of paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for the outstanding representation that they have given to their constituents who were affected by David Fuller’s acts of depravity. That is reflected in new clause 62, which the Government support, on the offence of necrophilia.
It is perhaps a rare thing in 2024 that an offence can be identified that Parliament has not previously considered, but such was the extent of Fuller’s offending that we have had to do so. The Government are pleased to confirm that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 will be amended by the Bill to capture the sexual touching of a corpse with a new maximum sentence of seven years for penetrative offences and five years for non-penetrative acts.
Dame Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her kind comments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) will try to catch the Deputy Speaker’s eye later to speak in more detail on this, but let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Minister for taking a lot of time to work through this amendment thoughtfully and correctly, to provide greater protection and give some comfort to the families of the victims of David Fuller that justice has been thought about. She has listened sensitively and carefully to the comments of our constituents.
Laura Farris
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. They were truly appalling crimes, and I had the constituents of both my hon. Friends in mind when I thought about how to develop the law. We cannot change what happened in the past, but I hope we can send the clearest possible message in future.
I want to come to a couple of other matters, though I will not pre-empt what hon. Members might be inclined to say. First, I want to talk about new clause 9, on one-punch manslaughter. I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend, and my friend, the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). This was not an ordinary campaign for her, but one born out of the deep tragedy of her childhood. I know that she will speak to the new clause, and I will respond in detail, but I hope she will not mind my saying that I think her dad would feel very proud of how she has conducted herself on this issue, and would be pleased with the changes that we are making.
I come to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on prisoner transfer to overseas prisons. I want to set out the Government’s position in general, and in particular in relation to the transfer criteria. The Government agree that not all prisoners will be appropriate for transfer to rented prisons overseas—indeed, the hon. Member has set out some very sensible principles in his own amendment. I would like to give him three points of reassurance. The proposal for foreign prisoner transfer will extend to approximately 600 prisoners—equivalent to just under half of 1% of the entire prison estate. I can confirm that we will not negotiate a prison transfer agreement with a women’s prison.
We will conclude a deal only with a country that can demonstrate that its prison conditions and capabilities meet the applicable human rights standards. The Secretary of State retains responsibility for each prisoner, which ensures that any transferred prisoner retains all their rights under the European convention on human rights, irrespective of where they may be transferred. However, we believe that legislation is the best place for negotiating further terms, with the appropriate involvement of experts. The Lord Chancellor has already confirmed that the use of these powers requires a valid international agreement, and any such agreement would be put before Parliament as a treaty, subject to ratification procedures contained in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for those reassurances, but some of us have marked misgivings about the whole concept, which speaks a little more of gimmickry than anything likely to ease the real pressures on our prisons. That said, I can see that it might be a tool in the box. Could she help me on two matters that the Law Society has raised? If the agreements are used, what arrangements will ensure that prisoners are able to access legal advice in a proper way, perhaps in relation to appeal or other proceedings? That is essential to ensure a fair approach. How will they be able to participate remotely if necessary in any ongoing legal proceedings? Secondly, what is to be done about family visits? As the Minister will know, the retention of family ties is particularly important, and recognised universally as a key factor in rehabilitation and preventing reoffending. We would not want to disrupt those opportunities for anyone being transferred.
Laura Farris
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his sensible intervention, which engaged two issues: article 6 considerations on the right to a fair trial, and article 8 considerations on the right to respect for private and family life. We are keenly aware of those obligations. I am sorry that I cannot give more detail on that, only the extra reassurance that the Lord Chancellor has insisted that prisoners will retain all their rights under the convention. These will be principal considerations. I will ask the Lord Chancellor to write to my hon. and learned Friend to flesh out some of those responses.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
My hon. Friend has given a wide-ranging opening speech, but I want to press her on one more issue: spiking. First, I thank her for recognising the importance of creating an offence to cover it. We had a spate of spiking attacks in Nottingham, and the stories of the young people affected were chilling. I seek her reassurance that we will create the most robust possible legislation in this area, and that she will look kindly on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who has led a fantastic campaign to get spiking recognised in law. It is so important that we cover all the intentions that someone might have when they set about spiking someone, even if it is that they thought it might be a bit of fun. It is certainly not fun for their victims, and it is important that we do not create a loophole where offenders might be able to wriggle off the hook.
Laura Farris
I hope that I can provide my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) with some reassurance. The offence is drafted to cover all possible outcomes. We looked very carefully at the wording. I want to provide some specific reassurance about “attempt”, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester is concerned about; it is in his amendment. It is not necessary to put a separate offence of attempting to spike in the Bill, because it is captured as an inchoate offence under section 1(4) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, which covers all forms of attempt of a crime that is on the statute book. I hope that provides some reassurance.
I thank Members on all sides of the House for their engagement in the Bill, their joint commitment to its successful development as legislation that enhances our criminal justice system, and that delivers robust protection, appropriate penalties and a better framework of justice for the public. Our Government amendments achieve that, and I will respond in due course to Members’ views. I commend the amendments and new clauses to the House.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
We are finally here, 18 weeks since Committee stage was completed. The Government are running scared, not just from us on the Opposition Benches but from their own Members. We very much welcome the huge piles of concessions made and the clauses withdrawn. I give credit to Members across the Benches for holding the Government to account. Surely, the Bill must be one of the best examples ever of how not to create new legislation, with dozens of Government amendments in Committee and now dozens more on Report, as well as many new clauses from Ministers. By Friday evening there were as many as 70 pages of them from the Government alone.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that Ministers should not listen to cases made by Members on both sides of the House.
Alex Cunningham
It is to the Government’s credit that they have listened to people across the piece. However, huge numbers of clauses and new ideas have been brought forward by the Government, which were not tabled in Committee or even mentioned on Second Reading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) said, this is not the way to do business.
Let me address the many Government new clauses and amendments, and those in my name and that of my partner in crime, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), and those in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and others. Starting with amendment 56 in the name of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Nottingham North, and Government new clause 86, the creation of deepfake pornography is a modern phenomenon, but one with very traditional intention: to cause humiliation, distress and public embarrassment, and to weaken the victims’ relationships.
It is right that, as the technology becomes more sophisticated, so do the legal protections. On Second Reading and in Committee we welcomed the Bill’s provisions on intimate photographs or films and voyeurism. Sexual offending in the online and digital word continues to grow at a terrifying pace. The rise in deepfakes is concerning for a variety of reasons, not least for the impact on political debate and the spread of false information. I have also been horrified by reports of the use of deepfakes to sexually harass and humiliate individuals. The exponential rise in the use of explicit deepfake images demands urgent legislative action. Creating an explicit deepfake without someone’s consent is a deeply violating act, one that causes victims to feel embarrassed, alarmed and unsafe.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her work on new clause 43. It would create an offence of creating or sharing misleading content. Such content can reach a wide audience in a short space of time, with questions over legitimacy coming far too late, when the harm has already been done. My hon. Friend recognises the impact that such abuse of technology has on our democracy.
Dame Maria Miller
On new clause 86, does the hon. Gentleman share the concern of many women outside this place about the almost backward step the Government have taken by not focusing on a base offence relating to people giving consent to their images being used? I thought we had won that argument, but that seems to have evaporated. That was central to the Online Safety Act 2023. Why is he not pressing for that change, as others are outside this place?
Alex Cunningham
The right hon. Member makes a strong point, and it is up to the Government to respond to it. We believe that we should extend all protections to women in all circumstances.
We welcome amendment 160 in the name of the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). The Online Safety Act made significant progress on intimate image abuse, or revenge porn, which is an abhorrent crime, and it is right that, through this Bill, we continue the good work done through that Act. We therefore support amendment 160, which would make offence relating to non-consensual intimate photographs or films priority offences under the Online Safety Act. That will ensure that this heinous practice is treated seriously and dealt with proactively, so that the harm it causes is reduced.
New clause 87 makes it an aggravating factor if an offence of manslaughter involves sexual conduct, and does the same for the corresponding service offence. The Government had support from across the House when they restated in statute, in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, that
“a person is unable to consent to the infliction of harm that results in actual bodily harm or…their own death, for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification”.
It will therefore not surprise the Government to hear that the new clause has the support of Labour Members. We are all aware of the high-profile cases in which women have been killed as a result of allegedly consensual sado-masochistic acts of violence during sex. We share the Government’s ambition to do more on the issue, in recognition of the serious public concerns about these horrific cases.
Amendment 57, in my name, would ensure that when courts ordered a defendant to attend sentencing, they first satisfied themselves that that would not put their staff at risk. Government amendments 149 and 150 lower the threshold for the availability of the new power to order an offender to attend a sentencing hearing, so that it applies where an offence is punishable with imprisonment for 14 years or more.
Clause 28 comes in the wake of a dismaying trend of high-profile criminals opting not to attend their sentencing hearing. Former neonatal nurse Lucy Letby did that in August last year. She refused to attend her sentencing hearing for the murder of seven babies, and the attempted murder of another six entrusted to her care. Having also refused to attend via video link, she remained in the cells below Manchester Crown court as bereaved family members delivered victim personal statements, and the judge passed a whole life order in her absence. In April last year, Thomas Cashman exploited the same procedural rule by refusing to attend his sentencing hearing. He travelled to Manchester Crown court, but declined to leave his cell, claiming that he had been provoked by court officials. He received a sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 42 years, for the fatal shooting of nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel in her home. We share the view that, wherever possible, defendants ought to hear the victim impact statements setting out how victims and families have been affected by the crime.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), accepted that
“the judge now has discretion to make such an order, but we have found that it is not evenly or always applied”––[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2024; c. 244.]
as in the case of Lucy Letby, where the judge did not compel her attendance. The Minister said that putting the measure in the Bill would ensure a power in statute for a judge to compel a person to attend their sentencing for any serious offence for which the maximum sentence is a life sentence. The Government’s pages of amendments include those to clause 28, and we are supportive of all efforts to improve the Bill’s workability. I said in Committee that there is nothing in the Government’s explanatory notes about the resources needed to deliver the policy. Likewise, there was little if anything about how the staff who would be at the sharp end of delivering a defendant to court will be protected. The charity Justice raised the concern with me that the policy puts staff at risk; it is questionable whether the discretion to use force in proposed new section 41B(4) of the Sentencing Code is real, or merely apparent, in view of proposed new section 41B(6).
Sir Robert Neill
I have a lot of sympathy with the points the shadow Minister is making. It is right that there should be a power—I think we all agree—to prevent vile offenders from showing the cowardly behaviour of not facing the relatives and hearing their sentence in person. However, the Professional Trades Union for Prison, Correctional and Secure Psychiatric Workers has a concern, which he rightly raises. Prison officers already put their life on the line every day—they can be subject to violence when going about their work in prisons—but there is a particular concern. We are extending the measure to a wider range of offences, and very often, those involved in bringing people to court are contractors—from, say, Serco—who may not have the experience or training to deal with these rather difficult situations. It is perhaps therefore all the more important that there be proper consultation with the workforce who will be at the sharp end, as he says.
Alex Cunningham
Indeed; that is very much the case. A few paragraphs further on in my speech, I will address that point specifically, as I did in Committee.
Proposed new section 41B(6) states:
“A person is to be treated as having complied with an order under subsection (2) if they have done all that they reasonably can to secure that the offender is produced before the court for the sentencing hearing.”
Given that subsection (4) provides the authority to use “reasonable force”, those responsible for producing the offender who fail to use such force are arguably at risk of being held in contempt for failing to comply with a court order. Prison governors and custody officers are accordingly placed in an invidious position. In her letter to me dated 1 March, the Minister said:
“Prison officers and Prison Escort and Custody Service staff are trained in control and restraint techniques, and we would expect them to use these skills to enforce a lawfully given order that an offender should attend court. Further guidance, training and, if required, personal protective equipment will be provided to ensure that prison and escort staff are fully supported to affect such court orders. The security and safety of prisoners, and well-being of prison officers will remain a priority.”
When I first considered clause 28, I made enquiries about how reasonable force is currently used by prison officers to deliver a defendant to court. It came as a surprise to me to learn that it involves three prison officers in full riot gear, including overalls, gloves, steel-toed boots, helmets and shields, approaching the prisoner, securing them and getting them into the transport vehicle. Their job is then complete, and responsibility passes to the private security firm staff to deliver the defendant to the court. Unlike the prison officers, neither private security staff nor receiving court staff are equipped with the personal protective equipment or the training to transfer the defendant first into the court cell and then to the dock. That was exactly the point raised by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I want to raise again with the Minister the question of whether the clause will ensure that all staff involved in producing a prisoner at their sentencing hearing are protected, all the way from the cells to the dock, and probably while the prisoner is in the dock as well. I have brought back amendment 57 in the absence of clarity from the Minister about how that would work in practice. I would welcome her further comments.
Amendment 58 would exclude some types of prisoner from being issued with a warrant to serve a sentence in a foreign country. It would exclude people with less than six months to serve, those serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, and those who need to be detained in the UK for education or training purposes, or for legal proceedings, such as parole. I accept what the Minister said about that in her speech.
In Committee, I raised the subject of the failure of the Bill and the accompanying notes to provide detail on exactly how the scheme to transfer prisoners abroad would work, who the partner countries would be, and where their responsibilities would lie. The Minister said that the amendment that I had tabled made “sensible” points, but that the Government
“believe that they are best addressed through policy, based on…expertise from within the prison system, not set out in primary legislation.”
She also told me that it was her “understanding” that no prisoners would be moved to countries not covered by the European convention on human rights, and I welcome what she has said about that today. Again referring to me, the Minister said:
“He…asked about the availability of legal advice…First of all, the whole landscape of court procedure has changed in the last few years. Receiving legal advice can be done remotely, and court proceedings often take place remotely via a live link.”––[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2024; c. 280-281.]
That is supposed to mitigate the fact that someone is in a cell abroad.
The Minister was also at pains to point out that 10% of prisoners were foreign nationals, so
“family and primary care considerations are already rather different”.––[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2024; c. 282.]
Perhaps there is a clue there, suggesting that it is foreign offenders and not British nationals whom the Government really want to send overseas. The Minister has talked of only 600 prisoners being affected by this policy, and I welcome her assurance that no women will be affected. I know that the Government are negotiating with some countries about where the prisoners will go, but we do not have the fine detail that we need in order to understand whether the policy will be effective. The Minister herself acknowledged that
“there is not much detail in the Bill”,
but said that the Government were developing
“primary legislation to create the framework for the agreements.”––[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 18 January 2024; c. 287.]
She was referring, of course, to agreements that had not yet been made. However, policy changes all the time, so we need to nail down the provisions in the Bill and who will be included and excluded.
Amendments 59 to 62 amend clause 35, which relates to transferring prisoners to foreign prisons. Amendment 59
“would require the Controller to make a report to the Secretary of State on any breaches of the arrangement between the foreign country and the UK.”
Clause 28 of the original Bill provides for the Secretary of State to appoint a controller to keep under review and report on the running of any rented prison spaces abroad. It also extends the power of His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons to inspect and report on the conditions in such places. The Bill, however, places a great deal of unaccountable authority in the hands of the Executive, who can make provision for any arrangement by means of secondary legislation. It is silent on how those subject to this arrangement will be treated. Similarly, it provides no guarantee that the prison rules in secondary legislation, which govern crucial issues including segregation, complaints and the use of force, would apply. I hope the Government share my view that any agreement made between the UK and a foreign state should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. Amendment 59 would help to enable that to happen by requiring the controller to report any breaches of the arrangement to the Secretary of State.
Amendment 60 would ensure that the prisons inspectorate “must” conduct the duties specified in proposed new subsection 5D in section 5A of the Prisons Act 1952, and would ensure its consistency with the legislative basis for its role in England and Wales. We fear that the oversight of both the controller and His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons will ultimately be subject to negotiation with a relevant partner country. The wording in the Bill relating to the powers of the inspectorate differs from the wording in the Prisons Act, in that it states that the chief inspector “may”, rather than “shall”, inspect. The implication is that inspections could take place only by invitation of the foreign state, rather than as a statutory requirement. That leaves open to future negotiation crucial aspects of HMIP’s role and methodology, such as its ability to conduct unannounced inspections, to speak to prisoners in private, and to access records such as those relating to the use of force, which would mean that a lower standard of independent scrutiny would be applied to the treatment and conditions of UK prisoners held under such arrangements. Amending the Bill to ensure that HMIP can perform its duties under the optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is an important safeguard to ensure rigorous, independent scrutiny.
Amendment 61 would ensure that HMIP could inspect escort arrangements under which prisoners are transferred to foreign prisons. Clause 28 of the original Bill specifies that the chief inspector may inspect or arrange for the inspection of any prisons where prisoners are detained under an arrangement between the UK and a foreign state. The inspectorate’s powers to inspect escort arrangements were made by amendments to the Prisons Act in section 46 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. It is particularly important that the inspectorate should also be able to inspect the escort arrangements for the transfer of UK prisoners to foreign prisons. Our amendment would bring the legislation into line with the inspectorate’s powers in relation to prisons in England and Wales by also enabling it to inspect or arrange for the inspection of escort arrangements. A foreign state with which the UK makes an agreement could potentially be many thousands of miles from the UK. The transfer of prisoners could involve a lengthy journey including a variety of modes of transport such as, potentially, prison vans, planes, trains and ferries. The potential for trouble appears limitless.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Before we proceed, I would like to make a couple of observations. These are very serious and sensitive issues that deserve, and are clearly going to get, proper debate. In his closing remarks, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) indicated that there are two days for this debate. Earlier, an hon. Member intervened on the Minister to raise a subject that she had not commented upon. There was a good reason for that: it is listed not on the order paper for today but on the order paper for the second day. I ask hon. Members to make quite sure that, when they are discussing these issues, they are discussing those listed on the order paper for today, in the understanding that there will be a second day.
There are 18 hon. Members wishing to speak. I may have missed one, so there may be more. At the moment, we have plenty of time but may I gently urge conciseness rather than self-indulgence? That relates particularly to interventions, which should be interventions and not speeches.
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Caroline Nokes
I rise to speak to amendment 160, tabled in my name and supported by members of the Women and Equalities Committee, and other colleagues across the House. I will endeavour to be as brief as I can and I reassure everybody that the amendment is on the order paper for today.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her comments on deepfakes. There has been a problem: someone like Taylor Swift can get a deepfake made using their image taken down very quickly, but for ordinary women, or indeed men, from across the UK, who are not famous and do not have a platform, it is very difficult to get deepfake imagery removed. I welcome the steps the Government are taking on that.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for his comments about the amendment. I was not aware that the Opposition were planning to support it, so I thank him for that. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to pay close attention to what I and other members of my Select Committee will say about the amendment. I recognise that the amendment comes at the eleventh hour, on Report, for which I apologise to my hon. Friend. The reason for that is specifically because of the evidence the Committee heard last week, both in private and in public, from victims of revenge porn.
I welcome the changes that have been brought in under the Online Safety Act to support victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse. However, from the evidence we heard, it is clear that the legislation, in its current form, does not go far enough. It does not give Ofcom the teeth it needs to effectively tackle the fast-spreading, uncontrollable virus that is non-consensual intimate image abuse. It does not force platforms to remove harmful content in its entirety, or require internet service providers to block access to it. In short, it does not make the content itself illegal. The sharing of it is illegal but, even if there is a criminal conviction, the content itself is not regarded as illegal content.
Last week, the Women and Equalities Committee heard from a number of survivors of non-consensual intimate image abuse. In sharing their experiences with us, they have spoken of the catastrophic damage the abuse has had on their lives, confidence and relationships. They told us of their fear of applying for jobs, meeting new people or daring to have any social media presence at all. With all their cases, there was a common theme: even though they had secured a conviction against their perpetrator, their non-consensual content continues to circulate on the internet. Despite relentless work by organisations, such as the Revenge Porn Helpline, to report the content and get it taken down, there is no legal obligation for platforms to remove it.
Dame Maria Miller
I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee for making an excellent point, which supports the point I made earlier. If the Bill had a consent-based creation offence in it, that would outlaw the images that the people she is talking about find so difficult to get off the internet. Surely the Bill provides the opportunity to introduce a consent-based creation offence, rather than the current proposal that potentially provides lots of loopholes, particularly to online apps, to use intention to try to evade the long arm of the law.
Caroline Nokes
My right hon. Friend’s point is exactly right that the issue is consent. In my view, when images are non-consensual, they should be regarded in the same way as if the individual had been digitally raped.
There are also many thousands of cases where a conviction has not been achieved or even sought, where the victim just wants the content taken down or blocked. They too are being denied that peace of mind due to gaps in the current legislative framework. The amendment calls for non-consensual intimate photographs or film to be added to the list of “priority offences” in the Online Safety Act, thus making it “priority illegal content”. The amendment would ensure that non-consensual content, regardless of whether or not a conviction had been achieved, would be, by its non-consensual intimate nature, illegal. It would place duties on platforms to remove it, and require internet service providers to block access to non-compliant sites and platforms, including those hosted outside the UK.
That is precisely the way in which child sexual abuse material is handled. Children cannot provide consent and the adults in these images have not provided their consent for them to be taken, shared or both, so why should the content be treated so differently? Indeed, when the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) put it to my hon. Friend the Minister during her recent appearance before my Committee, that adult content should be handled in the same way as child sexual abuse material, via a registry to identify, classify and therefore allow for the removal of non-consensual intimate images, the Minister said it would be “a very good idea”. In order to do that, we need to make the content illegal.
It is important to note that intimate imagery does not just refer to photos and videos that are sexually explicit. Indeed, as we heard from David Wright, chief executive of South West Grid for Learning, which runs the Revenge Porn Helpline, within certain countries and cultures, being photographed with an arm around somebody or being filmed without a hijab can have catastrophic implications for a woman. That is why it is so important that any legislative change uses the term “intimate”, not “sexual”, when referring to non-consensual content.
Last week, we heard evidence from Georgia Harrison, who famously was the victim of revenge porn perpetrated by her then partner, Stephen Bear, who later received a criminal conviction for his actions and was sent to prison. Georgia made the point repeatedly that what happened was like “a house fire”, because when the images went up they spread very quickly. The solution was to get them taken down as quickly as possible so that they would not proliferate. The Committee described it as being like a virus that spreads out of control. The issue is not just about Georgia Harrison or famous women who have a platform they can use to ensure their voice is heard.
We also heard from an anonymous victim of Operation Makedom. In that case, the perpetrator had many thousands of victims. He received a 32-year prison sentence, but that young woman is too afraid to have any sort of social media presence because she is terrified that her image will be seen and put through reverse image searches so she will be identified as a victim. Thousands and thousands of the Operation Makedom images still proliferate online and nothing can be done about that because the content itself is not illegal. It remains online and accessible for people in the UK, despite that 32-year prison sentence. That cannot be right. We will be letting down the victims of that abuse, and all other cases of non-consensual intimate image abuse, if we fail to act.
My final point to the Minister is that we also heard about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and the fact that intimate image abuse is not on its list as a violent crime. When someone applies to the authority, expecting or hoping for some small nugget of compensation—a message in effect that they are a victim, they can put the blame and shame to one side, and they have been a victim of a criminal act—that is not even there for them. I have no doubt that is because the list of violent criminal offences was dreamt up many moons ago and intimate image abuse simply has not been added to it. It should be added to the list. As I said earlier, for a woman, or indeed a man, who has had their intimate images put online, circulated freely and proliferated all over the place, that is like digital rape. It is a rape that continues day after day, to be brutally honest, with no end in sight.
Those are the reasons why my Committee has tabled this amendment and why we urge Members to support it and give it serious consideration. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to make some comments from the Dispatch Box that might indicate how the MOJ can incorporate such provisions into existing law. If the message coming back to me is that the content is already illegal, I must say that it is not. We must find better ways of getting it down from online platforms.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also will seek to be brief and will principally speak to the two amendments in my name.
Let me first say that I fully support new clause 86, endorsed by the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). Likewise, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), and support her new clause 9 on one-punch manslaughter. Again, sticking with those on the Conservative Benches, I support amendments 32 to 41 from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), covering the issue of spiking, which is an incredibly serious offence. There are many on the Opposition Benches to whom I could also refer, but I will not do so because of time. I support new clause 35 in the name of the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), which covers the offence of failing to stop at a traffic accident and seeks to close a loophole to ensure that justice is done.
Let me now focus on new clauses 91 and 92 in my name. New clause 91 creates the criminal offence of failing to meet pollution performance commitments, and new clause 92 would make senior managers criminally liable for such an offence. If there were any doubts at all that these new clauses were needed, they should have been dispelled by a quick look at the news earlier today. We have revealed—this was discovered by some of us only yesterday—that, earlier this year, 10 million litres of raw sewage was dumped into England’s largest and most popular lake, Windermere, at the heart of my constituency and our communities in Westmoreland. This incident happened for 10 hours. United Utilities did not alert the Environment Agency for 13 hours.
The outrageous scale of this incident brings into question the extent to which the current framework is adequate. This is a personal issue to us. This is a lake at the centre of the Lake district’s hospitality and tourism economy, which brings in 20 million visitors every year—the biggest number of visitors to any part of the United Kingdom outside London. We are proud of that. It is an industry that employs 60,000 people, worth £3.5 billion to the local economy and contributing hugely to the national economy. The fact that this is permitted at the heart of the jewel in the crown of our tourism economy in this country is an utter outrage. The ecological side of it is even more utterly, utterly appalling.
The revelations of the past day or so have proven that the regulatory framework is utterly and totally broken, so the call for these new clauses for and the creation of criminal liability in this case is absolutely 100% justified. The offence that I have just spoken about is the tip of the iceberg. I shall talk principally about my own water company in the north-west of England, United Utilities. That company spilled sewage 97,000 times for almost 700,000 hours. There are two sites on the river Kent at Kendal; one spilled sewage on 42 occasions, and the other on 69 occasions. The River Eea at Cark on the Cartmel peninsula, near Grange-over-Sands, saw the most egregious example in the whole of the north-west of England: sewage was spilled 281 times for 6,471 hours last year. The River Eden at Kirkby Stephen saw 172 spills for 3,225 hours. At beautiful Coniston water, which has just celebrated being given bathing water status at four sites only the other day—I pay tribute to local councillor Suzanne Pender and the local parish councils for achieving that really important classification—there were 178 sewage spills in 2023 on 141 days.
Across all the water companies in England, there were 464,000 separate spills in 2023. That was a 54% increase on 2022. The water companies and, indeed, Ministers themselves said that that was because it rained more last year—not 54% more it didn’t. These spills are unjustifiable. We are left in a situation where only 14% of England’s rivers are at an ecologically good standard. Of all of the rivers in England, not one—a fat zero per cent—are of a good chemical standard.
My new clauses, which create a criminal offence, are necessary, because the regulatory framework is failing. Regulators have repeatedly let the water companies off the hook, and the data that they have to work on is incomplete. Ministers will say, and rightly, that until relatively recently there was not a lot of data available, and that monitoring did not happen. But who does the monitoring? The water companies do the monitoring; they mark their own homework. The Environment Agency, which is underfunded and the victim of many cuts over many years by this Government, is obliged to come out and inspect at a spill site only if the water company invites it to do so. How ridiculous and how weak is that?
Ofwat’s attempts to tackle egregious acts by the water companies are inadequate. They are too little and too late. For instance, Ofwat has dragged its feet to get around to merely consulting on plans to ban bonuses—perhaps sometime next year—with only the outside possibility that this could come into force. A process that River Action, an excellent campaign organisation, rightly described as far too slow.
Again, Ofwat has taken until now to consider fines of up to 10% of water companies’ turnover for the worst forms of poor customer service. Why so long? Why only now? The Office for Environmental Protection found that the Government were set to miss their 2027 targets to improve the state of England’s rivers, lakes and coastal areas by a “significant margin”.
In the Liberal Democrat policy paper, “Are you drinking what we are drinking?”, we propose a new regulator, with new powers to issue fines to top executives and to initiate proceedings. Given that we are where we are, I simply ask the House to consider new clauses 91 and 92 as a crucial way of being able to tackle the most egregious acts of sewage dumping in our lakes, rivers and coastal waterways.
For those of us in and around the English Lake district, this matter is personal. It is offensive to us. We consider ourselves—if it is not too grand to say this—as custodians of England’s Lake district. We are protecting the area not for us, but for the whole country, the world, the generations who come after us, and the people who will make use of Lake Windemere and the ecology that it supports at the heart of the stunning beauty of the Lake district, which is after all a world heritage site.
We are determined to tackle this problem. I pay tribute to all of those who campaign on this issue, including Matt Staniek and all those involved in the Save Windermere campaign, and others who are determined to make a difference. Citizen science projects going on in the Rivers Kent and Eden are equally important. They are more low-key, but are absolutely vital to trying to get to the heart of the problem. However, all the data in the world will not solve this problem if we do not have the laws to prevent what is happening and to hold people to account.
The regulatory framework has failed Windermere, the Lake district, Westmorland, Cumbria and the whole of our country. Now is the time to criminalise those who callously disregard the regulations and pollute our waterways.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the Government for signing new clause 62 which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) first tabled. We are both grateful to our hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) who moved a similar amendment in Committee.
This is distressing subject matter for an amendment to a Bill, and we regret having to bring it to the attention of the House. It relates to a criminal trial in 2021, when David Fuller, as the Minister mentioned, was convicted of the murder of two young women in Tunbridge Wells—Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce—in the 1980s. That recent conviction followed a forensic lead that eventually led to his identification. In the course of the police’s gathering of evidence for his murder conviction, for which he received a whole-life tariff, video recordings that Fuller made of himself were found. For context, Fuller was an electrician whose employment by the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust gave him access to hospital mortuaries, in which he filmed himself sexually assaulting the dead bodies of women and girls. There were over 100 female victims of such abuse in the film discovered in his possession. They ranged in age from nine to 100.
Some of Fuller’s convictions were for the offence of sexually penetrating dead bodies, which under the current law carries a maximum sentence of only two years in prison. As I say, it so happens that he received a whole-life tariff for two particularly abhorrent murders for which he was convicted, but had that not been the case, the maximum sentence available would have been two years for each offence. The evidence gathered by the police showed that Fuller also seriously sexually assaulted victims in non-penetrative ways. I will not go into detail, but I can tell the House that those crimes were extensive and grave.
Given that 100 victims were identifiable, more than 33 Members of this House, spreading right across the country, have in their constituencies the families of victims who are known to the police and to the NHS trust. All Fuller’s crimes are frankly unspeakable, but as well as the current sentencing limit being absurdly inadequate to deal with, in effect, the rape of dead bodies, the law does not cover any form of sexual assault that is non-penetrative. In her opening speech, the Minister referred to its being unusual for the House to consider an area of criminal law that simply has not been addressed before. There is clearly a gap that I hope all Members will agree needs to be closed. That is what we aim to do with the new clause.
Dame Tracey Crouch
This is one of the most harrowing pieces of casework that I have been involved in during my 14 years in this House. My right hon. Friend will remember that the gap, as he has just referred to it, was identified to us by one of the police officers who was involved in the horrific task of going through the evidence, and who said that the case shook him to the core, as I am sure it would many people. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the police officers, and of course the civilians who support them in going through the evidence at a forensic level, which I am sure many of us could not compute, and certainly could not comprehend?
Greg Clark
I completely share my hon. Friend’s desire to pay tribute to the police officer who brought this gap in the law to our attention, to all his colleagues who had the painful duty of viewing the images, and more generally to the family liaison officers who had to support the 100 families of the victims, and indeed the staff of the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, who—knowing, in many cases, this individual—were devastated to discover what had gone on, completely unknown to them.
The new clause will make an important change to the law. It will increase the maximum sentence for the sexual penetration of a dead body from two years to seven years, and create a new offence of sexual activity with a corpse, which will carry a maximum sentence of five years to cover non-penetrative offences. Victims of Fuller were robbed of their lives and then their dignity, and the victims’ families have been robbed of adequate justice. The devastation of the families of Fuller’s victims has been heartbreaking, as my hon. Friend and other colleagues will know. They suffered the deaths of their daughters, sisters, nieces, aunts, wives, mothers and grandmothers. Then, having laid them to rest and grieved for their lost lives, hundreds received a knock on the door one night from the police, who had to tell them that the body of a person who was so precious to them had been desecrated in the most sickening ways by this vile individual, in a place—a hospital mortuary—that they thought was sacrosanct, safe and protected.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for speaking on the issue. For those of us who were on the Bill Committee—many of us are present today—it was in many cases quite distressing to hear of the experiences that so many people had had over the years. It is a tribute to Members present, including those who were on the Committee, that they are here to listen to those experiences.
My new clauses 35 and 36 relate to traffic collisions. New clause 35 is intended to require drivers who are involved in a collision with a pedestrian, cyclist or motorcyclist to remain at the scene of the collision and report it to the police, or face the consequences of their decision not to. New clause 36 would reduce the amount of time that the driver involved has to report the collision from 24 hours to two hours. Technology has moved on. The provision for 24 hours is an old element of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Everybody has the capacity to report things very quickly.
I thank hon. Members who put their names to my new clauses. As I said, I sat on the Bill Committee for several weeks. We went through it line by line, and as I indicated, we listened to harrowing and distressing accounts of the experiences of victims—victims who literally went from the cradle to the grave. We have heard that again today. Colleagues who spoke in Committee will no doubt bring those accounts to the attention of a wider audience of hon. Members today. We have just heard one such example. Those accounts are worth listening to.
For my part, I bring to the attention of colleagues my reasons for tabling my two new clauses; the groups that have supported me in doing so inclue RoadPeace, Cycling UK and Action Vision Zero. There was a Westminster Hall debate on 15 November 2021 about two petitions that had gathered more than 100,000 and 165,000 names respectively, calling for tougher sentences for, as they are colloquially known, hit-and-run drivers who cause death, and for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving to be widened to include a failure to stop, call 999 and render aid on scene until further help arrives. The Department for Transport said in response to the petitions:
“The Government takes this issue seriously. The Department for Transport is looking into the issue of such incidents of failure to stop resulting in death or serious injury, and exploring whether there are further options that can be pursued.”
That was well over two years ago. What have the Government done in response? What has the Department for Transport done? It appears to me to be not a great deal.
I raised the issue of leaving the scene of a collision in the Bill Committee earlier this year. I did not push my new clauses to a vote then, because I understood that either the Ministry of Justice or the Department for Transport were working on the matter, and could be liaising on it, especially as the Department for Transport had already recognised that some assessment of the situation must be undertaken, and had ostensibly committed to doing that. Lord Paddick in the other place withdrew an amendment on 8 November 2021 to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that would have amended the Road Traffic Act 1988 because Baroness Williams of Trafford said that her ministerial
colleagues at the Department for Transport understood the concerns raised and were
“exploring options…including…the available penalties and how the offence operates as part of long-term and wider work on road safety.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 November 2021; Vol. 815, c. 1557.]
I wrote to the Minister earlier this year to say that I was not tied to the letter of my new clauses and the penalties therein, but I do not appear to have received a response, which is regrettable. If I did receive a response, I apologise, but I do not believe that I did. I assume there was some liaison between Departments on the matter. In Committee, I set out in a bit more detail why I was pursuing this issue. I go back to the point about how long it has been since the Government have moved on their position. It is 10 years since they said that they would undertake a full review of traffic offences. Regrettably, that has not happened, yet there seems to be an irrefutable case for it. What will it take for the Government to look at these issues affecting our constituents?
I offer hon. Members a few stats, to put this matter into context. Every 16 minutes, someone is killed or seriously injured on the road in the United Kingdom. That is a stark figure. If we average that out, it means that over 10 years, 31,000 men, women and children have been killed or seriously injured in collisions, and there have been a total of 130,000 casualties right across the piece, although I accept that the number includes very minor collisions. In a year, 1,766 people were killed—1,711 in Britain and 55 in Northern Ireland—and 28,941 were seriously injured. Road deaths have increased to pre-pandemic levels, and serious injuries are up 8%. I stand to be corrected on these figures, but that is an average of 85 people killed or seriously injured every year in each of our constituencies.
Meanwhile, many drivers simply leave the scene of the collision—as many as 17,000 people, according to the Motor Insurers Bureau. Not all those cases result in injury or fatality, but there are families who know that their son, daughter, husband, brother, sister or relative was left on the road, dead or dying, by someone who just decided to go off. If a person decides to drive away and leave somebody dead or seriously injured on the road, they must face the consequences of their decision—that seems pretty simple—and explain in due course why they left the scene of the crime. Whatever the reason was, they must face the consequences for doing what they did.
In Committee, I asked whether I needed to give hon. Members examples of what families have had to go through. I did not want to, because it was harrowing and distressing enough to hear about them, as the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells will know from the case he mentioned. There were huge numbers of examples, and I do not want to repeat them. People know; they do not need things drawn out graphically.
I repeat what I said in Committee: how would we reply to a constituent who said that we have the power to take action? Would we say, “It’s a shame, but there’s nothing much I can do about this. I’m sorry to hear that”? What if our constituent said, “You have the power, the capacity and the wherewithal to change this”? Would we just shrug that off and say, “Nothing to do with me. I’m sorry; there’s nothing I can do”? Would we sit there in silence? Would we look at the data and the information? What would we do? Well, I know what I want to do. I want to try to change the law, so that those who leave others dead and dying in the road are held to account, and face up to their actions. It is our solemn duty to protect our constituents. If we cannot protect them from people who decide to leave them dead or dying, we must at least try to send a message, for the sake of their families, who seek not retribution, but justice. That is what I want to do.
I will finish with a study by Dr Matt Hopkins at the University of Leicester, who interviewed dozens of hit-and-run drivers about why they failed to stop. A fair proportion of hit-and-run collisions, as they are called, involved drivers who did not have valid insurance and often did not have a valid licence. Others were banned from driving at the time of the collision. Still others were under the influence of drink and drugs. They were trying to avoid responsibility, not just for potentially killing someone, but for being drunk or on drugs, or whatever it was. I understand that people might leave in a state of panic, but they must none the less face up to their responsibilities.
New clauses 35 and 36 are an attempt to send the message out—not in a super-duper emotional way; I am not trying to threaten—that if a driver, whatever the circumstances, decides to leave the scene of an accident, they must face the consequences. I am not wedded to the sentence being five or six years in prison, or to the amount of the fine; we can debate and have dialogue about that—or I hoped that we would, but regrettably we have not. That is why I brought the new clauses back today. I have not said that I will push them to a vote; I do not want to. I just want people to bear them in mind, and to think about the impact that such actions have on families. Those people must be held to account.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I know that this place can have a reputation for being home to nothing more than Punch and Judy politics, but in debates like these, we see the best of this House, as people raise their experiences and those of their constituents, and work, often in a cross-party fashion, to bring forward changes to legislation that will have the right sort of tangible impact for everyone across our country. On that basis, I will support a number of amendments, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), and, of course, the new clause that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) tabled in Committee, which I am glad the Government accepted.
It will be of no surprise to anybody in the House that I rise today to speak to new clause 9. Before I go any further, I thank the Minister for her kind words about my dad. I hope that she will not mind my saying that her own father—her constituency predecessor—would, I am sure, be incredibly proud of the work that she is doing in her ministerial post and in her constituency.
I hope that the House will forgive and indulge me as I tell—hopefully for one last time in the Chamber—the story of my dad. Dominic Davison was a 35-year-old self-employed stonemason, a brilliant dad, a brilliant family man and a great friend to all who knew him. On a Friday night in 2007, he went to the pub with his friends and never came home. Regrettably, he was involved in an altercation that resulted in his receiving one fatal blow to the head—a blow so significant that he was dead before he even hit the ground. That is why I have dedicated much of my campaigning time since then to trying prevent other families from having to go through the horror and shock that my family had to go through.
However, today is not about my dad, me or my family. As I have campaigned, this issue has transformed from something deeply personal into something much greater; it is about the resilience of all the families who have experienced such horrific tragedies and have pushed through, and who are now campaigning for change. It is only right that I pay tribute to the incredible work of Maxine Thompson-Curl and her partner, Tony, who run the One Punch UK charity, based in the brilliant north-east. That initiative came from another terrible tragedy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will call Members whose amendments have been selected for separate decision first. I call Jess Phillips.
Jess Phillips
I was not expecting it to be me—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have tabled amendments. I am sure everybody in this House will be delighted to hear that I will not be pushing all of them to a vote, because we could be here all night if I did.
Many people have put in a great amount of work, including the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). I wonder whether, in her summing up, the Minister could give us some idea of whether the Bill will ever make it on to the statute book, because we are all working hard to put things into law, but we potentially have just 12 weeks left in this place, and it is a pretty long Bill to get through the Lords. I am worried about progress being stalled and about whether we are wasting our breath, but here I am and I will waste mine.
New clause 44, which stands in my name, seeks to replace the term “controlling prostitution for gain” with “sexual exploitation of an adult”, and to provide a definition of adult exploitation in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In 2015, a significant change was made through the Serious Crime Act, whereby “controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography” was replaced with the term “sexual exploitation of a child”.
Children who were once labelled prostitutes are recognised as being children who have been groomed and abused, and who are in desperate need of support. Unfortunately, no such change occurred for adult victims of sexual exploitation. I noted the earlier conversation on the issue of cuckooing, and the importance of understanding that a person can be groomed and coerced. The people who rent or own properties in that circumstance would be adults, so we do recognise that adults can be groomed; it just is not reflected in our laws. In fact, new clause 47, which also stands in my name, talks about that as well.
Sexual exploitation occurs when individuals or a group take advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce, manipulate or deceive a person into sexual activity. That is often done in exchange for something that the victim needs or wants, and it will disproportionately benefit the perpetrator. The impact on lives is devastating.
One case study from the STAGE group highlights the sudden change in perception of sexual exploitation as a person reaches adulthood:
“Meena was 15 when she was introduced to her perpetrator. He began…supplying her with alcohol and drugs to the point she developed a dependency on alcohol. He used her fear around shame as a form of control to ensure she did not speak out about the abuse he would subject her to. Between the age of 15-18 Meena was seen as a victim of CSE and professionals did all they could to safeguard her. At 18 the exploitation was continuing. However, since moving into adult services the police and adult social care have questioned whether Meena was just making unwise choices and whether she was getting something out of these exchanges… Meena had a missing episode. She was located following a sexual assault. However, the responding police officer informed”
her support worker
“that this experience cannot be sexual exploitation because Meena is over 18.”
The lack of a legal definition and the continuing label of sexual exploitation of adults as “controlling prostitution for gain” has led to the continued abuse of countless women like Meena and to the lack of response from safeguarding agencies. New clause 44 would play a vital role in changing the perception of adult victims of exploitation. As I have said, new clause 47 would make an aggravating factor of the grooming in these cases—adult cases—just as we do in cases of childhood sexual exploitation.
Since 2019, the STAGE partnership against adult sexual exploitation, which I declare I am the chair of, has supported over 700 adult women who have experienced grooming, and that is just in the north-east and Yorkshire. STAGE’s work has confirmed that grooming is a common technique used to manipulate people for sexual exploitation. There are considerable overlaps in the perpetrators’ behaviour and tactics with those seen in cases of child sexual grooming, and it has a devastating negative impact on people’s ability to consent and make capacitated decisions. It is a deliberate process of limiting the freedoms of a person by gaining control over them and creating dependency. However, for adults who have experienced grooming, it is often reduced to making poor life choices because of the belief that grooming can only happen to children. Adult victims of grooming are repeatedly asked victim-blaming questions such as, “Why did you get back in the car? Why did you stay with them? Why didn’t you leave?”
I do not know if Members of this House have seen the TV programme “Baby Reindeer”, but it is one of the best examples I have ever seen. It is interesting because it is about a man, and I therefore think that, as a nation, we might be more ready to believe it. There is an incident where he goes back to somebody with more power than him, who has a hold over him in his career and is feeding him drugs for dependency. He goes back, but under our current laws he would not be considered to have been groomed. That would not be a mitigating factor in any case that he could take. If he was a child, it would be a mitigating factor—nobody is arguing against that.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Lady is making an important point. All of this comes back to how we view vulnerability, because it displays itself in very different ways. In almost all these cases, there is some base vulnerability, and a drug addict or a person who has been accused of various things realises that, on balance, they had better do what they are told or coerced into. That is the real point, is it not?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree, and it can truly happen to anybody—we have seen how people even in this House can be coerced into things. It is dangerous. If there are criminal charges for blackmail, sexual violence or whatever against a person, grooming should be an aggravating factor, regardless of age, on the basis—as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says—of a differential of vulnerability. Until grooming of adults is recognised in legislation, it will continue to be misunderstood by law enforcement and the criminal justice system, and victims will not be adequately protected.
New clause 45 would essentially decriminalise the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, and repeal section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959. Tens of thousands of sex trade survivors who are convicted of that offence endured violence and abuse from punters and pimps, or they were criminalised for offences arising from their exploitation. The exploiters and abusers remained at liberty, continuing to offend, while we criminalised the victims.
In one case I was told of, a young woman was 15 when she was first exploited into prostitution by a man posing as her boyfriend. He became her pimp, and as well as sexually abusing her himself, he made her sell sex on the street where she often feared for her life. For years she suffered violence and abuse from her pimps and punters, and was regularly arrested by the police while they exchanged friendly greetings with her pimp—that, by the way, is essentially protected under the law in our land at the moment, which needs some heavy review. As a consequence of that history, which dates back to the 1980s, she has 39 convictions for soliciting and loitering, which will remain on her record for life, despite her having exited prostitution more than 30 years ago. She is one of thousands of women who have lived through that experience.
Times have changed. Those in much of street prostitution are now widely understood to be the victims, and they are usually no longer arrested. The new clause would provide the necessary recognition that women convicted of such offences were not criminals. It would ensure that the UK complies with international human rights obligations to women exploited in prostitution, and it would replicate the majority of Council of Europe states that have fully legalised or decriminalised prostitution, or adopted the sex buyer model, which decriminalises only those exploited and not those who profit or benefit from prostitution.
New clause 46, which is connected to new clause 45, would create a mechanism for those who received convictions for loitering and soliciting for the purpose of prostitution to have them disregarded. We have seen quite a push in the House regarding the criminalisation of people from the Post Office and—quite rightly—to have those convictions quashed. I am asking us to consider those young children and very vulnerable women who were criminalised, because that will remain on their criminal records until the survivor reaches the age of 100. It means that women who were convicted continue to be disadvantaged by the mandatory retention of such records, as a result of being historically subject to violence and exploitation. Despite recent changes to the disclosure regime, women are still at risk of those records being disclosed in certain circumstances. In the Post Office drama, one woman could not go into her kid’s school to do a painting session. We are talking about women who have been exploited not being able to go into our kids’ schools.
New clause 48 argues that strangulation should be seen as an aggravating factor in the sentencing of murderers, and the Minister sought to address some of these issues. Working with many families of murdered women, many of them speak to me of the horrors of how their loved one was killed by strangulation. Strangulation is not a weapon. Weapons have different sentencing regimes, and in this instance, a man’s strength is their weapon; he brings a weapon by bringing the strength to strangle and kill somebody. We have gone over the debates and the amazing work of Carole Gould and Julie Devey looking at the differentiation between those who kill a stranger or anyone in the street with a knife getting a 25-year minimum sentence, and someone who kills their wife with a knife in their home getting a 15-year minimum sentence. That is fundamentally wrong. Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 needs a massive review, but one thing we could definitely do is put in aggravated factors specifically on strangulation, as Clare Wade suggested.
We debated new clauses 49 and 50 extensively in Committee, and they relate to whether victims of domestic violence deserve defences in the law. I imagine this matter will get an even bigger run-out in the Lords. Many learned Members of the other place very much wish to see these mitigations for cases where women commit crimes as a result of the pattern of abuse they have suffered. I look forward to that being the ongoing debate down there.
We did not debate new clause 93 in Committee, so I will just talk about it. I like it as a policy, because it does not cost anything, which the Minister will be pleased to hear. It calls for the sentencing code to be amended to require judges to consider making compensation orders where there is evidence of economic loss or damage as a result of the offence. I know from my constituents and the charity Surviving Economic Abuse that even when a survivor is lucky enough to have her case reach court and her abuser handed a prison sentence, she has to live with the long-lasting impact of the abuse. Some 5.5 million UK women have had their money and belongings controlled by their current or former partner in the past 12 months. Many economic abuse survivors often end up homeless, destitute and with damaged credit scores that prevent them from rebuilding their life.
While the sentencing code requires judges to consider awarding compensation when making their judgments, in reality they do not. Research by Surviving Economic Abuse looked at successful controlling or coercive behaviour prosecutions that featured economic abuse between 2016 and 2020, and it found that despite evidence of loss and damage caused by the perpetrator, just 2% of cases resulted in the perpetrator being ordered to pay compensation. New clause 93 would help ensure that judges consider whether a compensation order is appropriate in cases of economic abuse.
That is the end of my amendments. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has had many a mention today. She cannot be here today, but she has asked me to make some remarks on new clause 2 on her behalf. I make them very much on my behalf, too, with one particular question to the Minister. I have already asked her about the age being under 13. If somebody came to me and said that the father of their children had raped a 14-year-old, I do not think they would be particularly happy that they still had to go through the family court process, so I very much hope that when the Minister says this is an iterative process, that will actually be the case. There are still massive safeguarding issues.
New clause 2 would change the law to protect the children of convicted child sex offenders by taking away their father’s parental rights. That would be hugely significant and would lay down that fatherhood is a privilege, not a right and that people will forfeit it if they are a danger to their children. That would be a major change. The patriarchal hangover whereby a father’s rights over a child were sacrosanct will, at long last, give way to the priority of protecting the child.
It has long been recognised that children need protecting from sex offenders. While in the 1990s we brought forward protection for children through the sex offenders register and restrictions on people who have been convicted of serious sexual offences, we did not tackle parental rights and protect the offender’s own children. Somehow, the patriarchal view that a father’s rights over their own children must not be disturbed was a carve-out. Obviously that was wrong, because the rights of the child—not the rights of the father—should be at the forefront.
A recent family court case in Cardiff put a spotlight on that. When the father of Bethan’s daughter was sent to prison for child sexual abuse, Bethan was horrified to discover that, despite being in prison, he still had rights over their child. When he was sentenced, he was given an order banning him from any future contact with children, but that ban did not extend to his own children. Bethan spent £30,000 going through the family court fighting to protect her child from him.
The courts and the law should step forward to protect children. It should not be left to the mother—especially because, in most of these cases, the mother will be a victim as well. The court should strip the father who has done the offending of rights over his child.
As the Government have said, they are adopting this change. I have already said that I have concerns about some of the limitations with regard to the offence type. Let us be honest: I do not believe in the rights of fatherhood when parents are abusive at all.
When working with my right hon. and learned Friend, there are a lot of messages—that is what it is always like. The drafting of the legislation has essentially been copied and pasted from previous campaigns that we worked on with regard to Jade’s law on homicide, and there is a worry about the drafting of proposed new section 10B to the Children Act, which requires local authorities to make an application to the family court to review the decision to remove the sex-offending father’s parental right in every case, even when there is no issue at all with the mother. In her closing remarks, will the Minister address that?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I urge colleagues to be considerate of each other in the length of time that they are taking. I am trying to ensure that we get everybody in, and the debate will finish at 7.20 pm, so that means that colleagues have about 10 to 12 minutes each.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 57 and what was new clause 7 which has been copied by the Government in new clauses 94 and 95 on cuckooing. Having discussed the matter, I very much welcome the fact that the Government have essentially adopted my original new clause. Some modifications have taken place, and I agree with all of those.
It is critical that cuckooing is an offence in itself. When we talked to the police about it, they were clear throughout that they could not get into houses where there were problems—or even perhaps criminal activity was taking place—because there was no offence of having taken over the house. It will make the police’s job a great deal easier if they do not have to be able to demonstrate suspicion that a criminal act is taking place in the house; they will simply have to believe that the house has essentially been cuckooed. They will then be able to go in and discover lots of stuff.
Many criminals take over these houses for the simple reason that they know it will take the police a while to get their act together and be able to get inside. That action will be speeded up, which I think ultimately will help the police dramatically.
I made the point to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) that vulnerability plays a massive part in all this. Who knows what vulnerability is, but some victims have drug, alcohol, physical and mental health problems, and may have other learning difficulties and other disabilities. We forget about the learning disabilities element, but vulnerability can encompass somebody’s lifelong failure through all education systems and everything else. They are vulnerable, but they may not display those vulnerabilities to the public cognisance. Therefore, cuckooing—using someone to take over their house—is what happens. Hidden behind those doors, the victims go unnoticed.
Rob Butler
Building on that point, does my right hon. Friend accept that, sometimes, vulnerable people might appear to be exactly the opposite? They might put up a façade of great confidence or even of arrogance, including in the criminal justice process, which I have witnessed as a magistrate. We need to look carefully behind that, to assess whether someone is arrogant or vulnerable.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I could not agree more. That is why I was insistent that the Government are clear in the guidance that coercion and other acts negate the idea that, superficially, the individual is declared to have given their permission. That needs to be investigated more deeply by the police before they say, “It’s all right, they gave their say so, it is fine.” It is not fine. That vulnerability needs to be examined. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear at the beginning that that will be in the guidance.
Research from the Centre for Social Justice and Justice and Care highlighted that, despite the terrible impact on victims, taking control of a person’s home in this way is not specifically a crime. The specific offence of cuckooing is therefore needed to rectify the harm done. It has been claimed endlessly that civil orders do the job, but they do not because they are short term. They can be obtained quickly but they are not lasting and do not do anything—perpetrators are back into the process because they are not criminal orders. That is the point: if we make this a criminal offence, suddenly these perpetrators will have to think twice.
I am being brief because I welcome the Government’s decision to amend their own Bill and put it into law. I am grateful for that, and it will be celebrated up and down the land by many people who have felt abandoned. The issue is linked in many senses to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said earlier about vulnerability. It may open a wider debate about how vulnerability is recognised in criminal law.
New clause 57 would create an offence of causing death by serious injury and dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling. If accepted, it would ensure that cyclists are held accountable for their actions, enhance road safety and provide justice for victims and their families. Simply, it tries to bring in what has, for some reason, been completely left out of the normal criminal codes and highway code with regards to some of problems caused by the increase in cycling. Let me make it clear that I am very keen for more cycling to take place—it is good for individuals and the environment. I recognise all that. This is not anti-cycling, despite what many people say about it—quite the opposite. It is about making sure that cycling is safe and reasonable.
I want to raise the case of Matthew Briggs, who has been campaigning for a law recognising death and serious injury. He is in the Gallery, witnessing these events. His attempt to get a cyclist prosecuted after his wife was killed in central London in 2016 involved a legal process so convoluted and difficult that even the presiding judge has said, since she has retired, that it made a mockery of the law. It needs to be addressed that the laws do not cover what happened to Matthew’s wife and a lot of other people. They had to use a Victorian law made in about 1850, about wanton and furious driving, which referred to horse riding. Nothing has been done ever since. It is quite a different offence, to be frank, and it certainly is not about cycling.
As far back as the 1950s, it was recognised that juries were slow to convict in motor manslaughter cases—that is recognised in a report that I will come to in a second—which led to major changes in the law for drivers. The case for changing the law on cyclists is now urgent. By the way, it is not just me saying that. Back in 2018, the Department for Transport commissioned an independent inquiry into this very issue. Some of the points it made are really relevant, but nothing has been done since. It stated:
“there is a persuasive case for legislative change to tackle the issue of dangerous and careless cycling that causes serious injury or death; in order to bring cycling into line with driving offences.”
It is interesting that it referred to a number of countries that do incorporate that. It has not led to a fall in cycling in those countries—it is still increasing—but it is done on a lawful basis. The report quoted a barrister—this is a key component:
“I consider that this legislative change would have a positive effect on all road users.”
They went on to say that it
“would have a positive impact purely and simply on the basis of cyclists being well aware that if they were to ride in a careless or dangerous manner and were unfortunate enough to kill someone”
laws would proceed against them. They went on to say:
“I would like to think that it would have a positive impact for people to think ‘I am going to slow down, I’m not going to do anything stupid’”
because it could put them in danger with the law. As I said, that independent report is from 2018, but nothing has been done since. That has made this more important. Matthew Briggs and other campaigners often have faced a lot of abuse from people who simply do not want change to happen. It is time for us to recognise the impact of this issue.
Under the current 1861 law, even if someone on a bike has killed a pedestrian, they can only be jailed for a maximum of two years. That creates a clear discrepancy between different forms of dangerous behaviour on roads, and the punishment does not always fit the severity of the crime or achieve justice for victims. In one case, Mr Justice Mitting stated:
“If the vehicle ridden by”
the suspect
“had been motorised he would have had no defence to a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, an offence which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.”
There have been calls for legislative change for some time—I mentioned the report—but the numbers are growing.
It is worth looking at some other cases, which show that Mr Briggs’s case is far from isolated. Families who have lost loved ones or who have suffered injuries are desperate for change. In July 2020, Peter McCombie, 72, was killed by cyclist Ermir Loka, who had jumped a red light. In June 2022, Stewart McGinn, 29, was jailed for a year after he sped on his bike around a corner in Monmouth, south Wales, hitting Jane Stone, 79, who died four days later.
In June 2022, Hilda Griffiths—this is a very important case—who was aged 81, was run over by a cyclist, who was racing along at 29 mph in a 20 mph zone on a high-performance racing bike. She subsequently died. The extent of Hilda’s injuries were so severe that all the NHS medical professionals at St Mary’s Hospital could not believe that the collision had been with a bicycle. At the time, they thought they had misread the notes and that it must have been a motorbike or a vehicle that caused such extensive, life-threatening injuries. The case was unable to proceed because the speed limit does not apply to cyclists. These anomalies need to be resolved.
On 1 May, I met Paolo Dos Santos, who was knocked unconscious after she was hit by a speeding cyclist who was overtaking a car—overtaking a car—at the same spot. She suffered several facial injuries and now requires reconstruction surgery for her upper jaw socket. Without initial surgery, she would have lifelong discomfort and pain, and would not be able to use her mouth properly to chew, or anything else. In 2016, Diana Walker, 76, died when a cyclist hit her in Pewsey, Wiltshire. In June 2020, Ian Gunn, 56, died in south Manchester, yet the cyclist was cleared of wanton and furious driving.
It is interesting: I am talking about not just deaths, but injuries. I hope colleagues note the age of most of the victims. It is older people who are affected and it is worth recognising that this is a real problem.
The Department for Transport produces statistics on pedestrians involved in road collisions in Great Britain as reported by or to the police. Between 2018 and 2022, 2,000 pedestrian casualties in Great Britain occurred in a collision involving a pedal cycle. Of those, nine were fatal, 657 were very serious injuries and 1,292 were injuries. The number of pedestrians hit by cyclists has increased by a third since 2020, and in 2022, the most recent year for which figures are available, 462 collisions between cyclists and pedestrians were recorded by police. According to data from NHS England, 331 pedestrians were admitted to hospital after a collision with a cyclist between 2022 and 2023. Six of those patients were over the age of 90, and 11 were under the age of four.
We can see a pattern here: the elderly and the very young are becoming the people most affected. It should also be borne in mind that most of these injuries and accidents are not reported to the police because most people do not think anything will happen—unlike motor accidents, although I take the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) that even motorists try to abscond.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I will, but very briefly, in view of your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Rehman Chishti
May I make a specific point about road traffic accidents? We are debating a Criminal Justice Bill, and we are discussing support for victims. The maximum penalty for driving without insurance is a £300 fine or six points on the driver’s licence, unless the case goes to court, in which case drivers can receive unlimited fines and be disqualified from driving, irrespective of whether their offence is the first or the 10th. Should we not address that aspect as well, with the aim of making our roads safe?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go down that road at this particular point, because I am dealing with a very focused new clause, but I think that, as a minimum, we need to bring matters back into balance and allow ordinary pedestrians and others to recognise that there is a problem that needs to be rectified. I hope the Government will do that.
There has been an explosion in the number of electric bikes. The other day, I watched as someone on an electric bike passed a small primary school, just at the last moment avoiding the children who were coming in and out of it. I genuinely believe that he must have been doing over 30 miles an hour—coat flapping in the wind, not a care in the world, wearing no protection and certainly with no concern for those young children. It gave quite a shock to many of the mothers who were standing there. I watched with astonishment at the arrogance of the cyclist. It has been reported that some of these bikes have been adapted so that they can go faster than the legal speed limit for vehicles. These are not simply retrospective issues; they are developing issues.
I believe that the new clause will achieve equal accountability. Drivers are held accountable for dangerous driving resulting in death, and cyclists should face similar consequences for reckless behaviour that leads to fatalities. It will achieve deterrence, because stricter penalties for dangerous cycling will act as a deterrent, and it will achieve justice and closure for the families of victims who deserve it; outdated laws that do not adequately address cycling-related fatalities can leave them bereft. Finally, it will achieve public safety, because updating traffic laws can contribute to safer road environments for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.
New clause 57 stands not only in my name but in those of many colleagues on both sides of the House, and I recommend it to the Government. I recognise that it is not perfect—as was suggested by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham)—but I hope that the Government will adopt it, given that it can be modified in the other place if necessary. Not to adopt it now is to deny that there is a problem. I intend to press it when the time comes, but we do not have to divide on it, because I hope and believe that there is a chance of the Government’s adopting it, which would be a relevant and good position to take.
Let me end by commending Matt Briggs. He has campaigned bravely for some time, and has been vilified by many parties who do not want this to be done. His wife died and he has been without her for a number of years, but he has never relented in his campaign. Just over a week ago, I heard him speak on Radio 4, and his testimony so moved me that I decided we had to start acting now. I make no apology for that. As I have said, the new clause is by no means perfect, but action is better than inaction in so many cases.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I would like to speak in support of new clause 16, which is in my name. It seeks to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to provide that dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving offences may be committed on private land adjacent to a highway. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for presenting and supporting my new clause in Committee, and for the positive comments in Committee from colleagues on the shadow Front Bench and the Government Front Bench, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) earlier.
Vicky Ford
Before speaking to new clauses 25 and 26 in my name, I want to say that it was a huge honour and privilege to serve in Committee, where we did a huge amount of work on the Bill. We can all see elements of the Bill that affect our constituencies. In Chelmsford, outlawing the scanners that thieves use to intercept car key signals so that they can drive away with our vehicles is welcome. Essex’s police and crime commissioner has campaigned for the new knife crime laws. Along with others, I have campaigned and lobbied the Minister for the amendments she tabled on spiking. I also support the amendments before us today on a huge range of matters, including the ones on dangerous cycling, cuckooing and revenge porn.
This shows the Bill’s incredibly wide scope, which provides an opportunity to update crucial laws in so many areas. Faint-hearted or cowardly Ministers would not have given us a Bill with such broad scope. They would have shied away from it, fearing having so many amendments and so many areas of controversy. They would have feared colleagues tabling amendments to play political games, and they would not have taken the risk. Ministers have done the right thing by introducing a Bill with such broad scope. They recognise that even the best laws sometimes need a fresh pair of eyes, because situations change, and they want our laws in this country to be the best they can possibly be. I thank them for not shying away from the work and for being so brave in allowing these discussions to happen.
My amendments are far from playing political games. They propose extremely important laws to protect children from the vilest of vile crimes—child sexual abuse and, particularly, online child sexual abuse. There is a good reason why, for so many decades, it has been illegal for people to have images of child sexual abuse on their computer, because we know that people who look at this sort of content are more likely to step from the visual world into the real world to abuse children. I would argue that people who abuse children in the virtual world are even more likely to go on to abuse real children.
New clause 25 would update our laws on paedophile manuals to include AI-generated material. New clause 26, which would also update the law for the rapid evolution of AI, would make it illegal to use digital tools such as bots or avatars to simulate sexual communication with a child. This would include acts such as creating a bot or avatar to rape a child in the digital world.
I thank the Internet Watch Foundation for its work on these new clauses, which are supported by the police lead on child sexual abuse and others. Artificial intelligence is developing extraordinarily rapidly. There has been an explosion in AI content, and the consequences of that in the dark world of child sexual abuse are devastating. AI-generated images are becoming so widespread on the internet that when the IWF conducted a snapshot study between September and October of just one dark web forum, it discovered that more than 20,000 AI-generated images of child sexual abuse had been uploaded in just that one month on that one forum. These images are now so realistic that it is incredibly difficult for law enforcement agencies to tell the difference between real images of real children, who need real safeguarding, and those that have been generated using AI.
I turn to new clause 26. Under section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it is an offence to communicate sexually with a child. The new clause creates a new offence of simulating sexual activity with a child; this includes using, creating or sharing bots or other tools to simulate sexual communication with children. I am told that in online paedophile communities there is always a desire to utilise technology to bring the fantasies of child sexual abuse closer to a reality. The evolution of AI technology is seen as the ultimate solution—it is grim; it allows child abusers to feel as close to the sensation of interacting with and abusing a real child as possible without actually committing the physical act of abusing a child. However, just as we know that a person who regularly views image of CSA is more likely to sexually abuse a real child, it is absolutely clear that a person who abuses a virtual child, or directs an online companion or bot to do so, is much more likely to go on to abuse a real one.
Dame Maria Miller
My right hon. Friend is dealing with an issue that demonstrates the type of issue pervading all of this Bill. Again, I pay tribute to all the people who served on the Bill Committee and dealt with such a difficult range of issues, as they have done a great service to our House.
Vicky Ford
On behalf of all of us who served on the Committee, I thank my right hon. Friend for that. I should say that the Ministers and shadow Ministers did a huge amount of work on the Bill.
To put it simply, the online act of abuse lowers the bar to physical offending. There is huge concern regarding the development of AI chatbots and the ease, speed, and quality with which text-to-image-based generative AI tools have been developed. Furthermore, it is important to recognise that this is becoming a risk to massive numbers of children. The National Crime Agency estimates that approximately 680,000 to 830,000 people in the UK—between 1.3% and 1.6% of the adult population—pose some form of sexual threat to children.
Android and iOS app stores have a plentiful supply of AI companion apps. They enable the user to create an imaginary online friend, to choose what that friend looks like and to direct what they do. The three largest apps have already received well over 1 million downloads each. Within minutes of downloading one of these popular apps, law enforcement operatives were able to have an interactive communication with an AI chatbot discussing the abduction, sexual abuse, torture and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Furthermore, through monitoring offender discussions online, we know that technically capable users are actively building AI chatbot companions specifically for the purpose of having realistic, paedophilic role-plays involving AI child avatars. Ian Critchley, the national police lead on child protection, has warned that the metaverse creates a
“gateway for predators to commit horrific crimes against children”.
There are many stories of child avatars having been subjected to the most hideous of rapes. In evidence to the Education Committee, of which I am a member, the Children’s Commissioner described a child who had
“virtually experienced being raped and sexually abused.”
She said that we must not think that that type of rape is not traumatic, just because it happens in an online world. It is traumatic. It is abuse, and it can be part of grooming. She warned us legislators to
“not underestimate the safeguarding issues”.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
This afternoon, we have heard about some really strong amendments that would strengthen the Criminal Justice Bill, but other amendments seek to criminalise homelessness, further restrict peaceful protest and vastly expand police surveillance powers.
Today, I wish to focus on new clause 28 in my name, which continues the campaign to fix the law on joint enterprise. I began my campaign with support from the amazing campaigners at JENGbA, Liberty and many others for my private Member’s Bill back in February. I was grateful to receive the support of nearly 40 colleagues, who back this amendment, as well as a commitment from my Front-Bench team back in February that Labour will seek to review and reform joint enterprise as and when we get into power.
A charge of joint enterprise too often leads to an assumption of guilt in the courtroom. The defendant is forced to prove their innocence, which turns our justice system on its head. That is a failure of our justice system, supposedly the best in the world, and an affront to the taxpayer, who is left footing the bill for sloppy sentencing. My amendment would enshrine in law the concept that a person can be prosecuted under joint enterprise only where they are proved to have significantly contributed to a crime. That would raise the bar for prosecution, and would provide the jury with the tools to differentiate between defendants who deserve to face a mandatory life sentence for their role in a serious crime, and those who do not.
This miscarriage of justice is worse than the Post Office Horizon scandal, because it involves children as young as 13 being convicted and incarcerated for a crime that they did not commit, and being given a whole life sentence, with little or no option for appeal. Campaigning by JENGbA and Liberty led to a six-month pilot data collection project by the Crown Prosecution Service, which has now agreed to roll out the scheme fully and permanently. Analysis of the original data revealed that more than half of those prosecuted under joint enterprise were aged under 25, with black youth 16 times more likely to be prosecuted under joint enterprise laws than their white counterparts. I personally welcome the commitment from the Director of Public Prosecutions to further investigate these disparities.
The evidence clearly shows that the legislation is being widely used as a dragnet to maximise convictions. We need only scrutinise the Old Baily daily court lists to witness how widespread this practice is. Joint enterprise allows the prosecution to use a racist gang narrative to imply guilt, and to persuade juries using prejudicial stereotypes in place of cold, hard evidence, in a way that is often compared to Russian roulette. Human rights group Liberty submitted one such case last year to the Criminal Cases Review Commission after 11 defendants, all black, were collectively convicted and sentenced to a total of 168 years in prison for a single murder. Evidence included a rap video made online a year earlier, photos of some of the defendants using hand signs, and the alleged favouring of the colour red. I hope that the CCRC, which twice rejected Andrew Malkinson’s request to review, will look at this request more favourably.
In that and similar cases, the prosecution called police officers to give their opinion, as experts, on alleged gang culture, a concept that still evades legal definition but carries with it a racist stereotype intended to sway a jury. That is extremely prejudicial, considering the relationship that the police have with black communities, and considering that black people are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system.
New data from experts at Manchester Metropolitan University has revealed that nearly £250 million is spent each year on processing defendants in joint enterprise cases. An average of 1,088 people every single year are convicted under joint enterprise; the total cost to the taxpayer of their future punishment is a colossal £1.2 billion. With prisons not only chronically overcrowded but unsafe, as highlighted by the recent prisons inspectorate urgent notifications about Wandsworth and other prisons, and with violent crime on the rise, enough is enough. Joint enterprise is costly and ineffective. It is time for a change in the law.
If the social cost of joint enterprise were not conclusive, the economic cost must be the final nail in the coffin for this shocking miscarriage of justice. It has been a decade since evidence was first presented to Parliament, yet our prisons are dangerously overflowing and failing to rehabilitate. The taxpayer is still footing the bill for thousands of people having been wrongly jailed for the crime of another. If someone does not make a significant contribution to a crime, they should not be prosecuted for it; it is as simple as that. Joint enterprise is a stain on our justice system, and the law must be reviewed and changed to stop this dragnet. It is possible to both uphold justice for the victims of crime and put an end to this injustice. My simple change to the law would do just that. I hope that Members will recognise the need for urgent change and support my new clause.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I rise to speak to my new clause 32, which would address the disparity between existing protected characteristics and current hate crime legislation. Hate crimes relating to race and religion carry higher maximum penalties than those associated with sexual orientation, transgender—or perceived transgender—identity, and disability. That has established an unjust, dual-tier justice system. My proposal aligns with the prior expansion of aggravated offences, such as the inclusion of religiously aggravated offences in 2001 following the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which initially legislated only for racially aggravated offences. It also builds on the Law Commission’s 2021 report, which emphasised the necessity of parity of protection across all protected characteristics, and has garnered substantial support from disability and LGBT+ organisations.
Many people have asked whether this is some sort of woke frontier. We know that a lot of pearl-clutching happens in this place when we mention trans people. I reassure the House, and those concerned about such things, that this is no woke crusade. Indeed, I do not intend in the new clause to divert from existing legal definitions of LGBT+ identities. Nor do I seek to redefine the barriers of aggravated offences. The new clause would simply close a loophole that the Law Commission identified whereby some protected characteristics are treated differently from others in the legal system, for no good reason that I can see.
We have debated many times why sex and/or gender are not included; however, the Law Commission recommended —this was accepted by the Government in their response—that they should not be, because in some cases it would lead to a situation where the offence would be harder to prove. The Law Commission therefore suggested that we go down a different route in legislating for offences against women and girls, which the Government accepted. The Government have not yet responded to the Law Commission’s 2021 report on these issues. When the Bill was in Committee, the Government asked for additional time to do so, and did not accept an almost identical new clause—in fact, it may have been identical.
Let me set out some background, and show why the time has come for us to close this loophole, and why I hope that the Government will agree to do so. My new clause comes against a backdrop of escalating hate crime rates, which underscore the urgency to act. Between 2011-12 and 2022-23, incidents across all monitored strands of hate crime have surged dramatically. Notably, racially aggravated offences have more than doubled, exceeding 100,000 cases in 2021-22. Similarly, hate crimes based on religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity have seen staggering increases of 433%, 493% and 1,263% respectively. Furthermore, violent hate incidents have surged, comprising a growing proportion of overall hate crime statistics.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Hon. Members may be shocked to learn that some forms of pimping are still legal in this country. One of the most significant examples is pimping websites, which are dedicated to advertising people for prostitution. They function like online brothels, making it as easy to order a woman to sexually exploit as it is to order a takeaway.
Despite it being an offence to place a prostitution advert on land, for example in a phone box, our laws have failed to keep up with technology, meaning that those same adverts can be placed legally, for a fee, on pimping websites. That represents a win for the website owners, some of whom are generating millions of pounds in profit every year, and for sex traffickers, who can easily and quickly advertise people for prostitution and connect with a wide customer base across the UK, but certainly not for the victims—the people who have been advertised and sold for sex and who have no legal protection from their perpetrators.
As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I have heard harrowing evidence on the dangers of these sites. Shockingly, one pimping website admitted to the Committee that it allows single individuals to advertise multiple women for prostitution at the same time on its site, as well as allowing the same contact number to be used across multiple different adverts. Those are both red flags for sex trafficking. The Committee also heard of a trafficking gang that spent £25,000 advertising a group of young Romanian women. Rather than alerting the authorities, the website owners allocated them an account manager to help them to spend more money, showing a total disregard for the women’s welfare. It is quite clear that these pimping websites are now a key component of the business model for sex trafficking, and they must be stopped.
The provisions in the Online Safety Act 2023 do not close the legislative gap that allows online pimping. That is why the Home Affairs Committee recommended a new offence of enabling or profiting from the prostitution of others, which I have tabled as new clause 8. New clause 8 would make it illegal to advertise another person for prostitution, regardless of whether it takes place online or offline.
I am delighted to have cross-party support for the new clause, including from the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson); the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan); the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith); and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). It is an absolute scandal that pimping websites are allowed to operate in plain sight. I urge the Government to support my new clause.
New clause 29 is also designed to combat human trafficking. The definition of “human trafficking” in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is out of line with the internationally agreed definition, and traffickers are benefiting from that. The United Nations protocol on trafficking, the Palermo protocol, does not require victims to have been physically transported from one place to another for an activity to be recognised as trafficking, but our Modern Slavery Act does. Essentially, that means that an exploiter who forces a woman into prostitution, advertises her on a pimping website, controls how many men she has to have sex with each day, and takes her money from her could get a substantially lower penalty simply by virtue of not physically having transported her.
The maximum penalty for controlling prostitution for gain is seven years’ imprisonment. For trafficking, it is life. It is vital that we send a message to all traffickers that there are no get-out clauses for that offence, and that we say: “If you trade in human beings, if you profit from women being raped and abused, the absence of a car journey or a flight should not exempt you from punishment.” New clause 29 would bring the UK definition of human trafficking in line with international standards and remove the opportunity for perpetrators of such crime to play the system. That, too, was a recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee.
Again, I urge the Government to support the new clauses.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I restrict my interest today to new clause 55, which I tabled. It would set up the offence of child criminal exploitation—in other words, it is Fagin’s law. The essence of the name Fagin explains the new clause. In simple terms, if an individual—whether an adult or a child—approached a child with the intention of persuading that child to engage in criminal activity, that in itself would be a crime. That would apply whether or not the child ultimately engaged in the criminal act.
I am delighted to see the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire on the Front Bench, because I blame him for my dealing with this. We discussed it in a meeting, and I put it to him that we really ought to adapt the grooming legislation or bring forward new legislation to deal with the criminal exploitation of children. Like a normal Minister, he said, “Can you go away and sort it out, and come up with something for me?”, which I have done. He might now refuse it this evening, but I hope that he does not, because I will keep on coming back.
The most obvious crimes to target are county lines, organised shoplifting, independent shoplifting, pickpocketing, carrying goods from pickpocketing, carrying weapons or the proceeds of crime on behalf of another—usually an adult who has groomed the child—prostitution and sex activities, of which there has been quite some mention, as there always is, and, finally and horrifically, the grooming of a child for terrorist purposes. They wrap the child in a bomb, send them off to wherever they need to go, and press the button—absolutely horrific.
I have had considerable discussions with a few very senior, very knowledgeable police officers. They are—unlike what the Minister may feel—very enthusiastic about this tiny bit of legislation going through. One of the senior officers, who targets county lines, explained to me that they rely mostly on trying to fit the Modern Slavery Act to that particular problem, but it is a poor fit.
It has been pointed out to me that this approach has already been covered in section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. In answer to a recent parliamentary question of mine, I was informed that section 44 was used 93 times in 2021-22 and 60 times in 2022-23, which is pathetic. Those figures are further diminished when we look at them a little more closely: they relate to the number of offences, not to the number of individual defendants, and I am not sure whether some or any of them involve a child.
A second, even more senior, police officer who I have worked with has a special interest in child protection—that is his job. He has made it clear that he is enthusiastic about this move, and I am sure he will thank the Policing Minister if we nod it through today. He has made the point to me that while there are provisions in the Serious Crime Act—which I have just mentioned—as well as in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and other Acts that the police can try to make fit, they are a poor fit. It does not work, because that legislation is not specific to children.
In essence, senior police officers point out to me that those pieces of legislation are rarely used to stop child criminalisation. They also make the point that if the legislation were adapted ever so slightly to refer to a child, that would make a difference. Any Members present who are parents or have had care of children will know that children—not all of them, but most of them—are persuadable.
One of my villages, Bookham, has a petrol station on the A246 with a shop attached to it. That shop is big, well known and open 24 hours. Late one evening, the single man who was in there looking after the customers noticed that there was a single person in the shop, an eight-year-old child in a dressing gown. She was helping herself, and was obviously going to zip out the door with what she had pilfered. When he approached her, she said, “If you come any closer, I’ll open my dressing gown, and I’ve got nothing on underneath.” She would not have thought of that. She could not have thought of it—she was only eight. She was quite clearly doing that for somebody else, who was probably sitting outside with a camera. That is the sort of thing that we should be stopping. Of course, I am going to find out in due course whether I am persuading the Minister.
As I have said, the opinion of that child protection officer is that the legislation we have does not fit. He and many other senior police officers working in this area want further legislation to specifically equate grooming through criminal exploitation with what is contained in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, targeted at child protection. All the officers who have an interest in the protection of children with whom I have discussed this matter have pointed out that the key difference between my new clause 55 and section 44 of the Serious Crime Act is that my new clause is specifically targeted at the child. From my discussions with police officers, I have been impressed by the deterrent effect on criminals who may be prosecuted for a child offence. That, I understand, tends to make life in jail even more difficult than it might otherwise be.
As a number of senior lawyers—including Members of this House—have pointed out to me, there is overlap and duplication within British law. I am no lawyer, but many lawyers have said that to me. If my new clause 55 became law, the tariff applied to the crime would be that which would apply to the crime that the culprit was attempting to persuade the child to commit. If it was murder, the tariff would be life; if it was just pilfering from a shop, it would be very much less. As many Members will be aware, for many years, I have been pushing for improvement in legislation for the protection of children. I have also worked—particularly as a councillor—in the inner cities, so I know they are vulnerable. If my new clause is accepted, it would make a huge change to the protection of children against a life of crime.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
There have been some excellent speeches on this first day on Report on the Criminal Justice Bill, and I support many of the amendments that have been spoken to. In my remarks, I particularly want to focus on amendments tabled by hon. and right hon. Members that the Home Affairs Committee has recommended in a number of our inquiries.
I will start with new clause 8, on pimping websites, which seeks to establish an offence of enabling or profiting from prostitution. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), and I commend her for her speech and for setting out so clearly why this is important. The Home Affairs Committee has recommended this change, and we concluded that it is imperative that the Government make it a criminal offence to enable or profit from the prostitution of another person to reduce and deter trafficking for sexual exploitation.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
There are so many things in this important Bill on which it would be a great pleasure to talk, but you will be relieved to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I wish to focus my remarks on the amendments in my name.
Earlier this morning, I met two of my constituents and two people who live about a mile outside my constituency. I pay particular tribute to Hilary and Henry Stinchcombe. Hilary’s daughter and her daughter were murdered by Hilary’s daughter’s husband some years ago on the edge of Gloucester. What that family has been through, as they said today, reminds them, me and everyone here of how incredibly important it is that criminal justice Bills address some of the most horrific crimes that anyone can go through.
I am grateful for the Government having done so much work on this issue. I am particularly grateful, speaking primarily to amendments 32 to 41 in my name, for having had so much help from so many colleagues, whether they are the 23 Members who have signed the amendments or the 43 Members who have spoken in two debates and accompanied me in two ten-minute rule Bills, or whether that is the terrific support given by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who led a Home Affairs Committee investigation into spiking and has given me a huge amount of moral support.
Spiking is an entirely cross-Bench, cross-party, cross-everything issue. It is important, because a bit of legal history is being made. It will be the first ever appearance of the word “spiking” in draft law. In the year to August 2022, which I think is the latest data, the National Police Chiefs’ Council recorded just under 5,000 reported cases of spiking, divided almost equally into cases by needle and drink, with a much smaller number of other reported cases, primarily from food. That is why this change matters so much. Anyone who does not believe that the word “spiking” deserves to be in law is missing a point that is much bigger than any of us realise.
It has been a long journey, as the right hon. Lady alluded to. Following her absolutely correct observation that persistence is perhaps the No. 1 thing that any of us in this House needs to have if we want to achieve changes in legislation, she will be interested to learn that the Latin word “Prorsum” was the motto of HMS Gloucester. I take my inspiration from both the Latin and English word, and she is right to mention it. It has been a longer journey than Members from all parts of the House might have imagined from the size and scale of the data. There have been endless meetings with Home Secretaries, safeguarding Ministers, Justice Ministers, Select Committee members and other colleagues, and those have eventually led us here. It is almost three years since I first became aware of the importance of the issue—as so often happens to all of us, it was through a constituent—through the experience of my constituent Maisy Farmer and her mother Rosie.
What has made the difference to the atmosphere in which Ministers have been able to bring this forward in legislation? I have no doubt that the ebullient support and anecdotal evidence from Dawn Dines, the founder of Stamp Out Spiking, and the first-hand experience from Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) have made a difference. Another factor is the fact that the actress who plays a spiked heroine in “Coronation Street” was comfortable to come and talk about the huge amount of correspondence she had from playing that role. There is also what others, such as the journalist Kate McCann, have been through and are now able to talk about. All these things have had their influence.
Today, we have the word “spiking” on the front page of the legislation, and that is above all because the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary get it. In fact, they got it some time back. Because the safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) has researched and done the detail, we are able to look at the specifics of the legislation being proposed.
Effectively, the Bill updates sections 23 to 25 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 with clearer, modern, post-Sherlock Holmes language—by the way, I imply no disparagement of the great man or his casework successes. But that is exactly what I called for in our January 2023 debate because language matters, behavioural change is a valuable side-effect of legislation, and police records do need to show that spiking is the cause of both the primary and, sometimes, secondary offence. The former police drugs lead Jason Harwin specifically said that we need a spiking offence in law because that would help to identify the picture more quickly.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) said that it was uncertain whether this legislation would ever reach the statute book, because of the time available to us in the run-up to the general election. I hope that some of the measures to be dealt with on day 2 of consideration of the Bill do not get on to the statute book. However, across the House today, there has been an interesting setting of the agenda for the next stage of the debate on the Bill in the Lords and perhaps for the period after the general election. Perhaps an incoming Labour Government will have to deal with those issues as well. They reflect a number of concerns that we deal with as constituency MPs.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on tabling his amendments on spiking. It is an issue that affects many of our constituents. I hope that the Government will respond positively and work through the detail. Perhaps we can have something in the Lords that overcomes some of the Government’s concerns about it. I agree that using the expression “spiking” is important, so that people know that we are dealing with it.
Peter Dowd
I welcome the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). It is important to indicate that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) was also involved in supporting amendments on this matter. I welcome the cross-party agreement on this issue.
John McDonnell
The Bill Committee itself also worked hard to try to reach consensus on some of the issues.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is not in his place, but cuckooing has become a critical issue in some of our constituencies, where the most vulnerable people have their accommodation taken over by drug dealers and feel intimidated. Often, they are the most vulnerable, with special educational needs or mental health problems. It is a relatively new issue that has come to light in some of our constituencies, and it needs to be addressed.
On the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), in a dignified way he did not go into the detail of individual incidents, but there have been cases in my constituency. We had three youngsters—one aged 17 and two aged 16—killed by a hit-and-run driver. The drunk driver was eventually caught. The issue was not just that they broke the law but that they did not stick around to help in any way, or even report the incident so that emergency vehicles could get there more quickly to assist those who had been harmed.
The two issues I want to draw attention to are the ones whose campaigns I have been involved in. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) tabled new clause 28 on joint enterprise. I think we are all getting long in the tooth on this one. We have been campaigning for years—for decades—for some clarity in the law, so that it does not operate as a dragnet that draws people in. In some instances, we have had cases where the individual drawn in was not at the scene of the crime or was distant from the scene of the crime, yet they have been prosecuted for serious crimes, often murder. For that reason, the significant contribution of new clause 28 reflects discussions and debates within legal circles but also in the courts themselves. It is a simple amendment that would bring some justice to many cases where people have, unfortunately, experienced what I believe is a miscarriage of justice.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), who is not in his place at the moment, raised the more effective use of the law to tackle hate crime. I convened a meeting of disability groups a few weeks ago. There is a wave of hate crime against disabled people at the moment, on a scale that we have not seen for a number of years. We have had incidents not just of abuse in the streets, but even people being pulled out of their wheelchairs. I do not want to be party political here, but I have to say that statements by some individual Ministers about lifestyle choices and benefits and so on have not helped. In fact, it has directed some hate crime towards people with disabilities. We need to recognise that that happens—we should not sweep it under the carpet—so we should have an effective legal response to it. New clause 32, tabled by the hon. Member, is an effective way of ensuring the message goes out there to people that hate crime is a serious offence and that if they commit it they will be prosecuted and the sanction will be effective and serious. I hope that the Government will accede to new clause 32, but if he does put it to a vote I shall certainly be voting for it.
I want to raise another issue, prisons overseas, that I just find preposterous, to be frank. The hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, referred to it and I agree with him. I tend to think it is a stunt. I do not see it as a practical way of dealing with the overcrowding problems in our prisons. We should deal with them in exactly the way the Justice Committee has been saying for a number of years: send fewer people to prison, in particular those for whom prison is inappropriate—those with mental health problems, drug problems and so on. If we do send people to prison, build appropriate prisons so that we can maintain them but, more important, rehabilitate them.
This flies in the face of all we know about rehabilitation and everything we have learnt over the years. I declare an interest as an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. Everything we know from the professionals involved—probation officers, prison officers and others working within the system—is that to rehabilitate people one of the best things we can do is, first, make sure they have access to their families. It is their families who urge them to behave, rehabilitate and come out as quickly as possible. Secondly, we can ensure they have full access to training and education to rehabilitate. Thirdly, we can ensure that they have proper legal advice, so they know the situation they are in and come to terms with it, and understand the law as it applies to them.
My fear is that, if we depend on prisons in foreign countries, access to family will be limited—that is inevitable. There is no assurance that I can see that prisoners would receive appropriate training or rehabilitation. Access to legal advice within the UK system would inevitably be restricted. This therefore flies in the face of everything we know about how prisons should work, and it flies in the face of many of the things that the Government themselves say about how the system should operate to maintain safety but, at the same time, rehabilitation.
A number of amendments and new clauses have been tabled on the basis of professional advice from others. I urge the Government to accept that we should not send abroad prisoners who, within a limited period, will face potential release. I also think that prisoners who have been imprisoned for public protection should not be doubly harmed by being sent abroad, and that proper consideration should be given to inspection arrangements. I believe that it will be almost impossible to maintain an appropriate inspection arrangement for both prisons and escort services when they are located abroad, and that if it is maintained, it will be extremely expensive.
Dame Maria Miller
The speech from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has served to demonstrate the extraordinary breadth of the Bill. I have sat heard this afternoon about the incredible work done by my colleagues, on both sides of the House, on an immense range of issues, and I think that that must underline to our constituents how hard many Members work on very, very difficult matters. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) has called on us to be persistent. She will think that I am a very persistent Member of Parliament when it comes to the issue of intimate image abuse, which I have been talking about for nigh on a decade. She is right: we have to be persistent, because it pays off.
I want to touch briefly on some of the amendments and new clauses that have been discussed today before I turn to new clause 86. Let me first reiterate my support for new clause 2—tabled by the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)—which deals with the question of parental responsibility after rape. It is an important new clause, and I hope that Ministers have listened closely to what has been said. Let me also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton), who has spoken out movingly on this issue.
The amendments on spiking tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) are a testament to persistence, and he deserves all our gratitude not only for the work he has done in getting his proposals to this stage, but for keeping us all so well informed about the work that he is still doing. Amendment 160, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)—the Chair of the Select Committee—has picked up some of the issues that I shall be talking about, namely the way in which we treat non-consensual sexual images. The Government need to do more work on this: “must try harder” is my suggestion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), whose name is attached to new clause 62, made an extremely moving speech about his proposal for legislation to deal with that most appalling of crimes, the sexual abuse of people who have died and are in the safety of a mortuary. New clauses 25 and 26 were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and I hope that Ministers listened carefully to the compelling case that she made about the rapidity with which the online world is moving and the need for us to keep the law up to date.
Let me now turn to new clause 86. I am pleased that the Government tabled it, although they knew that this matter needed to be addressed following the passage of the Online Safety Act 2023. The new clause shows that they continue to understand the importance of classifying the making of intimate images without the permission of the person in the picture as a sex crime. Yet again, however, we are trying to tackle it as though it were more about why the pictures were taken, rather than about the fact that they were taken in the first place. That is the wrong approach, and it is as wrong now as it was when we debated this issue in the Online Safety Bill. I thought that we had dealt with that argument, but clearly we have not.
It was out of scope of the Online Safety Bill to make the making and taking of an intimate image without consent a crime, so I really welcome the fact that the issue is being dealt with now. The Online Safety Bill tackled the distribution of those images, but we argued successfully during the passage of that Bill that when it comes to sexual offences—new clause 86 creates a sexual offence—our law needs, first and foremost, to be about consent. It must be about whether there is consent or not, not about whether the perpetrator intended to cause distress or alarm. Despite the response to my intervention earlier, it remains unclear to me why new clause 86 is not constructed in the same way as the provisions in the Online Safety Act 2023, given that it will work hand in hand with them.
So, what are we talking about? We are talking particularly about whether it should be a crime for somebody to take or make an intimate sexual image of another person without their consent. At the moment, the Bill says that it will be a crime only if the Crown Prosecution Service can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person taking or making the picture had the intention to cause the victim alarm, distress or humiliation. Mention was made earlier of online rape, and that is the terminology that many of the victims use. The victims I have spoken to are still a victim of that crime, whether or not the perpetrator had the intention to cause them alarm, distress or humiliation.
Even more concerning is the fact that the Government already know from evidence that many of the people who create these images do so not to do harm, cause distress or alarm their victims; they do it for money. Oddly, they sometimes do it for fun. They do it for their mates. They do it because they have a collection of similar pictures. All those people who have had nude images created or taken are no longer victims if a good lawyer can prove that the person taking the image had no intention to cause alarm, distress or humiliation. That has to be wrong, and I call on the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who is sitting on the Front Bench, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), to think again. They have not got this right.
The harm lies in creating the sexually explicit image without consent. The Bill sets out that that is not the way the law will treat this, and that someone will have to prove an intention. There needs to be a motive of the perpetrator proving sexual gratification. As all the lawyers in this room know—I am not one of them—that is incredibly difficult. A consent-based approach would focus on the core wrong of non-consensual sexual conduct. Motives are not required in most sexual offences.
Mention was made earlier about the way in which some organisations have removed nudification apps from their websites. I am concerned that they might work out that if they stated that their motive was just to make money, they would not be breaking the law if they allowed those nudification apps to continue to be available. I am also concerned as to whether the Government have talked to Ofcom, the regulator, about how it will be able to limit the appearance of these images, given the way in which the law is currently framed.
So, there are two questions from me. Will the Minister urgently reconsider new clause 86 and bring it into line with the Online Safety Act? I have a simple idea for her, which is to amend the amendment so that it is consistent with the Online Safety Act in having a base offence that includes production of a sexual image, which can include the taking or creating of an image. Or, the Government could amend their proposed creation offence to make it consent-based, not intention-based. The former I think, is straightforward.
Secondly, I welcome the fact that some companies are taking pre-emptive action to remove their nudification apps, which I called for in the 2021 International Women’s Day debate, but they will quickly see that this incredible loophole means that, so long as they have the right legal defence, such nudification apps are entirely within the law. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government are going to make these nudification apps unlawful, and get rid of them once and for all, as people across the nation want?
I thank Professor Clare McGlynn again for assisting me in interpreting the intention of Government amendment 86. It was published on Thursday, so I apologise to the House for not being able to give a more detailed analysis—I have had it for only the past three days. I hope that, at some stage, Ministers will be in a position to explain their thinking and, I hope, change their mind. I know the safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has put in writing that she wants to send a “crystal clear message” that making intimate image material is “immoral” and “a crime.” She needs to try harder to make sure the Bill does just that.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I rise to make a short speech in support of new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). I thank her for her kind words about my friends and constituents Maxine and Tony.
Maxine Thompson-Curl lost her son, Kristian David Thompson, in 2011. He was just 19 years old, and his life was taken by one punch. One punch can and does kill. To lose a loved one at a young age in such a senseless way, when they were simply on a night out, is a pain that I cannot imagine.
Since Kristian’s passing, Maxine has devoted her life to raising awareness, supporting others and campaigning for stronger sentencing. She has done this via her charity One Punch UK, which she runs with her husband Anthony Curl. Using her pain, love and grief, Maxine has always been relentless in educating people to stop, think and walk away instead of using their fists.
Although it is generally accepted that there is a concerning rise in one-punch attacks across the UK, there are no official figures on the lives lost and devastated by a single punch. What we do know is that, almost every time a precious life is taken in this way, it is reported that the perpetrator was intoxicated, and their sentence for taking the life of another is almost always extremely lenient. The average sentence is four years, and some walk away after just four months in prison. That is four months for taking somebody else’s life. Justice is an important cornerstone of our legal system. Although nothing at all can bring back a loved one, for many people an important part of being able to grieve is knowing that there are consequences for the person who took their loved one away from them.
New clause 9 would put an end to lenient sentences and would hopefully act as a deterrent, so that people think and walk away before using their fists. It would also mean that we have reliable data on the prevalence of one-punch attacks. In the first four years after similar legislation was passed in Australia, the number of one-punch deaths halved. One Australian attorney general has reported a massive reduction in violence since the legislation was introduced.
More than five years ago, the then Minister said that he was happy to look at my proposal in relation to one-punch sentencing, and I am pleased that the Government have looked at this new clause and agreed with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, but my constituents remain of the view that stronger sentencing is needed. It is indeed what they have campaigned on for many years. With that in mind, I carefully considered the Minister’s response to the new clause in Committee, and I am not fully convinced of her argument. She stated that one-punch attacks are already covered under manslaughter, but there is no mandatory minimum sentence for manslaughter and therefore no minimum sentence for one-punch attacks. That is why we ask for that in the new clause. She stated that the Government wished to avoid “anomalies in the law”, and gave the example of someone being killed by a punch to their abdomen. She will know, as will other hon. Members, that a single punch to the head is likely to be more catastrophic than a single punch to the abdomen, as it can cause fatal damage to the brain; it can stop breathing, starving the brain of oxygen, and cause the victim to collapse and strike their head on a hard surface.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Sir Robert Neill
This has been a wide-ranging debate, because it is a wide-ranging Bill, and it has touched on a number of difficult, sometimes sensitive and complex topics. However, the tone of the debate does the House a great deal of credit. I appreciate the tone and approach taken by both Front-Bench teams; there is more common ground than not on a number of these areas. Let us see what we can do to improve things. I particularly appreciate the approach adopted by our Minister today, whose engagement has been exceptional on all these matters; I am grateful to her.
Let me deal with some of the amendments. I certainly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on his work on cuckooing, which is a real issue; I have seen it in my constituency. We have a gap in the law that we need to plug. I also endorse what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) about new clause 86 and related matters. The concept of consent is perfectly well established in the law on sexual offences, and there would be nothing abnormal in making consent, rather than motive, the gravamen of the offences in question. In fact, that approach would bring them more into line with the rest of the canon of sexual offences. I really hope that the Government will think hard about that. Obviously, I take on board the points made about the amendments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) spoke to, and the powerful speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) about the desecration of corpses. That is a vile concept, and clearly the law needs to be amended.
I will concentrate on two matters that the Justice Committee has examined over a period, the first being the provisions on the transfer of prisoners to serve sentences in prisons overseas. I made it clear that I am sceptical about the efficacy of that measure. I do not say it is unlawful, and I do not think the Opposition are saying that either. I accept that it has happened in limited circumstances elsewhere, including in states that are party to the European convention on human rights. The most obvious example is Belgium renting prison space in the Netherlands, but there has also been an example in Norway and Scandinavia. However, our situation is very different. Those two instances highlight the limited value of such arrangements. The prison space that Belgium rented in Holland was very close by—in some cases, it was literally up the road—and there was a similar situation in the Scandinavian countries. In addition, those countries are in the Schengen area. Those instances are not the same as transferring people overseas, some distance away. The practical implications, which the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others referred to, will get in the way of the proposal achieving anything.
I am grateful to the Minister for recognising some of the concerns raised by Opposition Front Benchers and the Law Society. It is imperative that proper legal advice be available. It is important that there be an inspection regime that ensures parity of standards with those in United Kingdom prisons. Again, I stress the importance of maintaining family ties. The Minister follows these things very closely, so she will know that the evidence overwhelmingly shows, time and again, that the three best things for getting people to turn their life around and not reoffend are a roof over their head, a home, and a family or relationship. If a family relationship or close family ties of any kind are undermined, it makes it more likely that people will reoffend.
Given the number of safeguards that will have to be put in place—to safeguard not just convention rights, to which the Minister rightly referred, but common law rights, which predate the convention and our incorporation of it into our domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998—it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever end up going abroad. I would much rather we concentrated on more direct measures to deal with the crisis of overcrowding in our prisons. The overseas jail cells measures will not make any difference to the pressures on prison places, or any contribution to long-term demand. If we want to return foreign national prisoners abroad, it would be much better to speed up our prisoner return agreements and get those prisoners to serve their sentence in their home country. That would be constructive. We already have the measures and the legal framework to do that; we just need to be much more rigorous in our use of them.
If we really want to deal with overcrowding in our prisons, the Government and the business managers need to get a grip and bring the Sentencing Bill back to the Floor of the House. That Bill contains valuable, sensible and balanced measures that deal with public protection properly. It provides a far better suite of measures to reduce unproductive forms of imprisonment, and concentrate the very expensive resource of prison where it is most needed: on violent, dangerous and serious offenders. That would be a far greater contribution.
I pay massive tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) for her work in this area. As a lawyer, during my time at the criminal bar, I have both prosecuted and defended one-punch manslaughter cases. I fully understand the impact on families; I have sometimes had to talk to families who have had to accept manslaughter charges. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think the wording of her new clause, as it stands, would meet what is required to deal with this. I am concerned that we are looking at the offence in a piecemeal fashion. Unlawful act manslaughter is a legally complex area. It is often not easy for juries to understand; it is not even easy for judges looking at the factual situation to direct on. That was highlighted recently in the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Auriol Grey, the severely autistic and disabled lady whose actions, tragically, caused an elderly cyclist to fall off her bicycle into the path of a car and be killed. She was originally convicted on the basis of unlawful act manslaughter. A very strong Court of Appeal quashed that conviction, which highlights some of difficulties in such cases.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I am interested in the comments of the hon. and learned Member. As the Bill goes to the House of Lords, will he work with me and others who are concerned about one-punch attacks to draft something that he thinks would do what it is supposed to, and be more legally sound?
Sir Robert Neill
I am always happy to talk about it. It is my conviction that a single piece of legislation purely on one-punch manslaughter is not the answer. If there were to be legislation, it should be a wholesale reform of the law of homicide. The Law Commission recommended a reform of the law of homicide as long ago as 2006, but that was not acted on. That would deal with not just the issue of unlawful act manslaughter, but the other forms of manslaughter, including gross negligence manslaughter, reckless manslaughter and the interplay between murder and manslaughter; manslaughter is often an alternative verdict. Then of course we have the special defences in relation to diminished responsibility, which reduce, under certain circumstances, murder down to manslaughter. That is a slightly complicated field. The law is difficult for juries to follow, and we oftentimes use law that goes back to almost the 17th and 18th century. As for the right way forward, we should do two things. First, all the work being done around the information campaigns, including one-punch awareness and the “walk away” message, takes exactly the right approach. Secondly, we should look again, cross party, at a wholesale reform of the law of homicide, which could pick up those issues.
Joint enterprise remains a problem. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) for the work that she has done, and for her amendment. I am not convinced that its wording is right, but we have to return to this matter, for the very important reason that many families of those who have been convicted under joint enterprise had hoped that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Jogee, which reversed what it described as the wrong turn taken in the case of Chan Wing-Siu in 1985, would see a number of people’s convictions quashed. In reality, subsequent decisions of the Court of Appeal have tended to narrow the approach in Jogee, very often because of the factual situations, which vary greatly. We do therefore need to look at this issue. I am not sure that the wording in the amendment is the answer, but I hope that we can work constructively on that. There are certain circumstances in which there is a role for joint enterprise, but the expansion of it beyond what most people regard as reasonable is a matter of real concern. I hope we can continue to work cross party to find a better solution.
Rob Butler
A concern that the Government have raised previously when joint enterprise has been considered is the use of the word “significant”, and the term “significant contribution”. The Government have argued that that is too vague. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that “significant” is commonly used in criminal justice, and that judges and magistrates are very experienced in advising juries or lawyers on deciding what “significant” means? The Government need to come up with something a little more compelling than the suggestion that “significant” is not a meaningful word.
Sir Robert Neill
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. “Significant” is a good starting point for the work that we need to do. The intellectually rather convoluted approach that we have to joint enterprise at the moment is really not tenable. A jury will understand “significant”. If we are to have an indictable offence, we need a test that a jury will readily comprehend. “Significant” is comprehensible to jurors.
Peter Dowd
In light of today’s debate and the discussions that we had over several weeks in Committee, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a lacuna in legislation in a whole range of areas? I think he is suggesting that we need a cross-party approach, but time is running out. Does he think that certain things could be pushed through, but not in a rushed fashion; they would be considered carefully in the Chamber?
Sir Robert Neill
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. Many of these matters will require consideration —and, on the homicide angle, the involvement, I hope, of the Law Commission. It could be asked to revisit its report of 2006. In fact, I hope that will be done, whatever the party in government. The same is true in relation to sentencing for one-punch manslaughter. I am cautious about minimum sentences generally. I understand the feeling that sentencing is sometimes too low, but at the moment manslaughter can encompass a huge range of facts and degrees of culpability. Any sentencer has to balance the consequence of the act against the level of culpability of the offender. The huge range in culpability creates a difficulty with minimum sentences. It would be better to ask the Sentencing Council to review the matter. If that is done in the knowledge that there will be a cross-party approach, it will carry more weight and give us better outcomes.
Laura Farris
This has indeed been a wide-ranging debate—we use that phrase too often in this place, but it is true today—and it is a pleasure to bring it to a close. I am grateful to all hon. Members who took part. In the time available to me, I will seek to respond on as many of the non-Government new clauses and amendments as I can, and to answer questions. If I fail, please give me a nudge. I will then write to hon. Members or catch up with them at some point and give them a response.
I will begin with new clause 9, picking up where I left off. I was addressing my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and her excellent campaign. Let me set out the steps that the Government are taking. She alluded to them in her excellent speech, but I will confirm what they are. We have worked with the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for homicide, Kate Meynell, to appoint a named lead for one-punch homicides. That person will carry out an initial scoping exercise to properly establish how many of these cases are occurring, and to understand whether there are barriers to investigation and prosecution for these offences. I take my hon. Friend’s point that we should consider how the offence is communicated to the family, given the particular issues that arose in her case.
We will also build on action already taken, including the three-month Walk Away campaign that was launched in December 2023. That dovetails very neatly with the work of One Punch UK. I know that that is something my hon. Friend will be involved in.
We will establish a lower-culpability manslaughter homicide service practice review, led by Victim Support, which delivers the homicide service. The review will consider cases of manslaughter where there is lower culpability, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and getting started on that. We will also conduct individual sentence reviews into particular cases where there is an objection to the end of the sentence, and we will look at the sentencing remarks. She gave the names of a number of campaigners in her speech, and I look forward to picking those up with her.
I will comment briefly on new clause 28, relating to joint enterprise, which was raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, and by others. The new clause would caveat and curtail the law of joint enterprise only to those who had made a significant contribution. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside knows that joint enterprise is there so that those who act as the burglary lookout, who provide the weapon in the murder or who drive the getaway vehicle do not escape the consequences of their crimes, which shatter lives.
It is already the case, following the Supreme Court decision in R v. Jogee, that the person must have helped or encouraged the commission of the offence and intended to do so. I have considered a number of examples of cases where there have been convictions on this basis in recent years, such as the boy who sent a WhatsApp to his colleague to encourage her to conduct a fatal attack or the 14-year-old lad who stood on the edge of a woodland as lookout while his friends gang-raped a girl. They are very painful cases. I will simply say this: I think that people who participate in crime, even on the periphery, should not escape liability, and I do not think anyone can advance a credible argument that they should. We on the Government side still think that those people ought to be locked up.
Kim Johnson
I admit that, and I have not said that we should get rid of joint enterprise, but we know that thousands of young people and children have been incarcerated for something they have not done. The law is not being used in the way it should be, as the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) mentioned in respect of the Jogee case. We took a wrong turn and we have taken another wrong turn. We need to get it right.
Laura Farris
I am going to respectfully differ from the hon. Lady. I am happy to have another conversation with her about it, but I am afraid that even those on the periphery often have their hands all over the crime.
I will return briefly to new clause 59 on bladed articles, which was tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). The issue of ninja swords was raised by the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). I want to provide reassurance that both straight-bladed ninja swords, which the new clause is directed at, and curved swords are covered. Curved swords were banned by the Government in 2008, and he will know that possessing a sword or any knife—even a kitchen knife—in a public place without good reason is already a criminal offence, punishable by up to four years in prison.
The reason why straight swords are more difficult to ban is that some of them are held by military historians and for commemorative purposes. However, I wanted to provide reassurance to those on the shadow Front Bench that the Policing Minister engaged recently with the NPCC lead on knife crime, who reassured him once again that the NPCC was not seeking a ban on the use of straight-bladed swords. In fact, of all the knife crime fatalities in the last year, around 1% were caused that way.
What the NPCC is asking for is a clampdown on the online sale of knives to under-18s, which we are doing under the Online Safety Act; the power to seize knives in a private place if the police think they will be used for a criminal purpose, which is already in the Bill; and a ban on machetes and zombie knives, which we are bringing in in September. I wanted to provide that reassurance.
New clauses 25 and 26 were introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who I cannot see, but I am sure—
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
She has just popped out.
Laura Farris
She has just popped out. She made an outstanding speech, which illuminated and identified yet more of the nefarious ways that child abusers find to conduct some of the most serious offences against children. She knows, as was clear in her constructive speech, that artificial intelligence raises unique problems. I agree without hesitation with the force of what she said, and about the identification of an offence as she has presented it. I recognise that it is our duty as parliamentarians to future-proof our legislation, and I thank her for her detailed work on this issue. I commit to working with her and to trying as best we can to get something ready for Report in the other place.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for the sensitive and thoughtful way in which he approached the Law Commission’s report and the issue of hate crimes, and for his new clause 32 to introduce protected characteristics to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Of course, I have read the Law Commission’s excellent report on this matter, and I can confirm that a response to it was always forthcoming this year. I want to make two slight qualifications that might explain some of the delay.
Many Members will be aware that the Law Commission did not recommend making sex a protected characteristic for hate crimes, and may remember that there was a campaign to make misogyny a hate crime, which the commission rejected. That required careful thought, because not all the protected characteristics have been treated in the same way. Another issue is the implementation of the hate crime legislation in Scotland, which has been both highly contentious and, I am afraid, somewhat chaotic. Of course, we wish to avoid replicating those mistakes. However, I want to provide reassurance by saying that our intention is to deal with this matter—subject to all the normal approvals—in the House of Lords, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington will come and work with me on it.
The other excellent speech that I want to refer to was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). She alighted on two important issues—cyber-flashing and intimate image abuse—that are not on the priority offences list in schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023. That is not because we did not consider them important or sinister offences—she will need no persuading, given everything that we have done on intimate image abuse, that the opposite is true. The fact is that they were not on the statute book, or certainly had not been commenced, when we passed the 2023 Act. I know that the Secretary of State is well aware of that, particularly in relation to both those issues. I know that my right hon. Friend is conducting an urgent review as we speak, and I am sure that, in the weeks ahead, I will be able to update her on where we are on this. I do not want her to think for a moment that we are dragging our feet.
Caroline Nokes
I appreciate that my hon. Friend is seeking to give me an assurance from the Dispatch Box, but it is perhaps not quite as fulsome as I would wish. She says that the priority offences register can be reviewed. It would be very helpful if we had a specific timescale by which the measures could be added. That would give reassurance to all victims that such images will be made illegal in their in own right, and that Ofcom and internet service providers will work together to take them down. We already have the criminal offence, so the perpetrators can go to prison, but the victims want the images—the repeat offence—to be removed from the internet.
Laura Farris
I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend said, and I agree with every single word of it. Some of this sits with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, as she knows, so I would need to have a conversation with the relevant Minister, but I feel as strongly as she does on this matter, and I assure her from the Dispatch Box that I will use my best endeavours.
The road traffic amendments, which I will talk about briefly, were beautifully presented during the Committee and again today. I have spoken a few times with the Members who tabled them, who are well aware that those matters sit with the Department for Transport. I understand that they have had engagement with the Department and that an important review of this issue has certainly been contemplated.
Vicky Ford
I apologise to my hon. Friend—I was briefly out of the Chamber, discussing my amendments with the Home Secretary. It is clear that AI technology is moving incredibly quickly in a vile, disgusting way that is putting children at risk of sexual abuse. Could my hon. Friend repeat the commitment she has given: that she will work with me on the two areas that my amendments have highlighted, and will work with me, the IWF and others to ensure that the issues we have pinpointed are addressed as the Bill goes through this House and the Lords?
Laura Farris
I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention, and I am sorry that we somehow did not manage to overlap when I made my comments about her. I thought her speech was outstanding, and I agree without hesitation: she is quite right to say that we need to future-proof our legislation. As I said, I think we are the first country—if not, we are one of the first—to put an offence on to the books relating to the creation of deepfakes, which shows that we are alive and very responsive to this issue. I will make the commitments that my right hon. Friend has requested.
Vicky Ford
To be clear, is the Minister giving a cast-iron guarantee that we will address these issues of paedophile manuals and using a chatbot to communicate sexually, including raping a child through a chatbot, by working with the IWF and others to ensure that the laws are clear, and that if necessary, there will be amendments in the Lords?
Laura Farris
Yes, I can give my right hon. Friend that commitment.
I was interrupted, but I was briefly paying tribute to the very passionate speeches that have been made about road traffic accidents. These are not small matters—the case of the little girl in the constituency of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) is such a painful one, and I know that the Transport Secretary and other Ministers have been very affected by it. As the hon. Member knows, this matter is not straightforward for reasons that we have discussed, but I hope progress will be made on it in a way that helps his constituent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made an excellent speech on the offence of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling. It is not in dispute that whether a vehicle is a car, an electric scooter or a bicycle, if it is operated in a certain way, it is effectively a dangerous weapon on the road. We are supportive of my right hon. Friend’s amendment, and we will be bringing it back in the Lords; we will be changing it in the Lords, as he knows, but we are accepting it.
I think I have covered all the amendments that have been selected.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I assume that my hon. Friend meant that she will accept the amendment when I move it.
Laura Farris
Yes, I did mean that.
The final amendments that I will speak to are new clauses 91 and 92, relating to a new criminal sanction on water companies.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Everyone in this House wants to ensure that our water regulators have at their disposal all the tools they need to get on top of the sewage discharge issue, but as the Minister sums up, could she explain to the House whether Ofwat already has the powers being sought in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)? If the same powers were given to the Environment Agency, that would be more likely to lead to confusion and a lack of clarity about which agency is taking the lead on such prosecutions, which might lead to prosecutions falling through the cracks.
Laura Farris
My right hon. Friend is quite correct: that is the basis on which the Government cannot accept the amendments. Of course, everybody agrees that water companies should be punished as robustly as possible, but it is also the case that we have pre-existing offences that apply. Pollution incidents are already the subject of criminal sanctions available to the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, and there is a serious risk of duplication, not least because—I hope the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) will not mind my saying this—the sanctions he has included in his amendments are just more fines, and we already have a fines regime.
Let me set out very briefly the basis on which, in a principled way, we are saying no to the amendments. As the environment regulator, the Environment Agency can and does prosecute company directors and other senior officers under the relevant regulations. It has a power to fine, and there can be convictions for polluting rivers and coastal waters, where it can be proved that the offence has been committed. Expanding criminal liability would simply create a repetition of the existing powers. It is the Government’s view that the amendments would create a dangerous and unacceptable risk of double jeopardy across the two regulatory regimes that are administered by Ofwat and the Environment Agency.
The amendments would simply duplicate the existing sanctions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) put it, for not meeting performance commitments. More seriously, they could undermine the robustness of the Environment Agency’s criminal sanction regime. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will understand why we do not want to see duplication in an area where there is already the capacity to prosecute, a criminal law regime and the sanction of fines, which is everything that his amendments seek.
Jess Phillips
I fear the Minister is coming to the end of her remarks, but she has not addressed my new clause 44. Does she have any comment on it?
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Lady for reminding me, but I had not forgotten. I listened carefully to her speech and I have read all her amendments, not all of which were selected, but some of which she has raised before. On the general defence, she will know that the Law Commission is currently undertaking a review of the defence of duress in relation to women and the crime—
Laura Farris
I know that the amendment has not been selected, but I want to provide the hon. Lady with some reassurance on it, because we on this side of the House continue to think about the issues she has raised. She is aware of the Law Commission’s review of the defence of duress as it applies to murder. I want to provide her with an update and some reassurance that we will take the lessons that come out of that review, and consider it more widely, if appropriate, in alignment with the point that I think she made earlier in this debate.
On new clause 44, this is an important point between us, but the Government are resisting it not because there is any real dispute of principle, but because there is dispute of degree. There is a concern that by amending the wordings of sections 52 and 53 of the Sexual Offences Act, as so drafted, we could unnecessarily narrow the scope of section 52 as it has been applied in the criminal courts and potentially add an additional element to be proved in relation to section 53 that could make prosecution harder. We disagree not on the principle but about whether it will have the effect she is looking for. I did listen carefully to her speech and the way that she has presented the argument on previous occasions.
Richard Graham
The safeguarding Minister will have been briefed by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire on the exchanges across the House on the key issue of spiking, which will make its first ever appearance in legislation if the Bill is passed. I asked specific questions, which I would be grateful if she returned to. Although my amendments will not be pursued, it would be reassuring for everyone in the country if she said that the spiking clauses now injected will cover attempts to spike as well as proven spiking, and will apply to spiking attempts that may not be considered harmful in substance but are incredibly harmful to the people they humiliate.
Laura Farris
Yes, I can confirm that those inchoate offences—attempt offences—are all captured in the 1981 Act to which I referred in my opening speech.
On whether naming the offence of spiking will improve police record keeping, I say to my hon. Friend that it will absolutely do that. It will remove the discrepancy between what might have been called date rape under the Sexual Offences Act and what would have been recorded previously as a poisoning act under the Offences against the Person Act. For consistency in recording, we are very pleased to make the change.
Richard Graham
I thank the Minister for giving way again. On that specific point, she is effectively saying that the data collected by the police will now be collected under the umbrella of spiking, so we will have much better data and know how widespread the problem really is, which I think everyone will be reassured to hear. May I also thank her, the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary for their fantastic and immediate support in getting this provision into the Bill, which I very much hope will pass through this Parliament before the next general election?
Laura Farris
It is not just the effect of the amendment that will improve police recording; one purpose of the amendment was to improve police recording and it will give, I hope, a much more accurate picture of the extent of the problem.
On the comments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) made regarding the creation offence related to deepfake images and intent, I will consider the point carefully. I would like to have further discussions on it.
Dame Maria Miller
I hope the Minister was listening to the Chair of the Justice Committee, who wholeheartedly agreed with the point I was making, namely that it would be entirely consistent with the sex offences law to remove intent from that measure and simply focus on consent. That is what we need to hear, and I hope the Minister will now agree at the Dispatch Box that she will consider that strongly.
Laura Farris
I certainly give my right hon. Friend that reassurance. I look forward to continuing our discussions throughout the passage of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 86 accordingly read a Second time and added to the Bill.
New Clause 62
Sexual Activity with a Corpse
(1) In the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for section 70 substitute—
“70 Sexual activity with a corpse
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person intentionally performs an act of touching (with a part of their body or anything else),
(b) what is touched is a part of the body of a dead person,
(c) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what is touched, and
(d) the touching is sexual.
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding—
(i) if the touching involved penetration of a part of the body mentioned in subsection (1)(b), 7 years;
(ii) otherwise, 5 years.”
(2) In consequence of the amendment made by subsection (1), in the following provisions for “sexual penetration of” substitute “sexual activity with”—
paragraph 152 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003;
paragraph 35 of Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003;
paragraph 33 of Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015;
paragraph 38(ba) of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code.” —(Laura Farris.)
This new clause replaces the offence under section 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 with an offence that covers any intentional touching of a corpse that is sexual, and increases the maximum sentence of imprisonment for an offence involving penetration to 7 years and in other cases to 5 years. It is proposed to add the new clause after clause 15.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 87
Manslaughter: sexual conduct aggravating factor
“(1) In Chapter 3 of Part 4 of the Sentencing Code (seriousness and determining sentence), after section 72 insert—
“72A Manslaughter involving sexual conduct
(1) In considering the seriousness of an offence of manslaughter involving sexual conduct, the court must—
(a) treat the fact that the offence involves sexual conduct as an aggravating factor, and
(b) state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
(2) This section has effect in relation to a person who is convicted of an offence on or after the date on which section (Manslaughter: sexual conduct aggravating factor) of the Criminal Justice Act 2024 comes into force.”
(2) In section 238 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (deciding the seriousness of an offence), after subsection (8) (inserted by section 23) insert—
“(9)In section 72A of the Sentencing Code (manslaughter involving sexual conduct)—
(a) the reference to an offence of manslaughter is to be read as including a reference to an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is manslaughter, and
(b) the references to a court are to be read as including a court dealing with an offender for a service offence.”.”—(Laura Farris.)
This new clause makes the fact that an offence of manslaughter involves sexual conduct an aggravating factor (as well as making the same provision as regards the corresponding service offence.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 88
Length of terrorism sentence with fixed licence period: Northern Ireland
“(1) In Article 7 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1216 (N.I. 1))—
(a) in paragraph (2) omit “Articles 13A, 14 and 15A and”;
(b) in paragraph (3) before sub-paragraph (a) insert—
“(za) Articles 13A and 14 of this Order;”.”
(2) The amendments made by this section apply in relation to convictions occurring on or after the day on which this section comes into force.”—(Laura Farris.)
This new clause results in Article 7(2) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (requirement that term of sentence is commensurate with seriousness) applying to a sentence under Article 15A of that Order (terrorism sentence with fixed licence period).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 89
Reviews of sentencing: time limits
“(1) Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (reviews of sentencing - supplementary) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1 (time limit for notice of application for leave to refer a case)—
(a) the existing provision becomes sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph;
(b) at the end of that sub-paragraph insert “(“the relevant period”); but in England and Wales this is subject to sub-paragraph (2).”;
(c) after that sub-paragraph insert—
“(2) Where—
(a) the Attorney General receives a request to review the sentencing of a person, and
(b) the request is received in the last 14 days of the relevant period,
notice of an application for leave to refer the case in question to the Court of Appeal under section 36 may be given within 14 days from the day on which the request is received.
(3) For the purposes of this Part, a certificate of the Attorney General as to the date on which a request to review the sentencing of a person was received is conclusive evidence of that fact.
(4) Where more than one request to review the sentencing of a person is received, references in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) to a request are to the first request that is received.”
(3) In paragraph 12 (application of Schedule to Northern Ireland), after paragraph (d) insert—
“(da) paragraph 1 has effect as if sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) were omitted;”.”—(Laura Farris.)
This new clause provides that where the Attorney General receives a request to review a person’s sentence in the last 14 days of the current period for giving any notice of application for leave to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, the Attorney General may give such notice within 14 days from the date the request is received.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 94
Cuckooing
“(1) A person commits an offence if they—
(a) exercise control over the dwelling of another person, and
(b) do so for the purpose of enabling the dwelling to be used in connection with the commission (by any person) of one or more offences listed in Schedule (Cuckooing: specified offences).
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person mentioned in subsection (1)(a) consented to the exercise of control for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)(b).
(3) Section (Cuckooing: interpretation) contains provisions about the interpretation of this section.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule (Cuckooing: specified offences).
(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).”—(Laura Farris.)
This clause, together with NC95 and NS4, create an offence of exercising control over another person’s dwelling, for the purpose of enabling it to be used in connection with the commission of certain offences.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 95
Cuckooing: interpretation
“(1) This section supplements section (Cuckooing).
(2) A reference to “the dwelling of a person” is to any structure or part of a structure occupied by the person as their home or other living accommodation (whether the occupation is separate or shared with others), together with any yard, garden, grounds, garage or outhouse belonging to it or used with it.
(3) In subsection (2) “structure” includes a tent, caravan, vehicle, vessel or other temporary or movable structure.
(4) The circumstances in which a person “exercises control over the dwelling of another person” (B) include circumstances where the person exercises control (whether temporarily or permanently) over any of the following—
(a) who is able to enter, leave, occupy or otherwise use the dwelling or part of the dwelling;
(b) the delivery of things to, or the collection of things from, the dwelling;
(c) the way in which, or the purposes for which, the dwelling or part of the dwelling is used;
(d) the ability of B to use the dwelling or part of the dwelling for B’s own purposes.
(5) For the purposes of section (Cuckooing)(2), a person is regarded as “consenting” to the exercise of control for the purpose mentioned in section (Cuckooing)(1)(b) only if—
(a) they are aged 18 or over,
(b) they have capacity (within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to give consent to the exercise of control for that purpose,
(c) they are given sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision about whether to consent,
(d) they give consent freely, and
(e) the consent is not withdrawn.”—(Laura Farris.)
See the statement for NC94.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 103
Restricting parental responsibility when sentencing for rape of a child
“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).
(2) In section 10A (inserted by section (Restricting parental responsibility where one parent kills the other)(3) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024)—
(a) for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) This section applies where the Crown Court is sentencing—
(a) a person (“the offender”) who is a parent with parental responsibility for a child (“the child”) for the murder or, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2), manslaughter of the child’s other parent;
(b) a person (“the offender”) who has parental responsibility for a child (“the child”) for an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape) against a child or under section 5 of that Act (rape of a child under 13).”;
(b) in subsection (3), for “when sentencing the offender” substitute “with respect to the child”;
(c) in subsection (5)(b), for “offender is convicted of manslaughter” substitute “Crown Court is sentencing the offender for manslaughter”;
(d) in subsection (7), for “murder or manslaughter” substitute “offence”;
(e) after subsection (9) insert—
“(10) In subsection (1) “sentencing” is to be read in accordance with the Sentencing Code (see section 401 of the Code).”
(3) In section 10B (inserted by section (Restricting parental responsibility where one parent kills the other)(3) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024)—
(a) in subsection (1), for “parent” substitute “person”;
(b) in subsection (3)(b), for “parent is acquitted on appeal of the murder or manslaughter” substitute “person is acquitted on appeal of the offence”.
(4) In section 33(3A) (inserted by section (Restricting parental responsibility where one parent kills the other)(5) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024), in both places, for “parent” substitute “person”.
(5) In section 91—
(a) in subsection (5B) (inserted by section (Restricting parental responsibility where one parent kills the other)(6)(b) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for “parent (“P”) with respect to a child (“C”)” substitute “person with respect to a child”;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for “P with respect to C” substitute “the person with respect to the child”;
(b) in subsection (5C) (inserted by section (Restricting parental responsibility where one parent kills the other)(6)(b) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024), for “P with respect to C” substitute “the person with respect to the child”.
(6) In section 379 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (other behaviour orders etc), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) See section 10A(1) of the Children Act 1989 for circumstances in which the Crown Court may be required to make a prohibited steps order when dealing with an offender for murder, manslaughter or the rape of a child.””—(Laura Farris.)
This new clause expands the circumstances in which the Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order under section 10A of the Children Act 1989 (inserted by the Victims and Prisoners Bill) to cases where a person with parental responsibility is convicted of the rape of a child.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 104
Report on duty to make prohibited steps orders and power to repeal
“(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which section (Restricting parental responsibility when sentencing for rape of a child) comes into force, the Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare a report on the operation of sections 10A and 10B of the Children Act 1989 (duty on Crown Court to make prohibited steps order) during the period, and
(b) publish the report and lay it before Parliament.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations repeal either—
(a) section 10A(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989, or
(b) sections 10A and 10B of that Act.
(3) But regulations under subsection (2) may only be made during the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the report under subsection (1) was laid before Parliament.
(4) The consequential provision which may be made by regulations under subsection (2) by virtue of section 86(1)(a) includes provision amending or repealing any provision made by an Act of Parliament or an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru.” —(Laura Farris.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the operation of sections 10A and 10B of the Children Act 1989 and confers the power to repeal those sections or their application to cases involving rape of a child (whether because of the report or otherwise).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 44
Sexual exploitation of an adult
(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) Section 52 is amended as follows—
(a) in the title for “Causing or inciting prostitution” substitute “Sexual exploitation”, and
(b) in paragraph (1)(a) for “causes or incites another person to become a prostitute” substitute “sexually exploits another person”.
(3) Section 53 is amended as follows—
(a) in the title for “prostitution” substitute “sexual exploitation”, and
(b) in paragraph (1)(a) for “prostitution” substitute “sexual exploitation”.
(4) Section 54 is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (2) for “sections 51A, 52, 53 and 53A” substitute “section 53A”, and
(b) at end insert—
“(4) In sections 52 and 53 “sexual exploitation” means conduct by which a person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls another person to undertake sexual activity.”.”—(Jess Phillips.)
An amendment to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, specifically in sections 52 and 53, replace “prostitution for gain’” with “sexual exploitation of an adult”.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
“RTA Section 27A | Causing death by dangerous cycling. | On indictment. | 14 years. |
RTA Section 27B | Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling. | (a) Summarily. (b) On indictment. | (a) 12 months or the statutory maximum or both. (b) 5 years of a fine or both. |
RTA Section 27C | Causing death by careless of inconsiderate cycling. | (a) Summarily. (b) On indictment. | (a) 12 months (in England and Wales) or 6 months (in Scotland) or the statutory maximum or both. (b) 5 years or a fine or both.”” |
Deferred Divisions
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 5 to 12 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Representation of the People
That the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 15 April, be approved.
Countryside
That the draft Management of Hedgerows (England) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 16 April, be approved.
Defence
That the draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2024, which were laid before this House on 18 April, be approved.
Energy
That the draft Carbon Capture Revenue Support (Directions, Eligibility and Counterparty) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 15 April, be approved.
That the draft Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage Revenue Support (Directions and Counterparty) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 15 April, be approved.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform)
That the draft Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 15 April, be approved.
International Monetary Fund
That the draft International Monetary Fund (Increase in Subscription) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.
Financial Services and Markets
That the draft Securitisation (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.—(Suzanne Webb.)
Question agreed to.
Petitions
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I rise to present a petition on the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry on behalf of the residents of my constituency of Edinburgh West. I have a long-standing interest in this as a friend of my family, who was one of the early victims of the infected blood scandal, has suffered as a consequence, along with many families including those in my constituency, waiting too long for redress. The petition states:
“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.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Edinburgh West,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited for 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.]
[P002985]
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition from residents of my constituency of Edinburgh North and Leith regarding those people who have received infected blood and suffered as a consequence and who have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress. The petition states:
“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.”
The petition of residents of the constituency of Edinburgh North and Leith.
[P002987]
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of constituents in Aberavon, on the same terms as those presented by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater). I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her unstinting work in pursuing justice for the victims.
My constituent David Farrugia and his siblings lost their father in 1986 after he was given infected blood products. It literally tore their family apart, as the siblings were then split up in the care system. This scandal has caused decades of suffering, health issues, financial loss and stigma for those affected. They have campaigned for justice, but it has taken far too long and is long overdue. Justice must not be delayed any further.
The petition of residents of the constituency of Aberavon.
[P002986]
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I join a number of hon. Members in presenting a petition in the same terms on behalf of my constituents in Bradford South, although I know that it reflects feelings that are widespread across the country. The petition reflects concerns across Bradford South that the Government have yet to implement both the final infected blood inquiry recommendations and compensation, and the will of this House of Commons, which was expressed on 4 December 2023.
The petition of residents of the constituency of Bradford South.
[P002988]
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Like many others, I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of York Outer who have, alongside their families, suffered directly from wrongly receiving infected blood and have waited far too long for redress. I pay tribute to my constituents, including Norman, who have signed the petition, and I call on the Government to fully implement the recommendations set out in the infected blood inquiry report, which is due to be published next week. The petition states:
“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.”
The petition of residents of the constituency of York Outer.
[P002989]
Leaseholders and Freeholders
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I begin by thanking my constituents in Portishead, whose dogged determination not to be treated as supine cash cows has led to this debate, which I am proud to have secured on their behalf. The residents at Port Marine, a beautiful development in Portishead that transformed derelict industrial land into an extremely desirable place to live, bought their properties—some leasehold and some freehold —with an external property management company managing some communal parts. My hon. Friend the Minister will recognise in that tale a situation mirrored up and down the country, with uncertainty about bills and charges at one end of the spectrum and the inability to sell properties that are effectively valued at nothing at the other.
There are two key issues: the variable service charge and the fixed rent charge. I am grateful to Sebastian O’Kelly of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, who described the situation thus:
“It is an arrangement cooked up by developers and councils: it means developers have a management company and income stream that they can sell on to management companies such as FirstPort, and the council saves money by not adopting these open spaces. Meanwhile, the often younger buyers of these properties end up paying council tax and the management charges, while older locals often living in more valuable houses pay to the council only.”
The situation is increasingly being described as what it is—namely, a fleecehold.
Residents initially wrote to me about the increase in the variable service charge to levels that they believed were unreasonable. Attempts to gain transparency on the costs go back several years, including a face-to-face meeting between FirstPort and Portishead residents in 2019. The issue affects around 1,000 of my constituents, both freeholders and leaseholders. In effect, residents have complained that the amount they are paying does not match the amount of land being managed by FirstPort or the level of work it undertakes on the Port Marine estate. It has also been difficult to get transparency from FirstPort when residents have requested a breakdown of its costs for managing their properties and land.
On 3 November 2023 I joined constituents representing the Portishead management charge action group, along with two representatives of North Somerset Council and two representatives of FirstPort, for a walk around the Port Marine estate to look at the areas managed by FirstPort and by North Somerset Council respectively. We found that very small areas of the estate are managed by FirstPort, for which it charges at least £440 per annum. That charge seems particularly high and produces around £220,000 of income per year for FirstPort. Ideally, residents would like to see the land managed by North Somerset Council, which looks after large parts of the estate already. Naturally, the council would like to receive a substantial sum from FirstPort to transfer those duties but, with no agreement forthcoming, it is easy to see why my constituents find themselves in something of a trap.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for rightly bringing this issue to the attention of the House. Does he agree that, although the Leasehold Advisory Service gives free advice for England and Wales—as it should—the advice is not granted in all situations, so when his constituents sought advice, in many cases they would be unsure about where they stood without costly legal advice, and that the Government and the Minister must provide much more clarity across the board?
Sir Liam Fox
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will go on to set out just how horrendous some of those charges are and how it can be very difficult for my constituents to get legal redress. That is no doubt a situation that my hon. Friend the Minister has heard on a number of occasions.
We all understand that communal land must be managed for the benefit of all. No one disputes that, but it needs to be done in a way that is fair and equitable, predictable and transparent. The current position is none of those things.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that many of these arrangements were never made clear to people when they purchased their properties, and too often developers have taken a shortcut to create a secondary income stream, when actually they should be paying a lump sum to the local authority to take over those responsibilities. It is a double whammy for those who are on the end of it, is it not?
Sir Liam Fox
I swear there was no collusion here, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman takes me very neatly on to an even more horrendous example than the one I have already set out: fixed rent charges.
First, let me set out to the House the history by which property companies can fleece freeholders using this mechanism. Across the country as a whole rent charges are rare, but they do exist in parts of England, such as around Bath, Bristol and Manchester. A real problem can arise when a buyer or their conveyancing solicitor fails to spot their presence in the title deeds. Why? Because rent charges, which were introduced mainly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, were put in place when landowners wanted to sell land at a reduced cost to a developer. They would sell the land on a freehold basis, but retain a legal interest in the land and charge an annual fee, or rent charge, which is in place for ever.
Historically, the rent charge was typically between £2 and £10, which was quite a lot in those days, but has been regarded as nominal in recent years. While many rent charges have fallen dormant, others have been bought up by property companies, which are now ruthlessly enforcing payment. The rent owner is entitled to recover any sums due, but does not have to send a reminder to the freeholder and, as I understand it, is legally entitled to impose a penalty after 40 days—when the account inevitably falls into arrears—usually by taking out a statutory lease on the home as security. That would then make the property almost impossible to sell unless the freeholder pays thousands to redeem the lease. That is outrageous.
Let me outline the issue in respect of Portishead. In 2011, solicitors acting on behalf of Crest Nicholson, the original landowner of the development, wrote to FirstPort—then known as Consort—advising it that the fixed rent charge should be reduced to £1. Although FirstPort shared that information with some residents and reduced the charge accordingly, it did not do that for all residents and continued to invoice some to the tune of between £100 and £150 per annum. Those residents were later refunded. After trying to renege on that agreement at the end of 2022, FirstPort informed residents in December 2023 that it again intended to start charging £100 to £150 per year for the fixed rent charge.
FirstPort has argued that, because no deed of variation was entered into to confirm the reduction, meaning that the agreement to reduce the fixed rent charge was not legally binding, it can effectively do what it likes. Needless to say, residents who were not advised in 2011 that they needed to enter into a deed of variation, or log the change with the Land Registry, are extremely unhappy. Recently, under pressure from residents, Crest Nicholson and myself, FirstPort agreed to keep the fixed rent charge to £1 per annum, provided that residents entered into a deed of variation.
It is instructive to see what Crest Nicholson has made of this debacle. On 9 February, it told me:
“Crest’s view is that the decision being taken by FirstPort to unilaterally reimpose the fixed rent charge of the properties at Port Marine is not only unfair but the underlying mechanism within the transfer is potentially open to challenge in the courts. This is because the annual charges they are proposing to claim (i.e. between £100 and £150) are not what a court would consider to be nominal amounts, a requirement for a fixed rent charge to be lawful under the Rentcharges Act 1977.”
Interestingly, Crest also told me:
“Many of the residents wrongly believe this money is being paid in exchange for FirstPort performing a service. FirstPort is already able to recover its costs for enforcing covenants from the variable element of the rent charge so FirstPort’s claim that this is its purpose is, at best questionable.”
Following a meeting that we had at the end of March, Crest Nicholson made it clear that it was no longer handing out contracts to FirstPort.
Let me turn to the question of the deed of variation. FirstPort initially quoted residents £300 plus VAT to enter into the deed of variation, offering that price as a discounted rate. In its letter to me on 7 March 2024, it stated that its
“legal fees for entering into any type of Deed of Variation would usually be £500 +VAT.”
In other words, this was a bargain that my constituents should jump at in order not be forced to pay £150 a year. They could pay FirstPort £500 as a one-off payment to prevent that from happening in the future. I think many of us would regard that as extortion. This whole saga has caused constituents a great deal of stress. Despite that, they have indicated that the £150 cost is tolerable—meaning they are willing, but not happy, to enter into the deed of variation and be done with the whole saga. FirstPort has set a deadline of 30 June 2024 for residents to enter into the deed of variation.
So, we have a variable service charge that can be raised and enforced without any clear and transparent links with the services being undertaken. Then, we have the truly horrendous situation in which rent charges, which have no relation whatsoever to any service being provided, can effectively be raised and applied through the threat of making properties unsellable, and the only means of escape is for residents to enter into deeds of variation at a price determined by—guess who—FirstPort. Let me be clear: I regard this as daylight robbery and a historical anomaly that has no place in our modern society. I am sure that FirstPort will not be the only property company up and down our country acting in this way. As the Minister’s Department introduces regulations following the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, and as it looks at leasehold reform, I ask my hon. Friend to see how quickly we can redress these wholly unacceptable positions and consign them to the dustbin of history, which is where they belong.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
It is a great pleasure to respond in this short debate, and to talk about an issue of huge importance to so many colleagues around the House. Over the past few months, as we have talked about leasehold, more and more colleagues have come up to me to highlight the iniquities, problems and challenges that they see in their constituency. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) for highlighting the issues that he has experienced, and I am very sorry to hear about Port Marine and the challenges that its residents face. I obviously cannot comment too much on individual cases, but it is absolutely vital that we hear individual examples. I have heard examples from around the country of particularly egregious extortion, and problems with the framework of leasehold. That is one of the reasons why we are bringing forward leasehold reform—because we recognise that there needs to be change.
Leasehold can work in some places, and some elements of it can be successful, but as my right hon. Friend has outlined, the problem is that there is too much bad practice in the sector. There are too many distortions within that tenure, too many inefficiencies that can be exploited, and frankly too many rent-seekers in the sector who are trying to exploit those distortions and inefficiencies. I know that Opposition colleagues also feel strongly about this issue, but we Conservatives are nothing if we do not seek to smash monopolies, stop rent-seeking, make markets more perfect and stand up for the little guy. Stories such as the one that my right hon. Friend recounted today highlight the reason why we are reforming leasehold. There is a way to go in making that market more perfect, but that is exactly what we are trying to do.
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill will bring into law many reforms to better protect and empower leaseholders. Existing leaseholders will find it easier and cheaper to extend their lease or buy their freehold. Reforms to the cost regime for enfranchisement and right-to-manage claims will make them more accessible, enabling leaseholders to take control of their building and, therefore, their future.
Sir Liam Fox
The issue of rent charges also applies to freeholders; it is not just leaseholders who are the victims. An amendment to the Rentcharges Act 1977 would deal with the problem once and for all, so I encourage my hon. Friend to look at amendments to that Act when we bring forward legislation on this subject. If the Government do not want to bring forward such an amendment to the 1977 Act, I would be more than happy to table one.
Lee Rowley
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are impacts on both freeholders and leaseholders. Different types of property and tenure are impacted in different ways. Elements of the rent charges regime will be extinguished by the 1977 Act, which he rightly referenced, in 2033; that has been in law since before I was born. However, there are a number of other issues that need addressing, and the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill was introduced to address some of them. A whole range of reforms are necessary across the leasehold sector, and the Bill seeks to address that, but as my right hon. Friend outlined, there are two main issues that this discussion of Port Marine has highlighted: the variable service charge, and the rent charge point, which he just spoke about a little more.
The Bill as it stands will absolutely make progress on variable service charges in a number of ways. It will not fix what has happened in the past, but it absolutely seeks to minimise the chance of it happening again. Unjustified increases in variable service charges are not acceptable. Any service charges must be transparent and communicated effectively, and there should be a clear route for challenging them if things go wrong. The Bill ensures that all leaseholders will receive: key minimum financial and non-financial information regularly, including a standardised service charge demand form; an annual report of charges; the timely provision of service charge accounts; and the right to obtain other relevant information. That is a significant step forward, as I know from discussions with both leaseholders and freeholders in my constituency, and from having spoken with colleagues from all around the House who have similar issues. We are also taking measures on service charges to ensure that leaseholders are not subject to unjustified legal costs. For the first time, they can, when appropriate, claim their costs from landlords if they go through the tribunal process and win. There will be a significant change on variable service charges as and when the Bill passes through both Houses.
On fixed rent charges, the Bill introduces a framework to empower homeowners and to hold estate management companies to account for the service they provide. There will need to be transparency of information. There will be a new legal requirement that estate management charges must be reasonable. For the first time, there will be an ability to challenge excessive costs through the tribunal, and to ensure that estate management companies are held to account. The measures will also cover admin fees, including deeds of variation—my right hon. Friend highlighted that point. As I say, there will for the first time be a right to apply to the tribunal for redress. If there is a strong view, and proof, that the managing agent in charge is doing something inappropriate or is not fulfilling their duty, people can apply to a tribunal to have a substitute manager appointed. That will for the first time provide an opportunity for residents to highlight problems, and remove people who consistently cause problems.
As I said in Committee, we recognised in Committee and from previous debates in the House the strength of feeling among colleagues; that has been shown again by my right hon. Friend in this debate, and by the contributions of other hon. Members. We are considering further whether we can look at this area in more detail. I hope that I can soon say more from the Government Front Bench about that, although I cannot do so tonight.
To conclude, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issues in this case and to highlight the key challenges that we see daily to do with when this system does not work. He raised how and when this system is not working for Port Marine. I hope there is restitution, and that a solution comes as soon as possible. I recognise the individual examples of when things are not working, but the Government are taking action, in a very Conservative way, recognising that we have to deal with these monopolies, smash the rent-seekers and remove distortions to make markets more perfect. We must ensure that there will not be another Port Marine in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time. When the Bill goes through, we will significantly improve this market and leasehold, and significantly change rent charges, so that people who want to buy their house and have the benefits of owner-occupation—we want to do all we can to empower people —gain real control over their future. We look forward to colleagues supporting the Bill as it goes through its final stages in the House in the coming weeks.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry
Community and Suspended Sentences (Notification of Details) Bill
Wednesday 15th May 2024
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Community and Suspended Sentences (Notification of Details) Bill 2023-24 View all Community and Suspended Sentences (Notification of Details) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for members of the Committee. First, please switch off or silence any electronic devices. No food or drink is permitted during this Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to the relevant email address. My selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled. We will have a single debate on both clauses in the Bill.
Clause 1
Duty of offender to notify details
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to move my very first private Member’s Bill through the House—although it may well be my last! It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, as we debate this important Bill. It is good to see the Minister in his place—and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. I thank the Minister for the proactive approach that he took to ensure that we could be here today.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green, for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Neath (Christina Rees), for Rotherham, for Gower, and for Cynon Valley for their support. I also acknowledge the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for Ceredigion for their support. I thank my colleagues on the Government Benches, too: the hon. Members for Eastbourne, for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), for Dudley North, for Congleton, for South Derbyshire—who I am delighted to see in her place—as well as my very good friend the hon. Member for South West Devon, and other fellow Welsh Members, the hon. Members for Aberconwy and the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan.
This is an important Bill with cross-party support, and I am very pleased to be able to bring it back to the House today. Indeed, there is no greater responsibility on us, as Members of Parliament, than to keep our people and communities safe. That goes for Newport West and for our colleagues right across the country. This Bill will do a great deal to make that objective of keeping our people safe more likely and more durable.
The Bill will amend the Sentencing Act 2020 to create a duty on offenders to notify the responsible officer of any change of name or contact details if they are sentenced to a community order, suspended sentence order, youth rehabilitation order or referral order. It will place a new duty on offenders serving a sentence in the community who are being supervised by probation or a youth offending team. The change of name or contact details could be for any reason, and the Bill captures not just formal legal changes of name, but, for example, the use of an online alias. Offenders will need to notify their responsible officer of any change as soon as practicable.
With that in mind, I now turn to the clauses themselves. Clause 1 sets out that the Sentencing Act 2020 sentencing code will be amended to create a new duty on offenders serving a sentence in the community and who are supervised by probation or a youth offending team, requiring them to inform the responsible officer if they change their name, use a different name—for example, an alias—or change their contact information. That will improve the ability of probation and youth offending teams to monitor offenders in the community.
At the end of December 2023, there were 64,800 offenders under probation supervision on a community order and 44,300 on a suspended sentence order. In the year to June 2023, 2,100 children were sentenced to youth rehabilitation orders and 6,200 were sentenced to referral orders. The Bill will ensure that the public are protected so that, while this significant number of offenders are serving sentences in the community, the responsible officers have the information they need to keep tabs on those individuals, including if they change their name or contact information.
The provisions in the Bill are robust. While the name or contact details change could be for any reason, any difference from what is kept on file must be reported by the offender. It captures not just formal legal changes of name by deed poll but also, for instance, the use of an online alias. Although we have a separate youth justice system, it is of equal importance that services can keep tabs on children and have the right information about them in order to do their job. This policy therefore applies equally to offenders of all ages and will create consistency across offenders on licence and offenders serving sentences in the community overseen by probation services or youth offending teams.
Clause 1 establishes that the requirement will apply to offenders under the age of 18 where a referral order has been made by inserting proposed new section 97A, which provides that the section applies to offenders who have been sentenced to a referral order and where a youth offender contract has not been revoked or discharged. It establishes the requirement for youth offenders sentenced to a referral order to notify, as soon as is practically possible, the relevant member of the youth offender panel if they begin using a name or contact detail that is not specified in the referral order while the terms of the contract are active. It also establishes that the duty of an offender to notify details is to be treated as a term of the youth offender contract in order to ensure that enforcement of the measure is effective.
Proposed new section 97A also establishes the relevant member of the youth offender panel that the offender should notify of any change of name and contact details, and it states that this should be done in writing. The requirement to notify the responsible officer of any change of name will also apply to offenders under the age of 18 who are sentenced to youth rehabilitation orders. As regards those sentenced to a referral order, clause 1(3) creates the duty for the offender to comply with the duty as soon as reasonably practicable and states that any offender who breaches the obligation will be dealt with by the court, in the same way as someone who breaches a youth rehabilitation order.
The Bill applies to both adult offenders and offenders under the age of 18 equally. Subsections (4) and (5) of clause 1 provide that the duty on adult offenders to notify their responsible officer if they change their name or contact details as soon as practicable applies to those sentenced to suspended sentence orders or community orders. Probation and youth offending teams will have discretion as to whether an offender is returned to court if they fail to comply with the requirements set out in the Bill. It is right that the Bill’s enforcement provisions are robust and reflect the seriousness of non-compliance, and it is right that probation officers and youth offending teams have the same powers to deal with non-compliance with this duty as they do in any other case of non-compliance with a sentence requirement.
Clause 2 addresses the territorial extent of the Bill, commencement and short title. Subsection (1) states that the territorial extent of the Bill is England and Wales only, as colleagues will have read in the explanatory notes. Subsection (2) sets out that the Bill will come into force at the end of the period of two months following Royal Assent. Subsection (3) provides that short title may be the Community and Suspended Sentences (Notification of Details) Act 2024. It is important for all of us, irrespective of party or background, that the Bill comes to fruition. I urge colleagues to give it their full support.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Rosindell. Huge congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West on bringing forward this much-needed piece of legislation. I am not rising to block its passage in any way, but I am hoping to get the Minister and those in the other place to consider some of the flaws of the Bill as it stands.
This Committee, especially the Minister, is aware that I am obsessed—that is the only word I can use—with sex offenders changing their name to avoid detection. The reason I went for sex offenders was because they are a very defined cohort of people that I could prove were using the loophole of changing their names and breaching the conditions of their existing orders to do so. However, the same principle applies to all offenders, so I rather assumed that the same conditions applied to offenders in this category and was quite shocked to realise that they did not.
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West for trying to close that loophole. The problem is this: at the moment, both this legislation and the current legislation for sex offenders rely on the offender notifying. That is my problem with this Bill as it stands. By their very nature, the people who come under the Bill will be people who have committed violence, fraud, deception, coercive control, cuckooing—all the things that involve someone presenting a false representation to vulnerable people. And presenting themselves with a different name is a very good way to do that, because now most people, when they meet someone new, will go on Google and put the name in, see who it is and make a decision based on that. That is just where we are in the world at the moment; if a different name—one that is clean—comes up, we would not have any worries. We would invite that person into our home. We would go on a date with that person. Therefore I am concerned that, under the Bill, it is still the offender who is required to report a name change. It is still reliant on an offender doing the right thing when it would actually benefit them, if they wanted to continue their criminal activity, not to do the right thing.
One of the problems if offenders change their name —other than the ones that I have outlined—is that they can disappear. I discovered that when I spoke to my local police chief about it many years ago, when I first became aware of the problem. He said, “To be quite honest, Sarah, if they change their name, they literally drop off the radar. How am I meant to find someone if I don’t know who they are?” That is my concern with this Bill as well.
The next issue is that the offender has to report to their responsible officer or their youth offending team. That is great, but they are incredibly hard-pressed, and the explanatory notes say that they will be meeting the offender perhaps once a month, so I am very concerned about the other 29-ish days when the offender is not reporting and when that eye is not on them, and about what they are getting up to at that point. I am also concerned about this issue: if they are referring just to the probationary team, who do an incredibly good job but in very stressed circumstances, how does that information get to the police? How does it actually feed into systems? That becomes very important. If there is a breach, how do we enforce against that?
Under this legislation, an offender “could” be taken back to court. When an order is returned to court, the court “could” make a requirement of the order more onerous, impose a fine or even sentence the offender to custody. “Could” is not good enough; it needs to be stronger than that. If an offender is breaching their terms, there needs to be a sanction; otherwise, where is the deterrent? I urge the Minister, during the passage of the Bill—to which I hope he gives safe passage—to look at actually enforcing against that.
Let me give an example, because this isn’t just Sarah being obsessed. Well, it is, but I can actually back it up with data. Between 2015 and 2020—this data is from my written parliamentary questions to the Government —16,000 offenders were charged for failing to tell the authorities details such as a name change and address change. They are only the ones who got caught—the ones we found out about. There were 16,000 in five years. The Safeguarding Alliance, which I am very proud to have worked with for many years, found that more than 11,500 registered sex offenders were then prosecuted for failing to notify changes of information between 2019 and 2022. That is only the registered sex offenders who were found out and then prosecuted, so this is a big problem and something that the Minister needs to take seriously.
Let me end on the example that is Clare’s law. Probably many of us have encouraged our friends to use Clare’s law, whereby someone who has a new partner and wants to check that they do not have a background of domestic violence can call up the police and they will check the name against the register. Of course, if the person has changed their name, it will not show up on that register. It is also required that the police know that they have changed their name, and at the moment, there is no statutory requirement for the responsible officer or the youth offending team to refer that to the police, so there is a big gaping hole within this system.
The Bill is a fantastic first step. It has highlighted to me another area of concern, and I am grateful that the Government are recognising that. But let us get it right, because at the moment it is not right. There will be time to make amendments in the other place, or for the Minister to tighten the Bill up. With those caveats, I will be pleased to give the Bill safe passage, but I do hope that it is worked on as it progresses.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
No. I am very happy for the Bill to go through.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I will endeavour not to detain the Committee too long, but I want to add my wholehearted support for this Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newport West. I will turn to some of the points that the hon. Member for Rotherham made in a moment, although I am conscious that, while I can answer some of them, others may be for the hon. Member for Newport West to respond to. However, I will of course continue working closely and collaboratively with the hon. Member for Rotherham as the Bill continues its progress.
As has been set out, the Bill will place a new duty on offenders who are serving a sentence in the community and being supervised by a probation or youth offending team. It will require them to inform the responsible officer if they begin using a different name or change their contact information, including their telephone number or email address. The name change could be for any reason; the Bill captures not just formal legal changes of name by deed poll but, for example, the use of an online alias.
Rigorous community offender management is important in building confidence in community orders and delivering effective rehabilitation while keeping the public safe. With that in mind, we have increased funding for the probation service by an additional £155 million a year to recruit record levels of staff—around 4,000 are currently in training at different stages—so that we can bring down case loads and deliver better and more consistent supervision of offenders in the community.
Let me turn to a few points linked to that that the hon. Member for Rotherham raised. I think that the implication of one of the things she mentioned is almost daily monitoring, which would be impractical given the sheer volume of people on probation in this country, but the police and probation work closely and collaboratively where any breach or potential breach is identified.
The hon. Lady raised concerns about the use of the word “could”. That word is used because probation officers have to employ a degree of professional judgment, rather than being instructed that a particular outcome must follow, because each case is separate. Similarly, because we cannot instruct a sentencer in the courts what penalty to impose, the Bill specifies that the court “could” impose particular penalties for breach, including recall, but that would be at the discretion of the court. The reason that word is used is to highlight that, but without straying into the territory of judicial discretion in the sentences or penalties that sentencers choose to impose.
Sarah Champion
My problem with the word “could” is that it becomes subjective. Is there anything that the Minister thinks could be included in guidance alongside the Bill when it passes—as I hope it does—to give examples of when it should be enforced or applied?
Edward Argar
I think there are two points there. There is an opportunity to work with probation to give clarity, but I would hesitate to stray into the territory of “should” for a sentencer, be that a judge or a magistrate, because ultimately the courts have discretion to apply the most appropriate penalty on the facts before them. There is a slight distinction there.
As announced in the spring Budget, we are also improving our digital capability so that information on individuals’ risks will be better shared across prisons and probation, to inform key decisions and better protect the public. The effectiveness of community sentences relies on probation and youth offending teams having the ability to manage offenders in the community successfully, and that means having the right information about an offender. The Bill will help to ensure that responsible officers are given the necessary tools to keep tabs on offenders in the community so they are better able to manage them effectively.
The Criminal Justice (Sentencing) (Licence Conditions) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2022 requires offenders on licence to inform their responsible officer if they change their name and/or contact details. The Government welcome the Bill, which will build on the 2022 order by ensuring that the same duty applies to offenders serving sentences in the community. The hon. Member for Rotherham will recall that we debated a number of these issues in the Victims and Prisoners Bill Committee, possibly even in this room, recognising the challenges in the nature of individuals who commit various crimes and the question of whether they will be compliant and notify, versus the practical challenges of creating another mechanism by which they could be monitored. I am very conscious of the points that she made then—she made them forcefully and eloquently, and I suspect she will return to the issue until it is resolved to her satisfaction. I reassure her that I am conscious of those discussions and I will continue to look at that.
It is also right that swift and clear action can be taken when an offender does not comply. The enforcement provisions for the Bill are tough and reflect the seriousness of non-compliance by giving responsible officers the same powers they have in respect of any failure to comply with the requirement of a court order. If an offender fails to comply with the duty, that will constitute a breach of the order and, as we have discussed, this could result in the order being returned to court. The court could impose additional penalties, but, as I have set out, a degree of discretion is needed.
It is likely that probation would be notified about non-compliance by an external agency, such as the police, in the event the offender was arrested again. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Rotherham, if that were the case, the default approach would be to treat the failure to notify as a breach. Practitioners will then use their professional judgment and the Probation Service enforcement policy framework to decide how best to approach that, including whether they are going to hand it to the court. As I have set out, the court would then have discretion over what penalty to impose for the breach.
In closing, I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for introducing this important Bill and I confirm the Government’s full and continuing support for it.
Ruth Jones
I am grateful to my colleagues across the House who have supported the Bill and joined us for this important stage of its journey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, who has been a doughty and tenacious campaigner on behalf of victims and survivors. Her wisdom and experience is very much appreciated, and she has raised some important practical points that I am sure we will seek to take forward as the Bill moves to the other place. I will seek to speak to her and others who want to make the Bill as robust as possible, because at the end of the day we do not want loopholes in legislation.
I am grateful to the Government for their support and would like to pay tribute to the Minister for putting his money where his mouth is. He helped to secure support for the Bill from some of his Back-Bench colleagues. To share what that support looked like, I will tell the Committee that the Minister spent some time walking around Portcullis House with Adam Jogee from my team, seeking gently to persuade people. The fearsome twosome made for a few raised eyebrows from people from all parties, considering that Adam Jogee is the Labour candidate in Newcastle-under-Lyme at the next general election. Luckily, there was no talk of defection either way, so that is good.
Ruth Jones
I am saying nothing.
To be serious for a moment, I am grateful to the officials in the Ministry of Justice for their work in supporting us to this stage. They were enormously helpful to me and my team. I know that they will be watching proceedings this morning and I want them all to know that I am very grateful indeed.
Thanks go to my team, too. This is my first private Member’s Bill, as I have already said. Taking it through the House since my election has been a brilliant learning experience, although I am not sure that I would want to repeat it. By supporting the Bill today, the Committee has an opportunity to improve the ability of probation and youth offending teams to monitor offenders in the community effectively and to better protect the public. This is a good policy. It should have been done long ago and I urge colleagues to give the Bill their full support today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Edward Argar
I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I thank you, Mr Rosindell, for chairing proceedings today, the officials in my Department who have worked on the Bill, Adam from the hon. Lady’s office, and the Clerks and other officials of the House who have assisted in the passage of the Bill to this point.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill
Wednesday 15th May 2024
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill 2023-24 View all Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch any devices to silent. No food and drinks are permitted during the sittings, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be very grateful if Members emailed any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
My selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled. We will have a single debate on both clauses.
Clause 1
Amendments to legislation about court hearings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see my constituency neighbour in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I propose to deal with clauses 1 and 2 together, and I promise hon. Members that we will be done within the six hours allotted.
This modest but important Bill amends current legislation to enable defendants and debtors in specific types of cases heard in the magistrates court or the county or family courts to be able to appear remotely via a live audio or video link. The use of remote links of this type is relatively common and is already used in civil, family and criminal jurisdictions, delivering significant benefits not only through swifter access to justice, but by utilising the court estate efficiently. As a result of the Bill, two categories of cases will be able to be heard remotely. This means that those in breach of some injunctions and orders in the county and family courts, as well as persistent defaulters on orders to pay either council tax or business rates, will be able to appear remotely.
The ability to appear remotely is especially important, as in many cases, defendants must be physically brought before the courts within 24 hours of their arrest for breach of these civil injunctions. Sometimes, that is not possible. Defendants may be arrested out of hours, and court facilities may be some distance away, and all the while the clock is running down.
This Bill addresses those points. People who are arrested for those breaches will now be able to appear remotely, as will defaulters. However, remote does not mean a lesser degree of access to justice. The courts recognise that a remote hearing is no less capable in principle of being fair than a hearing at which all parties are physically present. That has been affirmed by the evaluation by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service of remote hearings during the recent covid pandemic. Importantly, the Bill does not mandate remote hearings. The ultimate determination will be by the judge or magistrate, who will make their ruling after hearing from the parties and taking into consideration the availability of facilities for such hearings.
With that background in mind, I turn to the clauses. Clause 1(1) sets out the required legislative changes. These include an amendment to section 47 of the Family Law Act 1996 on arrest for breach of order. Clause 1(1) inserts proposed new subsection (13), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link. Clause 1(2) amends section 9 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 on arrest without warrant. It inserts proposed new subsection (7), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link.
Clause 1(3) amends section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 on arrest without warrant. It inserts proposed new subsection (8), which provides that the defendant may appear before the court by live audio or video link. Clause 1(4) amends paragraph 8(1A) of schedule 4 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 on enforcement in England and Wales. It inserts proposed new sub-paragraph (b), which states that regulations may provide that the debtor, subject to an application under paragraph 8(1A), may appear before the court either by way of live audio or video link.
Clause 1 sets out the necessary changes to legislation so that a defendant or a debtor, in certain circumstances, can appear before a court by live link. These changes ensure that individuals who are arrested for breaching certain family court or county court injunctions, or who persistently fail to pay business rates or council tax, can appear before the court in a timely and efficient manner using remote links.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this important Bill. Can he confirm that a remote hearing will be of benefit in domestic abuse cases? It is really important that domestic abuse cases are heard in this way, because it provides a critical lifeline as a safe, accessible platform for survivors to seek justice and removes the burden of a physical court appearance. The digital approach ensures confidentiality and reduces the risk of intimidation, empowering victims to speak up and access legal recourse swiftly and securely.
Andy Carter
It is clear that courts, particularly the magistrates court, already make full use of digital means. The Bill will benefit those suffering from domestic abuse, particularly where restraining orders and non-molestation orders are in place to keep somebody who has committed domestic abuse away from the victim. In the event that someone is arrested on a weekend, say, a Saturday morning, and there is a 24-hour time limit in which they can be held, they may well be released because the court does not sit before Monday, and they cannot appear before court in that time. Once released, they could cause more problems for the victim of domestic abuse. The Bill will mean that that person could appear before a judge and the judge could remand them or take other steps to ensure that the victim is protected. My hon. Friend is right to raise that point.
Under clause 1, defendants or debtors will have a hearing within the mandated period of 24 hours or will have to be released by the police in the case of those who are in breach of an injunction, as I have just said to my hon. Friend. In doing so, we are ensuring that the rule of law is upheld and that we provide for better and more timely access to justice. Public safety is also enhanced by ensuring that dangerous individuals—in the case of breaches of injunctions—are not released for want of finding a court or member of the judiciary out of court hours.
The use of remote links in court proceedings is relatively common. As a magistrate, I sit on a regular basis on remote court hearings, and there is no negative impact on ensuring that justice is delivered. In fact, I would argue that it delivers significant benefits. This provision will provide greater flexibility at judicial discretion where appropriate. Most importantly, it does not mandate that remote links must be used. Access to justice is not curtailed. The defendant will be able to make representations to the judge, and the safeguards of access to legal representatives remain in place.
Clause 2(1) provides that the Bill will come into force at the end of the period of two months following Royal Assent. Subsection (2) sets out that the Bill may be referred to as the Courts (Remote Hearings) Act 2024. This clause establishes the timing for the Bill to become law once its passage through this House is completed. There is nothing controversial in these arrangements. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am aware that the hon. Member for Warrington South is a magistrate. I have served as a justice of the peace in Scotland and am aware of the implications of the Bill. I see no negative sides to it. Although the Bill does not extend to Scotland, its provisions appear eminently sensible and will only assist in the timely, flexible and efficient administration of justice in appropriate cases. Therefore, the Bill has my full support.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I am not a lawyer or solicitor or magistrate, but I am interested in this, because the administration of justice in places like Somerset is few and far between. The nearest court we have is in Taunton, meaning all my constituents must travel there, so I understand the provision for video links, but I have some questions about it. First, if somebody misbehaves on the video link, they cannot be reprimanded for contempt or anything else. I am interested to know what will then happen. Are they brought to a court for proceedings to take place in person?
Secondly, what is the procedure for defendants on video links whose first language is not English? I have done enough international conferences with a language barrier, as I am sure my hon. Friends have, to know how difficult that is. Thirdly, the explanatory note says that the use of video links is
“common in civil and family proceedings. In those proceedings, the appearance of a defendant by remote link is permitted at the direction of the court, including cases of far greater sensitivity or gravity.”
What is “greater sensitivity or gravity”? The Minister mentioned it, but I am interested in what that pertains to. I think that is important.
Fourthly, when a video link is used, is the solicitor in the court, or are they on the video link? We all want representation. In Somerset, the remand centre is in Bridgwater and the court is in Taunton. This Bill is eminently sensible and I agree with it, but I am wondering about the practicalities of making sure that someone can exercise their right to justice and to be represented. I am wondering what the mechanism for that is.
I am also concerned about intimidation. If someone is on remand and appearing via video link, there are other people around them—not in the room, probably. One of the great things about being in a court is that the person is in the court. They are part of court proceedings, with court officials and court people. If they are elsewhere, there is potential for intimidation. What if somebody appearing in court is on remand? Someone else has had a go at them, because there is also somebody else in these places. Are we absolutely sure that people are not going to be put under undue pressure to appear on the video link?
Finally, on the video link, will officials—in other words, police and others—be in the room with the defendant? What is the mechanism for making sure that there are suitable people in the room should the person decide to have a hissy fit or otherwise?
Andy Carter
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset for being part of this Bill Committee and for his questions, which are eminently sensible. I preface my remarks by saying that remote justice is frequently already used in the courts. In fact, in many cases, particularly for those on remand, there is a preference for remote hearings, because if someone is being held on remand in prison, remote hearings mean that they do not have to leave the prison, go to court, take all their belongings with them and risk being taken back to a different prison. They can stay in their prison and attend the court via video link. It is regularly used.
My hon. Friend raised questions about contempt. The judge or magistrate treat an individual attending on a remote link as being part of the court. If they misbehave, the sanctions for contempt are exactly the same as they would be if the individual were present in the courtroom.
The same is true for non-English-speaking attendees. There is a facility to ensure that anybody who needs an interpreter can access one. That is at the discretion of the judge. In my experience as a serving magistrate, one becomes very aware very quickly if someone does not understand proceedings and one ensures that an appropriate interpreter is put in place.
My hon. Friend made a good point about solicitors. In many cases, duty solicitors will be in the court, but they have an opportunity to speak to the defendant or the debtor online prior to the court hearing, although in some cases it may be that the defendant is with the individual in the centre where the video link is taking place.
I think the point my hon. Friend made about intimidation and officials is important. By its very nature, it is a remote hearing, and the individual is somewhat remote from the court premises, but magistrates and judges are very used to ensuring that people who are participating remotely on video or telephone links are brought into court and understand fully. One of the things I have learned as a magistrate is that we go over the top to explain what is going on to somebody who is not in the court. I would therefore say to my hon. Friend that magistrates and judges are used to dealing with defendants and debtors who are on a video link, and they take every step to ensure that court proceedings fully include those individuals. I hope that answers his questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I promise not to detain the Committee for much longer, but I want to lend my wholehearted support to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South for introducing the Bill.
As my hon. Friend set out, the Bill extends the availability of remote hearings in two instances where individuals have been arrested and detained in police custody. The first is for defendants in claims for breach of the terms of certain antisocial injunctions or certain family orders. The second is for a failure to pay either council tax or business rates. Those hearings could be conducted remotely from a custody suite, whereas at present they must be heard in person. The decision to hold a remote hearing will be set at the discretion of the judge after considering the representations of all parties. To be clear, in-person hearings will still take place if that is necessary.
Hon. Members will be reassured that despite the new powers, the number of hearings in either type of case is not expected to rise and charging decisions are independent of the availability of the court. The changes will establish important safeguards for the public and give magistrates, county and family courts greater flexibility and efficiency. That will enhance public safety.
Remote hearings mean that potentially violent individuals, such as those arrested for breaches of injunctions to protect the victims of domestic abuse, can be quickly and efficiently dealt with. Current arrangements mean that those defendants must be produced physically in court within 24 hours of arrest and the lack of court premises or judicial capacity, for example at the weekend, would result in their release back into the general population. That is something we are trying to avoid.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South for introducing this important Bill, and I can confirm the Government’s support for it. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock for his support and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Bridgwater and West Somerset for their questions. I thank all hon. Members for their attendance this morning. This modest Bill provides remote hearings only when necessary and adds to the flexibility of the ways the courts operate without compromising any of the safeguards of our justice system.
Andy Carter
May I conclude by thanking the Minister for his comments and for the support of the Government? He is absolutely correct in what he says: this short Bill will broaden the situations in which defendants can join court proceedings via audio or video link.
The Bill will specifically mean that breaches of non-molestation orders, occupation orders, antisocial behaviour injunctions and gang-related violence or drug-dealing injunctions can be heard remotely. That is particularly helpful for situations where someone is arrested and held at a time when a court is not sitting, such as a Sunday or a public holiday, when the clock is running down and individuals can only be held for 24 hours. It will also mean that secondary legislation can require that where someone has defaulted on an order to pay either their council tax or business rates, they can join a hearing remotely regarding their non-payment.
I conclude by saying that I am extremely grateful to all colleagues for attending this sitting and for the cross-party support that I have received. As the Minister said, we can now get on and make our courts more efficient.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
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
Biodiversity Loss
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered biodiversity loss.
It is a real pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees, and to open today’s debate on biodiversity loss.
It is now less than six months until COP16 takes place in Colombia—the first summit since the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework was agreed in 2022, when countries committed to
“halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.”
The meeting will be a crucial opportunity for global leaders to demonstrate how they are delivering on the commitment to restore our depleted natural world, and it is a moment for our own Government to step up as well.
When the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), gave her statement to Parliament following the Kunming meeting, she promised to
“make this a decade of action”.—[Official Report, 19 December 2022; Vol. 725, c. 47.]
But what have we seen since then? Raw sewage continues to pour into our waterways, including for more than 4 million hours last year, according to the Environment Agency statistics. There have been repeated so-called emergency approvals of neonicotinoids, a poison so powerful that a single teaspoon is enough to kill 1.25 billion bees. And just this weekend, it was reported that the Government are poised to row back on their commitment to ban the sale of horticultural peat this year, and are seemingly content to see precious peatlands further degraded. It is hardly a reassuring picture.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I absolutely agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. She mentions COP16. Later this year, the world will meet in Colombia for the biodiversity conference, which is of critical importance. She will be aware that Colombia has joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, yet the Government of the UK—a similar-sized oil and gas producer—have not. Does she believe that one of things we should be doing before the biodiversity COP is to join Colombia in the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance?
Caroline Lucas
I agree wholeheartedly. I will come to that issue in a moment, but joining the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance does not mean that we will end oil and gas tomorrow. It is a commitment over time, and it sends out a massively important signal to the rest of the world. Frankly, the fact that we have not signed up tells its own story, unfortunately.
The “State of Nature” report, published last year, shone a spotlight once more on the horrifying decline—let us call it what it is: the wanton destruction—of biodiversity across our four nations. It showed that, in that well-worn formulation, the UK is now one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth. In the course of my lifetime alone, the abundance of species studied across the UK has fallen by almost 20% on average, meaning that just half of the animals, insects and plants with which we are privileged to share our home now remain—from the mosses and the lichens in our woodlands to the internationally important seabird populations that breed on the cliffs and rocky islands of the coastline.
This is a disaster so extreme that, frankly, it is hard to contemplate. Imagine if we lost half our population, or if half the country was swallowed by the sea, or if half the country’s financial wealth was squandered; and yet we have sacrificed, seemingly with few regrets, half our natural inheritance. Scientists are now warning of what they term “acoustic fossils”, as the natural world falls silent and once familiar sounds, such as the dawn chorus, grow quiet or are lost altogether. It could not be clearer that nature is in freefall. Without urgent action to not just halt but reverse its decline, species risk being lost forever from our skies, land and waters. That is a disaster for the individual species concerned, including my favourite bird, the swift, which can fly an extraordinary 1 million miles in the course of its lifetime.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the situation of migratory birds. There is one tiny glimmer of hope: in Ynys Enlli on Bardsey Island, which is in my constituency, we have had Europe’s first and only dark sky sanctuary since last year. One of the key actions was to replace the bright white light of the lighthouse with a red light, thereby saving thousands of birds’ lives—previously, in one night 2,000 birds had died. We must acknowledge those little glimmers of hope, while also recognising the larger picture and its seriousness.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the right hon. Lady for her inspiring intervention, which shows that incredibly simple things can make a world of difference.
Caroline Lucas
Indeed, I anticipate an intervention in just a moment on one of my favourite subjects: swift bricks.
Duncan Baker
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to talk about losing 50% of some species. One of her favourite birds is the swift. For just £30, a swift brick can be installed in new build properties. The swift population has declined by 60% over the past 30 years, so I ask the Minister: why are we not legislating for such a simple way to protect the swift population?
Caroline Lucas
As the hon. Member knows, I could not agree more. I remember being in this room for that debate in Westminster Hall last year, as he was, talking about the importance of something as simple as a swift brick and hearing the Minister basically going through gymnastics in trying to explain why it would not be possible to legislate for swift brick use. This is not even £30 that the Government would have to spend; if the buildings were properly built and swift bricks put into them in the first place, the developers would only have to spend a tiny amount of money. In essence, we are saying to the Minister that a whole raft of actions need to be taken, but some are incredibly simple. Will she please start to take on some of those actions?
The loss of biodiversity is not only a tragedy for the species involved, but a disaster for us, too. The world is a lonelier place for human beings when the number of species that we have been privileged to share it with are declining on a daily basis. If people want to measure it in economic terms, a recent report found that biodiversity loss could cause a larger hit to the UK’s economy in the years ahead than either the 2008 financial crisis or, indeed, the covid-19 pandemic. Well, of course it could, because the bottom line is that our wellbeing is intimately and inextricably bound up with the wellbeing of nature. We are nature, and it is the false perception of a division between human beings and the rest of the world—that mechanistic assumption that the natural world is something for us to use, rather than to live alongside—that is at the root of so much of the ecological crisis around us.
To give one small example, Lawyers for Nature has started an inspiring campaign to change the definition of “nature” in the “Oxford English Dictionary” so that it includes humans. Currently, all dictionaries exclude humans from their definition. Words matter. Highlighting our connection and interdependence with nature matters, and that needs to lead to action.
The Government have made welcome commitments at a global level, including to manage 30% of the land and sea for nature by 2030, and at home, with the Environment Act 2021 setting legally binding targets, notably to end the decline in species populations by 2030. But we all know that what matters is not just the setting of targets, but the delivery of them. The latest assessment from the Office for Environmental Protection has been damning on that front, warning that the prospect of meeting key targets and commitments is “largely off track”. Dame Glenys Stacey, the OEP chair, went on to say that it is “deeply, deeply concerning” that “adverse environmental trends continue”. That statement is underlined by the evidence that our rivers and our seas are being polluted with a cocktail of chemicals and effluent, while ancient woodlands are being bulldozed to make way for roads and railways, and our fields are being doused in pesticides and fungicides. Our only home is on fire and being bulldozed before our eyes.
As State of Nature reports, two primary factors drive that decline on land: climate change and our intensive agriculture system. It is on those that I will focus the rest of my remarks. On our climate, rising temperatures are causing major changes in the natural world, leading to rain shifts, population changes and the disruption of precious food webs. Species that are well adapted to the warmth are likely to keep expanding across the UK, but montane species that are already on the edge of their ranges will tragically be squeezed out.
More broadly, nesting birds will be increasingly mismatched with peaks in invertebrate food sources. For example, more blue tit chicks will starve, because the caterpillars on which they depend are no longer available. At sea, primary and secondary plankton production is likely to be shifted northwards. There was widespread alarm at the extreme marine heatwave last year, during which seas off the coast of the UK reached up to a horrifying 5°C above normal.
Species that have adapted over thousands of years simply cannot keep up with this perilous, high-speed experiment that we are conducting. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sixth assessment from Working Group II showed that climate change is already
“causing dangerous and widespread disruption in nature”,
so at the very least we need to stop pouring fuel on the fire: no new oil and gas licences, and certainly no new coal mines.
I am deeply concerned that the Government have not only issued licences for oil and gas projects inside our marine protected areas, making a mockery of that designation, but have been ignoring objections from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to new licences on environmental grounds. Ministers need to rapidly speed up the transition to net zero, rather than delaying action in a desperate attempt to stoke a climate culture war. We need to work with nature to tackle this crisis by creating woodland, planting seagrass meadows and rewetting peatlands. That would not only restore vital habitats but lock away carbon.
According to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, those vital carbon sinks contain 2 gigatonnes of carbon—equivalent to four years of the UK’s annual emissions—and yet not only is two thirds of the store unprotected, but much of it is already damaged and degraded. Unforgivably, it continues to be destroyed. The Government have abjectly failed to deliver a complete ban on peat burning. Peat continues to be set alight each year simply so that a wealthy minority can engage in grouse shooting. If we needed a definition of absurdity, that would be one. We need to end that devastating practice, and we need real investment in nature-based solutions, which remain chronically underfunded. That should include a significant uplift to the nature for climate fund, and I hope the Opposition will urgently commit to renew it if they form the next Government.
When it comes to food production, our modern agricultural system, with its industrial processes, use of chemicals and monoculture fields stretching as far as the eye can see, is one of the main causes of biodiversity loss. It is driven by economic pressures and misguided views of so-called progress, which put a huge toll on farming communities and ecosystems alike. Author and farmer James Rebanks described it as like being “sucked into a whirlpool” and “slowly becoming exhausted” in an effort to keep up with so-called modern practices, while supermarkets squeeze profits to an extent that often makes it nigh-on impossible to make profit.
Farmers manage 70% of the land in England and have a vital role to play in addressing the climate and capture crises. The OEP observes that the
“Government will not achieve its ambitions without effective management of the farmed landscape”.
As it stands, the Government’s environmental land management scheme is failing both nature and farmers. First, the current structure of the sustainable farming incentive is leading to a pick-’n’-mix approach that risks directing funding into a very narrow range of low-impact actions.
Secondly, farmers are not being supported to enter the higher-tier schemes. One in five of those who applied for the countryside stewardship higher tier last year was turned away, including because of a lack of resourcing and an absence of a transition pathway for the thousands of farmers in previous agri-environment schemes, who now risk missing out. Thirdly, there is a gaping hole in minimum environmental protections, including for watercourses, soil and hedgerows, now that the cross-compliance regulations have come to an end and it is not clear what will replace them.
ELMs must be urgently reformed with a clear plan for how each scheme will deliver on the UK’s environmental targets and a proper regulatory baseline. The Government must deliver a pay rise for nature by doubling the annual budget for nature-friendly farming and land management. Going beyond that, we need a transformational shift to agroecological ways of farming so that food is produced in harmony with nature. That should include properly incentivising the transition away from harmful pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. I hope Labour will look again at its proposals for how we grow our food, because simply committing to make ELMs work falls short of setting out how the farming budget must be allocated if we are to restore the natural world and produce healthy and nutritious food in the context of the climate and nature emergency.
At sea, we urgently need a ban on industrial fishing in all marine protected areas. The current approach is far too slow and piecemeal to adequately respond to nature’s decline.
Finally, we must not only protect our most important sites but create new habitats and ensure that planning policy on land and sea properly takes nature into account. Despite sites of special scientific interest apparently being the crown jewels of the UK’s nature network, many are in poor or declining condition. According to a recent health check, just 6% of the total land area of our national parks is managed effectively for nature. Throughout the country, that figure reduces to as little as 3% of land and 8% of English seas being well protected for nature. That highlights the enormous gulf in delivering on the 30 by 30 target, regardless of the warm words we hear from Ministers.
If we are to have any chance of restoring nature and achieving our targets, protected landscapes can no longer just be paper parks; they must be thriving ecosystems bursting with life. The designated sites network should be strengthened and expanded, with funding increased and, crucially, targeted towards biodiversity regeneration. There should be a new statutory purpose for national parks and landscapes—formerly areas of outstanding natural beauty—to support nature’s recovery.
I welcome the proposal from the Wildlife and Countryside Link for a 30 by 30 rapid delivery project to ensure that the goal is delivered in less than six years’ time. We need to see better-resourced arm’s length bodies such as Natural England, as has been called for just this week by the chief executive officers of leading nature charities, to ensure that they can do their job for our critical assets and effectively advise the Government.
Lastly, we need to see more connectivity across landscapes, as nature’s decline is also being driven by the fact that those places that do exist for wildlife are too small and fragmented. A brilliant model for how that can be done has been shown by the hugely exciting Weald to Waves project, which aims to create a 100-mile nature-recovery corridor going from the Sussex kelp recovery project near Brighton to the Ashdown forest, with the Knepp estate at its heart. Many of us will have visited the Knepp rewilding project and heard the gentle purr of the turtle dove and the nightingale’s song.
The Green party believes we need to go further. We would introduce a new rights of nature Bill, to recognise that ecosystems have their own rights and to give a voice to nature in law. That would be enforced by a new independent commission for nature, so that the regeneration of nature was at the heart of all policy considerations. We need to look again at an economic model that has ever-increasing extractive GDP growth as its overriding goal rather than the promotion of a thriving natural world and increased wellbeing for us all. As the Dasgupta review urged, we need a change in
“how we think, act and measure economic success to protect and enhance our prosperity and the natural world.”
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. It is extremely frustrating that the economic pack for today’s debate indicates that public expenditure and non-Government spending on UK biodiversity has increased in the past few years, yet many of the problems persist and some are getting worse. Does she agree with me that, in spite of increasing expenditure on the problem, it seems to be getting worse?
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Member’s intervention demonstrates that more resourcing is a necessary but not sufficient component of what we need to see. We need a far more joined-up approach to the natural world. As I have argued, our farming and food system is absolutely integral to making things properly connected.
I am aware of the time, so I will draw my comments to a close by returning briefly to our international commitments. As the Minister knows, countries must publish national biodiversity strategy and action plans ahead of the next UN biodiversity summit in Colombia. The UK’s plan is expected to contain four individual country strategies for each of the four nations, as well as strategies for the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It is understood that the plan could be published and adopted very soon, but, concerningly, there are rumours that the country strategy for England could simply be a repetition of the environmental improvement plan. Such a move would be totally unacceptable given the widespread criticism that the EIP has received, including from the Office for Environmental Protection.
I have asked the Minister many things, but I want to summarise three in particular that I hope she will address in her response to the debate. First, will she confirm today that the Government will publish a bold, co-ordinated and well-resourced plan, with concrete steps to deliver on our international commitments ahead of that key meeting in Colombia? Can she rule out the idea that for England it will simply be a reiteration of the environmental improvement plan? Secondly, I hope the Government will bring the global commitment to reverse nature loss by 2030 into UK law—a move that would be delivered by a new climate and nature Bill. Thirdly, will the Minister outline what will replace the cross-compliance rules? Can she indicate how the gap will be filled?
It is easy to feel overwhelmed by nature’s horrifying decline, yet it is entirely possible to reverse this picture and ensure that our children inherit an earth that is just as rich and vibrant as the one that we once knew, where habitats are restored and biodiversity blooms. But to do so, we need to take urgent steps now, not only to protect what remains but to work to create new wild spaces, and finally to recognise that we are nature, and that what we do to the natural world we ultimately do to ourselves.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
May I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate? I intend to start the wind-ups at 10.25 am to allow Ms Lucas a couple of minutes at the end to sum up. If Members stick to around three minutes as an informal guide, we should get everyone in.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is great to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing a debate on this important issue. I absolutely agree with her that the protection of nature and wildlife is not some nice-to-have optional extra. From the pollinators that enable us grow crops and the marine life that provides our most popular national dish, to the trees that help us to breathe easily in towns and cities, biodiversity is vital for our survival and prosperity. As we have heard this morning, it is also vital for reaching net zero. If we are to have any chance of becoming carbon neutral, we need to plant millions of trees, re-wet peatlands and allow habitats to thrive in many more places.
Natural spaces play a hugely important part in our happiness, wellbeing and health. They are in many ways what makes life worth living. That is why I have always fought to conserve green spaces in my Chipping Barnet constituency. A huge amount of effort is under way to reverse the decline in the natural environment, as we have heard this morning. Much of that work is done under the Environment Act 2021, which I was proud to introduce to Parliament. The 2030 target of halting species loss is hugely important. The Environment Act also includes the toughest rules ever to bear down on the pollution of our rivers and waterways; measures to rid supply chains of illegal deforestation; measures to transform our waste and recycling system; and measures to crack down on litter and fly-tipping, which can so often defile our green and natural spaces and habitats.
While I was at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I also introduced to Parliament the Agriculture Act 2020, which ended the common agricultural policy and replaced it with ELMs schemes to support farmers to protect and enhance habitats. I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion but, despite the drawbacks, that is one of the most important and far-reaching nature-protection measures that has ever been adopted by this country, not least because it opens up a long, ongoing source of significant funding for the protection of nature.
Our exit from the European Union has enabled us to introduce additional protections for the marine environment, most recently to ban the fishing of sand eels in the North sea, which is a significant boost to our puffin population. Our overseas territories make us custodians of one of the largest marine estates in the world. We are taking truly world-leading action, protecting an area of ocean larger than India. Just in January we protected a further 166,000 square kilometres around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
Despite that action there is, of course, still a huge amount to do if we are to meet that 2030 target on nature and the 2050 target on carbon. We need every part of Government to play its part in delivering on those two crucial environmental challenges. I urge Ministers to consider supporting my Bill to ban the sale of horticultural peat in the amateur gardening sector. I also urge the dramatic scaling up of tree-planting rates. We must do all we can to prevent litter and fly-tipping from choking our natural spaces. We also need to protect the green belt from Labour plans to bulldoze it.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing such an important debate.
I am proud to represent a particularly beautiful part of our country in Mid Bedfordshire with, I think, some of the best countryside that Britain has to offer. We take great pride in that countryside across our communities. There are fantastic local conservation groups and charities, and some brilliant work is being done by local parish councils to cherish and really look after the very best of the British countryside.
Our farmers play their part too. Whether they are nurturing the world-famous shallot fields of Clifton Bury farm, pioneering regenerative farming techniques at Southill estate, or rearing fantastic livestock at Browns of Stagsden, our farmers are the real unsung heroes of so much of what makes Bedfordshire special. However, the sad reality is that, in so many ways, these groups are being let down and our countryside is being let down too.
The last 14 years have seen a devastating decline in our biodiversity and local environments. Our rivers alone have seen 778 sewage spills in the past year, and our farmers have been let down by a broken economic policy settlement. The failure to deliver schemes such as ELMs and wider support measures at scale means that, all too often, farmers cannot access the support and funding they need to take care of the countryside that they so desperately want to look after.
It should fall to all of us here today and across Parliament to take ownership of addressing the issue and ensure that we finally act with the urgency that the nature crisis our country is facing demands. Under this Government’s watch, we risk becoming one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, and that should be a scandal to us all. The situation has wide-ranging consequences, too. Communities have seen cherished nature, which has been the backdrop to their lives for generations, diminished. Farmers worry about what the decline of their fragile ecosystems will mean for the future of their business and their much-loved countryside. Even hard-nosed financial institutions across the City are waking up to the real risk now posed to our economy by nature risk, as our great natural assets are eroded.
The shocking report from the Office for Environmental Protection, which has already been mentioned, should be an urgent call to action for us all to redouble our efforts and make sure that our commitments are lived up to and exceeded. That is why I am proud that Labour has underlined our commitment to meeting our targets, to redoubling efforts to make sure that we can halt the decline of nature and species in Britain by 2030, and to ensuring that we meet and live up to our international commitments and protect 30% of the UK’s land and seas for nature by 2030.
A lot of levers will need to be pulled to make all that happen. We will make sure that we finally get a land use framework into effect, allowing us to promote sustainable regenerative farming, reach our climate goals and strengthen ecosystems. We will also take robust action to hold water companies to account, by introducing tough action to stop bonus payments for pollution and ensuring that bosses who continue to oversee law-breaking will face criminal action. The last 14 years have shown a sickening decline in the quality of our waterways right across the country, with not a single river in England rated as being in good health. How on earth can we expect natural life to thrive in such a toxic environment?
While this Government and Parliament continue to stagger on, I urge Ministers to put this time to use. I know that the Parliamentary schedule can get crowded with multiple reset moments, but this really matters, so I urge the Minister to commit today to finally bringing forward the land use framework in this Parliament; to making sure that we finally bring forward legislation and action on water executives’ bonuses; and to make sure that we finally deliver every penny available, from ELMs to wider nature and climate funding, to farmers who desperately need the funds to look after our countryside.
If this Government are not up to that, it will fall to the next Government to act. I am proud to be part of a party that has a proud history of conservation. From setting up our natural parks to opening up our coastal paths and passing the world’s first legislation to tackle climate change, Labour has a lot to be proud of. Should we be asked by the British people at the next election, Labour stands ready to serve our countryside once again.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on introducing this important debate.
Across the globe, nature is collapsing. The UK has lost nearly half its biodiversity since the industrial revolution. We are ranked in the bottom 10% for nature loss and the worst among G7 nations. One in six UK species is at risk of extinction. The Government should be leading the way for nature, for planet and for people, but far too little is done. How can we tell others at COP16 what to do if we are falling so far behind?
This Conservative Government have missed their 2020 targets for sites of special scientific interest; they missed their targets for UK seas to meet “good” environmental status; and they missed their target for 75% of rivers and streams to be in good condition by 2027—just 14% of surface waters in England are in good ecological condition, and 0% are in good overall condition.
We Liberal Democrats would do a lot more. One of our priorities is to introduce a nature Act to restore the natural environment through setting legally binding near and long-term targets for improving air, water, soil and biodiversity, supported by funding of at least £18 billion over the next five years. We will reverse the decline of nature by 2030 and double nature by 2050 by increasing the protected area network from 8% of land to at least 16%. This will double the area of the most important wildlife habitats across England and double the abundance of species in the UK from the current bassline. We will also fund local government to increase the network of local nature reserves to move to a more nature-friendly management policy for council land. Local government has a huge rule to play but can be effective only if resourced properly. I am proud that my council in Bath was the first in the west of England to adopt a policy of biodiversity net gain.
Another of our Liberal Democrat policies is to introduce a right to nature, which would include a new environment rights Act that would recognise everyone’s human right to a healthy environment and guarantee access to environmental justice. Crucially, it would also introduce a duty of care for businesses to protect the environment. Particularly in our urban environments, such as Bath, there is so much opportunity to unlock the potential for nature growth. Bath Organic Group’s gardens exemplify the benefit of community farming for wellbeing and biodiversity.
Liberal Democrat councils have been leading the way on reducing pesticides. In July 2021, my local council in Bath approved a ban on the use of glyphosate, and in the same year Guildford Borough Council passed a motion to become a pesticide-free town, with cross-party support. The overuse of pesticides is destroying many areas used for food by wildlife. We need national standards for limiting pesticides, rather than relying on the work of local authorities.
I recently had the pleasure of attending the St Luke’s church community fair in Bath, and I met many community nature groups such as Friends of the Bloomfield Tumps and Friends of Sandpits Park. They both undertake conservation work to help to improve nature in their local areas. Everyone should also be behind No Mow May. In the UK, since the 1930s we have lost 97% of British wild flower meadows, which are a vital source of food for pollinators such as bees and butterflies. May is the perfect time of the year to leave certain green areas to develop their natural wild flowers and wildlife. It is not too late to reverse the decline in nature, but we must act now.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this important debate. While I think opinion is shifting, it is often forgotten that we face a twin climate and nature emergency. This debate is an important reminder that we cannot tackle one without tackling the other.
I pay tribute to the Rivelin Valley Conservation Group, which I had the privilege of visiting last Friday to see its work to establish a baseline in that river. The Rivelin valley is a beautiful part of Sheffield, and those volunteers are playing a vital role in monitoring the health and biodiversity of the river, which is unfortunately blighted by a number of storm sewage overflows, although it is the healthiest river in Sheffield, which shows how far we have to go to protect our incredibly important rivers.
Citizen science like that is a testament to the value that my community and communities across the country place on the preservation and conservation of the environment and the restoration of nature, but these efforts are not being matched by the Government. As other Members have said, the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, with one in six species at risk of extinction. When they are gone, they are truly gone—yet the Office for Environmental Protection tells us that the Government are not on track to deliver the nature recovery that we so desperately need.
One of the key issues on which the Government are failing is land management. My constituency opens out into the Peak district and several peatland habitats. Peatlands have been called Britain’s rainforests, with landscapes covering 15% of the UK. Healthy peatlands are rare, fragile ecosystems that are home to an abundance of wildlife. As a species champion for the hen harrier, I could talk about raptor persecution for my whole speech, but I want to focus on the importance of landscapes. They are also carbon sinks, storing more carbon than all the forests in the UK, France and Germany put together. Damaged peatlands release carbon into the atmosphere and water, emitting the same amount annually as the UK’s entire aviation industry and deepening the climate emergencies.
Colleagues may know that I have been campaigning to prevent heather burning on peatlands, as the fires damage the peat and burn the moss that grows on top. The moss is really important not only for nature, but in preventing floods and helping with natural flood mitigation. Rather than burning, we need to re-wet and restore our peatland ecologies so that they can thrive.
It is important to recognise that more needs to be done to produce Britain’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan. I hope that that will happen and put on track the Government’s commitment to 30 by 30, but we need more than pledges; we need concrete plans and action. That is why I am a firm supporter of the Climate and Nature Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), which builds on the Climate and Ecology Bill that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and I tabled. I hope the Government will take it seriously. If I had more time I would continue, but I will stop there.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this important debate. England was once a country brimming with wildlife, from bees and butterflies to birds and beavers, but within a few generations everything has changed. Now, time spent in the countryside is often a different experience. The landscape may be green, but it is all but empty. Biodiversity is decreasing: the World Wildlife Fund’s “Living Planet” report in 2022 found that wildlife populations had decreased by an average of 69% in the past 50 years.
I am proud to come from Somerset. The county is well known for its stunning nature and diverse range of landscapes, from the Mendip hills to the Somerset levels and moors. Somerset is also proud to be home to many farming communities, but we are really susceptible to the effects of climate change because of the county’s low-lying moorland. We have witnessed heavy flooding over recent years. It is all having a devastating impact on our communities and our wildlife.
Farming and biodiversity are intertwined. It is of the utmost importance that hard-working farmers are supported in their efforts to protect and increase biodiversity. Intensive agriculture has been a key driver of biodiversity loss, but that must change. Part of tackling those problems begins by making sure that British farmers get a fair deal and are adequately supported in their efforts to increase biodiversity, because if British farms are financially secure, they can do more to protect nature. That is why the Liberal Democrats would add £1 billion to the ELMS budget to help farms and nature thrive.
Communities are taking action. I am looking forward to the inaugural LandAlive sustainable food and farming conference at the Bath and West showground in November. I have met many farmers across my constituency who have demonstrated to me the benefits that biodiversity brings to their farms, such as the protection of the shrill carder bee, which was once widespread in the south of England but is now limited to just five areas in my constituency around Somerton and Castle Cary. Recorded numbers highlight their decline: just seven were recorded in 2022. Bee numbers are affected by climate change, flooding, loss of genetic diversity and pesticide usage.
Despite this fall in numbers, the Government have authorised the emergency use of damaging neonic pesticides for the fourth year in a row. The national pollinator strategy is due for renewal this year. I hope the Government listen to the criticism of the current strategy and implement a more comprehensive approach that considers the impact on all pollinator species.
I echo the calls for a national invertebrate strategy. Habitat destruction is one of the greatest threats that insects face—for instance, 97% of all flower-rich grassland has been lost in the past 50 years—but local action can be taken to restore diverse habitats. One such measure is the creation of a new 460-acre nature reserve near Bruton called Heal Somerset, which aims to tackle the nature and climate crises while creating new jobs for local people and businesses, alongside designing and delivering projects with the local community. This rewilding project will increase insect numbers and encourage the growth of more plants, including new saplings, while bringing a greater abundance and diversity of species.
The Liberal Democrats want to support such initiatives by introducing a nature Act that would restore the land’s natural environment by setting legally binding near and long-term targets for improving water, air and soil biodiversity. Protecting biodiversity requires action that protects and proliferates best practice among all who use the land. A rapid transition that supports British farmers, builds strong, long-term food security, restores biodiversity and ensures we all reach our net zero targets is crucial.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As always, Ms Rees, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this debate. I am sure both of us could spend hours in this Chamber going through all the various aspects of biodiversity loss, but I will not repeat what she has said. I agree with almost all of it.
As the parliamentary species champion for the swift, I am very pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned swifts— I know she shares my enthusiasm. All around the country, local swift groups are welcoming their return. The hon. Lady will know that my sister runs the Save Wolverton Swifts group, which had a party in the streets to welcome the swifts back last week. It really is an iconic species, and we must do all we can to restore its habitat.
We are pressed for time, so I want to focus on a few specific questions for the Minister. The Office for Environmental Protection has warned in its annual report that the Government remain largely off track to meet their environmental ambitions: they are on track for a dismal four out of 40 of their environmental targets. Simply put, the conclusion was that it is not clear whether the Government’s plans stack up.
The position is very similar for the Government’s climate plans: they were taken to court just a couple of weeks ago, and once again they lost because their plans are inadequate. There is absolutely no point in waxing lyrical about their ambitions and targets unless there are plans to match it. What I am not quite clear about is what happens when the OEP issues such warnings on the inadequacy of the Government’s plans. Does that mean that DEFRA now has to do better? Who is holding its feet to the fire? Will it require court cases from organisations such as ClientEarth to do so?
I also want to focus on nature-based solutions to climate change. There is huge benefit in restoring biodiversity and helping with carbon sequestration. I echo what others have said about the huge importance of peatlands. Rather than sequestering carbon, as they could be doing, they are currently releasing it into the atmosphere, because they are not being treated properly.
There is also the issue of nutrient neutrality. The natural environment can play a huge role in climate adaptation, with things like rewilding rivers and planting more trees in strategic places. What I am not clear on is where the lead from the Government is. Biodiversity net gain will be crucial, but so will developing credible carbon markets. All these things are co-benefits. I will end on this point: can the Minister tell us whether there is cross-departmental working so that we can ensure investment into nature-based solutions? That will protect those natural environments in perpetuity, I hope.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this debate. I have said it before and I will say it again: she is the environmental conscience of us all in this House. She brings forward issues that we all support. I should qualify that, by the way: I do not always agree with everything, but there are many things that she brings forward that I support. I thank her for that.
It is good news that the Government are committed to halting the decline in species abundance and protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030. As with our net zero targets, we must ensure the correct strategies are in place to achieve that. I am here to discuss how Northern Ireland can play its part. I always bring a Northern Ireland perspective to these debates. I am ever mindful that the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I believe in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland working together to achieve many goals that are helpful for us all.
At the end of 2023, it was revealed that Northern Ireland is one of the most nature-depleted areas in the world, according to the 2023 “State of Nature” report. I was shocked to learn that 12% of species assessed across Northern Ireland are at threat of extinction, which is what the debate is about, and the hon. Lady set the scene well. The report revealed that the abundance of farmland bird species has on average fallen by 43% since 1996. It also found a 14% decrease in the number of flowering plants in Northern Ireland since 1973, so there is lots for us to do in Northern Ireland, and we have some targets that the Department back home—the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—can try to achieve. Among the species that have been identified as at risk of extinction are the basking shark, the Atlantic salmon and the Irish damselfly —the first two being native to Northern Irish and Republic waters. We have been hearing recently about blue-green algae appearing in Northern Ireland waters. Lough Neagh, the biggest freshwater lake in the UK, has been severely affected in particular.
Having healthy seas will help to regulate the climate and reduce the negative impacts. I represent the fairly coastal and agricultural constituency of Strangford, which is full of biodiversity, and that is why I am a great supporter of preserving nature and taking those small but necessary steps to protect it. There needs to be a joint approach and effort throughout the United Kingdom and further afield to do so. I declare an interest as a landowner and member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union. We have planted on our land and farm some 3,500 trees and created two ponds for habitats. We have retained the hedgerows to ensure that the young birds, butterflies and insects can thrive. We have also been told to, and we have to, control the magpies, crows and foxes. We try to keep that balance in the countryside, and we are doing that—hopefully—fairly well.
I have also been involved in a project for black bees. Irish black bees are almost extinct, but they are coming back. Chris and Valentine Hodges have been instrumental in that. There are three estates close to us that have them, and we have them at our farm as well. Irish black bees are coming back because people are making an effort.
Having sustainable habitats protects species, as they have the environmental conditions and resources needed to survive. It is understood that DEFRA has a target to create and restore some 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats. We have seen this year especially a drastic increase in the amount of rainfall. Of course, the rainfall has been enormous these past three months, but there has not been a lot in other years. Changing weather patterns alter the seasonal timing of certain species’ life-cycles and can lead to ecological mismatches. On habitat loss, level rise will affect coastal habitats through saltwater intrusion and erosion.
There are recommendations for improvement, which include setting targets we can meet, ensuring robust monitoring, and co-ordinating a joint approach across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure that as a collective we can tackle biodiversity loss. I praise the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion for the work she has done on the matter. I am keen to learn more about what steps we can take to preserve nature, and so I look to the Minister for answers on how we can do it much better.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Before I call Alex Sobel, I would like to thank all Back-Bench speakers for sticking within the informal time limit—I appreciate it.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing the debate and for mentioning and supporting my Climate and Nature Bill, which gets its Second Reading on Friday. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for bringing forward the Climate and Ecology (No. 2) Bill, of which the Climate and Nature Bill is an iteration. If I am not successful on Friday, I am sure that we will see future iterations of the Bill as the matter has so much support across the House.
The covid-19 pandemic laid bare the interdependence of people and nature. It is no longer possible to deny the fact that human health is linked to our use and abuse of the environment. The biodiversity crisis is a cultural, social and economic one. As humans, we are not simply observers of nature but an integral part of it. We need an approach that collaborates across Departments, sectors and nations to even begin to save our natural environment.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people understand a lot more about the concept of net zero, and therefore combining net zero with nature loss is so important for bringing people emotionally on side?
Alex Sobel
I thank the hon. Lady, who serves alongside me on the net zero all-party parliamentary group. She has foreshadowed what I was going to say next: nature is essential to the future of all, and yet environmental degradation occurs disproportionately in, or around, low-income areas where a high percentage of people of colour live. Our approach must ensure a thriving natural environment for all.
The House probably knows that I have a long history of raising the subject of insects. In fact, I introduced the first insect population loss debate in 2019, in this Chamber. I think it was the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) who provided the ministerial response to that debate, and she will be responding to this one as well. I wanted to call it insectageddon; unfortunately, the House authorities would not allow such a title. Sadly, we remain in the same position on insect loss. The decline in insect populations is one of the lesser-known tragedies of the human effect on the environment. Where insects go, all other species follow.
Let’s not mince our words: the rise in the human population and the loss of pollinating insects sets us on a road of cyclical starvation. We will lose the production of some crops, particularly those best for health and wellbeing. The role that insects play in food security is pivotal. Dung beetles, for example, save the cattle industry an estimated £367 million a year. The national pollinator strategy is set to be updated this year. There has been a successful educational piece on the role of bees in food security, but we need to go further and highlight the impact that invertebrates have, too. I hope the Minister can address that point.
Education will also be central to mending the heartbreaking lack of care that humans have for the natural environment. There are countless young people in particular who have shown outstanding leadership in this area, and I thank them for their bravery. Lots of organisations, as well as the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I used to sit, have noted that changes could be made to the school curriculum. For example, a new GCSE in natural history would teach children and young people skills in observing, naming and recording nature. There is a significant skills gap in ecology, which means that devolved and local authorities are simply unable to prevent further losses, let alone increase biodiversity. Adding this GCSE to the curriculum, which is to be done by 2025, will create a skilled workforce that can go into jobs in the natural world.
The practical skills that curriculum and skills initiatives provide are just one side of nature education. The second is encouraging people, not just young people but the whole population, to experience, celebrate and learn about nature in a holistic way. People are spending less and less time outdoors, and we know that this lack of connection results in a lack of appreciation of, and value placed on, nature. We can change that by improving access to nature in both urban and rural areas through, for example, expanding initiatives such as forest education schools—particularly to areas of high deprivation, where we know that children virtually never visit the environment. To build on that, we could create a national nature service so that young people can experience nature jobs and think about working in ecology in the broadest sense.
I spoke briefly about tackling green skills shortages through nature education, but the UK must set out how it will fund these skills. No matter how many well-intentioned speeches we hear about the need to create green jobs, if there are no proper financial incentives, then devolved and local authorities will simply be unable to help us to reach the 2030 goals that we signed up to at Kunming-Montreal.
We cannot decouple the crisis that the natural world faces from the economic crisis and the climate crisis. Economies are embedded in, rather than external to, nature. When we recognise that, it becomes blatantly obvious that depleting nature risks the health and wellbeing of everyone. What this demands, then, is a fundamental and transformational change of how we measure economic success. GDP does not take into account the depreciation of natural assets, despite the natural environment being the key decider of our future success. If we do not move into inclusive wealth measurement, we will continue running ourselves into the ground, destroying more and more of the natural environment. At their core, economies do not value the natural world and therefore cannot address biodiversity loss.
People should have the right to experience the benefits of nature and a healthy environment, and the right to play a meaningful role in restoring and protecting that environment. The crises we face—of poor mental health, food shortages, conflicts and socioeconomic inequality—are all connected, and nature is the key intersection. We must tackle the nature crisis.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this important debate on biodiversity loss.
We can be in no doubt that biodiversity loss and the biodiversity emergency are intrinsically linked to the climate crisis. Scotland’s outstanding natural environment is one of our country’s greatest assets and it is something that every Scot is rightly proud of. We must do everything we possibly can to protect it.
Our nature attracts millions of visitors each and every year, and supports our exports of high-quality produce, as well as protecting those who produce it for us. Maintaining this resource is vital to Scotland’s continued success and it is critical that we manage the water environment to ensure that the needs of our society, economy and environment can be met for future generations to come. Restoring this natural environment is a key way to address the twin challenges of nature loss and climate change. That includes many of the interventions championed by the Scottish Rewilding Alliance, which is doing some fantastic work up the road.
The SNP’s £65 million nature restoration fund has committed nearly £40 million since 2021 to unlock the full potential that nature restoration projects can bring to local communities. The fund has supported local businesses to boost nature tourism, helped landowners with pollinator projects to boost local food production, and supports river and woodland restoration.
In the last five years alone, Scotland has contributed to around 75% of new woodlands across the United Kingdom. Scotland’s stunning national parks also bring significant benefits to the local communities they serve through collaborative working to support thriving local economies, maximising the benefits of the environment, the climate, the economy and the local people. In 2022, nearly £450 million was generated in local economies through visitor and tourism businesses. Our parks also play a key role in supporting our farmers and crofters, working with them to develop and deliver collaborative, nature-friendly, carbon-neutral projects and practices.
The SNP Scottish Government’s recently published Scottish biodiversity strategy sets out how key sectors will deliver work to combat biodiversity loss, including in planning, agriculture, forestry and water management. The delivery plan sets out the actions needed to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and to reverse biodiversity declines by 2045, with action needed across the whole range of Government, business and of course local society. The plan presents a nature-positive vision for Scotland, one in which biodiversity is regenerating and underpinning a healthy and thriving economy and society, playing the key role that is so important in addressing climate change. The SBS will be implemented through a series of delivery plans, covering a five-year period.
Scotland’s rivers define our iconic landscapes. From mountain tributaries to estuaries flowing into the oceans, they provide vital water and rich habitats, helping us to adapt to global threats, including climate change and water scarcity. The SNP has many innovative initiatives under way in Scotland to nurture, improve and protect our rivers. Since 2021, the Scottish Government’s nature restoration fund has awarded in excess of £2.3 million for projects to restore and revive river habitats, and to improve their resilience to climate change. We are working closely with partners to develop integrated catchment management techniques to restore rivers and to improve natural flood management measures.
Over the past decade, Scottish Water has reduced environmental pollution incidents by 60%—they are down from 800 in recent years to 300 this year—despite increasingly challenging weather patterns. It has also invested £880 million in targeted improvements to environmental quality.
We are clear that Scotland remains fully committed to achieving our net zero targets by 2045. We are already around halfway there and continue to decarbonise faster than the UK average. The SNP is utterly focused on and committed to tackling the climate emergency.
Of course, the Climate Change Committee has advised that the 2030 target set by the UK Parliament is beyond what it considers to be achievable. That is disappointing news. However, its latest report also contains much to be proud of. Scotland has made strong progress to date, with emissions cut in half and, as I have said, it is decarbonising faster than the UK average.
Between 1990 and 2021, Scotland’s emissions halved, while the economy grew by 57%. That clearly demonstrates that a thriving economy and falling emissions are not just compatible but can actually support each other. We will continue to help businesses and investors through the development of a new green industrial strategy, so that the people of Scotland can share in the enormous economic opportunities of the global transition to net zero.
By contrast, the UK Government are falling behind in the global race to reap the economic benefits of the race to net zero, and have failed to rise to the challenges set by the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States and those set by our European partners. Collectively, we need to seize the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment and implement the robust measures that are required. It is time to lead by example in the fight to preserve our planet’s biodiversity.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this much-needed debate, and on the recent publication of her book on this issue. I am not sure whether this will be the last time I get an opportunity to respond to her, so I congratulate her on the contribution that she has made over the 14 years that she has been in Parliament and wish her well for all that she does in the future.
It has been an incredibly important and valuable debate, and I am really grateful to everyone who has contributed to it. The fact that we have had to limit people’s speaking time shows that this subject enjoys a great deal of interest in this place. Indeed, we could have had a debate that was twice as long and still had much more to say. It has been incredibly valuable.
I will reflect on a few of the contributions to the debate, both at the start of my speech and as I go through my remarks. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion made the crucial point that we are inextricably linked to nature, and that the success of the human race and the success of our natural environment go absolutely hand in hand: we should not see them as being in conflict. The approach that the Labour party will take, and that we must all take as a society, is to recognise the need for us to work together. She also talked about the reintroduction of species such as beavers, which I feel very strongly about. We need to see a greater focus on that. We had a very interesting debate yesterday on species decline, and that is just one area.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who was undaunted by making the only substantive Conservative Back-Bench contribution, made a number of important points, one of which was to reflect on the importance of the Environment Act. One point that has come across strongly in this debate is that it is all very well to have targets, but if we have legally binding targets that we do not achieve, they simply become a fig leaf to cover the Government’s lack of performance and activity. She also highlighted the importance of the British overseas territories. I do not think that other Members made that point, but it was certainly made strongly yesterday and needs to be taken seriously.
Wera Hobhouse
I have just been at an infrastructure committee meeting, where the point was made that the Government can break the law. Would the Prime Minister go to court? No, he would not, so we need a Government who are seriously committed to the targets that we set ourselves and put into law, and who are not just paying lip service to that commitment.
Mr Perkins
I thank the hon. Lady for that point. I will say more on COP shortly, but it is incredibly important. It would be hugely damaging if, as a result of the Prime Minister’s endless delaying of the general election, Britain’s contribution to COP16 became lost amidst the election, which could take place at a similar time. I will press the Minister on what the Government’s approach to that will be.
As many colleagues have rightly noted, our country is now one of the most nature-depleted in the world, which has devastating consequences for us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) reflected on the fact that not a single river in Britain is in good condition. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke about the positive work that is being done in the Rivelin valley in her area, as well as about the challenges faced by those who are passionate about maintaining the high quality of that river.
I am sure that when the Minister responds she will point, as she did yesterday, to the binding targets of the Environment Act. We are constantly told how ground- breaking they are—but setting legally binding targets that the Government then fail to meet is not cause for a lap of honour. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked some important questions on that. We have legally binding targets. What is the response of the Government and what are the opportunities for people to hold the Government to account if they fail to make those targets by 2030 and if, as currently, they are not on track to achieve those targets? What is the purpose of a legally binding target that a Government then go on to miss?
One in six species in the United Kingdom are at risk of extinction. Other people have referred to the Office for Environmental Protection’s report. The Government are off-track to meet all of their commitments on nature and the environment, including their goals to halt biodiversity loss. The biodiversity targets agreed at COP10 were missed by a country mile, and we are yet to see the Government’s plan for meeting the Montreal framework targets agreed at COP15. Just 3% of our land and 8% of our seas is currently protected for nature. It is crucial that the Government’s plans live up to the size of this moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) has set out Labour’s commitment to the targets in the Environment Act. We will look to deliver where the Conservatives have failed, including halting the decline of British species by 2030, and will be committed to honouring the international agreement to protect 30% of the UK’s land and seas for nature by 2030. We must be clear that our country cannot achieve the targets that have been set by continuing on the course that it is currently charting. Labour will review the environmental improvement plan and take steps to get Britain back on track.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the importance of habitats, such as wetlands, peat bogs and forests, both for families to explore and for wildlife to thrive. Keeping those nature-rich environments at the forefront of our mind is very much within Labour’s approach.
The Government have a target to bring 70,000 hectares of ancient woodland in timber plantations into restoration by 2030. That is an ambitious target. We support it. Last year, they brought just one hectare of these irreplaceable habitats into restoration. It is simply not good enough. As a country, we are not on target for what we have already committed to.
Farmers are the custodians of habitats in all four corners of the United Kingdom. They know and cherish the land they work like nobody else, and in many cases they plough the same furrow for generations. The Labour party respects the crucial role played by farmers and farming communities. Government must do much more to support farmers moving to different practices that carve out a role for nature alongside their crucial role in food production.
Several Members mentioned the failure of the environmental land management scheme. Some suggested more money is needed. The truth is that the Government are not even spending the money that they have currently allocated. As for going to the Treasury and demanding more money for ELMs, the first response will be, “Spend the money that you have currently got.” That will be the No. 1 priority for a future Labour Government.
The number of farmland birds has reduced by 50% since 1970, while more than a third of nutrient pollution in rivers is caused by agricultural run-off, making it all the more insane that we have all this unspent money in the ELMs budget. Farmers want to make these changes. They value the natural environments in which they live and work, but they often face impossible choices. This year, we have seen crops washed away and farmhouses become islands in torrential downpours. A staggering 82% of respondents to the National Farmers Union survey said that their farm business had suffered negatively owing to the weather, and yet the Government’s response has been far too pedestrian, given the size of the crisis facing farmers.
Ensuring that ELMs delivers for farmers is a crucial priority, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) said, so will the Minister explain why so much money allocated for farming transition is being sent back to the Treasury unspent? Will she confirm whether the Government will publish the land use framework before the general election?
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire, I am proud to represent the party that created national parks 75 years ago. That achievement shows the progressive changes that only a Labour Government can deliver. However, a recent report by the Campaign for National Parks found that just 6% of land in national parks is being managed effectively for nature. At the same time, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, only a third of sites of special scientific interest are currently in good condition. Those sites are actually in worse condition than national parks. That is utterly perverse, and reflects a failure of policy and a betrayal of the intentions set out by the post-war Labour Administration. Protected sites ought to be where nature particularly thrives, and must be the cornerstone of any strategy to restore biodiversity in the UK.
The nature crisis is global, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said, so we must be clear about the need to collaborate with international partners. The UK played a positive role in ensuring that the crucial commitment to nature recovery enshrined in the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework becomes reality. The UK should be a leader on the global stage when it comes to the environment and nature. I have to say that under the current Prime Minister, there has been far less of a commitment than there was under Boris Johnson. Since Montreal, the Government have shown very little interest in making good on that momentum. They have failed to deliver their targets domestically or on the international stage. A Labour Government will take on that mantle and drive international agreement and collaboration.
Will the Government treat the forthcoming COP16 with the urgency and seriousness it warrants? Does the Minister agree that it would be a tragedy if one of the impacts of the delayed general election was that Britain failed to focus on its contribution to Colombia because COP16 coincided with a general election campaign?
The need to tackle this crisis is urgent. Under Labour, we will have a Government who recommit to the environmental improvement plan targets, tackle the failure in our water industry and support farmers to play their crucial role in a way that boosts, rather than depletes nature. We will grow nature-rich habitats, get the environmental land management scheme working and end the failure that has resulted in too much being unspent. Finally, we will bring forward the land use framework and support farmers and communities by creating a flood resilience taskforce. Change is coming, Ms Rees. It cannot come a moment too soon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. You are keeping everyone to time—excellent.
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this debate. I expect no less of her: this is the kind of subject that we have heard her speaking about, certainly throughout the time that I have been in Parliament. Although we have our differences, we have certainly had a great deal in common over all these years, so I thank her for her work as she leaves this place.
We had an impassioned debate on biodiversity in Westminster Hall yesterday, in which a great many Conservative colleagues spoke. Like this debate, it was very full. Although we have our differences, we are all singing from the same hymn sheet of loving nature and knowing that it is intrinsically part of how we live. We know we cannot deal with the climate crisis and climate adaptation without tackling biodiversity and nature. That is a given, and it is something I have worked on since I have been in Parliament.
I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) held the first debate on insects, because I held the first debate on soil, of which I am very proud. That is firmly on the agenda now: we are paying farmers to look after their soil. We have made so much progress.
We know that half the global economy depends on nature and biodiversity. There are many reasons for looking after it, but that one is important. We have heard some stark stats about the disaster—we know that—which is why we must do something about it. It is not a question of shall we do something about biodiversity; it is an absolute must.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion called for a decade of action. She was suggesting that nothing had happened and that everything was terribly negative, but has she been listening? We have made enormous progress on that agenda in the past decade, at home and on the international stage—one cannot do one without the other. The critical thing is that the Government have done more than any other Government, which is to set the framework that we must have. We cannot tackle this with individual, itsy-bitsy pots; we need a framework. That is why it was so important to introduce the Environment Act—many of us present were involved in that. It is a globally changing Act, and no other Government have produced such an Act. That sets the framework.
We have passed legislation to protect our environment. We legislated and set a target for restoring nature by 2030. One can criticise that all one likes, but the target is challenging and legally binding. We have four legally binding biodiversity targets. We also have legally binding tree targets and we have targets in a number of other areas, such as water and air. The structure is there, as is the framework for how we will get there.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the Minister for her kind comments, but a number of us have made the point again and again that targets on their own are not sufficient, if we do not meet them. It is not just us saying that; her own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, says that we are only on target with four out of 40, and that the prospect of meeting targets and commitments is “largely off track”. I put it to the Minister that yes, some progress has been made, but overall we are massively off track. Her tone, frankly, strikes me as rather complacent.
Rebecca Pow
I have to take issue with that, because I am trying to say that we have the framework and targets in place. The OEP came out with a somewhat critical report, but it will have better evidence next time. We will produce the next environment improvement plan in the summer, and it will only be the second one. As the hon. Lady knows, this is tricky and complicated. We have teams of people working in DEFRA, such as biodiversity experts, and scientists feeding in on whether these are the right targets and how we will hit them, as well as advising us on how to set policy to get to the targets. A huge amount of work feeds into that. We are working closely with the OEP to ensure that it has the right data and evidence so that it can see the trajectory to the targets. I am not saying it is easy, but we have the plan.
I want to talk about some of the things that we are doing to make progress. We have to tackle this from every angle: for example, we have to create and restore habitats, and connect wildlife-rich habitats. We have to tackle the pressures on biodiversity and pollution and we have to take action for species. We have an overall nature recovery plan for large-scale habitat creation. That includes a number of schemes, and Natural England is working on building on that.
Nature-based solutions are a big part of that—they have been mentioned and are important. Only last year, we launched a new £25 million fund for nature-based solution projects. We are using nature-based solutions in a whole range of ways, such as flood control, biodiversity and sequestration. A huge amount of work is going on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) recognised the complexities and the need to look at this from every single angle, which is why—as many have said today—our farmers are so important.
Farmers and landowners farm 70% of our land. We had a really successful Farm to Fork event yesterday in No. 10, with some positive outcomes. The farmers understand their role in producing sustainable, secure food supplies, but that must be linked to environmental recovery and protection. That is what all our new schemes are completely focused on, and they are world leading.
Theresa Villiers
One of the most alarming aspects of the nature crisis is the collapse in insect populations. It would be good to understand from the Minister what key things the Government are doing on that, including through the ELM scheme.
Rebecca Pow
That has been raised by many. We have a bee unit in DEFRA working on that, with our bee pollinator strategy, and on invasives such as the Asian hornet. We have to tackle all those issues. That is why integrated pest management is one of the planks of the new sustainable farming initiative. That pays farmers to do other things so that they do not have to use pesticides, such as use bio-controls, which I do in my own garden because I garden organically. That initiative is on a big scale and also harnesses technology and innovation. For example, if it is necessary to spray, just spot spray.
All of that technology is moving forward. Farmers are moving with us and being paid to do it. We have guaranteed the funds that they got from the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet was there when we announced all the new schemes at DEFRA. Leaving the CAP gave us a huge opportunity to do something completely different. That is under way and we have had 22,000 farmers sign up to our sustainable farming initiative already. It is the most successful scheme DEFRA has ever run, and it will increase.
Countrywide stewardship is still running and we have increased the payments. We are looking all the time at how the actions will operate and what we need to deliver those targets. I say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion that we are looking at this all the time, and feeding it in to work out how we can hit the targets and deliver the food. That is very much what we are doing.
Peatland was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and peat areas are hugely degraded. We know we have to focus on this area, so we have a special fund for that from our nature for climate fund. We have a target to restore 35,000 hectares by 2030 and we have already done 27,000 hectares. Great projects are going on all over the country, including in Somerset. Somerset, including the Somerset Wildlife Trust, has huge benefit from millions of pounds from these funds. They are doing good work, with the farmers and the Government, to restore these precious environments, though we need to do more.
We also have the species survival fund. Some individual species need special habitats, so we have a fund for them. We are restoring habitat in an area equivalent to the size of York to deal with certain species—on chalk rivers, coasts, coastal marshes and plains, including in Dorset. I went to Bucklebury Common and saw heathland being restored, where adders and nightjars are returning. With the right management, we are getting those creatures to come back.
National nature reserves were mentioned. Yes, they are a cornerstone; they are critical to delivering our target of 30% of protected land. We have 219 national nature reserves, and in 2023 and 2024 we created another three, with another three on the cards. Those are cornerstones, with farmers working in them as well, helping us to deliver nature. I say to our Scottish friends, who tell us how good they are on biodiversity, that they could look at why they have cut their tree-planting grants enormously. That is going to have a huge effect in Scotland.
There are other measures, such as local nature recovery strategies, that are being worked on. They will help to inform us where we want the nature—what should go where—and they are already under way. Biodiversity net gain is a game changer and, again, globally leading. To legislate so that every development has to put back 10% more nature than was there when they started is a game changer.
I must mention swift bricks because I am a huge swift lover. Yellowhammers are one of my favourite birds and we are getting them back through the hedgerow protections we have just introduced. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion made a good point about swifts. We have been talking to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about that. Many developers are already doing swift bricks. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) mentioned it, and her planning authority could specify that it wants developments to have swift bricks. These things can already be done and I urge people to do them. There is a biodiversity metric on swift bricks. That is how developers work out the biodiversity net gain they must add. For example, they are looking at swift bricks and how many points they would get in the metric to see if they can get that into the net gain tool, so that piece of work is definitely under way.
Mr Perkins
I will be quick. I do not want the Minister to miss the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). She keeps referring to legally binding targets. What happens in the event that the Government do not meet those targets?
Rebecca Pow
The point is that we have legally binding targets and a remit to report on them, so everything that we are doing is so that we can drive towards our targets. We have targets and carbon budgets, and we report all the time. That is how we work; we will aim to hit our targets, and the OEP will hold us to account on that. Do not forget that it was this Government who set up the Office for Environmental Protection to have a body to hold us to account. Again, that is a game changer.
We have something called a species abundance indicator, which is the official statistic telling us how we are doing on our species. We need that so we can work out how we are getting to our targets. We published the official statistic last Friday, and I urge people to have a look at that. It is a complicated tool, covering 670 species used as indicators of how we are doing on our targets and informed by an expert committee. Although there are real problems, it said that the indicators show promising progress towards levelling off. That was announced last week, and I urge hon. Members and hon. Friends to look at that.
I will move on to the international stage, which everybody has mentioned and is absolutely critical. We are considered world leaders working on the international stage. Many hon. Members here have taken part in the various COPs, and we have COP16 coming up. The UK was at the forefront of the international efforts to agree the landmark Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. We have also legislated to halt and reverse biodiversity loss in this country and we are putting our money where our mouth is. Nobody is saying that it is easy.
We are working on our UK biodiversity strategy right now, and it should be published in the summer. The overseas territories are a really important part of that and of our nature, which was mentioned. They contain 94% of our nature. I chaired a meeting just yesterday with all the OTs, even those as far as the Pitcairn Islands and St Helena. They all joined that meeting, because they are all working on their biodiversity strategies; we will put those together and they will be published. The UK national biodiversity strategy and action plan was mentioned by many hon. Members, and it will be published imminently. It is UK-wide, and I will just put it out there that the devolved Administrations must play their part and agree their bit. It is important and we want to get it out.
Before I finish, I must touch on finance. Climate finance and international nature finance are critical: we cannot do any of this without getting that right. We have a green finance strategy across Government. A question was asked about if we worked across Government, and we are working on how we get the nature funding flowing around the world. We have already committed £11 billion in our climate finance commitment. I will wind up there, apart from saying that oil and gas were raised in the debate. Some 47% of our energy last year came from renewables, and an enormous shift has happened under this Government. I thank everyone for taking part in the debate. We understand that this is a crisis, but this Government have set us on the pathway to addressing it.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Caroline Lucas, you have just under one minute.
Caroline Lucas
Which is not enough time to be able to respond to what I have heard, Ms Rees. I thank all hon. Members for sharing their concerns. Some key themes have come up again and again, one of which is around peatlands and why on earth we are still setting fire to peat, which makes no sense at all. Can we please take that away?
We have talked a lot about targets, but not about delivery plans to actually meet those targets, and as far as I could hear we still have no answer on what happens when legally binding targets are not met. I do not know if that means that we would have to take the Government to court again—that is becoming a bit of a routine, but if necessary I am sure that it will be done. I want to ensure that we do not have fossil fuel extraction in marine protected areas, and again, that just seems to be madness. At the end of the day, I want the Minister to take back to her Department and others across Government that this issue is so urgent, and while I know she cares about it, there is complacency. That needs to be addressed. We need urgent action, and we need it now.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
No Recourse to Public Funds
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
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of no recourse to public funds
Diolch yn fawr, Ms Rees. It really is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for this short debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the no recourse to public funds conditions, which I am aware have been discussed previously in Parliament. For example, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who is the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, made a number of requests of the Government a year ago, most of which have not been addressed, hence the fundamental need to continue pressing the Government to recognise and react to the hardships caused by no recourse to public funds. It is inhumane, it is cruel, and it is forcing some of the most vulnerable people into poverty and hardship.
I sought this debate because I was inspired, as we so often are in this place, by a meeting with a local constituent who is in need of support and whom I believe has been failed by the current system. My constituent accompanied her husband to Wales as a student, also bringing their children, several years ago. An unfortunate and unexpected diagnosis of a serious health issue compromised their ability to work and be self-sufficient, so the constituent has no recourse to public funds and has been reliant on a local charity for support with housing and other costs, but that too has now ended due to a lack of funds. We are living in a cost of living crisis, and the family is struggling on a daily basis, unable to pay rent, utilities and bills. We as an office have supported the family as much as possible with food bank vouchers and by co-ordinating with local churches. We should not have to do that. They should not have to come to us for help and support; it should be provided as a basic need and right wherever and however people come to our country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter). Does she agree that we must ensure that anyone who has a right to be in this country has access to food and medical care, no matter what form that right to be here takes, and that there is a basic level of moral obligation that anyone in this nation should expect to be fulfilled?
Beth Winter
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I wholeheartedly agree. It is a moral duty for us as human beings to provide the basics for anybody to survive. I am very aware of the detrimental impact that no recourse to public funds has on the health and wellbeing of far too many people. The exclusion of people with a no recourse to public funds restriction from the benefits system increases their risk of living in destitution and puts significant pressure on local authority services. Millions of people—an estimated 2.6 million at the end of 2022—resident in the UK with temporary leave to remain are subject to no recourse to public funds conditions, which prevent them from accessing most welfare benefits and social housing. The cost of living crisis has affected people across the country, but increases in energy bills and food prices have a greater impact on low-income households.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Two years ago, the Government committed to a consultation of permanently extending the Healthy Start scheme to households with no recourse to public funds. However, the consultation has still not happened. Does my hon. Friend agree that that delay from the Government is shameful, and that the Healthy Start scheme that provides families with support to get food and milk for young children should be permanently extended to those subject to no recourse to public funds as a matter of urgency, as called for by organisations such as Feeding Liverpool, the Food Foundation and Sustain?
Beth Winter
I fully agree with my hon. Friend that that initiative should be provided to everyone, regardless of their circumstances. It is shameful that that is not happening at the present time.
Low-income households that would be eligible for social housing and universal credit but for the no recourse to public funds conditions are more susceptible to the effects of the cost of living crisis and are excluded from much of the financial support that can help with increased costs. It is therefore even more vital that access to devolved schemes of assistance that are not classed as public funds is facilitated for people subject to no recourse to public funds. It is for that reason that I truly believe we must end the no recourse to public funds condition. It is cruel, it increases child poverty and destitution, it burdens local authorities just as this Conservative Government cut their grants, and all of that has a knock-on effect for social justice and public health, which themselves are costly to the public purse and have long-term societal effects.
I want to take a moment to thank those organisations that have been in contact with me and raised some of the concerns about no recourse to public funds. The Bevan Foundation in Wales in particular has conducted a piece of research that has produced a document of great significance, with a series of recommendations for local authorities and Welsh Government, from which I believe the UK Government would benefit. I will send the Minister a copy of that report following the debate. I thank the Welsh Refugee Coalition, Migrant Voice and the Food Foundation for their suggestions and their tireless campaigning work. I also want to highlight the recent joint report from the all-party groups on poverty and on migration, of which I am a member. Again, I can send a copy of that report to the Minister.
I will pull out some of the recommendations that those practitioners have said would improve conditions for people subject to no recourse to public funds. The first looks at the support needed by local authorities. The cost of providing accommodation and financial support to no recourse to public funds households continues to rise, with a 22% increase from £64 million to £78 million at the end of 2021-22, which is far above inflation. Those costs should be met by the UK Government. That is why the Bevan Foundation has argued that the UK Government should end visa restrictions on accessing public funds. That is the fairest way to support people without settled status and their children, and safeguard them from deep poverty and destitution. Welfare benefits should be a safety net for all, regardless of their immigration status.
Secondly, we need to extend the scope of legal aid. People are being prevented from exercising their legal rights to apply for leave to remain, to change and renew their status and to lift no recourse to public funds conditions, which results in an inability to move on from destitution. Wales has been described, and rightly so, as an “advice desert”, with no immigration and asylum legal aid provision outside Newport, Cardiff and Swansea, apart from a single solicitor—yes, one—based in north Wales, in Wrexham. Even in those areas, firms are closing and provision is in sharp decline. Practically all immigration legal providers in Wales are currently closed to referrals, meaning people are being denied justice.
Elsewhere, there is a need to reduce immigration application fees. Costs are prohibitive, preventing people from exercising their legal right to remain and settle, and driving them into poverty, hardship and destitution. Additionally, there is a need to shorten long settlement routes to a maximum of five years, as the recent report by the all-party parliamentary groups has argued. Long periods with no recourse to public funds inevitably increase the likelihood of entrenched poverty and destitution. Breaks in leave to remain mean that children can spend almost all their childhood in poverty. Those are our future generations and we should be investing in our children and young people.
There is also a need to exempt key benefits and schemes from public funds. The Government should enable councils to provide discretionary cost of living and emergency support to all residents in need by removing discretionary welfare payments from the list of public funds, as has been done in my country of Wales. They should also remove child benefit from public funds and give access to childcare, as is also happening in Wales; as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) has said, they should open access to the Healthy Start scheme to all low-income pregnant women and families with no recourse to public funds. Finally, all victims of domestic abuse should be eligible to gain access to public funds under the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, regardless of immigration status.
The policy of no recourse to public funds is a key part of this Government’s cruel, inhumane and discriminatory migration policy, which seeks to punish and scapegoat some of the most vulnerable people in our society. We should welcome people to our shores, as encapsulated by the Welsh Government’s commitment to being a nation of sanctuary, and enable people to thrive, integrate and contribute to our communities. People have so much to contribute, and a humane approach would include allowing asylum seekers the right to work. We are in a perverse situation, where people awaiting the processing of their asylum applications cannot claim basic human rights in the form of benefits, but are prevented from working. People have lots to contribute—we should allow them to work and contribute to our economy, which in the long term will result in both financial and social benefits for our whole society.
We need to focus on clearing the backlog of applicants through fair decisions. I have been involved in interviews with the all-party group on poverty with people who have been waiting years to hear whether they will be allowed leave to remain. That is inhumane. There is no need for that to happen. Finally, we need secure and safe legal routes, as Care4Calais and PCS have advocated through their safe passage visa scheme. Again, I will supply the Minister with a copy of the brilliant report that they produced advocating that.
The UK Government should work in partnership with devolved, regional and local governments to develop a comprehensive refugee integration strategy, which should implement the recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review, including the creation of a migrants commissioner to ensure that those affected by immigration policy have their voices heard. If the Government are going to take seriously the dual tasks of reducing poverty and making migration policy work, they will need to better connect policy making across Government Departments and between national, devolved, regional and local governments, as well as working in partnership with civil society, which wants a fair and humane migration policy.
There is much more that can be said, but I am conscious that we have only half an hour this morning; I have referred to several pieces of research and evidence, with which I will supply the Minister and which give far more detail. What is clear is that the beneficiaries of a more joined-up, evidence-based and humane policy would be beneficial not just to migrant communities, but to each and every one of us, by ensuring that nobody in the UK, wherever they are from and whatever their situation, faces poverty and destitution.
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) on securing this debate on the important issue of no recourse to public funds, and I thank colleagues for their interventions during the course of her remarks. A lot of points were made, which I will respond to on behalf of the Government, but first I will set the policy in context. I am sure that Members across the House are aware of the details of the policy of no recourse to public funds, but it is important to set out the context, and our rationale and approach.
A well-established principle is that migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and support themselves and their families, including children, without imposing an unreasonable burden on the welfare system. Successive Governments have taken the view that access to benefits and other publicly funded services should reflect the strength of a migrant’s connections to the UK and, in the main, become available to migrants only when they have become settled here with indefinite leave to remain. In practice, that has been done through granting permission to enter or stay with a no recourse to public funds condition attached.
Only the benefits listed in immigration legislation are classed as public funds for immigration purposes. Some benefits based on national insurance contributions, may still be accessed by migrants, such as contribution-based employment and support allowance. The Government’s position remains that those seeking to establish a life in the UK must do so on a basis that prevents a burden on the taxpayer and promotes integration.
I respectfully disagree with the central premise of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. Were we simply to scrap the no recourse to public funds policy, I would argue that, given the national support in place through Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions and the local support provided by local authorities, far greater costs would be associated with such support were there to be broad eligibility for anyone coming to the UK. I do not think that that is proportionate or fair to the taxpayer generally. Later in my remarks, I will set out the safeguards in place to ensure that where people’s circumstances require it, there are routes in for people to get support.
Beth Winter
I referred to several reports, which I will provide copies of to the Minister. When we look at the cost-benefit balance, supporting people who come here, often from vulnerable and difficult situations, may bring an initial cost up front—although providing people with the basics of food, heating and so on is a moral and humane duty anyway, so I disagree fundamentally with his position—but in the long term it benefits our country financially, if that is the concern of the Government, as well as socially. To back that up, I will supply the evidence, which is overwhelming.
Tom Pursglove
Our approach is a balanced one. For example, many people come to the United Kingdom through the established visa routes, family routes and skilled work routes. The hon. Lady touched on the issue of safe and legal routes, and I am a strong advocate of the work that the Government have done to give sanctuary to more than half a million people since 2015.
One of the commitments we made during the passage of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 was to consult local authorities and to set a figure, an annual cap, for properly supported places that can be provided across the country so that people are able come here. In particular, we work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to support the most vulnerable people from around the world, with all the help and support around that. That is entirely right and proper, and I am very grateful to the local authorities who have offered places. We will help with the wraparound support that comes with it. In the next few weeks, I hope to be able to say more not only about the figure, but about laying the statutory instrument that will help to bring that cap into force in 2025, delivering on the commitment we made to ensure that those places are durable and sustainable, and provide people with the sanctuary that they need.
As a general principle, I go back to my earlier remark that we think it is right that people who come to the United Kingdom through most of the routes are able to sustain themselves without relying on the taxpayer. As I said, there are safeguards in to provide support. [Interruption.] I recognise that the Labour Members here are perhaps not in line with the position of previous Labour Governments on this issue, but that policy has been a consistent one under Conservative Governments, under the coalition Government and under Labour Governments.
Ian Byrne
The Minister has mentioned the burden on the taxpayer several times now. Why do the Government not give people seeking asylum the right to work, so that they can contribute to the tax system and society? His framing of this debate and the implementation of policy makes no sense to me.
Tom Pursglove
I suspect that we will disagree quite strongly in principle on this. I would argue that the policy on asylum seekers’ right to work achieves the right balance. People who come to the United Kingdom in small boats, via a route organised by evil criminals who put them to sea in unseaworthy vessels, are exploited them in the process. They hand over their money to evil criminal gangs, who have no regard to whether they get here safely. We have a moral responsibility to put that criminality out of business. Any additional pull factors give the evil criminal gangs responsible for that trade an additional marketing tool to sell a vision of what coming to the UK looks like. That cannot be right. Nor is it right when we consider the many people who come to this country by applying and going through the proper process and following the rules, entirely appropriately. We should not undermine that process. It is an important part of our borders and migration system, and has for many years been how we manage migratory flows.
If somebody’s asylum claim is not dealt with and concluded within a 12-month period, they are able to take roles on what is now the immigration salary list, previously the shortage occupation list. I think that provides an appropriate level of balance.
Tom Pursglove
I am conscious that there are still a lot of points still to get through, but I will gladly give way to the hon. Lady on this occasion.
Beth Winter
Again, I strongly disagree with the Minister on this issue. People who are forced to try to reach these shores on small boats are not getting on boats because of pull factors; they are doing it because of push factors. They are extremely, extremely desperate. Anybody who tries to reach this country on a dinghy, bringing their children with them, must be extremely desperate. If we had a humane migration policy that provided legal and safe routes to come here, people would not be losing their lives. People are dying because they are being forced to use these routes. Should we not be welcoming people here? We have shortages of nurses and of workers in other sectors and industries. Wales advocates being a nation of sanctuary. What is wrong with people coming here to contribute to our society, which would benefit us economically?
Tom Pursglove
I definitely do want people to come here, but through legal routes and in a managed and proper way, rather than in small boats making perilous crossings of the channel. We have a responsibility—a moral duty—to put that criminality out of business. Yet again, in the last fortnight, we have seen a young girl lose her life in the channel in the most tragic of circumstances. We have to put a stop to that, and we are determined to do precisely that.
It is recognised that some migrants may be at greater risk of poverty and destitution, and that is why there are rightly safeguards in place. It is important to protect vulnerable migrants, and appropriate safeguards flow from that responsibility and our recognition that people can find themselves in the most challenging circumstances. In practice, that means that migrants with permission under the family or private life routes, or the Hong Kong British national overseas route, can apply for free to have their NRPF condition lifted by making a change of conditions application. An individual on those routes can apply to have their condition lifted if they are destitute or at risk of imminent destitution, if there are reasons relating to the welfare of a relevant child, or if they are facing exceptional circumstances affecting their income or expenditure.
For all immigration routes other than family or private life and the Hong Kong BNO route, the general expectation is that the person will return to their home country should they become unable to meet their essential living needs in the UK. If there are particularly compelling circumstances that make leaving the UK impossible, discretion can be used to consider whether they justify access to public funds. The latest data published in March 2024 for quarter 4 of 2023 shows that 71% of the decisions taken on change of conditions applications were granted. That demonstrates that the system works and is practical.
It is worth adding that the Government are providing additional support for those with NRPF. For example, subject to the relevant income thresholds, those with NRPF can access free school meals and early years education for two-year-olds. Statutory benefits, including statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay and contribution- based jobseeker’s allowance, are accessible to all those who have made significant tax contributions, including those with NRPF.
The Department of Health and Social Care leads on the Healthy Start scheme, but I will gladly ask the relevant Minister to provide a written update to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne). We continue to have ministerial and official engagement with colleagues from across Government about NRPF, specific benefits, inclusion or otherwise and eligibility. I would very much welcome receiving the reports that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned. I am not convinced that we will agree on everything, but we will most definitely look at them. We keep the policy under review, so I would welcome the opportunity to reflect on those reports.
Local authorities may also provide a basic safety net of support, regardless of immigration status, if it is established either that there is a risk to the wellbeing of a child or a genuine care need that does not arise solely from destitution—for example, where a person has community care needs or serious health problems. If it is helpful and the hon. Lady would like to share the details of the case she raised—I am not sure from her remarks whether a change of conditions application has been made—I will be very happy to ask my officials to look at the particular circumstances and get back to her.
I have dealt with the asylum seeker right to work and the situation with regard to safe and legal routes. There will be opportunities to debate those matters separately in the coming weeks and months. I definitely expect to make progress on the cap in the coming weeks and months, as I said in the debate in this Chamber on Monday.
Beth Winter
Will the Minister comment on the suggestion about better joined-up working, including with the regional and devolved Administrations? Is that something he will look at?
Tom Pursglove
I am very happy to take that point away. The Government’s general principle is that it is important that we have a system that provides balance. I set out the safeguards, but I am definitely very happy to engage not only with colleagues across the UK Government but with counterparts in the devolved Administrations. The immigration system generally is a reserved matter, but there are undoubtedly aspects that relate to their work, and I am always willing to engage on those matters. Our approach is that we and they can suggest agenda items, and then we debate them and talk constructively.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
China
(6 months, 1 week 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
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government policy on China.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I am here to look at Government policy on China, but also to argue for a more coherent version of that policy, notwithstanding the very considerable progress that, to be fair to them, the Government have been making.
I will start by outlining a few ideas. For me, the 21st century will mark a struggle between two visions for humanity: between open and closed societies; between states that are the servants of their people and states that are the masters of their people; and whether the great scientific discoveries of this century—artificial intelligence, big data—will be used to help humanity or to enslave it.
Opposing the policies of the Chinese Communist party and the direction that it has sadly embarked on for the past 10 to 15 years does not mean being anti-Chinese. Many Chinese oppose the Chinese Communist party, as indeed do many tens of thousands of brave Hong Kong activists in our own country.
I am delighted that the Deputy Foreign Secretary is present to respond to this debate on behalf of Government. I fully accept that the relationship we have with China is significantly more complex than the relationship we had with the USSR; we have a much deeper trading relationship with communist China, and we need to work together on climate and the environment, although that should not be used as an excuse for the status quo. China presents the need for a more complex set of alliances and more complex containment, but there is a greater urgency because, in many ways, China is more powerful than the Soviet Union was. We need to change the dynamic. It is quite clear that shutting off the global economy, which the west still heavily influences, but no longer controls, is not an option.
For me, the direction of travel is clear. Just this week, what have we had? Chinese vessels encroach daily on Taiwanese territorial waters, with conventional military tensions increasing. In the UK, the head of GCHQ warns that China represents a growing and genuine threat, not only to the UK but to the internet as a whole. Three men, including a Border Force officer, are arrested on spying charges. The US announces that it will raise the tariff on Chinese electric vehicles to 100%, citing “unfair practices”.
We are in the middle of what the Government have called an “epoch-defining challenge”; some Members on the Government Benches, and perhaps indeed those on other Benches, see it as a more significantly adversarial relationship. I accept that there are elements of both, and that just focusing on the words to define this issue—be they “adversarial”, “enemy” or “challenge”—is not necessarily the most helpful thing. What is important is that our policies become less piecemeal.
As I say, I do not want to underestimate the journey that the Government have been on. Much has changed since the failed golden era. It is clear that the hope held by the UK, the US and other partners—that normalising trade relations with China would lead to greater security on all sides—has not materialised. Indeed, quite the opposite is true: what China and arguably Russia have done is trash the system from the inside. However, with respect, I think that our policies are still a little too piecemeal. Although we have had sensible decisions on Huawei, spurred by myself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and others, and the passing of the National Security Act 2023 and a significant number of measures, I still think we need to go further.
I am looking at trying to develop a coherent set of ideas, not only in this speech but with the think-tank Civitas, with whom I hope to publish stuff next month. I pay tribute to and thank people such as Charlie Parton, the former diplomat who has done a lot of great work advising Members of Parliament on both sides of the House on China strategy, highlighting what the Chinese Communist party has been saying to itself about the west; Ben Rogers and others at Hong Kong Watch; and Luke de Pulford at the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China for the work that they have all done.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Given the arrests this week and the issues that he has outlined, does he agree that the issue here is the pace at which we are assessing the situation, and the need for a cross-Government audit of the Chinese Communist party’s attempts to influence UK politicians and Government, and also individuals, which we saw this week with the arrests of individuals attempting to intimidate and harass Hong Kong democracy activists in the UK?
Bob Seely
I agree very much with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. We need to increase our pace, which is one of things that I would like to argue today. What the Chinese Communist party wants is no secret. It does not want to live in harmony with the west; it wants to dominate it. Western nations are viewed in CCP literature as hostile foreign forces intent on damaging Beijing. In Document No. 9, for example, the CCP describes democracy as one of nine false ideological trends. The full list includes: promoting western constitutional democracy; promoting universal values, which would be an attempt to weaken the theoretical foundations of the party’s leadership; promoting civil society, to dismantle the ruling party’s social foundations; promoting neoliberalism, which would challenge China’s basic economic system; promoting the western ideal of free journalism, which would challenge the communist party’s grip on power; promoting historical nihilism, or rather a different interpretation of the communist party’s history; and questioning the socialist nature of socialism with Chinese characteristics. All those things are seen as false historical trends, and there are many other documents, which I will not go into.
The challenges—I use the Government word, “challenges”—from this potentially adversarial state are arising on many fronts. On cyber, just this week GCHQ has said that there is an increased threat; indeed, I was one of the unfortunate servicemen and women whose details were found potentially not to be as secure as we would have liked. I think it was last week when we were told that our details had been stolen or were potentially vulnerable to theft. Trade dumping is an absolutely critical element of this. China’s developing country status at the World Trade Organisation means that the rules on dumping do not apply to it. As we are slow off the mark here, and because the Americans have put a 100% tariff on electric vehicles, on which the European Union may follow suit, I worry that we will become a dumping ground for Chinese goods. That is not an accident. The destruction of our own industries is not happening because the Chinese are necessarily good at them—although some are and, in a free state, arguably more would be. It is a deliberate state policy of intellectual property theft that is happening now, but which was also happening 10 to 20 years ago.
Then there is the long-term planning to buy up resources, the super-cheap communist state loans, the over-production as a matter of policy, and the dumping of goods on international markets to bankrupt western firms. Huawei was an instructional lesson on that. It originally partnered with Nortel, a Canadian company that suddenly found its intellectual property in Beijing. Nortel then collapsed and its place was taken by Huawei, whose state agenda was to undercut western firms and dominate the 5G market. That creation of dependence is one of the things that is most dangerous—I will explain why in a couple of minutes.
There is also the transitional repression—the spying on and intimidation of not only China’s own people abroad, but Hong Kong activists, which is a growing problem that we seem reluctant to tackle robustly. Then there is the question of covid and its origins. If covid had come out of a laboratory in France or the United Kingdom, or the United States especially, we would never have heard the end of it from political parties in this country or the media; and yet I am staggered by the lack of interest shown in the likelihood that covid came out of the Wuhan virus laboratory. I am also staggered at the lack of interest in whether it had been genetically altered before it was, presumably, accidentally leaked. As Lord Ridley said:
“The UK security and scientific establishment refused to look at the evidence for a lab leak.”
That is an extraordinary claim from somebody who is a considerable expert on that. If nothing else, it is astonishing that we seem to be so uninterested in biosecurity standards in other countries, given the potential hazard not only to ourselves but to humanity.
The united front, the malign influence of which we have potentially seen in Parliament, is a long-term, whole-of-state strategy used by the Chinese Communist Party to further its interests within and outside China through multiple organs of the Chinese state and a range of activities—overt and covert; legal and illegal. It encompasses not only espionage but forms of malign influence that are sometimes overt, but sometimes covert. We know from our Intelligence and Security Committee that the united front has “achieved low-level penetration” across “most sectors of UK business and civil society”. What does the Deputy Foreign Secretary have to say about that? Is he concerned about that penetration across most sectors of UK business and civil society by the united front?
I will spend a couple of minutes on the domination of DNA research and on cellular modules, which are so little known, but potentially so important. China believes that its own biomedical data is a
“foundational strategic state resource.”
Yet, at the same time, it is hoovering up DNA data and genomic data from around the world. Western security officials, including those identified in the ISC report, see DNA biotech as another major concern. The Pentagon in the United States listed the BGI group, otherwise known as the Beijing Genomics Institute, as a Chinese military company, and the US Government have twice blacklisted the group’s subsidiaries for their role in the collection and analysis of DNA that has enabled China’s repression of its own ethnic minorities.
That is a really creepy and unpleasant policy that the CCP and the BGI group have been accused of: collecting DNA research for the repression of their own minorities. Needless to say, not only have we not done the same thing as the US, but BGI Tech Solutions was awarded a £10.8 million contract in this country for genomic testing of covid samples. Not only that, but in 2021, Reuters revealed that the company was selling prenatal tests to millions of women globally in order to collect their DNA data, using biotech methods developed with the Chinese military.
A top counter-intelligence official from the US Government has said that BGI is
“no different than Huawei…It’s this legitimate business that’s also masking intelligence gathering for nefarious purposes.”
I wonder if we are again sleepwalking dangerously and somewhat naively into another ethical crisis—the kind that we had with Huawei, and which we could now be seeing with BGI.
I have not had time to show the Minister my speech, because I only finished it about half an hour before the debate, so I will happily write to him on these questions, and perhaps he could give me a written answer. What are the Government planning to do on genomic research and protecting the United Kingdom, which does not only mean our DNA data—unless he thinks we can share it with the rest of the world; maybe we should or could be—and what do we think BGI and China are trying to do with our DNA?
I will talk a little bit about cellular modules because, again, it is an obscure, but important, topic. The internet of things refers to internet devices that talk to each other, from alarm systems, video recorders and fridges, to aeroplanes, boats and, maybe one day, nuclear weapon system launching programmes—and even the lights in our living room. Those gadgets rely on modules—groups of chips—that connect the equipment to the internet and talk to each other. China supplies the west with more than 60% of those modules. But because they are updated remotely by the manufacturer, it is practically impossible to ensure that they are not spying on us and sending back data flows to their source. If that sounds a bit paranoid, let us remember that TikTok is currently under investigation by the FBI after its parent company used the app to monitor journalists in the United States. Let us also remember that a Government car was allegedly compounded—I cannot remember if that was last year or a few months ago—because a cellular module in it might have been pinging back eavesdropped conversations. China aims to dominate the market, as it has with Huawei and BGI, for cellular modules. Do the Government have an opinion on whether that is a threat to our economy, to our people and to our national security?
I am not even going to bother touching on the military threat, because it is complex and detailed, though my fear is not only the slow domination. Sun Tzu, a great man and a philosopher of conflict, said:
“The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”
That seems to be President Xi’s aim. Arguably, it should also be our aim. That idea should inspire us that we need to defend ourselves now, and that we need to take the short-to-medium and the long-term decisions to defend ourselves, not to aggressively wave fingers at people, but to be able to defend ourselves. The reason I say that is that the most dangerous outcome is that we become so dependent on China in the next five years, for everything from vehicles to fridges to cellular modules to our DNA, that when Taiwan is attacked, if we took out sanctions on China we would effectively collapse the global economy. It would cause chaos and collapse in Europe and our own country that would make the energy crisis for the Ukraine war look like a picnic, with rioting on the streets and destabilised western societies—or we can stand by and say, “Fair enough.”
The other, potentially even greater, threat is that we break the alliance between the United States and ourselves and the United States and Europe, which is undoubtedly China’s strategic aim. That will be a catastrophe for western civilisation. We need to deepen our alliances with the US and Oz and many other states in that part of the world, including South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia.
Finally, I have two more points. On TikTok, for young people in China the algorithm is different from that in the UK. In China, it is used to promote science, education and history, including the history of China. In our countries, it makes citizens watch
“stupid dance videos with the main goal of making us imbeciles”.
That quotation is from the former chief software officer of the US Air Force and Space Force. In China, TikTok is about entertaining education; here it is just about entertainment. It is not only cyber-addiction, but real addiction, that is an issue. Do the Government have a position on the large-scale illicit supply of fentanyl by China to the United States, which I understand is now also becoming a problem in this country? I will wind up in two to three minutes; I said I would stick to 20 minutes, which I am trying to do.
What are we going to do about this issue? The real aim of the immediate policy is to insulate ourselves. In no particular order, here are some ideas. Let us add science to human rights. We can DNA test where cotton comes from. Should we not be mandating that, in supply chains that go anywhere near China, we DNA test cotton so that we can see whether it comes from Xinjiang and is made by slave labour, so that we can outlaw it? That is an important thing to do for fair trade, and to help jobs not only in this country, but in Bangladesh, India and places where they do not use slave labour. It is also important for human rights: taking a consistent approach to the human rights agenda and giving it the respect it needs.
We need to diversify as a matter of urgency. As a national priority, we need to diversify our supply chains, so that if there is war in the Pacific or around Taiwan, we are not going to destroy our standard of living, economy or people’s jobs in order to put sanctions on China, or to support the United States or Taiwan.
We need longer-term planning over rare earth minerals—something I have not even brought up due to time considerations. We are beginning to act but we are two or three decades behind China.
We should tell Confucius Institute centres to stop spying on their citizens, or shut them down and kick out the people in them. The same should apply to Hong Kong economic offices, which are now also being used to intimidate Chinese people in this country.
As for the military, we need a permanent western presence in disputed waters and more money spent.
On WTO and dumping, we need to work together; we need to treat China as a developed economy, even if in WTO terms it is not.
I also suggest that we need to have faith in ourselves. There is no inevitability about China’s future victory. It is a very powerful country, but like Russia, it lacks few actual friends. Its one formal alliance is with the basket case of North Korea, although the basket case of Russia is also a pretty close ally. We have many friends and allies, as do the United States and France, and we need to be working with those allies and with our partners in the Pacific for a new, subtle but thoughtful, determined and robust containment programme. That means spending on hard power, but it also means a much more assertive defence of our interests, as well as understanding how decades of subversive conflict across culture, business, sport and science can damage our national interest and threaten our people. Whether it is the use of artificial intelligence, big data, DNA sequencing, advanced propaganda techniques or cellular modules, we need to do more to understand the modern world that we inhabit.
We are in a battle for the future of humanity, between democracies and authoritarian states. At the moment, that conflict is being lost by us. It is also being conducted in myriad subtle ways. We need to grasp the extent of it and do more to react robustly to defend ourselves.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
May I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate? I would be grateful if Members do not refer to cases where charges have been brought, because they are sub judice.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate and on his excellent, wide-ranging opening remarks. He set out the challenges we face as a country, and presented a pretty dystopian vision of the future, if we allow it to happen. I hope that we are able to collectively rise to the challenges he laid out.
The hon. Member raised a number of matters that I will touch on. I start with the refreshed integrated review, published by the Government last year, which stated:
“China…poses an epoch-defining and systemic challenge with implications for almost every area of government policy and the everyday lives of British people.”
I consider that a welcome revision to our approach. It is a pretty serious, broad statement of where we are and what we need to do. We need to recognise China’s size and influence, alongside the risks that it brings. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight made the point very eloquently that our reliance is one of those risks, alongside China’s greater aggression, its human rights record and the strengthening of its partnership with Russia; they are all potential existential threats.
In many respects, the news emerging this week on both sides of the Atlantic is a stark reminder that these challenges are here and now, and that care needs to be taken. I will take one very clear example from my own constituency, which feeds into the wider picture that has been painted today. There is a Stellantis plant in my constituency. It announced yesterday that it will be selling Chinese-made electric vehicles in Europe from the autumn, and in the UK from next year. We have a very proud history of manufacturing in this country, and indeed in Ellesmere Port, at what is commonly known as the Vauxhall motor plant, which is now owned by Stellantis. A lot of work was put in to secure the investment needed to move to electric vehicle production, which is very important for the plant, for the constituency and for the whole UK automotive sector.
I had hoped that we could lead the way in the sale of new electric vehicles, as the plan was always to expand from where we are now—from the production of vans into the domestic car market—so it is a concern that the owners are already turning to cheaper Chinese electric vehicles. It is too soon to understand the impact of that on domestic production, but surely it is not going to help. That is not to say that I want to insulate the UK from competition, but there has to be fair competition, and there has to be one eye on the future.
There is no doubt that the move to an all-electric vehicle country is going to be expensive and we should be looking at how we keep costs down, but if major manufacturers are already concluding that the best way for them to meet that challenge is to turn to Chinese imports, we are never going to have the domestic manufacturing capacity to meet domestic demand, never mind being able to continue to be the proud exporter to the rest of the world that we have always been.
As we have heard, yesterday President Biden announced he was introducing a 100% tariff on electric vehicles made in China, as well as tariffs on lithium batteries, critical minerals and semiconductors. That is a move designed to prevent cheap, subsidised Chinese goods from entering the US market. The decision was taken after a four-year review, and there are similar moves across the EU to assess the impact of Chinese imports. Since October, the EU has been investigating whether local subsidies have been helping Chinese car manufacturers undercut European-made vehicles. The investigation is due to report shortly.
I am not aware of a similar review being undertaken here. It was reported in February that the Government were contemplating commissioning the Trade Remedies Authority to undertake an investigation into subsidies, but three months on we have silence. Is the Minister able to confirm whether the Government are still looking into that and whether they will look at what the EU says if conclusive evidence of subsidies is found? We risk putting ourselves in a very exposed position. Our manufacturing capacity would be reduced, probably permanently, and we would be kidding ourselves about the race to net zero if we were reliant on Chinese imports.
Cars are just one example of our potential exposure; steel, energy, fibre optics, semiconductors, rare elements or any number of parts of our infrastructure are part of this discussion. We cannot allow ourselves to be at the mercy of one country, especially not one like China, which has what I would consider to be a ruthless focus on economic dominance. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, that could lead us into a very dark place indeed.
Clearly, we benefit from Chinese investment in this country. Life sciences is a sector that it is investing in heavily. After what the hon. Member has said, that needs to be looked at very carefully as well. The fact is that I could go down any street in this country and see things that have Chinese ownership: pubs, shops, restaurants, cinemas. That is probably fair enough in a global economy, but what about water companies, energy companies and nuclear power plants? I wonder how we have managed to get to the point at which our critical infrastructure is so open to influence by Chinese investors. How have we got to the point where China is a part owner in Thames Water and has significant debts to at least two Chinese state-owned banks? I think we can all see where that might lead us if international tensions rise.
Away from manufacturing, as the hon. Member mentioned, issues in cyber-security have been well documented. Indeed, there was a debate here yesterday on the dangers of social media. I absolutely agree with what the hon. Member said about the differences between TikTok and its Chinese equivalent, Douyin. From a child’s perspective, in China it certainly has a lot more educational content. In 2021 the Chinese Government enacted a law that called for the
“creation and broadcast of online content conducive to the healthy growth of minors”.
That can of course be seen as part of the wider attitude to free speech in China, but it is of interest that they obviously see that some of the content on these channels might have a detrimental effect on a child’s development, but they are more than happy for that stuff to be pumped on to our own children’s screens.
Neil Coyle
When my hon. Friend says “they”, he is talking about the Chinese Government. Does he welcome the distinction that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) made at the start of the debate between the Government of China and the people? As someone who lived in China for two years, may I make a personal statement?
(The Member continued in Mandarin.)
For those who do not know any Mandarin—I appreciate that mine is rusty—that translates as: “I like the country and I like the people. It is the Government who have caused the concerns that are the focus of the debate today. It is the politicians and the political leadership of China that is the challenge.”
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes a very important point—the bits of it that I actually understood. He must have seen my speech because I am about to make the very important distinction—
Justin Madders
Not in Mandarin, no—in English. There is a very important distinction that we would all make between the Chinese people and the CCP. There is no doubt that the CCP is the malign influence in all this.
On the question of social media, there is a concern that there may be an imbalance between what we see in this country and what is seen in China, and there may be deliberate reasons for that. We should certainly look at that and at the dangerous anti-western, conspiracy theory, democracy-undermining stuff that comes out from all around the world, and in particular from China.
I echo the comments made by the director general of MI5 in 2022. He said that it would be wrong for us to cut ourselves off from one fifth of the world’s population, and that we should continue to engage and work with China in a way that is consistent with our national security. But I do not think we have the balance right. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, that balance will be consistently and constantly reviewed. We need greater international resilience to international incidents. The analogy with what happened in Russia is very important, because that is a real threat that we could face in the next few years, and we do not want to leave ourselves overexposed.
As has been said, many western countries have begun to understand the risks that we face, have taken action against firms such as Huawei, and have limited the use of such technologies in sensitive and critical infrastructure. In that context, questions must now be raised about our reliance on supply chains that are controlled by China and have such a huge impact on our infrastructure.
It is clear that China holds a dominant position over global supply chains that are critical to the net zero transition. It controls a significant proportion of the rare metals necessary for lithium-ion batteries, wind turbines and solar photovoltaic modules. On the lithium-ion battery chains, China is responsible for 80% of the supply of spherical graphite, refined manganese, anodes and electrolytes, so we clearly need a co-ordinated response to that.
It feels as though we are at a very important point in global politics. We must work across the globe to deal with the many challenges that the planet faces, while at the same time protecting our national security and long-term economic interests. Taking a cautious and proactive approach to risks is central to protecting our country and its citizens. I believe that the way we approach China will be a central feature of our lives for many years to come. On every occasion that we deal with it, the question of security, economic or otherwise, must be the very first thing we ask.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Order. If Members can speak for eight or nine minutes, we will get everyone in.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), I have not prepared a very thorough speech, but I am glad that he has brought this important topic to Westminster Hall.
(The Member continued in Mandarin.)
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle)—I am not sure how to say that in Chinese—speaks fantastic Mandarin Chinese and is a living manifestation of what our aspirations should be for the country. More people should study Mandarin Chinese. That was in the integrated review, and we have talked about it for years on end, but we need more diplomats in the Foreign Office and people across the whole of Whitehall who can not only speak Mandarin Chinese, but engage with China. Many experts have in the past talked about the plus one: no matter what field someone is working in these days—they may be a biological scientist of some sort, an accountant or a Government official—that should be the substantive part that they own, and then the Chinese understanding is the icing on the cake.
I do not want to step on the toes of the Deputy Foreign Secretary, but I will give some of my own thoughts in response to the points that colleagues made. I was based in the People’s Republic of China for about 13 years —I worked in the Foreign Office and was based in Shanghai. I have studied China for about 20 years, and I know less about it today than I did 20 years ago, but I will try my best.
I worry sometimes about the overall tone or mood of a lot of these debates about China over the past four and half years—my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight will be very perceptive of this—because whether we are sat in the United Kingdom, the United States or elsewhere in the west, it feels completely driven by fear and by that sense of threat. That makes me a little worried, in that that strikes as us being reticent and not having confidence in what we have to offer ideologically or in our system. Implicitly, in the 1980s, we did not really care about China, because it was not competition for us, but today we care about it and talk about it every day, in every single debate, which unfortunately might give a signal to others in the world and, indeed, to China that it perhaps does have the upper hand in many different forms of engagement, whether that is business, commercial, political or diplomatic, among other things.
That soul searching part is incredibly important for us, because this should not just be about asking what our China policy or strategy is. Rather, this is about the UK: what is our identity? What is our place in the world? What are our priorities? And then, it is about having everything else flow from that, because at the end of the day, China is just one country out of 200. It is a very important country: it is a United Nations Security Council member and the second biggest economy in the world, it has a population of 1.4 billion and it had great GDP growth rates, in the double figures for many numbers of years. When the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and I were there, it was experiencing 13% or 14% GDP growth rates every year, but that has ended. China is in a very different economic climate now, especially over the past couple of years.
The question I often ask myself is not what our China policy is, but what do the Chinese think of us? What is China’s UK strategy? What is China’s UK policy? I am never really sure of the answer. Again, I am conscious of different friends in our audience who have been long-time China watchers, but I have always felt, in the years of being based there—even working in diplomacy and coming into contact with party secretaries, mayors and those from the politburo from time to time—and to this day, that it has felt like an invisible hand. So I am always perplexed when people speak with great authority about the Communist party of China, because it is just so invisible. I often wonder where that intel and knowledge about the CPC come from.
There is another thing about some of the points that were raised, and this can be really difficult. Obviously, we do not want to play into China’s political rhetoric, but we often talk about the disaggregation between the people of China and the Communist party of China, and although I know that this stat has been overused over the past number of years, there is a certain amount of truth in it: in 2020, when the Ash Centre in Harvard researched levels of approval for the Communist party of China or the central Government in China, their approval ratings were sitting at about 95%. I know that everyone will come back to say, “That cannot be true,” but my feeling—my sense from being there for more than a decade—was that very rarely did people complain about the national leadership. Usually, complaints were about local government at the village level, or the municipal or provincial level, but rarely were there complaints against the national Government. It would be interesting to see an updated poll, because that research was from 2020, just before covid struck, and China has had a lot more difficulties politically and economically since, especially in the past couple of years. I would be very interested to see polling on that.
On Monday, when we were at Policy Exchange, the Prime Minister made an incredibly interesting speech. I was struck by these ideas of securitisation and of entering into a world over the next five to 10 years that is potentially more dangerous than the one that we have lived in in recent decades. Another slight concern from my end—not necessarily vis-à-vis the Prime Minister—was something I wrote about in the South China Morning Post about three years ago, and that is this idea of liberalisation, or ideas of liberalism, in the international system. We have often talked about how, with economic engagement, China would become more like the west, but it seems that we have given up on that for the most part in recent years. My contention, however—this is very provocative, but I ask it every single time in this kind of debate—is this: is it China becoming more like the west, or is the west starting to copy things from China’s handbook when it comes to banning things?
Those linked to the Policy Exchange think-tank are very clear and intent on banning TikTok in the United Kingdom, but my worry is that that is driven by fear, by this idea of threat. What is more important than politics and regulation, however, is being innovative. It is about saying to ourselves in the UK, “Can we come up with a company that can outstrip the American tech companies and do better than TikTok has done? Or will we become like the European Union and just think we can regulate our way into a successful future?” I do not think that is possible. The Chancellor recently stated that he is keen for us to have “a British Microsoft”, and I absolutely agree with that sentiment and that positivity.
Bob Seely
I am sorry, but I take issue with the point about fear. I think it is about understanding and not about fear. On the TikTok issue alone, my hon. Friend is talking about a fear of TikTok. Does he think that, actually, it is about TikTok having one set of values for Chinese kids and another for everything else? In other words, it has nothing to do with fear but it has something to do with protecting children.
Mark Logan
I am not here to defend TikTok. I do use TikTok, as do many of our colleagues, including some high-profile Ministers in the Cabinet. That is not what this is about. Some of this has to do with education as well, and I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. Again, I was based in China. I have a daughter in the education system and, going into primary school level in China, there is a lot in the education system that is focused on the harder aspects of education: learning the sciences, mathematics and physics. I think that that can be reflected in the social media that is used there, by the case of Douyin.
Neil Coyle
I intervene not to discuss mutual family that we have still living in the People’s Republic of China, but on the hon. Gentleman’s point about polling, can he focus a little on what the punishment might be for someone suggesting that they are dissatisfied with where the Chinese Government are at? I also mention the corruption and local-level issues. But fundamentally, a much more important issue for us here, where we still have responsibility, is polling within Hong Kong specifically and the Government’s responsibility to Hong Kong nationals and those seeking British national overseas status. Might we see further measures to support those people in the face of article 23 extensions of the diminution of rights in Hong Kong?
Mark Logan
The hon. Member raises a fantastic point explicitly on Hong Kong. What has happened in Hong Kong in recent years is unfortunate. I think it is a strategic mistake in terms of the governance of Hong Kong, so I hope the Deputy Foreign Secretary comes to that.
I will finish by saying that for us, it is about the whole idea of soul searching and asking what the UK’s role in the world is and how we can slightly push back against the tone. We do not want to push China into the arms of the axis of authoritarian regimes, as we talked about, because there are many things the Chinese people care about that show their values are very similar to ours. It is not just the paranoia of 200,000 Chinese students in the UK who are all doing these bad things; actually, it shows a society that is striving to do better, and those are values that we share and hold dearly in this country as well.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I really enjoyed the Mandarin, but we are supposed to use English in debates. If I lapse into Welsh, please forgive me now.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I am grateful for that guidance, Ms Rees. You will find no attempt at Mandarin, Welsh or anything else in my remarks this afternoon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate. He is a good friend with whom I was privileged to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee. The only thing wrong is that we do not have longer or, indeed, more hon. Members taking part. We would not know from the acres of empty green seats that surround us that this is the defining challenge of our time, which is too often thought of as a complicated and faraway foreign policy issue, when in actual fact the challenge of China is where domestic and foreign policy are so intertwined.
This is an issue of foreign policy and of domestic policy that manifests itself in many different policy areas and it is of concern to people up and down the UK, whether in Glasgow, Kilmarnock, Edinburgh, Cardiff, London, the Isle of Wight or wherever. It is indeed a domestic issue as much as a foreign policy issue. The nature of the challenge that China presents manifests itself right across a whole sphere of policy areas, many of which have been mentioned. It is an economic challenge, a security challenge and a technology challenge. It is a challenge to our democratic values, our open society and way of life, our energy security and our national resilience.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight described too much of the Government’s approach as “piecemeal”, and I believe we would be wrong to try to compartmentalise any response to that challenge into individual policy areas. The challenge that China presents us with is so complex that I do not believe it can ever really be won or lost; it needs to be constantly revisited.
Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), could anyone imagine our having this debate 12 to 15 years ago, at the height of the so-called golden era of relations? I rather think not. China will constantly evolve and produce new challenges. There will also be new opportunities and a whole tonne—a whole series—of contradictions in between. The pace of change we have seen since the golden era speaks to that.
I want to do something that Members will expect me to do: the Scotland bit of the debate, or indeed the devolution bit. It is good to have a Welsh Member of Parliament in the Chair, Ms Rees, and you will, I am sure, well understand some of these remarks. Devolution is well understood in Beijing, probably better understood than it is by most Members of this House. My goodness, do they have a strategy to deal with the fact that huge swathes of financial and legislative power sit not here in London but in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Do the UK Government or any of the devolved Governments have a strategy to deal with that? No, none of them do.
I want to focus on three Es: exports, education and energy. If we do the good bit first, as far as Scotland is concerned that is exports. Scotland’s exports to China stand at about £800 million, the exact same as our exports to Norway and Singapore. It is a relatively healthy position for Scotland to be in. That figure is from 2023, the year of the integrated review refresh in which China is written up as an “epoch-defining challenge” and the year of the major speech from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calling on countries to de-risk their exports to China. I would argue that Scotland is already in that place and has a healthy level of exports.
When it comes to education and energy, there is a massive risk surface that no Government of any stripe should be content with. The risk of universities being dependent on Chinese funding is far higher in Scottish universities than in universities anywhere else in the UK. Bear in mind, education is entirely devolved. No Minister across the road can do a single thing about education policy in Scotland. The University of Glasgow gets 42% of its fee income from students from China. It would be a problem if 42% of the fee income came from students from France, but we are dealing with a very different issue with China. That is not to say that Chinese students are not welcome in the University of Glasgow or in universities anywhere else across the UK, because they absolutely are, but why have we allowed these fine institutions of higher education to create massive surfaces of risk that would not stand the test of any kind of geopolitical shock—a shock in the strait of Taiwan, for example?
In February of this year, the Scottish Government produced their international education strategy, which says that they wish to diversify the “international student population”. There is at least an understanding that there is an issue and a problem. What there is not, I am sorry to say, is a strategy to turn that around. There is no strategy of working with higher education institutes, industry and others to globalise the international student population that exists in Scotland.
If we look at research funding, £12 million has flown into UK universities from bodies with links to, for example, the repression of Uyghurs, espionage, cyber-hacking and much else. The Government know about that problem, but they dare not speak about it, never mind have a strategy to deal with it.
Then there is energy. I am sure that the Deputy Foreign Secretary will know about my recent problems, for example, with Minyang Smart Energy building the largest European turbine manufacturing project in Scotland. How on earth is it in the UK or Scotland’s interests to put such a critical part of our national energy infrastructure into the hands of an entity from a hostile foreign power just weeks after the Norwegian Government declined the same entity, and in the same month that the European Commission started its anti-trust investigation into unfair competition practices by Chinese turbine manufacturers?
To summarise, the point I make to the Deputy Foreign Secretary this afternoon is that devolution is a back door for hostile foreign states. That is well understood in the Chinese consulates in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. I am not looking for Ministers in London to override anybody in the other capitals of the UK. I want a joined-up strategy between devolved Government and state-level Government to help us de-risk key parts of our economy and infrastructure and ensure that we are not overly dependent on a foreign power that is hostile to our values and way of life, and certainly does not have our national interests in mind as far as energy security, education or much else are concerned. My appeal to the Deputy Foreign Secretary is to understand that and work with Ministers in Edinburgh and elsewhere to start to unpick those dependencies, diversify our institutions and ensure that the risk is being driven down.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I will call the Opposition spokespersons at 3.28 pm.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing it. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) referred to how it would be great if China became more westernised—I must say it, but my goodness. I will explain why it is not more westernised, and why China does not fit into that category and never will. Its human rights abuses and persecution of those with religious views are enormous, and in the short time that I have I will categorise them.
Countless human rights violations have been committed by China. Religious freedom for Tibetan Buddhists is a special concern of mine, and I continue to raise my voice on those issues. My efforts to call out China for its deplorable actions, which threaten the basic rights of those within its borders and across the world, have led the Chinese Communist party to sanction me as it has sanctioned others. As the hon. Member for Bolton North East said, China could become more westernised. Well, I will tell them what: start thinking like we do in the western world, where we understand human rights and the right to religious belief. We understand the right to be friends of others and not to suppress people. That is what British values are, and the Deputy Foreign Secretary will respond to that. No threats will deter me or others from speaking up about human rights in China and elsewhere.
The relationship between China and the UK is in a precarious state. Our Government seek to mend relations with China to increase trade and investment between the two countries. I know that the Deputy Foreign Secretary will summarise some of those things, but we need to collaborate on common goals, be it economic prosperity, global security or environmental protection. However, China must accept the issue of the right for us and other people to have human rights, and we must not allow our economic interests to overrule our moral obligation to protect the rule of law and human rights. It is widely recognised that China’s aggressive actions violate the human rights of Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Christians and Falun Gong and threaten the status of Hong Kong and Taiwan. A western country! My goodness. It has a long way to go to catch up.
I must note that those of us in the UK are not removed from the threat of Chinese influence. The Prime Minister remarked that China poses a
“particular threat to our open and democratic way of life”.
Let us start listening to the evidential base. China’s influence warrants our engagement with this growing power, but our security and that of our allies, along with the protection of human rights, must be cornerstones of our foreign policy on China.
Recent threats to Taiwan’s status from China have significantly escalated tensions in the Taiwan strait and the South China sea. Taiwan’s democracy and freedom are in danger, as well as the stability of the wider region. The UK and Taiwan share a thriving £8 billion trade and investment relationship. Taiwan’s economy is vital for the success of the technology supply chain that drives our global digital economy. Protecting Taiwan and our relationship with them is in the UK’s and the world’s economic interests. Hong Kong has experienced a severe escalation of restrictions on people’s freedoms imposed by China within the last decade. Earlier this year, a new security law took effect in Hong Kong—a law that severely restricts freedom of expression and other human rights of those in Hong Kong.
We know that freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief are inextricably intertwined. While religious communities supposedly have the right to conduct religious activities in Hong Kong, we know that it will not be too long before freedom of religion or belief will fall alongside the rest of human rights in Hong Kong, as China has shown that it is not interested in being a western power or even in being influenced by western moral standards. Benedict Rogers, the CEO of Hong Kong Watch, is in the Gallery today, and his work in promoting freedom in the country is quite commendable. He remarked that
“repression in Hong Kong would be dangerous to us all”
—and so it would.
China’s activities extend far beyond the borders of south-east Asia; China has recently increased its influence in Africa and other parts of the world. I want to be very clear on this point: China suppresses human rights to such an extent that, should its influence continue to expand, the freedom and security of billions of people across the world would be in peril, and their human rights and right to religious belief would be severely affected. Why is that? China has an insatiable appetite for anything else that anybody has. When it is going across Africa, it is marking down where it can get minerals, have influence and take and use whatever that country has.
Appeasing or ignoring actions by authoritarian states for the sake of trade and investment will only lead to the escalation of these actions. It is indisputable that China regularly violates article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which it has signed. We must stand firm in our values and our morals that guide our actions in creating a world where international law is upheld and human rights are protected. The hostility and aggression of Chinese actions call for us to stand together with greater courage, strength and determination to protect human rights and religious freedom.
I ask the Minister and the Government. along with the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), to pay particular heed to China’s violations of human rights and religious persecution not only within its borders, but across the world as they consider their foreign policy on China.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees, for this important and extremely timely debate on the UK Government’s approach to China.
As everyone has, I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing the debate, and thank all those who have taken part in a wide-ranging, well-informed and bilingual debate. It has highlighted many of the concerns we must consider, including China’s belt and road initiative; the well-documented mistreatment of religious and ethnic minorities; the use of the national security laws in Hong Kong; the future of Taiwan; Chinese multilateralism, particularly given the emergence of BRICs; the inherent dangers in the development of the internet of things; and the challenges that we face with the CCP activities in monitoring both their own people and pro-democracy Hong Kong activists here in the UK. There are many and varied concerns, and I hope the Minister can address as many of them as possible, but it is not possible to address the problems and challenges posed by China in one Westminster Hall debate.
We all recognise that in a relatively short time China has become one of the most politically and economically powerful countries in the world. There is now barely a country that is not either in hock to China financially or desperately trying to defend its economic interests from China. When the UK Government consider the future of their economic and political relationship with China, it is essential that securing trade and business links with Beijing does not come at the cost of our obligation to defend international human rights. Furthermore, we must not compromise national security in pursuit of the yen.
The political and economic reach of China is astonishing. Beijing’s phenomenally successful global infrastructure project, the belt and road initiative, has seen China invest in almost 150 countries. Those countries account for around two thirds of the world’s population and 40% of global GDP. Massive investment in links by road, rail, sea and digital infrastructure have transformed the relationship that those participating nations have with Beijing, making them increasingly dependent on the Chinese economy and, as a result, building in both economic and political influence for China.
Indebtedness, mainly among developing nations in the global south that have accepted such investment through the belt and road initiative, now stands at an eye-watering $1 trillion. Lord Alton of Liverpool said:
“This has made them extraordinarily subservient and often into vassal states that do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 675.]
That is particularly problematic not just because of the massive level of indebtedness these countries are accruing, but because they are becoming indebted to a country that has shown itself so often not to care for the rules-based order on which we all depend or for the fundamental human rights of their religious or cultural minorities.
But let us be very careful before we condemn others for turning a blind eye to Chinese human rights abuses in pursuit of investment. The UK’s hands are far from spotless on this matter. Time and again we pay lip service to criticising Chinese human rights abuses without doing anything that may incur any economic cost for ourselves.
Nury Turkel, the Uyghur-American lawyer and the commissioner on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, has directly challenged countries such as the UK, asking, “How do you propose to get China to change without going after the most important thing to the Chinese Government, which is their economic interest?” Whether the Minister likes it or not, it is an inescapable fact that, as long as we pay little more than lip service to condemning China’s human rights abuses and continue to trade in goods that we know are, at the very least, highly suspected of being made by Uyghur slave labour, we really do not have a moral high ground from which to lecture others.
For example, last month the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), secured an Adjournment debate on solar supply chains, in which she made it clear that, by lagging behind the US and the European Union in ensuring that Chinese solar panels that come to the UK are not produced by Uyghur slave labour, the UK was in real danger of becoming a dumping ground for what she described as “dirty solar”.
This is not a new issue for the Government. Just over two years ago I introduced a Bill that would have prohibited any goods made by forced labour in the Xinjiang region. It would have required all companies that import products from Xinjiang to the UK to provide proof that they were not manufactured by forced or enslaved labour. The Bill would have brought the UK into line with the United States, which passed a similar law in 2021. So there have been opportunities to act, but thus far the UK Government have chosen not to. That is why, Minister, there is a growing perception that this Government are just paying lip service on Chinese human rights abuses without doing anything practical or tangible.
I recall a similar debate in 2020. The UK Government Minister’s reply then was that the Government would
“continue to urge the Chinese authorities to change their approach in Xinjiang and respect international human rights,”
but four years on there is no evidence whatever that that approach has worked, and it is clear that China has not paid the slightest heed to what the UK Government or anyone else have to say about its human rights record.
It is not just the Uyghurs whose human rights have been trampled over. Last week, at a surgery on the Isle of Bute, I met my constituent Mary Clark, who is a Falun Gong practitioner. She reminded me that it is five years since the China tribunal led by Sir Geoffrey Nice found that the Falun Gong practitioners in China were being subjected to the most awful crimes, including the unspeakably horrific practice of organ harvesting. That is truly a crime against humanity. Despite the overwhelming evidence and unambiguous verdict of the tribunal, the response that was demanded of Governments and other international actors simply did not follow.
Not even after the 2021 report from the UN on freedom of religion or belief, which provided clear evidence of such abhorrent practices, did the international community take any action against China. Thankfully, we are reminded at every opportunity by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right, and as part of the international community we have a responsibility to protect it.
In short, we talk a good game but we never deliver. Decades of harsh condemnation, despite urging and impassioned persuasion, have failed to shift China one iota. It seems that not even the tearing up of a legally binding international agreement and a slew of broken promises made to the people of Hong Kong can stir the UK into much more than finger wagging, tut-tutting and headshaking.
The speed at which Beijing has stripped away the basic freedoms of expression and peaceful protest, and has extinguished Hong Kong’s independent free press—turning it from being one of the most open cities in Asia to one of the most repressive—should alarm every one of us. The use of the draconian national security law to crack down on pro-democracy campaigners, including Jimmy Lai, who is still on trial, is an absolute disgrace and a shame on this country. If that does not motivate the UK to take a more robust attitude to Beijing, we have to conclude that perhaps nothing will.
We are not naive enough to believe that the UK could stand up to the economic might of China by itself. But sadly, all too often, when presented with the opportunity to act in concert with friends and allies, the UK Government have chosen not to.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
I was going to begin by saying that I thought I was one of the few Members of this House who had lived in China and spoke Mandarin, but I see that others have turned out in great numbers, including the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). Many of us taught English to begin with, as I did in Nanjing in the 1990s. All of us agree that the Chinese people gave us enormous amounts of hospitality, and a warm and friendly experience, and showed so much pride in a 5,000-year-old civilisation, a passion to modernise China, and a desire to provide for more Chinese people to no longer live in poverty.
As the years have gone by, the tone coming from the Chinese Government has changed. Undoubtedly, 30 years of economic progress has catapulted China to become the world’s second largest economy by some measure, with a newly enriched middle class enjoying lives a world away from most Chinese people in the 1980s. However, the more authoritarian and even belligerent look and feel to foreign relations has increasingly caused us to be concerned about the risk to a rules-based international order.
In Hong Kong, the rule of law, under which its economy and society flourished for generations, has been worn down, and journalists such as Jimmy Lai—who has already been mentioned—continue to be detained on politically motivated charges. Hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers have fled for a better life overseas, with less repression and more freedoms. I pay tribute to the cross-party group Hong Kong Watch—of which I am a founder; I declare an interest—and to the well-known campaigner Ben Rogers, who is a great stalwart for that campaign. I know that he enjoys the respect of all Members of the House.
In Xinjiang, which has been mentioned in the debate, the Uyghur minority are subjected to brutal repression and horrific human rights abuses, including wholesale attempts to eliminate their culture and religion. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is quite right to emphasise the importance of freedom of religion or belief in anything that we talk about in relation to foreign policy.
In the South China sea—I know that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) has a background in defence—Chinese vessels and aircraft repeatedly test the boundaries of international law, destabilising regional security and threatening some of the world’s most important shipping lanes. Of course, the increasing military activity in the Taiwan strait, particularly in the last three years, is troubling many of us.
No foreign policy question is more fundamental than how the west manages its relationship with China in the years ahead, and it is obvious, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said at the start of the debate, that that starts with our multilateral approach and friends in the US and, of course, in Australia and down in that part of the world. It goes to the question of identity and closed and open societies. For the UK, as a UN Security Council permanent member and a G20 partner, that is particularly the case, and it is a question that we must address head-on, with seriousness, consistency and rigour. But it is a question that is rightly linked to our wider approach to the Indo-Pacific. We cannot have a sustained and serious approach to China without having a wider-ranging British approach to the Indo-Pacific. Without a doubt, the AUKUS relationship with the US and Australia is at the cornerstone of that regional approach.
Labour is of course committed to further strengthening our co-operation with the US and Australia in the Indo-Pacific through AUKUS and particularly through delivery of the second pillar of the agreement. We are equally committed to deepening our increasingly close relationships with ASEAN—the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—through our trade arrangements there, and with Japan and South Korea. We welcome the moves that have been made in that regard over the past few years, but that work must be encased within a wider and more sustained strategy towards the region as a whole, including China.
Sadly, for most of the past 14 years the UK Government’s approach has basically been the opposite to what we need, which is stability and predictability. We have lurched 180 degrees from embracing a “golden era” of bilateral relations and having a pint down the pub with Xi Jinping under the then Prime Minister, who is now Foreign Secretary; indeed, some of the questions as to his financial arrangements prior to his becoming Foreign Secretary also bring questions to this debate. This is simply not good enough. China thinks in generational terms, and we require a foreign policy that is capable of considering the bilateral relationship over a far longer timeframe and that aims above all for consistency.
Earlier this year, I travelled to Beijing as part of a cross-party delegation and met senior members of the Chinese leadership, having been approached to do by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I made it clear that Labour would pursue a more sustainable and coherent relationship. Such a relationship must begin with addressing our concerns about national security and standing up for our principles on human rights, but it must also set out avenues for co-operation, both bilaterally and within the multilateral system, and allow our country’s businesses to have the certainty and stability to make the long-term investment decisions that they deserve. The shadow Foreign Secretary has been clear that that relationship will be centred on a framework to “challenge, compete and co-operate” with China, which we will develop through a comprehensive and long-overdue audit of the bilateral relationship—an element mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
However, even in advance of the audit, some of the changes that we need to see are obvious, and I hope that the Minister will have some answers for us today. He will be aware that the issue of the threat posed to Hongkongers has been raised many times in the House. Indeed, just this week Amnesty International has brought out a report called “On my campus, I am afraid”. I wonder what recommendations on a cross-Government approach to that issue the Minister will take back to the Government.
In addition to that, we have an excellent question from the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) about whether there has been a back door that gives access to various projects that could have national security implications, through devolved nations. Furthermore, what is the industrial strategy on which the Government are deciding on important projects such as the new electric vehicles being sold at Ellesmere Port, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) spoke so eloquently? He knows his patch so well and stands up for not just his workforce but the businesses there, as well as for the importance of a vibrant operation in the north-west, with own vehicles, which of course involves international collaboration but it is not dominated by another party. Will the Minister speak to that important question of an industrial strategy?
There are so many challenges here, but it is in our national interest to have a cohesive and comprehensive approach to our relationship with China, addressing the most complex of countries and relationships in their entirety. The issues at stake go to the heart of our security and prosperity, and we cannot just muddle along as we have been. Labour will have a new approach. We will do our audit. We will be clear-eyed, consistent, and guided, above all, by the national interest.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Will the Minister leave a couple of minutes at the end of his speech so that Bob Seely can wind up?
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
It is a pleasure to appear under your skilled chairship this afternoon, Ms Rees. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to his advocacy for the people of Hong Kong through the all-party group. He is an expert in the area that we are addressing this afternoon, and I particularly wanted to listen to him and respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. He speaks with both knowledge and understanding, and the House always listens to what he says with very great attention and respect. This afternoon, we have seen why, from his thoughtful and interesting contribution.
My hon. Friend asked a number of questions but started by making it clear that the relationship with China is far more complex than the relationship with Russia. In anything one does with international development, one sees how very true that is. He also spoke about dumping, as indeed did the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). I want to make a couple of comments about that. Having left the European Union, the UK has numerous trade remedy measures in place to protect against practices that have an adverse effect on the UK’s prosperity and security. We will always respond vigorously to unfair trading practices wherever they occur by working with the Trade Remedies Authority to protect the UK’s interests. We would encourage UK industry to apply to the independent Trade Remedies Authority if it has concerns, and we always stand ready to look at any recommendations that the TRA provides. More broadly, Britain has three active trade remedy investigations into Chinese products at the moment, and an additional 12 reviews of existing measures on Chinese exports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight asked me about genomic research, and if he will allow me, I would like to think about that and write to him in response to his question. He also raised the issue of fentanyl. We recognise the importance of the fentanyl issue to the United States, and we welcome the US-China dialogue on that. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston warned of the need for vigilance, and he made a number of extremely important comments in that respect. He also, in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), underlined the difference between the CCP and the Chinese people. He also made some very important points about supply chains.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) spoke with profound and detailed knowledge. I was not sure whether he is a gamekeeper turned poacher, or a poacher turned gamekeeper, but his comments were both informed and extremely interesting. The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) spoke about exports, education and energy, and he expressed a number of interesting thoughts on devolution and dependency on which I will reflect, if I may. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke up, as he always does, for the importance of human rights, and he urged that we should not allow economic interests to override our moral obligations. He spoke about freedom of religious belief. I will come on to that, but we are very grateful for what he said. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) discussed a number of different aspects of the wide issues we are discussing. As I hope to show, his suggestion that we are merely paying lip service to these vital issues is simply not correct.
I turn finally to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), whose expertise in this area, as another China expert, I discovered to my humility. I thank her for her remarks on Ben Rogers, with which I think the House will widely agree. The hon. Lady chides us for the changes in our stance over the last 14 years in government, but I put it to her that as the circumstances and facts on the grounds have changed, so too have our policies and our approach.
China is a major global actor with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It has an impact on almost every global issue of importance to the UK, and therefore no significant global problem can be solved without China. We must engage with Beijing on issues affecting us all. The Government recognise the epoch-defining challenge presented by China under the CCP, and our response and approach are based on three key pillars. This House will be familiar with these pillars, but I hope Members will allow me very briefly to set them out to frame my response on the issues that have been raised.
The first is about protecting our national security through key measures. I refer specifically to the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and enhanced export controls. Secondly, we have deepened co-operation with our allies and partners, including where China undermines regional peace and stability in the South China sea, and sanctioning Chinese companies providing dual-use goods to Russia. We join our allies and partners to call out China’s human rights violations. Thirdly, we engage with China where it is in our interest to do so: on global challenges such as climate and artificial intelligence, through, for instance, the AI safety summit.
If Members will allow me, I will reflect on some of the specific issues that have been raised in a little more detail, beginning with national security, which is our top priority in engagement with China. I am sure they will understand that I cannot comment on cases that are before the courts. However, we make our concerns clear. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary summoned the Chinese ambassador to the Foreign Office, and we were unequivocal in setting out that the recent pattern of behaviour directed by China against Britain, including cyber-attacks, reports of espionage links and the issue of bounties, is simply unacceptable.
Turning to cyber-security, the House will be aware that we have attributed cyber-attacks to Chinese actors and imposed sanctions against those who are responsible. The Foreign Secretary has raised this directly with the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, and the Government have ordered the removal of Huawei from the 5G networks. Our wider work to bolster our national security includes establishing the defending democracy taskforce in 2022 and passing the National Security Act in 2023.
On human rights, it is, of course, a matter of great concern that the Chinese people are facing growing restrictions on fundamental freedoms and that the Chinese authorities continue to commit widespread human rights violations. Those include severe constraints on media freedom and freedom of religion or belief, repression of culture and language in Tibet and systematic violations in Xinjiang. The UK continues to lead international efforts to address China’s human rights record.
Catherine West
I know the Minister is trying to fit a lot in. Just before discussing human rights, he talked about the difficult decisions regarding industry that affect our national security. Could he respond to something mentioned in the debate, which was the financial involvement in Thames Water and nuclear power plants? If not, would he write to the Members present to go into more detail, if that is more appropriate?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the option; I will either come on to those issues, or I will write.
By imposing the national security law in 2020, China has stifled opposition in Hong Kong and criminalised dissent. Mr Jimmy Lai and others are being deliberately targeted to silence criticism under the guise of national security. The new Safeguarding National Security Ordinance will further damage the rights and freedoms enjoyed in the city. We took swift and decisive action, including suspending our extradition treaty indefinitely and extending the arms embargo applied to mainland China since 1989 to include Hong Kong. We also introduced a British National (Overseas) immigration path, granting over 191,000 visas to date.
During her recent visit to mainland China and Hong Kong, the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), met Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Deng Li in Beijing and Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Christopher Hui in Hong Kong. She made clear the Government’s deep concerns about the situation in Hong Kong.
I would say more about Xinjiang if I had more time, but the point was made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. We consistently raise human rights concerns with the Chinese authorities at the highest level.
I will turn briefly to the engagement aspect of our approach, since no global issue can be solved without China. As I have mentioned, the Minister for the Indo-Pacific visited China and Hong Kong last month. She encouraged China to use its influence to avert further escalation in the middle east and urged Russia to end its illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Ministers discussed areas of mutual co-operation, including AI safety and trade. My right hon. Friend underscored our concerns about China’s human rights record and interference in our democratic institutions. She also urged China to lift sanctions on UK parliamentarians and British nationals—something about which the House has been rightly outraged.
In February, my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary met his Chinese counterpart at the Munich security conference. He urged China to use its influence on Iran to pressure the Houthis over their actions in the Red sea. He further stressed that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine threatens the rules-based international system, which is designed to keep us all safe.
The Foreign Secretary set out the UK’s position on human rights and particularly mentioned Xinjiang and Hong Kong. He also raised the case of British parliamentarians sanctioned by China and reiterated his call for the release of the British national, Jimmy Lai.
I am glad of the opportunity to outline our position today. I thank my hon. Friends for their thoughtful contributions and all those who have contributed to the debate in what has been an engaging, wide-ranging and thoughtful discussion. It is clear that the challenges posed by China are complex and evolving. We will continue to respond with an approach that protects our national security, aligns with our allies and partners and engages with China where it is in the UK’s interests to do so.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, who speaks for the Opposition, asked me specifically about Thames Water and other Chinese investment. As time is short, I will, if I may, write to her in detail on that as soon as I can.
Bob Seely
I thank everyone for attending and I thank you, Ms Rees, for chairing the debate. As the Deputy Foreign Secretary is writing to us on Thames Water, I would be grateful if he mentioned and looked into the Isle of Wight ferries. We were discussing how much China’s investment is, and bizarrely, one of the offshore companies was paying out to the Chinese central bank, so unfortunately it became a partial owner.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government policy on China.
Gypsy and Traveller Sites
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I will call Mr Philip Hollobone to move the motion and will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered planning policy for Gypsy and Traveller sites.
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank Mr Speaker for granting me permission for this debate, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I also thank him for visiting Kettering to discuss this issue on 8 February.
The purpose of the debate is to make it clear to the Minister that we need changes to the legislative framework for Gypsy and Traveller pitch provision, unauthorised development, and licensing and management of Gypsy and Traveller sites. It will be frustrating for residents in my constituency that I will not be able to go into detail in this debate about specific local sites, because various forms of planning enforcement and legal action are under way. I will highlight in passing Oakley Park and Peasdale Hill in Middleton in the neighbouring Corby constituency, and sites in my own constituency at Loddington, Broughton, Braybrooke, Stoke Albany and Desborough.
I will also highlight controversy locally over a proposed Traveller stopping site at Rothwell, which is to deal with the slightly separate issue of unauthorised encampments under Home Office provisions. I appreciate that is not the direct responsibility of the Local Government Minister in front of us today. To deal with that one first, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, section 62A allows a senior police officer to direct those in an unauthorised encampment, consisting of at least one vehicle and caravan, to leave land upon which it does not have permission to be, if the local authority can provide a suitable pitch elsewhere in the area. My view is that a senior officer should be able to direct them to leave the local authority area, without the local authority having to provide alternative provision.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Over the past number of years as my constituency’s elected representative, I have had to deal with this issue on some occasions, as has the council. Does the hon. Member agree that it is essential that local community planning and provision goes hand in hand with the right for Travellers and Gypsies to have the freedom to live as they culturally and historically have done, and that perhaps sensitivity is the best way forward?
Mr Hollobone
The hon. Gentleman brings me to my next point. The Government’s planning policy for Traveller sites sets out national planning policies for Gypsies and Travellers. It states:
“The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers in a way that in a way that facilitates their traditional and nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of the settled community.”
My contention is that fair and equal treatment goes both ways. In my assessment, the current planning policy enables Gypsies and Travellers to develop sites in the countryside that members of the settled community would simply not be able to develop under the same planning regulations. Although the aim of the policy is fair and equal treatment, it actually amounts to preferential treatment for Gypsies and Travellers.
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Another unfairness in the planning system is that it penalises those local authority areas that have traditionally provided a large number of pitches. They are having to provide so many more because the duty to co-operate with other local authorities means that those with literally zero pitches do not have to take them on. That needs to be addressed, because the same local authorities are being asked to make all the provision and that is not sustainable.
Mr Hollobone
As always, my right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. There is an unfairness in the system that penalises authorities that stick to the rules. They then find that they have to make even greater provision for more and more Gypsy and Traveller sites.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
First, I should declare an interest as a serving Somerset councillor. Somerset Council, like all local authorities, has the power to take enforcement action where appropriate. However, decisions that were made by the previous, Conservative administration in Somerset have left the county without any appropriate transit sites. Regardless of the intent of the council, the costs involved in developing those transit sites, like any other planning development and homebuilding, are now that much greater. Does the hon. Member agree that local authorities need more provision to take action when necessary?
Mr Hollobone
If the hon. Lady is talking about temporary Traveller stopping sites, I highlighted those in my opening remarks. Under the present law, local authorities are encouraged to provide temporary stopping sites so that Gypsies and Travellers who have temporary unauthorised encampments can be moved out of a local authority area only if such transit provision has been made. I would argue that that should be unnecessary, and that they should be required to move out of the area in any case, just like anyone in the settled community if they were parked up temporarily on somebody else’s land.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a fair-minded person, so may I suggest to him that the balance actually goes the other way? He might be aware of the case of Smith v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, which was handed down yesterday and granted a declaration of incompatibility under the European convention on human rights. It said that there is a lack of lawful stopping places for Gypsies and Travellers, and unless the Government increase provision, the law as currently drafted will amount to unjustified race discrimination. For example, only eight out of 68 local authorities in the south-east of England have identified the land needed for Gypsies and Travellers in their area. It is the lack of sites that is at the root of the problem, not unfair treatment that benefits Gypsies and Travellers.
Mr Hollobone
As always, the hon. Gentleman and I totally differ on these issues. I would argue that we should withdraw from the European convention on human rights and amend the Human Rights Act 1998, because it is simply absurd that public authorities should be spending millions of pounds to develop stopping sites for Gypsies and Travellers. The pressure on the public purse is already enormous without adding to it.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I am also in complete opposition to the hon. Gentleman’s long-standing views. The reality is that there is disgracefully unjust discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers in planning processes. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) just touched on yesterday’s High Court ruling about the ECHR. I ask the hon. Member to read the excellent research from Friends, Families and Travellers, which clearly evidences the reluctance and failure of local authorities to ensure that socially rented sites are created, and rightly calls on the Government to reintroduce a statutory duty to ensure that the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers are met.
Mr Hollobone
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I totally disagree.
I thank the House of Commons Library for the excellent briefing it published today, ahead of this debate. To put this into context, in July 2023, local authorities counted over 25,000 caravans on Gypsy and Traveller sites in England. That is a 21% increase in the last 10 years. Of those caravans, 26% were on public sites, 60% were on authorised private sites, and 14% were on unauthorised sites. Of the unauthorised sites, most—83%—were on land owned by Gypsies and Travellers, and 17% were unauthorised encampments on land belonging to private landowners or public authorities. The focus of this debate, with particular reference to Kettering and north Northamptonshire, is the 14% of unauthorised sites as well as the abuse of the conditions laid down in the grant of planning permission for authorised, private sites.
Locally in Kettering, North Northamptonshire Council is committed to meeting the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community and addressing the challenges that it faces. A Gypsy and Traveller local plan is in preparation and quarterly meetings occur with interested local parish councils. I praise Councillor David Howes, who is the North Northamptonshire Council portfolio holder for Gypsies and Travellers, and George Candler, who is the deputy chief executive on North Northamptonshire Council, for facilitating those extremely useful meetings, which were positive and focused on providing suitable Gypsy and Traveller provision as well as addressing unauthorised encampments and the unlawful development of sites.
The suggestions I will outline in the next five to 10 minutes have emerged from the meeting that the Minister kindly attended in Kettering on 8 February, which was attended by council officers and representatives from local parish councils. Those suggestions are about how the current law encumbers local planning authorities in effectively enforcing the system.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He has touched on a key point. Does he agree that one of the problems is that planning guidance differs so much from local authority to local authority and in how it is applied? For example, City of York Council, which covers my constituency’s planning guidance, has been all over the place recently on the issue. It has looked at expanding existing sites, and when that has not worked it has moved to look at forcing local developers to add one to two pitches for every new development that comes forward. That is opposed by the local Traveller community and local communities, so the policy is just not working. We must find a better way of taking it forward.
Mr Hollobone
I am grateful for that useful intervention, because it is clear that the planning system around Gypsy and Traveller provision has so many holes in it and simply is not working. It is certainly not working for my hon. Friend’s constituents, and it is not working for mine, either.
A commonly seen pattern of behaviour is for Travellers to buy a plot of land, move in over a bank holiday weekend, strip off the topsoil and have a queue of tipper lorries arrive at the site to drop off hardcore. By the end of the weekend, hardstanding is down and caravans occupy the site, with no immediate action to stop them. Legal wrangles then follow through the planning process for perhaps the next three to four years or even longer, with enforcement, planning applications, appeals and so on. Most of the unauthorised developments in my local area deal with Gypsies and Travellers who have purchased the land, so they are not trespassers, and it can be difficult for the local authority to evidence at what point development actually occurred that is sufficient to serve a stop notice. That is particularly problematic in the early stages, when no residential occupation of the land has actually started.
The Minister will be aware that local councils cannot serve a stop notice on the basis of something that may occur but need to be able to confirm a permanent breach of the planning regulations—in other words, when residential occupation has occurred. Of course, once residential occupation has occurred, it is then more difficult to address. As the council is then involved in removing occupants from their home, they claim that they have nowhere else to go. It is not suitable to camp them at the roadside with young children, and it becomes difficult for the local council to dispute. A local authority, quite rightly under the current law—although I think that needs to be amended—must take note of human rights issues, protected characteristics and so on, especially if Travellers are recognised as an ethnic group in law.
In addition, the submission by Travellers of information, planning applications and other procedures are often made only shortly before critical deadlines, thereby further extending the period it takes to progress through the stages of the planning process and creating an extended period for issues to escalate. As a result, progress to a position where an application or enforcement notice can be considered, or an appeal registered, can often take 18 to 24 months or more. It is also well publicised that there is a significant backlog of cases at the Planning Inspectorate. The procedure for taking action against unlawful development is made harder and extended by the current requirements of the law, which bring about sometimes really considerable delays, risks and costs for local authorities.
Changes recently came into effect under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, but I am afraid they will not have a dramatic impact on planning enforcement against unauthorised Traveller sites. The Act does not, for example, address the difficulties in establishing the ownership of a site following a land transfer, the identities of the responsible persons on site, or whether the threshold has been met for a planning breach in law. My requests to the Minister include that there be a more simplified approach to discourage and manage the unauthorised development of land for the creation of Gypsy and Traveller pitches.
The process of issuing stop notices and taking enforcement action should be accelerated, as well as the process for requiring information to validate and consider planning applications. There needs to be provision for serving temporary stop notices immediately, before residential occupation has started.
The identification of landowners could be made easier where individuals operate outside the normal exchange of deeds and land registration. For example, why not have a legal requirement to publicly post information about the purchaser of the land at the site until the Land Registry is updated? That would facilitate faster identification of the landowner, and there would be sanctions for failing to display details of ownership.
For those who fail to take seriously compliance with temporary stop notices—this applies to almost all the Gypsy and Traveller sites in my local area—why not make it a criminal offence to fail to comply with a temporary stop notice? The potential for arrest and detention would make the punishment far more of a deterrent and would encourage greater compliance.
Why not make it a criminal offence to create residential accommodation or change the use of property to residential without planning permission? That would encourage the correct use of the planning system in seeking approval before development takes place.
I am afraid that fines are no real deterrent to get Travellers to desist from pursuing unauthorised developments. There needs to be a better process to allow local councils to remove development and consider the seizure of assets where a conviction has been secured and an order of the court obtained.
Why not change the planning regulations to amend permitted development regulations, which currently make the removal of topsoil acceptable? That creates significant local concern and has the potential to destroy the ecological qualities of land, and it undermines the principle of biodiversity net gain, as the biodiversity is removed ahead of an application going in.
Then we have the lack of alignment between the planning system and the caravan licensing regime. A caravan site licence can be issued only if there is planning permission in place. A person does not need to be the landowner to obtain planning permission, but to obtain a caravan licence they need to demonstrate that they own the land. That makes it difficult for licences to be issued to the correct responsible person. We need changes to the law whereby planning permission cannot be granted for a caravan site unless submitted by the owner of the land, or the caravan licence can be issued only to owners who have the required planning consent.
In addition, specific protection should be afforded to landowners, such as farmers, who do not wish for their land to be occupied, and do not wish to sell it but do so due to fear of reprisals. Such landowners may also find themselves subject to licensing enforcement for a site they do not actually manage.
Can we have changes to the fit and proper person test under the Mobile Homes Act 2013 so that site owners, directors and managers must meet the test? Can we have more detailed guidance about how local authorities can enforce those measures?
I thank the Minister for his attention and his officials for liaising with officials at North Northants Council about how such constructive changes to the law could be made. I welcome the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for securing the debate and for giving us the opportunity, even for just a few short minutes, to talk about these important issues. Most importantly, I thank him and his colleagues for the kindness they showed me when I visited Northamptonshire a couple of months ago to talk about this issue at his invitation. He works closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) and I was grateful for the attention, support and explanation given by many of the parish councils in my hon. Friends’ area. They came to the meeting, giving us the opportunity to go through this in the detail it deserves. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering for the debate and for that opportunity a couple of months ago to talk about the issue in detail.
As with all issues of planning, I have to put a caveat on the front of my remarks: I am not able to talk about specific local plans, specific local planning applications or, indeed, enforcement action against those planning applications. As right hon. and hon. Members are aware, planning Ministers have a quasi-judicial role in the planning system, and must therefore reserve comments on any individual application, in case that needs to be exercised. I know that my hon. Friend is not asking me for information, or for my thoughts, on individual applications, but seeking to articulate his concerns about the policy in general, which I will focus on.
This area of policy is obviously sensitive. It has been debated reasonably today, in the short time that we have had, but we can see the contours of a broader debate where people take, legitimately, different views. I will try to choose my words carefully, and it may be that I am not able to go as far as I might otherwise wish to in certain areas, but I hope that it demonstrates that I am engaging in the issue. I will say more when I am able to in future. I should put on the record that I have historical experience in my constituency of challenges in this part of planning policy, so I am aware of it from the perspective of North East Derbyshire.
In essence, we are debating three questions today: first, planning for suitable provision of sites for those in the travelling community; secondly, ensuring that the application process for agreeing those sites is done in a fair, transparent and open manner; and, thirdly, if that is not the case—as is the principle across every policy, intervention, change or action that is done by anyone out there, irrespective of the planning system—and enforcement is to be taken, what is proportionate and reasonable to do.
Andy Slaughter
On that issue of site availability, I recommend the Friends, Families and Travellers report to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), “Kicking the can down the road: The planning and provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites in England 1960-2023”. It explains the lack of site provision, which is at the root of the judgment in Smith yesterday that led to the declaration of incompatibility. The Minister has now had 24 hours to consider the judgment and I wonder about the Government response. They will have to deal with the issue—and the law at the moment—which stems from the fact of discrimination, with certain parts of the criminal law being impacted where there is not sufficient site provision in a particular area at the moment.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and he tempts me to comment on a very recent legal case but, with the leave of the House, I will reserve comment on that judgment while my colleagues review it. I will not comment specifically on the outcome of the case, as I am sure he understands.
I will quickly set out the position and then give a few comments on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. The Government set the legislative and policy framework—we have talked about it today —within which this area of policy operates, including the NPPF, or national planning policy framework, and the PPTS, or planning policy for Traveller sites. Despite the variance between the two policies, as articulated by colleagues, local planning authorities are responsible for plan preparation and have a duty to make planning decisions in accordance with the development plans that they have adopted. The planning policy for Traveller sites should be read in conjunction with the NPPF, and there is the requirement to provide a “robust evidence base” for the actions that are taken by individual planning authorities when they are preparing for them.
We all recognise, because we spend a lot of time in debates like this, that whether it is about this area of planning policy or any others, no area of planning policy is perfect. The question is how we balance the many different competing interests in the most appropriate way. There are always challenges, even in areas that are not contested, and this is obviously a relatively contested area. The question is how we ensure fairness in that discussion.
To the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering about fairness, it is about trying to work out how we balance that. I accept and agree that that is an open question, and it is perfectly legitimate and appropriate for us to come back and look at those issues on a very regular basis, which is something that we try to do across planning. I will continue to do that within this area of planning, which is why I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for having hosted me and officials a few months ago to articulate the challenges experienced in Northamptonshire.
I absolutely welcome the views and thoughts of Members across the House about both the planning policy elements, such as the local plans and whether they work, and whether the planning application process for Travellers works. My hon. Friend has put on record many of his comments today, which is very helpful, but I would welcome any further comments from other Members present.
It is the case, and I think it is important to reiterate, that the number of pitches provided in this country has substantially increased over my lifetime. In 1979, it was fewer than 10,000, and it is now 25,000 according to the latest count. There is a substantial increase in provision and it is important that discussions like this do not miss that point out. The question is, building on that increase in provision, where the logical extent is of where we need to go and what provision we need to require local authorities to provide for. That is why I would welcome comments from colleagues across the House, whether they are positive or negative, on the impact in their areas. When we are thinking about that, as when we are thinking about all elements of planning policy, we can consider that in the round when we bring ideas and proposals forward.
I recognise that I have just under three minutes left, but my hon. Friend talked about enforcement, and that is a hugely important area of policy, as he has highlighted. I do not lead on that part of the discussion, but I will certainly pass back the comments that he has made to my colleagues in the Home Office. As my hon. Friend indicated, some movement and some progress has been made—although I know he had comments about that—in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which became law last year. That removed the four-year time limit for taking action against some of the breaches in planning control, and it doubled the time when stop notices are effective from 28 to 56 days. We will return to the point that, when there is intentional unauthorised development generally along the lines of what my hon. Friend has articulated, that should be a material consideration when considering where the position has ended. We are committed to consulting on that and on how we implement it in the future within the broader policy framework.
I have less than two minutes left, but this is a very big area of policy. It is highly contested and it is one, from a Government perspective, where I think it is absolutely right that we tread carefully with our words and consider this in round. I absolutely acknowledge that there are strong views across the House on all these areas, and I also acknowledge that there are experiences in parts of the country that are really challenging at the moment. That is one of the reasons why I am keen to hear views from all colleagues over the course of the months ahead. It is why I am really keen to understand the suggestions of any colleagues about how we make progress, building on that significant increase of pitches that has occurred over my lifetime and recognising that we need to look at the issue in the round.
I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend’s comments on enforcement to the Home Office, and I look forward to continuing discussions with colleagues from across the House on this in future. We need to look at how we get this policy right, how we understand it and how we respond to some of the rightful challenges that have been set, while recognising that there is a balance that always needs to be struck here. It is about learning from experiences and working out how policy can be iterated and amended over the long term to ensure that it makes progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Under-10-Metre Fishing Fleet: South-West
(6 months, 1 week 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
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the under 10-metre fishing fleet in the South West.
I am delighted to bring this debate to the House today and be joined by a number of my Cornish colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and for St Ives (Derek Thomas), and my colleague from across the water, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I think it would be appropriate to begin by acknowledging that last Sunday was the first national fishing remembrance day. We should always remember that fishing continues to be one of the most dangerous occupations, and we should remember those down the years who have lost their lives while fishing.
We are blessed in Cornwall with a richness of natural resources, and our diverse and plentiful fishing waters are one such resource. There is no doubt about the importance of the role that the under-10-metre fishing fleet plays nationally and locally. According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the under-10-metre fishing fleet represents around 80% of the UK’s total fishing vessels, while providing 50% of catch-related jobs, often in coastal communities such as those in my part of Cornwall, which tend to be less affluent and are often more vulnerable to socioeconomic challenges.
The under-10-metre fishermen land over £110 million-worth of fish and shellfish annually. They are one of the most important parts of the fishing industry, and we should be doing all we can to support them. Many of them are small family-run businesses that have been handed down from generation to generation over many years. It is fair to say that they are the backbone of our fishing industry in the south-west. They are at the heart of coastal communities in places like Mevagissey, Newquay and Fowey in my constituency and across Cornwall. They are vital for the economy of these coastal communities. Every fisherman on a boat supports up to 15 other jobs ashore in the seafood supply chain.
(Christina Rees in the Chair)
The under-10 fishing fleet also supports tourism. People love to come to places like Mevagissey to see a working fishing port. The fleet are also a key part of our local culture, shaping our local communities, not just through the food they provide but through music, with the many sea shanty choirs—the Fisherman’s Friends at Port Isaac being the most famous, of course. Of the 3,700 under-10 vessels registered across the UK, 75 are in my constituency, mainly in Mevagissey and Newquay, with over 400 across Cornwall as a whole. The under-10-metre fleet is sadly in decline. We have been losing more than 100 vessels a year. That is concerning. The hope or expectation was that as a result of leaving the EU and regaining control of our fishing waters, we would have the opportunity to grow our fishing industry.
The under-10-metre fleet is the most sustainable and has a lower environmental impact than larger vessels. First, that is because its vessels are self-limiting. They are unable to go out in heavy seas and high winds. They are also limited by range. They are very often referred to as the inshore fishing fleet because they mostly fish within the 6 nautical mile inshore zone. Unlike large vessels, under-10s cannot go hundreds of miles out and spend many days at sea. Many of them are handliners or use smaller nets, meaning that on average, the under-10-metre vessel spends less than 100 days at sea in any typical year. In that regard, they are more sustainable and their mode of operation helps prevent the overfishing of stocks. They tend to produce higher-quality fish and they focus on quality rather than volume. That also means there is usually minimal bycatch and almost no discards, limiting their environmental footprint. Despite their significance to the fishing industry by almost every statistic, they are only allocated a small part—around 2% or 3%—of the UK quota.
Our under-10-metre inshore fleet is resilient, flexible and able to adapt. Despite the many challenges they face, the fishermen will more often than not find ways to adjust to continue to make a living. Yet we should not take that for granted. One of those challenges is the impact of climate change and the warming of our seas, in the changes we are seeing in where fish are found and the availability of species that our fishermen can catch. Fish will move, and are moving, to cooler seas further north; the warmer waters around the Cornish coast are attracting different species of fish.
I hear from local fishermen that the Marine Management Organisation is seemingly overlooking the shift in fisheries, with our fishermen being allowed little lateral movement. That means that if someone has an entitlement to a particular species, they are pigeonholed to that species. If that species moves further north due to the warming of our waters, the fishermen are required to buy expensive species quotas or change their licences, and that generates significant additional costs. That is disproportionately affecting younger fishermen, of whom we have many in Mevagissey, who have mortgages to pay and families to feed but who have not been able to make that lateral movement across the fisheries to adapt to changes brought on by our changing climate.
Quite a few of the fishermen in Mevagissey are suffering the high costs of buying entitlement, for instance, to fishing bass. That lack of flexibility is hurting our under-10-metre fishermen harder than the larger vessels, which are generally part of larger businesses and are able to absorb the cost of moving to new fisheries. I will bring to the Minister’s attention three specific species where I think we could be doing better for our inshore fleet.
First, bass. The harbourmaster at Mevagissey, Andrew Trevarton, has made the case to me very clearly that scientific evidence shows an increase in bass stock in our seas. Yet there are still a number of boats in the south-west that have no entitlement to bass whatsoever. From 2012 onwards, those boats were effectively removed from the entitlement due to not being able to catch any within a 12-month period. The MMO and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should at least consider all boats to be active in that fishery. Most will be handliners, but even they are unable to access bass.
Commercial fishermen often feel they are being unfairly treated as compared with recreational or charter anglers. That applies to a number of species, but particularly to bass. A recreational angler can go out and fish for a couple of bass a day, every day, and keep their catch, whereas an under-10-metre boat may end up with dozens of bass as a bycatch but without the requisite entitlement to keep a single one. Fishermen tell me that they do not think there will be any danger to the bass stock, given that the French have stopped pair trawling for that species. We need to provide flexibility in our quota system, by allowing boats that have not yet built a track record to be given a quota for bass. Also, at the moment, a lot of bass is caught as bycatch and has to be discarded. That seems irrational and wasteful, given a lack of scientific evidence to suggest any significant risk to the stock.
Secondly, tuna. Tuna is the most important species to come into Cornish water in recent years as a result of our warming seas. We are seeing a lot of tuna turning up in our waters right now and I place on the record my thanks to the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer), for his work to develop the pilot scheme for tuna. It would seem that this important species will be a growing part of the fish available in Cornish waters in the years ahead. I ask the Minister to ensure that DEFRA and the MMO do all they can to further develop a sustainable commercial tuna quota in the coming years. That could be a real win for the Cornish under-10 fleet, and help it develop a new market. It is vital that we ensure that local fishermen can make the most of that new opportunity.
There is a danger that as a nation we conserve our tuna, but not for UK vessels. Instead, we are seeing the stock swim over into international waters, outside UK waters, for international vessels to hoover up. Tuna are a predatory species, which catch other species to feed on. They are growing fat on the fish in UK waters, to then swim outside UK waters to be caught by someone else. I would argue that we do not need to take too cautious an approach to tuna, and we should allow a greater quota in the years ahead.
Another factor, which I know that the Minister is aware of, is the limiting of vessels to either a commercial or a charter licence. That is affecting some of the fishermen in Mevagissey who up until now have operated both licences. We do not impose that restriction on any other species, and while I appreciate some of the thinking behind it, I urge the Government to look again and see what we can do, going forward.
Thirdly, I want to mention pollock. Having had the opportunity to raise the issue of pollock quota in an Adjournment debate just a few weeks ago, I will not go into great detail. However, I place on record again my thanks—and the thanks of many fishermen in my constituency who have relied on pollock—to the Minister and the Secretary of State for their great support in enabling us to establish a compensation scheme. It has been a lifeline to dozens of fishermen who were adversely affected by the removal of the quota. It shows that this Government are on the side of our fishing industry in Cornwall, and are willing to listen and act when needed.
We now need to work to re-establish a pollock quota in a sustainable way as soon as possible. It is widely recognised by most people that the best way to increase the stock of pollock and many other species would be to have a closed period during the spawning season. I ask the Minister to take note of that point and, as we look forward, to restore a total allowable catch for pollock in the hopefully not-too-distant future.
Before summing up I want to raise a recent issue that will have a huge impact on fishermen in Cornwall—the closure of the Plymouth fish market. Most of the fish landed in mid-Cornwall currently go to Plymouth, but the market is due to close in the coming days. That will mean fish from mid-Cornwall having to go to Newlyn, which is likely to mean that it will be a day late getting to market. That will have an impact on the price that the fisherman can secure. It is not a sustainable situation going forward, and we need to recognise the huge impact that it will have on the viability of both fishermen and the port of Mevagissey.
One issue is that the market has asked for the immediate return of all the fish boxes that the fishermen use to pack the fish for landing. The fishermen have applied to the MMO for a grant to help replace those boxes quickly, and I ask the Minister if he would look at what can be done to help them as a matter of urgency. Going forward, we need to see the Plymouth market continue; we need to find an answer to keep it open as soon as possible. I know that discussions are going on with various partners within the fishing industry, but I again ask the Minister for any help that he can give to ensure that that vital market remains open.
We will shortly be approaching the end of the current five-year trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, which will provide an opportunity to review and renegotiate our arrangements for the management of our fish stocks and quotas. As we look to renegotiate, the under-10-metre fishing fleet has made it clear to me that its priority in any renegotiations is that we take more control of our fishing waters, out to the 12-mile limit. The current arrangement means that foreign vessels are able to fish right up to our six-mile limit, including in waters that our under-10-metre fleet would be able to fish in. Fishermen tell me that they often feel that foreign vessels are literally taunting them by sitting on the six-mile limit and hoovering up the fish from our waters. Many would like to see us ban all foreign vessels from fishing within 12 miles of our coast. That may not be immediately achievable, but I hope it is something that we will set as a mid-term goal. In the meantime, we should seek to have much more control over which boats are allowed to fish in these waters.
Our under-10-metre fishing boats are the heart of many of our communities. They are the backbone of our Cornish fishing industry, and support hundreds of jobs in the supply chain. It is vital that we do all we can to ensure that they have a viable future and continue to provide high-quality seafood for the UK, and for export markets, in the most sustainable way. The Minister has demonstrated that he wants to do all he can to support this part of the sector. I look forward to listening to further contributions to the debate, and to the Minister’s response, but I trust that we can send a clear message from this House to the many dedicated fishermen who risk their lives to provide us with the highest-quality fish for the table, that we recognise the important job they do, that we are on their side and that they have our support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate. I intend to start the wind-ups at about 5.13 pm, and to allow Steve Double a couple of minutes at the end. If Members could speak for less than five minutes, I would be really grateful.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing it.
I understand the title of the debate—it is very clear what it means—and I will pose some questions about how the south-west is treated in relation to this issue, and about the importance of under-10-metre boats. I absolutely appreciate the hon. Member’s desire to make his fleet the centre of debate, but under-10-metre boats need support right across the United Kingdom, not just in the south-west. In his introduction, the hon. Member referred to the 3,000-plus under-10-metre boats in the United Kingdom. I have some in my own constituency, and I will raise a couple of issues. Although the Minister is not directly responsible for fishing in Northern Ireland, he has some responsibility for the allocation of quotas, and I want to put that on the record.
Taking into account the fact that the visa process is costly for skilled workers who are not paid in the highest band, it is clear that we really need support in recruiting and training local crew. I am sure the hon. Member and many others present will agree that the same recruiting and training is important, no matter where we are in the UK. We need initiatives to bring new entrants into the industry, which is as applicable to my constituency in Northern Ireland as it is to the south-west. Fishing is not necessarily top of the careers choice agenda in urban schools, so how do we make it more attractive? The fact is that if we do not begin to attract younger people to fishing, we will not have a secure British fishing future, regardless of quotas.
I urge a note of caution on the under-10-metre quota allocation, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I know it is important, but there may be a variety of opinions on that. I point out the obvious: any review of quota allocation mechanisms to ensure that under- 10-metre boats get a bigger slice of the cake may be at the expense of existing quota holders. If a UK-wide approach is taken, that could be difficult for the fleet in Northern Ireland, which already struggles to make ends meet.
I did my advice centre in Portavogie last Saturday. Most of the issues from the people who came to see me were about fishing. If at the end of the quarter of the year there is some quota that has not been used, rather than lose that quota it would be appropriate to disperse that among the under-10-metre boats. I must flag this to the Minister: there must be cognisance of the Northern Ireland fishing fleet and the Scots fleet when discussing the allocations. I know the Minister always tries to be helpful in his responses to any questions that I ask in the Chamber. Any sweeping generalised changes might not prove popular with some of my fishermen back home.
I wish to briefly raise the issue of zero-catch advice on pollack, and possibly the recent scallop closures, and encourage the Government to engage early with fishermen. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay had an Adjournment debate on this. He spoke extremely well, as he always does, and he got a fairly good response from the Minister. I think he was pleased and certainly I was encouraged by that, but when it comes to engaging early enough with fishermen, the mitigation strategies and alternative management measures might be developed in a more timely fashion to ensure that information and engagement drives our approach in these areas.
I support what the hon. Gentleman says. I will support others who speak as well because they all want the best for their fishermen, as do I. With that, I support what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. This debate has come at a timely moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) mentioned, with last Sunday being the first national fisheries memorial day. I was honoured to lay a wreath in Looe with my daughter in memory of my late husband, Neil Murray. I pay tribute to all the rescue services and the seafarers charities that provide so much support for this important industry in so many ways.
I also want to thank the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer), for returning my call so quickly last Friday to listen to the concerns about the difficulties faced by the local Looe fleet in transporting its catch, given the closure of Plymouth Trawler Agents, where the landings have traditionally been sold. I hope that a resolution can be found by everyone working together with Looe Harbour Commissioners.
Although the news about Plymouth Trawler Agents has come as a surprise, I want to put on record my personal thanks to David and Alison Pessell, long-standing friends whom I have known for the past 40 years, since David’s vessel, the Tardis of the Yealm, was pair-trawling with our vessel, the Golden Dawn. Some 40 years later, both boats lie on the seabed; sadly, Neil is no longer with us. I sincerely hope that David and Alison enjoy a restful retirement, which they deserve after serving the industry in the south-west selflessly, both locally and nationally, for such a long time.
Given the limited time, I will turn to one thing that I think will secure a future for the under-10-metre fleet. As the former owner of an under-10-metre trawler, the Cygnus 33 Our Boy Andrew, I can honestly say that I know how vessel owners struggle to make a living. I can also confirm that our boat was part of our family and gave us a comfortable living, although I admit it could be stressful at times.
I met the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations yesterday. It agreed with me that there was one thing that could help the small vessels continue to provide us with a healthy source of protein, so I ask the Minister to consider that today.
On 30 December 2020, during the debate on the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill, I said:
“We must prepare ourselves for 2026. With the UK an independent coastal state, the Minister can take decisions to free us from a fisheries management regime that has been hampered by the constraints of the CFP. We can honour our obligations under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, but be flexible to ensure all UK fishermen can benefit from this partial freedom and take the necessary steps to ready ourselves when we—as we must—really take back complete control of our waters in 2026.”—[Official Report, 30 December 2020; Vol. 686, c. 558.]
Access to our six to 12-mile limit was agreed and set out in the London convention of 1966, which predates our membership of the European Union. Article 3 sets out:
“Within the belt between six and twelve miles measured from the baseline of the territorial sea, the right to fish shall be exercised only by the coastal State and by such other Contracting Parties, the fishing vessels of which have habitually fished in that belt between 1st January, 1953 and 31st December 1962.”
That specifically named the vessels in question, and I put it to the Minister that it is unlikely that any of these vessels are at sea or fishing today. The 2002 common fisheries policy review made access to the six to 12 mile-limit permanent, which changed the London convention; instead of access for specific vessels, access was given to the number of vessels from other member states.
Now that we are no longer subject to CFP legislation, it is time to revert to the terms of the 1966 London convention. The time has come to ensure that access to our six to 12-mile limit is reserved solely for UK-registered fishing vessels. Specific conservation rules in each area can be set by inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. When I put that to the NFFO on Monday, it agreed that this was the single most important protection that the Minister could provide to ensure a future for our under-10-metre inshore fleet. These vessels are the way that new blood enters this vital industry, and we must do everything we can to support them. I finish with a message to all fisherfolk throughout our nation: fair winds and following seas.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Ms Rees, and I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on the way in which he introduced this debate. I echo many of his sentiments—on the fact that the under-10-metre fleet is important, not only to Cornwall, but to Plymouth and across the south-west; and on the rough conditions in which many go to sea to try to earn a living and to put fish on our dinner tables.
The first National Remembrance Day for those who work in the fishing industry was a welcome addition to the calendar, and I am glad that there were remembrance events all around our country to remember those we have lost at sea. Having a vibrant fishing community is important to our coastal communities, and I appreciate the work of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay in supporting it in Cornwall. As we heard from him, what is good for Cornwall is often good for Plymouth and vice versa.
Most of my remarks concern the closure of Plymouth fish market, which will have a profound impact on the under-10-metre fleet—not only those vessels that land fish in Plymouth, but those that land fish in ports right across the south-west and then have that fish overlanded to be sold from Plymouth. The closure demonstrates a real fragility and uncertainty in the sector. Those who will be most affected by this are the small-scale local fishers who cannot relocate and who want to work out of a port where auctions are available. That includes fishers not only in Plymouth, but in ports right across south-east Cornwall and further into Cornwall.
It is clear that additional transport costs will be levied on those fishers, not only in the landing dues that they will have to pay to land in the port they normally land in, but also for the overlanding and the delays. It is really important that fish can be taken to market in a speedy and efficient manner to preserve quality, and therefore the value, of the fish. Any delay in that process risks loading further costs on a sector that has already struggled quite a bit.
I have spoken to Plymouth City Council about this. It has met Plymouth Trawler Agents and the Plymouth Fishing & Seafood Association, and has had discussions with Sutton Harbour Group, the landlords for the fish market site. We have received the news that PTA is closing, and I echo the thanks from my neighbour, the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), to David and Alison Pessell. They have both been real stalwarts for our industry, and I wish them a happy retirement. However, the closure of PTA fundamentally undermines the viability of the Plymouth fish market, a building that needed to be updated anyway. There is a real concern that once it closes its doors on 17 May, an interim measure of transporting catch to other markets, whether Brixham, Newlyn or elsewhere, will soon be locked in as a permanent, additional cost to those fishers.
I think everyone wants to restore a market and an auction in Plymouth, which I would be grateful if the Minister could assist us to do. There is cross-party concern for this here, because we are all representing our fishers, who want to get a good deal. For instance, we need to ensure that the return of the fish boxes that is being asked for can be secured. That is a really strong investment that the PTA has made, but it is a big cost for fishers to replace them. Equally, grading machines need to be secure to ensure there is a possibility of a new operator coming forward without that heavy capital cost of reopening a market. We need to keep the options open for under-10 boats, particularly in being able to land their fish in Plymouth and other ports, and have it overlanded to Plymouth to keep the viability of that sector.
We need a new operator but, importantly, this must not be an opportunity for Sutton Harbour Group to bring forward plans for luxury flats on the site of the fish quay, which we know it has wanted to do for a great amount of time. Sutton Harbour offers incredible opportunities for high-density lateral living with beautiful views, but those flats should not be built on the fish quay. As soon as homes are built on the fish quay, the possibility of preserving a vibrant fishing industry in Plymouth disappears almost all together. We need to safeguard the fish quay land. The council has already made steps to do so in the local plan, but it must be viable for a new operator to take it over. That is why I hope the Minister will be able to convene support for Plymouth City Council, the Members of Parliament from the area, and the industry, to look at what measures, grants and support are available from Ministers and his Department to ensure that the barriers to reopening the fish quay and providing a new auction, are not set so high that it is impossible for anyone to take those steps. It is essential that a new operator is found in order to do that.
I did want to speak about the importance of ensuring that we continue the further roll-out of the Plymouth lifejacket scheme, with personal locator beacons. I realise that is a Department for Transport, rather than a DEFRA, responsibility, but it is important that we send the message that safety is valued. Given the importance of the Plymouth fish quay and the fish market there, I want to make sure that is heard. I hope the Minister understands the cross-party concern that exists for this in the far south-west, and I hope he will be able to support us in keeping the option open for a new operator to come in.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
It is a real privilege to be able to speak in this debate in support of our inshore fleet right across Cornwall and beyond, and to commend my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for securing the debate.
It was a genuine, moving moment on Sunday morning, when we in Newlyn remembered the more than 100 fishermen who had lost their lives around our waters. It was a really important thing to do, and I am glad we now have that annual service to commemorate those fishermen. I am also grateful to the Fishermen’s Mission for their work to support fishermen day and night, wherever they might be fishing from.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the extraordinary contribution that the inshore fishing fleet makes to UK plc and the UK as a country. We began to talk about national food security; it is really important that we get energy and food security in the right place. The report we launched earlier in the year, “The True Value of Seafood to Cornwall”, demonstrated that for every one fisherman, there are 15 jobs created. Whether it is enormous amounts of money or good, nutritious food, there is no real part of Cornwall that our fishing industry does not reach. Fishing provides a really important contribution to food security, and I hope the Minister can contribute to conversations across Departments about how fishing is a key part of national food security. I do not think they would, but I hope that the Government would never shy away from promoting UK fish on dinner tables around the UK.
The Fisheries Act 2020 was a fantastic thing that we delivered after leaving the European Union. It has taken time, but that has enabled us to deliver regional management plans. We now have a far better understanding and, hopefully, the ability to plan and control fish stocks, and harness and manage them around different parts of the coast. We all know that in Cornwall, for example, we have mixed fisheries, which are not typical elsewhere, so it is important that we have a regional management plan.
I commend the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation and others that have contributed to that work in a mature and intelligent way to help to shape the Act as well as those regional plans. However, the pace has been slow. Although the pollack ban is regrettable, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said, the response from the Department, and the Minister in particular, to compensate and support fishermen who would rely on pollack—particularly in this early part of the year—has been really helpful. The use of regional plans could actually avoid those shocks in the future. I would therefore encourage and support the Minister’s efforts to use regional management plans to avoid these shocks, and to enhance and secure stocks in ways we have always wanted to see, but which have not necessarily been possible until recently. It would build confidence for the fishing fleet.
On infrastructure investment, we have had the £100 million seafood fund. Will the Minister be able to commit at all, or at least comment on the appetite to ensure that that fund is available again in the future? We need to continue the work to transition our fleet to meet our sustainability commitments and to invest in our harbour and port infrastructure so that it meets the requirements of not just the inshore fleet—the fishing fleet that lands, as we heard about in Plymouth—but other things that are delivered at sea, such as floating offshore wind infrastructure and so on. It is important that where fish is landed, the facilities are there to make the most of the value of that fish.
As we have heard already, a significant opportunity sits before us. The Minister is aware of our commitment. The opportunity to create the exclusive 12-mile limit with the Brexit fisheries deal renegotiation in 2026 cannot be understated; the opportunities for the initial fleet in particular are extraordinary. It offers a massive win for the UK sustainable fishing industry, offering a better way to manage, protect and enhance our fish stock. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay talked about the fact that the inshore fleet are limited in their days at sea and their efforts because of the weather. That offers a great way of managing fish stock. By protecting that 12-mile limit, we give the inshore fleet much greater access to fantastic, nutritious food for our tables, and provide the opportunity to revive and enhance our coastal communities.
There is no part of my constituency that does not have a history, and some presence still, of an inshore fishing fleet. The opportunities to continue to enhance the inshore fleet and to grow those communities and all those jobs we talked about are there to be had. Let us restore the fishing fleet and skills, and help to secure food security with a particularly nutritious offer for our UK consumers.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I congratulate my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this debate, which is vital to not only my constituents but my family. As many Members will know, my husband is a commercial fisherman of an under-10 metre vessel. I spoke about this in my maiden speech four years ago, and I thought I would remind this Chamber what I said:
“When he rings to say that he is still an hour away from safety and the weather has taken a turn for the worse…I can tell you now that the dread is palpable”—
it is still the same feeling, because it happens from time to time. I said:
“We need to champion our small boats…Their job is precarious enough. We need to support our coastal communities to brave the elements and thrive in the 21st century. There are opportunities on the horizon, and we need to grab them with both hands and bring them home.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 364.]
That is as true today as it was then. We absolutely have the opportunities ahead of us that they and we can take advantage of. I do not think we value our under-10 fleet, or the fishermen themselves, in the way that we could just yet.
As we have heard already, such a vessel is generally crewed by a single hand. They cannot go that far, and cannot stay out for more than about a day. They often fish overnight. Yet they, especially the handliners, will bring home the most sustainable and best-quality catch that this country has to offer. They help each other at sea and on land, and they therefore promote and preserve our communities in a way that we would all welcome.
The Government have done lots on their safety and the grant schemes, and they all want to say thank you for that, but at the moment they are tying themselves in knots over Maritime and Coastguard Agency and MMO rules and regulations. They understand why those are there and that they are for their safety and for the safety of others, but these men work 15-hour days pretty much. I have heard from men—it is usually men, I am sorry to say—that although some of them are tech savvy, some do not even have mobile phones, some are dyslexic and others just did not get very good qualifications at school, so they find it really difficult to stay on top of all the admin. There are monthly safety records, catch returns and MCA checks to name but a few. They understand why they need to do it, but please can we continue to make it as simple as possible?
In addition, fishermen have had their quota removed for pollack, one of their main species. I put on record my genuine thanks to the Minister, who listened endlessly to us, and to the Secretary of State, for their persistence in ensuring a compensation scheme for boats. That is welcome, and I know that dozens have been helped by it, but—I am really sorry and it pains me to say this—that I still receive representations formally and informally from many small producers who just missed out and are still really struggling. That comes from the much smaller vessels, so I would be grateful to discuss with Ministers that there are still struggling boats and what we might be able to do to help keep them going until we come up with a longer-term plan.
More than that, fishermen just need the quota back, particularly for the handliners. We went over the arguments when we were trying to work out a compensation scheme. These vessels do not make a dent in stocks, so suggesting that they do compared with the enormous factory ships out at sea is frankly ludicrous. I would go even further: perhaps with the exception of bass, I would take away quota limits on any species for the under-10s, particularly the under-10 handliners, because they make such a little dent in those. We should let them catch what passes their way, as long as their licences allow them to; they simply cannot dent the stocks.
I am a great supporter of the angling businesses in my country—in fact, that is what my husband used to do—and have a great many friends in the industry. It is great for the Cornish economy and tourism, but at the moment it is not a level playing field. Most smart angling trips will promote catch and release, and take only what they want for the table, but I have seen other photos on social media—I have sent them to Ministers before—where the anglers are taking too many. They are filling up their boats with pollack, and it is a real slap in the face for the commercial fishermen who not only have lost out on the compensation scheme, but still cannot catch anything. To be clear, they are often having to throw the fish back dead. Fishermen would like to see the MMO level the playing field and check what is coming in on the angling boats.
If we do not take stock of where we are, I am worried that we will see our Cornish harbours filled with just yachts and no working boats, whereas if we have a healthy mix of both, it means a healthy economy and it is good for Cornwall. What do we need to do? Just as we are now starting to do with farming, we need to highlight, value and assist the smaller producers who bring home the most valuable produce to market to ensure that they receive a fair price for their insanely hard work and that the things they have to do outside of fishing are as easy as possible—that is not just the admin that I have already mentioned but, for example, more fuel barges. We would like to have one in the bay of Falmouth, but I cannot work out how to get one set up or where it could go, so some help to do that would be great.
Fishermen also need help to land the product. We have heard about Plymouth already and know that Newlyn is going great guns. It is not so much about where the fish get landed, but where they can get a fair price, which usually happens at the auction, so where will the auctions be to ensure that they can do that? We also need to bring new blood into the industry. We see that there are some good apprenticeship schemes on the larger boats down in Newlyn, but I would like to see some apprenticeships on the smaller boats too, where the skippers who have been at sea for a long time can bring on the young blood. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay on two out of three of his requests.
Cherilyn Mackrory
The bass licences are the one request on which I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend and which needs more thinking. That is important, because if we just give the bass licences out to everybody else, those who have them immediately see a devaluation of their vessels. Please can we think carefully before we accept that?
I want to put on the record my thanks to all the fishermen who risk their lives—and believe me, they do—when the fresh fish is delivered. If everybody in the UK ate fresh British fish, we would hopefully support them ourselves.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this debate, because the inshore small-scale fleets are vital not just to the fishermen and their families, who rely on them for household income, but, as we have heard, to the shore jobs that they sustain and the wider benefit that those iconic fleets deliver across their coastal communities. There is rightly a proud heritage of fishing at the heart of our coastal towns and villages, not just in the south-west but across the country. It is not unusual to meet fishermen who can trace their fishing families back many generations. I recently met one in Beer who can trace his family’s fishing roots back to the 1600s.
I should say at the outset that we are discussing under-10-metres, but I am mindful that that can seem an arbitrary definition that came into force long ago and perhaps does not properly recognise the differences between a 7-metre open-top boat that launches off a cobble beach and an under-10-metre twin-rig trawler or a 15-metre clinker-built wooden boat, with less power and catching efficiency than some under-10-metres. It is perhaps time to consider whether one size fits all.
These brave fishers who set sail in the smallest of our boats, risking their lives to bring us fish suppers, are in many cases having a really challenging time. The stress and anxiety around the coast are palpable, as we heard in many of today’s contributions. I, too, pay tribute to organisations such as the Seafarers’ Charity, the Fishermen’s Mission and the other charities that help to fund and support our small-scale fleets with mental health and financial support for households when families find themselves without a safety net and nowhere to turn. As we have heard, this debate is timely with the National Fishing Remembrance Day events held a few days ago.
It is indisputable that this sector has struggled in recent years, lurching from one crisis to the next, leaving these micro-businesses, often single-handed owner-operators, to try to piece together a living against a backdrop of, too often, knee-jerk fisheries management. Most recently, the pollock debacle has left so many of these vessels without fishing opportunities for part of the year and with a compensation scheme that, frankly, seems to many to have been rushed through without consultation, with many not receiving much-needed help. Although I understand that the 30% bar set for the scheme may sound reasonable, it does not take sufficient account of those small-scale fleets that earn modest incomes of £20,000 to £30,000 a year, and the hardship caused by losing 20% of their income, with no opportunities to replace it.
I hope the Minister will tell us who fed into that policy and why it was decided that these artisan fishermen would receive nothing. I and many others would be grateful if he could take another look at the scheme, to see what could be done to support those who so far have been forgotten. I will not say too much about the ministerial direction that was required to introduce this scheme, but it is, at best, unusual. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us, in his recollection, how often it has been needed.
I am also interested to hear the plan for managing the angling sector’s catch and retaining of pollock, as we have heard. Almost 12 months after the International Council for Exploration of the Seas published its advice on zero total allowable catch, why has there not been a consultation to consider whether legislation should be brought forward to track and limit recreational catches?
We know from the fascinating correspondence between the permanent secretary at DEFRA and the Secretary of State, to which I have already referred, that pollock has been in decline for many years. I ask the Minister: how many other stocks have been poorly managed and are at risk of big reductions and zero TACs? He may wish to say none but, if he does not, I suspect we can fear the worst. Pollock is just the latest problem demonstrating that the sector has been let down. The Brexit promise of protection to 12 miles was a pie-crust promise, easily made and broken, like so many others. We have had capping exercises that have had to be reversed, entitlement requirements that now seem challengeable, fisheries management plans being rolled out at eye-watering speed, with little understanding of why some stocks were chosen, and several failed starts of the inshore vessel monitoring system, with type approvals certifying items of kit—then suspending them, before subsequently being reinstated and removed—all after some fishers had followed Government guidance and rushed to install them. They have had to endure the CatchAPP, which they were told was fit for purpose when it was not. All of that comes against the backdrop of new codes issued by the Department for Transport, via the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Daniel Zeichner
I will not, I am afraid, given that I am very pressed for time.
It seems there was little consideration across Government as to the timing. On the issues raised about the Plymouth fish market, I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). Is it any wonder that fishers feel persecuted and left behind? Good fisheries management and enforcement is vital to healthy seas, stocks and food security. Frankly, there can be no doubt that, while this Government have heaped new burdens of epic proportions on this sector in the past few years, they have not delivered their side of the bargain: coherent and considered fisheries management of opportunities, so that families can earn a living and businesses can plan their future.
Finally, I urge the Minister to consider the way in which fisheries management plans and other workstreams have been developed. If he really wants to see more engagement from the sector—if he genuinely wants those people’s views and input—he needs to direct those conducting meetings not to hold them in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, thereby forcing fishermen to choose between losing sea time and earnings, and to consider the cumulative impact of having separate organisations running multiple consultations simultaneously. These are in the Minister’s gift to fix, so I would be grateful if he could commit to that. The under-10 fleet is critical to coastal communities. They are struggling, and more needs to be done to secure their future.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Ms Rees. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for securing this debate. I should be clear at the beginning that it will probably not be possible for me to respond to all the points raised in the debate in the seven and a half minutes that are now available to me, but I will do as rapid a response as I can, to get through as much as possible.
Last Sunday, I had the privilege of joining colleagues in this Chamber to attend a memorial service in Grimsby as part of National Fishing Remembrance Day. We are grateful to those who have given their lives at sea to secure fish for the tables of our nation, but we must work tirelessly to make sure that those numbers are not increased and that we keep people safe at sea in the future.
The fishing industry in the south-west has an extraordinarily rich heritage and wonderfully diverse fleets, as my hon. Friend eloquently set out. There is strong industry leadership in the region—I commend the work of the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation, for example, which has been innovative across a range of issues. Its report on the true value of seafood to Cornwall makes for powerful reading. It shows that there are 15 shore-based jobs for every fisherman, and that seafood jobs are four times more important to Cornwall than they are to the rest of Great Britain. That is something we need to bear in mind when making decisions in the future.
The innovative marketing of Cornish sole, otherwise known as megrim, has yielded benefits in terms of increased sales. I hope that the marketing of Cornish king crab will work wonders for spider crabs in due course. The industry has worked hard to ensure Marine Stewardship Council accreditation for Cornish sardines and Cornish gillnet-caught hake. I pay tribute to those involved in all the work going on. I acknowledge that there are also challenges, many of which have been raised my colleagues this afternoon.
Starting with pollock, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay recognised the action that we have taken to compensate those who have been impacted. We were challenged that we should have had a consultation—apparently, we should have consulted. I think that, at that moment in time, had the Government said, “Thanks for raising your concerns. We’ve heard you. We’re going to have a three-month consultation before we decide what to do,” we would have had a disaster. There was no time to navel-gaze at that moment. That is why the Government took strong action at the time and stepped in to try to assist those fishermen.
I am grateful to hon. Members here who came banging on my door with enthusiasm and tenacity in order to secure the future of those fishermen. We want to keep them fishing. We want to keep them in those ports and generating those jobs, which is why we went out and set up a scheme. Around 50 vessel owners will be directly compensated for half their reported pollock landings income in 2023. Almost £400,000 has been paid out so far, and a number of owners are still to submit their paperwork. I encourage them to do that.
Let me turn to bass, which is of course another significant fish species. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay and other colleagues rightly raised the importance of bass fishermen to the south-west. They are also important around the country. That is precisely why we worked with the fishing industry on a bass fisheries management plan. That FMP, published last December, sets out a road map for sustainable domestic stock management. That is crucial.
I should be clear that we always seek to strike the right balance between increasing fishing opportunities where we can and protecting stock for future generations. That is not always easy, because it can have an impact on people’s incomes and their ability to catch fish, but every fisherman I meet tells me that they want future generations to be able to carry on catching fish. They believe in that sustainability, but want to work with the Government to ensure that we see that.
Quota was mentioned briefly. For many years, we have heard about what seems to be an imbalance between the inshore fleet’s access to what it sees as its fair share of quota and that of larger vessels, those not under 10 metres. We will of course continue to listen to those representations, to ensure that we find a way through.
On tuna, I think I am on the record as being quite excited about the opportunities that tuna bring, which a number of colleagues mentioned. I regret to say that we only have a little more than 66 tonnes of bluefin tuna quota, but I am keen to increase that in future, to ensure that we seize the opportunities for the sporting sector and commercial fisheries, and make the most of them.
Before I finish, I will turn to the immediate challenge for the port of the loss of the Plymouth auction. We are keen to help, if we can, and I want to keep colleagues informed. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who raised the issue with me last week and highlighted the challenge being faced. I think the best outcome is for the private sector to step in, but there may well be a role for Government to assist in that process. What I do not want to see is fish moved in the short term to Brixham and other ports, maybe Newlyn, and for that to corrupt the model that exists at Plymouth in the longer term. We want to see that succeed, and I will of course work with colleagues across the parties to ensure that we find solutions. It might well be worth convening a cross-party roundtable to ensure that we in Government are informed and that Members are aware of what we are doing. I commit to that.
Leaving time for my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay to sum up his debate, I will end on an upbeat note. I think that the inshore fleet has a positive future, and I am always impressed by the passion of those in it and by their innovation in the industry. I am sure they will find a way to benefit from the opportunities and the challenges they face. The Government are here to help. We have a track record of helping, and we will continue to do so. Working together and continuing to have that dialogue, we will ensure that we have a bright, profitable and sustainable future for the fishing sector in the south-west.
Steve Double
I thank all colleagues across the House for an excellent debate and the broad agreement on support for our under-10-metre fishing fleet. The only disappointment was the lack of understanding shown by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), of what fishermen want.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for his ongoing work to support our inshore fleet, particularly in the south-west. I particularly welcome his commitment to hold a roundtable on the future of the Plymouth market, as we all agree how important that is. I very much welcome that and look forward, I hope, to being able to partake of it. Our fishermen will be pleased to see that we are working together, across the parties, to do what we can to maintain the market.
It is welcome that we are able to have this debate, to support our fishing industry, to show fishermen support and to continue to work together to ensure that they have the best opportunity to continue to thrive in future and, of course, to continue to promote fish as the most sustainable source of protein that we can provide. The more we can get British people eating fish that are caught in British waters, the better it is for everyone. I am sure that is something we all support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the under 10-metre fishing fleet in the south-west.
Written Corrections
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Corrections
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Guy Opperman
I wanted to try to assist my hon. Friend, because he is referring to two key things. First, by reason of the HS2 funding, for the very first time, local authorities up and down the country—but particularly Devon and Somerset—are being given seven-year funding. They have a certainty of supply of funding, which allows them to purchase new equipment and machinery.
[Official Report, 23 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 273WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman):
Guy Opperman
I wanted to try to assist my hon. Friend, because he is referring to two key things. First, by reason of the HS2 funding, for the very first time, local authorities up and down the country—but particularly Devon and Somerset—are being given 11-year funding. They have a certainty of supply of funding, which allows them to purchase new equipment and machinery.
Guy Opperman
The reality is that Devon and Somerset received a further funding uplift of approximately £15 million in the spring Budget of 2023, and then £10 million of additional maintenance funding in 2023-24. The point I was trying to make to my hon. Friend is that anyone who has ever worked as a parish, district or county councillor, as a Member of Parliament, or who has run a Department knows that having a long-term, seven-year budget is transformational. Any local authority leader will ask, “Could I have some more money and could I know what I am going to get over the next two to seven years?” That is transformational, that is exactly what the PM has done, and that is why local authorities can do different types of investment.
[Official Report, 23 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 277WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman):
Guy Opperman
The reality is that Devon and Somerset received a further funding uplift of approximately £15 million in the spring Budget of 2023, and then £10 million of additional maintenance funding in 2023-24. The point I was trying to make to my hon. Friend is that anyone who has ever worked as a parish, district or county councillor, as a Member of Parliament, or who has run a Department knows that having a long-term, 11-year budget is transformational. Any local authority leader will ask, “Could I have some more money and could I know what I am going to get over the next two to 11 years?” That is transformational, that is exactly what the PM has done, and that is why local authorities can do different types of investment.
Justice
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Brown
The introduction of tribunal fees previously led to a 54% drop in the number of cases going forward, and the scheme was deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court, so it beggars belief that the Government are looking at reintroducing tribunal fees, and giving a green light to bad employers to exploit workers, who will be deterred from coming forward. What does the Minister say to the 50 organisations, including the TUC, Citizens Advice, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Liberty, that are calling on the Government to reconsider the reintroduction of tribunal fees?
Gareth Bacon
I thank the hon. Member for his question. Many of these issues were raised when the statutory instrument passed through Parliament. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is the courts Minister, has written to the Senior President of Tribunals to convey those concerns, and I think that is in part why my noble and learned Friend is meeting the Senior President of Tribunals tomorrow.
[Official Report, 14 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 119.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon):
Gareth Bacon
I thank the hon. Member for his question. Many of the issues regarding employment tribunal panel composition were raised when the statutory instrument passed through Parliament. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is the courts Minister, has written to the Senior President of Tribunals to convey those concerns, and I think that is in part why my noble and learned Friend is meeting the Senior President of Tribunals tomorrow.
Written Statements
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Conflict in Sudan: El Fasher
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
A year ago, the Sudanese people were plunged into a brutal and needless conflict. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) continue to inflict terrible violence and harrowing suffering on their people.
The conflict in Sudan has resulted in a country-wide humanitarian catastrophe. The 24.8 million people, 51% of the population, are in desperate need of assistance. Nearly five million people are at risk of famine with estimates that we could see half a million to one million excess deaths. The crushing food insecurity that millions of Sudanese people are facing continues to be exacerbated by access constraints imposed by the warring parties.
Nearly nine million people have been displaced. In a visit to Chad at the end of March, I saw first-hand the harrowing consequences of the conflict, not only for those who have fled to escape violence and hunger, but also on neighbouring states who have so admirably stepped up to help those in desperation, fleeing across the border seeking a safe haven.
El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, is currently the centre of escalating tensions between the RSF, SAF and armed groups. While the RSF have not yet launched their widely-expected offensive against the city, there have already been devastating violence and dire humanitarian impacts. As highlighted in a recent report by Human Rights Watch, we have already seen from events in El Geneina last year the terrible violence that the RSF and their allies inflict.
Villages surrounding the city have been razed to the ground and continued airstrikes have resulted in civilian areas being caught in the cross-fire. Last weekend, two children and a number of caregivers were killed after a bomb fell near the Médecins Sans Frontiéres-supported Babiker Nahar paediatric hospital, in El Fasher. Reports have suggested that ethnically-motivated attacks by the RSF and allied militia against non-Arab communities are taking place in villages west of El Fasher. The UK-funded Centre for Information Resilience has also verified fire damage to 32 settlements around El Fasher in April. Humanitarian partners have raised serious concerns about the imminent threat to the civilian population in El Fasher, which includes more than one million internally displaced persons (IDPs); consisting of civilians displaced by the conflict in Darfur 20 years ago, and those who have fled their homes in the last nine months from other parts of Darfur. The city is now entirely cut off from water, food and fuel supplies.
In April, the UK led negotiations at the UN Security Council (UNSC) to deliver a press statement, urging the warring parties to de-escalate in El Fasher and comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law. We also called for a closed UNSC consultation on the situation. On 2 May, I publicly called upon the RSF and SAF to protect civilians and spare Sudan from their wilful destruction and carnage. The UK will continue to do all we can to bring a sustainable end to the conflict. This is the only way that the abhorrent violence currently taking place in El Fasher, as well as across Sudan, will stop.
Indeed, we continue to pursue all diplomatic avenues to achieve a permanent ceasefire, and we welcome plans to restart talks in Jeddah, jointly led by the US and Saudi Arabia. We urge the region to refrain from actions that prolong the conflict, and to engage positively with peace talks.
As part of our diplomatic efforts to achieve peace in Sudan, we speak to all parties. We have used our exchanges with the warring parties strongly to condemn atrocities they have perpetrated and to demand that their leadership makes every effort to prevent further atrocities in territories they have captured or threatened to capture; as well as to press the need for improved humanitarian access.
On 15 April, I announced a package of sanctions designations, freezing the assets of three commercial entities linked to the warring parties. We will continue to explore other levers to disrupt and constrain the sources of funding that both warring parties are using to sustain themselves.
At the Security Council in March, where the UK is penholder on Sudan, we used the opportunity of the OCHA White Note on the risk of conflict-induced famine to highlight its warning that the obstruction of humanitarian access is resulting in the starvation of the Sudanese people. Using starvation as a method of warfare is prohibited by international humanitarian law.
Our ongoing partnership with the Centre for Information Resilience is also vital in documenting reported atrocities, and preserving and sharing evidence, so that those who are alleged to have committed these horrific acts can be brought to justice. We are committed to ensuring there is no impunity for human rights abusers, no matter what it may take to hold them to account.
On 15 April, my noble Friend Lord Benyon attended the international humanitarian conference for Sudan in Paris where donors pledged 2.03 billion euros to Sudan. To meet the growing need in Sudan, UK aid to the country, including Darfur, will nearly double to £89 million this financial year.
Finally, we will keep working to ensure that the voices of Sudanese civilians are heard: whether that is the survivors and witnesses of human rights abuses; the brave Sudanese NGOs, women’s rights organisations and activists helping their communities; or those trying to develop a political vision for Sudan’s future. UK technical and diplomatic support has been instrumental in the establishment of the anti-war, pro-democracy Taqaddum coalition, led by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, and we will continue to support Taqaddum’s development.
One year on from the beginning of the conflict, we must maintain international pressure on the warring parties to stop this senseless war, for troops to return to their barracks and for civil society to have the space to pursue a political track to return peace and build security through all parts of Sudan.
[HCWS465]
Solar Energy and Food Security: Land Use
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
Food security is an essential part of national security. This Government are fully committed to delivering robust UK food security and recognise its paramount importance to our national security. This is reflected in our commitment to maintain the current level of food we produce domestically. Heightened geopolitical risk has brought this into sharper focus and we think it is more important than ever that our best agricultural land is protected and our food production prioritised.
Similarly, we have seen our energy security threatened following Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, with the Government spending over £40 billion to pay up to a half of people’s energy bills. We are combating this by racing ahead with deployment of renewable energy; nearly half of our electricity today is produced from renewables, which is up from only 7% in 2010. Solar power is a key part of the Government’s strategy for energy security, net zero and clean growth. This position was reinforced in the new national policy statement (EN-3), published in January this year, which stated:
“Solar also has an important role in delivering the government’s goals for greater energy independence and the British Energy Security Strategy states that government expects a five-fold increase in combined ground and rooftop solar deployment by 2035 (up to 70GW)”.
The Government recognise that, in some instances, solar projects can affect local environments which may lead to unacceptable impacts for some local communities. The planning system is designed to balance these considerations against the need to deliver a secure, clean, green energy system for the future.
Protecting the best agricultural land
The new national policy statement that we published in January makes clear:
“applicants should, where possible, utilise suitable previously developed land, brownfield land, contaminated land and industrial land. Where the proposed use of any agricultural land has been shown to be necessary, poorer quality land should be preferred to higher quality land avoiding the use of ‘Best and Most Versatile’ agricultural land where possible”.
The Government in “Powering Up Britain: Energy Security Plan” clarified that while
“solar and farming can be complementary”
developers must also have
“consideration for ongoing food production”.
Nevertheless, in balancing both the need for energy security and food production, we are concerned that as large solar developments proceed at pace, more of our “best and most versatile” land could be used for solar PV instead of food production. I am therefore setting out further detail about how our policy on balancing these competing priorities is intended to be applied.
As is outlined in the national policy statement, the starting position for solar PV developers in taking forward nationally significant infrastructure projects is that applicants should seek to minimise impacts on the best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification) and preferably use land in areas of poorer quality.
The national policy statement can also be a material consideration in determining applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and is broadly consistent with the approach to agricultural land in the national planning policy framework which states that:
“Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality. The availability of agricultural land used for food production should be considered, alongside the other policies in this Framework, when deciding what sites are most appropriate for development”.
This means that due weight needs to be given to the proposed use of best and most versatile land when considering whether planning consent should be granted for solar developments. For all applicants the highest quality agricultural land is least appropriate for solar development and as the land grade increases, there is a greater onus on developers to show that the use of higher quality land is necessary. Applicants for nationally significant infrastructure projects should avoid the use of best and most versatile agricultural land where possible.
For nationally significant infrastructure projects, including those already in the system, the national policy statement and from today this WMS are likely to be important and relevant considerations in the decision-making process. The Government will keep under review the evidence base underpinning the national policy statement published in January.
Addressing cumulative impacts
While the total area of agricultural land used for solar is very small, and even in the most ambitious scenarios would still occupy less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land, we are increasingly seeing geographical clustering of proposed solar developments in some rural areas, such as in Lincolnshire. When considering whether planning consent should be granted for solar development it is important to consider not just the impacts of individual proposals, but whether there are cumulative impacts where several proposals come forward in the same locality.
In parallel, my Department will be expanding the renewable energy planning database to include additional information on the types of agricultural land used by existing solar projects and those in the planning pipeline. This will enable us to carefully monitor the use of land by renewable projects in all regions of the UK.
Improving soil surveys
The Government have heard concerns about the perceived inaccuracy and unfairness of soil surveys undertaken as part of the planning process for solar development. The Government will address this by supporting independent certification by an appropriate certifying body, subject to relevant business case approval, to ensure agricultural land classification soil surveys are of a high standard, requiring surveyors to demonstrate meeting an agreed minimum requirement of training/experience. We will also seek to ensure consistency in how data is recorded and presented, so that reports on agricultural land classification are consistent, authoritative and objective.
Supporting solar on rooftops and brownfield sites
Finally, I want to highlight that increasing the deployment of rooftop solar remains a priority for Government. The installation of qualifying energy-saving materials, including solar panels, in residential accommodation and buildings used solely for a relevant charitable purpose currently benefits from a zero rate of VAT until March 2027, at which point they will qualify for the reduced rate of VAT at 5%. At the autumn statement 2023, the 100% first year allowance for main rate plant and machinery assets, and the 50% first year allowance for special rate plant and machinery assets, including solar panels, were made permanent. These measures complement the business rates exemption for eligible plant and machinery used in renewable energy generation and storage introduced in 2022.
This year, UK Government launched a new package of measures to support British farming. Under the second round of the improving farm productivity grant, between £15 million and £25 million was made available for the installation of rooftop solar and other equipment to help farms reduce fossil fuel use, improve their energy resilience, and accelerate progress towards net zero.
We also unlocked a key barrier for large-scale commercial rooftop solar, including on farm buildings, through changes to permitted development rights under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Concurrently, we introduced a new PDR allowing for the installation of solar canopies in non-domestic car parks.
We will shortly be delivering the future homes standard which will set the energy performance of new homes and is due to come into force in 2025. Our consultation proposals setting out the proposed technical detail of the standard demonstrated the effectiveness of rooftop solar in reducing energy bills for consumers with solar panels. For non-domestic buildings, the future buildings standard consultation proposed significant amounts of rooftop solar which is also expected to drive the use of solar power on warehouses and commercial buildings.
Additionally, social housing and the public sector both offer excellent opportunities to fit solar on homes and reduce bills. As such, we plan to explore further how to ensure that social landlords can provide solar to their tenants, and work across government to help schools, colleges, hospitals, and other buildings to supply themselves with solar power.
Further information on these initiatives will be set out in the upcoming joint Government-industry solar road map.
I am making this statement with support from my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
[HCWS466]
Gamete Donation Regulations
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
In a parliamentary debate on 23 October 2023, I announced the Government’s intention to update the UK’s gamete donation regulations. The first change would allow people living with HIV with an undetectable viral load to donate their gametes. The second change would update the definition of partner donation to include female same-sex couples, therefore reducing costs for those undergoing reciprocal IVF.
Today, we will lay the necessary regulations to make these changes, which will benefit patients across the whole of the UK, supported by scientific advice from the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs.
First, this will allow people living with HIV to donate their gametes to family, friends and known recipients provided that:
They have a sustained viral load of less than 200 per millilitre—“undetectable viral load”;
they have been receiving antiretroviral treatment for at least six months prior to donation; and
the recipient knows of their HIV diagnosis and provides informed consent.
These changes will benefit hundreds of couples, including same-sex male couples using a surrogate where one or both have HIV, and those seeking known donation from a friend or relative with HIV. This legislative update reflects the advances made in preventing HIV transmission through fertility treatments and is a significant step in further reducing stigma around HIV.
Prior to donation, people living with HIV will undergo a series of tests to ensure their gametes are safe to donate. There is currently a requirement for a post donation HIV test for sperm donations, which is not clinically necessary due to the pre-donation tests. We were unable to rectify this issue in this statutory instrument without causing significant delays. Our priority is enabling people living with HIV to donate their gametes and start a family, and I will look to bring further legislative changes to remove this requirement in due course.
Secondly, the regulations will include an updated definition of partner donation. Under current rules, female same-sex couples hoping to conceive via reciprocal IVF must first go through screening for additional infectious diseases and genetic diseases, which can cost over £1,000. Heterosexual couples are not required to undergo this testing.
This legislation will seek to rectify this disparity in testing requirements and therefore lower costs for treatment. Reciprocal IVF is an increasingly popular way for female couples to have families and this change will help many more couples to afford this treatment.
We hope that these changes will help to create a fairer health system by removing barriers to accessing fertility care, in line with our commitments in the women’s health strategy.
[HCWS467]
House of Lords
Traveller Site Fund
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many bids were received for the £10 million Traveller Site Fund 2022/23, and of those how many were (1) successful, and (2) unsuccessful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
The £10 million Traveller site fund closed on 13 June 2023. Overall, 97 bids for funding were received from 66 local authorities across England, nine local authorities were successful and 16 sites received a share of the £10 million fund.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Those low numbers are extremely worrying. If every local authority provided sites for Travellers as a matter of course, their needs would be catered for and the police would not need to waste time moving them on. How many of the successful bids were for new pitches? Have those pitches been delivered, and are they in use?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
What is being delivered are 10 pitches on one new transit site, 225 pitch refurbishments over 14 sites, and 14 pitch refurbishments and an extension to one permanent site. Those projects are already in development according to their plans.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, given the continued shortage of enough local authority sites, will the Government consider allocating further rounds and higher amounts of the Traveller site fund? Otherwise very many children are going to be moved away from their schools, people are going to be evicted—and they are usually considered homeless when they are—and friction arises when they find somewhere to live, because there are not enough sites.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We do not intend at this time to put any more money in as we did with the £10 million. However, local authorities can go to the affordable homes programme, which has £11.5 billion. That fund is being used by local authorities to provide pitches where they need them.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am all in favour of providing suitable sites for Gypsies, Travellers and those with a nomadic lifestyle. However, when the first official count was carried out in July 1979 there were a total of 8,065 Traveller caravans, and local authorities were urged to make suitable provision. There are now authorised sites for 21,000 Traveller caravans, but the number has gone up fourfold to over 25,000. What are the reasons behind this sudden demand for a nomadic lifestyle in England?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend asks an interesting question to which I do not have the answer, but it is probably very complex and there will be numerous reasons for it. Interestingly, last year the number of caravans on unauthorised encampments decreased by 21%, which gives me the feeling that those people who take this nomadic lifestyle are using authorised camps to live in.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act was the ideal opportunity to help to address the inequalities faced by the Traveller community. Since the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, the then Minister for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, announced a cross-departmental strategy for tackling these inequalities in 2019, no plan has been announced. When can the Traveller community expect to hear what the Government’s strategy is for improving outcomes for Travellers?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Bourne for all his work when he was a Minister in my position. I do not have an update on the Bourne review, but I will certainly write to the noble Baroness and the House with an update on it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, next month is Gypsy, Roma and Traveller History Month, and I hope that all Members of your Lordships’ House will take the opportunity to learn a little more about the many centuries of history of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people in the UK. In that light, I am sure that the Minister is aware of the High Court judgment this week against the Police Act 2022 that said that 12-month bans from an area for Gypsy and Traveller people were incompatible with Article 14 rights within Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Noble Lords may remember that a significant number of your Lordships’ House voted against that provision in the Police Act. There now has to be a legal review. Can the Minister tell me what the Government’s plans are for it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No. That is a very recent decision. I do not know that there are any plans but, certainly as soon as we have them, I will let the noble Baroness know.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, I will hark back to a Question we had yesterday: is there any correlation between Traveller sites and fly-tipping?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not know of any research on that. I am sure my noble friend will have his views on it and others will as well. I do not think we have any definite evidence on that so I would rather not make any further comment.
Military Bases: Accommodation
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the standard of accommodation at military bases.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, since 2021, Defence has invested £1.5 billion across its accommodation portfolio, with thousands of homes being refurbished in the last financial year and more to be upgraded in this financial year. Currently, 96% of all service family accommodation meets or exceeds the Government’s decent homes standard and, although there is no national standard or comparator for military single-living accommodation, we hold ourselves to the defence minimum standard, which spans key issues such as safety, water, ventilation and heating among other factors, as outlined in our defence accommodation strategy.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I remind your Lordships’ House of my registered interests. Last year, the Labour Party commissioned an independent review of military accommodation. The Kerslake review was published last month and its findings were damning: flooded homes, collapsing walls, pests, mould and dangerous gas and electrical fittings are increasingly the norm. Some of the accommodation is in such a dire state that the MoD has been forced to reduce or scrap the rent for 4,000 serving personnel. The commission recommended that, as a first step, the MoD should commission an independent survey to establish a clear, current picture of conditions, setting out what is required to bring service accommodation up to standard. When can we have one?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the Government fully recognise the vital importance of accommodation as a central part of the wider package we provide to those serving within His Majesty’s Armed Forces, and we remain committed to getting this right. We recognise and accept that there is still more to be done, alongside ongoing work to refurbish and upgrade what is an increasingly ageing and difficult property estate.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I have not yet had the opportunity to read the Kerslake commission’s report, but I have seen the headlines from Inside Housing, which reviewed the report and commented on rats, mould and other problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, raised many of these issues, but can the noble Earl tell the House which bits of the commission’s report the Government would refute and, if they cannot refute it, what they are going to do?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the point about the report is that we consider it very carefully. What has happened in the last year is that we have spent £222 million on sorting out some of these issues: £53 million on damp and mould remediation in 4,000 properties, £134 million preparing empty homes for occupation in 1,000 properties, £10 million replacing kitchens and bathrooms in 1,000 properties, and £7 million replacing boilers—very important—in 1,500 properties, while in 3,000 properties we spent nearly £20 million sorting out their doors and windows. I say again: this is a very ageing and difficult estate, which in many cases goes back to the 1940s and 1950s. At the same time, we are spending quite a lot of money on acquiring new properties going forward.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, one of the most persistent problems with service accommodation is the quality of, and the response times for, maintenance. Last year, the continuous attitude survey indicated that satisfaction levels with the maintenance of single-living accommodation were below 30%, and for service families’ accommodation it was below 20%. What is being done to analyse the basic causes of this dissatisfaction and to put it right?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord raises a very good point. The DIO has a relationship with Pinnacle, which is effectively the customer service interface with the Armed Forces. It then passes that work on to Amey and VIVO to undertake it. The process has got much slicker; the response time has got much, much better. As I say, we are not where we need to be, but we are moving in the right direction.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, one of the recommendations of the Kerslake commission report, which is very exhaustive, was that the MoD should commission an external independent survey of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. My recollection is that the DIO did not lack information; what it was endeavouring to do was cultivate a much more muscular relationship with contractors. How is that progressing?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The DIO has all the information that it needs. This is about the implementation and requirement, through Pinnacle to the contractors, to ensure that they respond quite rightly to the issues raised by individual and family members of our Armed Forces.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister gave a long list of the work being undertaken, but I did not hear him mention the question of asbestos in these buildings. Can he give an assurance, therefore, that all the asbestos has now been cleared from the military estate—and, if it has not, when will that be achieved?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the whole question of asbestos is an ongoing issue and one which will take some time to complete. I will write to the noble Lord with full details, but I would like to remind noble Lords that, as they will know, if you do not touch asbestos it is absolutely fine; it is when you start messing around with it that things become dangerous.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that a lot of the problems go back to the Tories’ privatisation of the Armed Forces’ houses, which they privatised without making sure the houses were maintained and repaired?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the benefit of hindsight is wonderful. At the time, in 1996, when the deal was done with Annington—originally with Terra Firma and then with Annington—it was considered a perfectly acceptable deal in the prevailing conditions. In retrospect, of course, property values have risen hugely. I am sure noble Lords will know that a number of cases are going through the courts about enfranchisement, about which of course I cannot comment.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, as someone who from time to time has occasion to stay in military accommodation at various camps, my observation is that standards have not kept pace with changing expectations—what was deemed acceptable in the 1970s and 1980s is no longer. This has a serious effect on the ability to recruit to the Armed Forces. Does my noble friend not agree that this is yet one more reason to increase defence spending without delay?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. One justification for the increase in defence spending we announced recently was to continue to invest in accommodation and bring it up to current acceptable standards. One has only to think back 20 or 30 years to what was an acceptable standard then, to realise that now we are in a very different world.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister update the House on what basis housing is allocated? Is it continuing to be allocated according to rank or is it allocated according to need?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the way accommodation has been allocated is subject to a review. The Secretary of State has called in that review, as I am sure everybody is fully aware, and will report this summer with his findings.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister have any views on the appropriateness or the proper use of resources in providing proper sanitation for young women in our Armed Forces? I certainly do not need to explain their needs, but they are very different from those of their young male counter- parts. Can the Minister say anything about that? My experience is that they are totally inadequate.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a good point. Particularly in single-living accommodation, this is absolutely critical. In the budget, £5.3 billion has been allocated in the next 10 years to invest in the existing single-living accommodation and acquire new accommodation. I can assure the House that the issues around female single-living accommodation are being well catered for.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, my colleague Helen Morgan in the other place put down an amendment to the Renters (Reform) Bill that would require the Government to bring military accommodation up to the decent homes standard. Will the Government bring forward such an amendment to the Renters Reform Bill, which is being discussed today?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, that is outside my brief, obviously, but I would say that the accommodation standards continue to improve. Our forces are paying only something like 15% of their salary for accommodation. If one thinks about that in wider market context, it is not an ungenerous situation to be in.
Health Data: Research and Analysis
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Davies of Brixton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the recommendations of Professor Ben Goldacre in his report Better, broader, safer: using health data for research and analysis, published in April 2022.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the Government responded to the Goldacre review with Data Saves Lives, a data strategy which addressed the majority of the review’s recommendations. Over two-thirds of the strategy’s commitments have been delivered, many of which act on the Goldacre review’s recommendations. A significant proportion were centred on adopting secure data environments—SDEs. There has been significant progress on adopting SDEs in England, including significant investment through the data research and development programme.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I am still concerned that there has been a loss of momentum in this fast-developing field, with the development of AI over the past two years since the report was produced, as well as the discussions under the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Can the Minister assure me that there will be a review of this work to see what has to be updated? Will he discuss, with his ministerial colleagues, what lessons can be learned and taken into account in producing the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to push the Government on this, and I pay tribute to the knowledge he brings to this House on this important subject. I reassure him that the Goldacre principles inspire our ongoing work to ensure that data for research is used in an ever more secure and transparent way. Secure data environments are a major change in the way data is made available for research, and it remains a government commitment to implement their use. SDEs protect personal medical data, as it can be accessed only by verified researchers. The NHS can monitor data usage, and we can limit the data that is analysed and control the purposes for which data is used. Research must always have ethical approval and be in line with UK GDPR.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the introduction of a secure data environment in the NHS, but can my noble friend the Minister give assurance to the House that the federated data platform, and the approvals of access to it, are in line with that and with the authorisation given to individuals? We are well aware of some of the data breaches that have happened in the NHS with patient confidentiality in the past.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My noble friend raises a very important point, and I reassure her and the House that only authorised users will be granted access to data for approved purposes. These include NHS staff and those supporting them, such as administrators, bed managers or care co-ordinators, as well staff in social care supporting the move from hospital care. The FDP suppliers can use NHS data only to support NHS services directed by NHS bodies. The suppliers will not control the data on the platform, nor will they be permitted to access, use or share it for their own purposes.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the Government deserve credit for supporting the development of secure data environments such as OpenSAFELY, but a lot of health research data is still moving around using older and less secure environments, and those who are seeking unauthorised access are becoming ever more sophisticated and dangerous. Will the Minister go back to his department and get it to prioritise, with urgency, moving health research from these older and less secure systems to the newer and more secure ones? This is a race against time, and a major data breach would set research back by years.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point, backing up the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. He is exactly right: the Government are moving at pace. I reassure him that I will take his request back to the department.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, one particular recommendation in the report should also be prioritised: addressing the problem of 160 trusts and 6,500 GPs all acting as separate data controllers, and doing this either through a national organisation acting as a data controller or through a TRE. This would obviously improve the flow of data and the availability of it for direct care and research. Can the Minister please take this matter away and act as swiftly as possible, as this has been on the desks of successive Ministers for some years now?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I hear what she says, and I will certainly take that back to the department.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, following that question, one of the major problems in gathering this vital data for research is that general practitioners are careful about it and are limiting its availability. They feel that they cannot betray the confidentiality of their patients. What encouragement can we give to GPs that they can release this important data?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am not aware that GPs are withholding such important data. If the noble Lord knows of any evidence, I ask him to let me know. I reassure the noble Lord, and indeed the House, that the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS in England have committed to transforming how NHS health and social care data is made available for secondary uses. Secure data environments allow data to be accessed for research in secure systems without people’s identifiable information being seen or the data having to be sent between individuals. If the noble Lord has any specific cases, I ask him please to write to me.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the NHS dataset has been allocated to raise over £5 billion per annum by commercial organisations, if used appropriately. What provision are the Government making to ensure that the public also benefit from this £5 billion by potentially setting something up that is equivalent to a sovereign wealth fund to be invested for public use, particularly for health?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord knows how to run a hospital, and I pay tribute to the work that he has done. On the point about a sovereign wealth fund, I shall take it back to the department—but this strategy will give the public greater access to and control over their own records. Healthcare staff will have easy access to the right information, and social care leaders and policymakers will have data to make effective decisions —so the noble Lord will know that the strategy will benefit all those who work in the NHS, but particularly it benefits patients in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Lords Committee on the Integration of Primary and Community Care heard more frustration from witnesses on the inadequacy of data connectivity than almost anything else. What plans do the Government have to improve that situation, sooner rather than later?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The whole point of the government strategy with introducing this data is to improve the connectivity, similar to what the noble Lord was referring to, between GPs and primary care, and indeed into those ICBs and the trusts throughout the country. I totally agree with the noble Baroness on doing it sooner rather than later, but the Government are moving at pace, and this strategy will transform patient outcomes throughout the United Kingdom.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, to build on the noble Baroness’s point about connectivity, the Minister has just told us that this will benefit everybody in the United Kingdom. Can he confirm that he is speaking to NHS Scotland, the services in Northern Ireland and Wales, and the devolved Administrations, so that all work to help develop health data connectivity is truly spread across the UK?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I do not wish to mislead the House—I can talk only about NHS England. If the noble Baroness is referring to healthcare in Scotland, or indeed in Wales or Northern Ireland, I cannot talk specifically about this. What I can say is that the IT system software is transformative for healthcare in England—but it also equally applies to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, Professor Goldacre was concerned that in relation to health data we have lost public trust. There are many ways in which our data can be marketised, and people are quite rightly suspicious of it being misused, legally or illegally. Given the scale of NHS data stolen and now being released in Dumfries and Galloway, can the Minister agree that NHS users across the UK are right to be concerned?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am sorry to say that I do not agree with the premise of the noble Baroness’s question. Improving patient outcomes through new technology or improved drugs requires the use of NHS data. Therefore, to make the best and most responsible use of the data that they hold, the NHS and social care systems need to work in partnership with a wide range of organisations, including commercial ones.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that successive Health Ministers have tried to digitise the whole health and care system and have faced a number of difficulties. One has been that GPs and some trusts believe that the data is theirs and they do not have confidence in sharing it nationally. Furthermore, many parts of our social care system are not adequately digitised to be able to share data. What is the latest on that, and what are the Government doing to encourage more digitisation of the whole health and social care system?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my initial Answer. The whole point of the Government’s digitisation strategy is to take it from GPs and primary care into hospitals, in trusts throughout the United Kingdom. I am aware of individual trusts or GPs that have yet to get up to speed with digital technology, but I reassure the House that this strategy will take on the areas that are yet to be digitised—but this is a very good news story and a very good strategy that will improve outcomes for all patients in the United Kingdom.
UNRWA
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask His Majesty’s Government what diplomatic steps they are taking in response to the temporary closure of the East Jerusalem headquarters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East following attacks.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, immediately following the arson attack against UNRWA’s headquarters in east Jerusalem, I made clear through a statement that the attack was completely unacceptable. We have also called for the violent perpetrators of this attack to be held to account, and also for Israel to ensure the protection of UN facilities and staff. We cannot allow room for extremism of any kind. That is a view shared by many of heads of mission, which have made similar representations.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister has made such representations. Of course, UN internal documents and the head of UNRWA have reported months of attacks, obstruction and interference with UNRWA’s work. I hope that the Minister will continue to make those representations to the Israeli authorities to ensure that these humanitarian workers are properly protected. Has he also raised the attacks on humanitarian convoys and trucks, which are also impeding the delivery of support?
Can I also ask the Minister about UNRWA funding? The Colonna review—the Minister has referenced it several times—has now concluded, and countries such as Canada and Australia have resumed financial aid. The Foreign Secretary, however, told Laura Kuenssberg that he was “more demanding” and was awaiting the findings of the final UN Office of Internal Oversight Services before we resume funding. Can the Minister explain when we can expect a decision to restore funding to this vital tool for getting aid into the Occupied Territories and Gaza?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s first question, both the Foreign Secretary and I have raised these issues quite directly and have issued statements. Trucks were going through the Jordan crossing and through the Erez crossing, which the United Kingdom has advocated for. It is a real tragedy that many of those trucks—a 40-truck convoy—were attacked. We have made strong representations and continue to do so. I know that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has been very seized of this in his recent engagements.
On the issue of UNRWA funding, as we have repeatedly made clear and I have said several times, we of course recognise the important role that UNRWA has played and continues to play in Gaza and indeed in neighbouring countries. The Colonna report was on the issues of mitigation and made particular recommendations. We know that UNRWA has also responded to that. As my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has said, there is one additional report that is specific to the attacks of 7 October, which is the oversight report, which we are awaiting and will then make a full assessment. I underline again our strong support for the important role that UNRWA has.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interests. I am sure that my noble friend will join me in wishing the people of Israel well on Israel’s 76th birthday yesterday, including the 132 hostages being held in captivity. On 19 November 2018, I said from this position that
“UNRWA, which was born in 1949, is now outdated, does not provide value for money”,
and that it
“refuses to help resettle the Palestinians and even refuses to take … some 2 million Palestinians living in Jordan”
off its refugee list. It therefore
“continues to perpetuate the problem”.
I appealed for a
“new and modern programme of aid and development for the benefit of the Palestinian people and all the peoples of the region”.—[Official Report, 19/11/18; col. 2.]
I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: post 7 October, can the UK take a lead to urgently create that new, modern programme?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say that we of course join in recognising the importance of anniversaries. Indeed, the establishment of Israel was supported by the United Kingdom and is supported by all Members of your Lordships’ House. Equally, I am sure that my noble friend will recognise that it was a very sombre occasion in Israel. I have met with many hostage families and a recent comment that I heard was that there are 25 nationalities, and there are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists who are held by Hamas in Gaza. That is why there is the human appeal to let the hostages go.
On the issue of UNRWA, I have a different perspective from that of my noble friend. UNRWA plays an important role; what is required is reform in terms of how it governs and the list that it provides to ensure that recruitment is done properly. As my noble friend reads the Colonna report, I am sure he will also recognise some really positive recommendations made by the former Foreign Minister of France. We are looking at those, but also require the detail of the report that the Secretary-General will get shortly.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, utterly reprehensible as it is that even 12 out of UNRWAs 30,000 employees around the region should have been involved with Hamas, it is still really urgent to recognise that no proper humanitarian effort in that part of the world can be mounted, particularly in Gaza but also in the West Bank, without UNRWA being part of it? So, will he undertake that the review that he says is under way—we are now in the second month of the new financial year—will lead to a determination by His Majesty’s Government without delay?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already articulated the United Kingdom’s view on the important role that UNRWA plays. I have also said that we are looking to ensure not only that there are mitigations in place but that there is a full review of those abhorrent events of 7 October. The Government will be looking at both those reports and then making a decision accordingly, but I add again that we of course recognise the continuing and important role UNRWA plays.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, UNRWA has lost 89 of its humanitarian workers in this terrible conflict and, as the noble Lord says, is the only body that is able properly to administer support for more than 1 million children displaced within Gaza. That is equivalent to the entire under-10 population of Greater London. The impeding of that aid is a clear breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention. I know that His Majesty’s Government officials are collating evidence of when that supply is being impeded. Does the Minister agree that the Government should be as clear with us in Parliament as the US State Department is to Congress in providing all that information in a public manner? Will the Government do that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of ensuring that aid reaches Gaza, particularly those who are most vulnerable, the women and children. That is where the Government have been focused since the tragedy of 7 October, but even in advance of that. We all know the challenges Gaza faces; that is why we have advocated so strongly for the reopening of the Rafah crossing. I know it has been closed since Israel’s Rafah operation, including to important fuel supplies into Rafah, which need to be secured to ensure the facilitation of hospitals.
On the advice that the Government receive, of course there is a precedent, and we look at advice on a revolving basis. The Foreign Secretary receives advice from various sources, including assessments of adherence to IHL, and will then give his view accordingly.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we will hear from the non-affiliated Bench, followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I thank the Government Chief Whip. In February, the Hamas data centre was discovered underneath UNRWA’s headquarters and, just yesterday, UNRWA terrorists were discovered using an UNRWA school as a base from which to launch their attacks, so it is absolutely clear that UNRWA still has very serious questions to answer. In the meantime, there are other agencies with whom we should be working to get much-needed humanitarian aid in for the poor people of Gaza, who have been so terribly affected by the war Hamas deliberately launched on 7 October, when it raped, kidnapped and murdered so many civilians.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that we are doing exactly that. Notwithstanding that, the funding that we have given has also been focused on other agencies like the World Food Programme, UNICEF and others. I come back to this point: I am sure the noble Lord recognises that mitigations are necessary, and we are pressing on those, but, equally, UNRWA has the most effective structures in Gaza. We need to ensure that those are not just revitalised, but that they are done so to allow for mitigation of the issues that were previously raised.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, the healthcare system in Gaza has collapsed, and the last functioning hospital in Gaza, the European Hospital, has had staff leaving in droves as the IDF start active combat in Rafah. No aid is going through to Gaza and the field hospital which we are supporting is able to provide only urgent care. Children are unnecessarily losing their limbs. I ask my noble friend: will the Government take another look and see whether there could be, and whether we should have, a pathway open for children with serious wounds, so they can be given specialist care which can only be afforded to them in the specialist hospitals which we are lucky to have in this country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I first pay tribute to my noble friend. Also, I am sure I speak for everyone in your Lordships’ House, irrespective of perspective on this conflict, in paying great tribute to those within agencies, particularly the voluntary agencies, who have allowed for UK medevac and those serving in the UK field hospital and others, for the courage, commitment and principle they show in bringing support to the most vulnerable.
On the issue of medevac, my noble friend will know that we have worked with other countries, including the UAE and Egypt, in facilitating that for those who are in most acute need of it. I also recognise the important proposal she has put forward. We want to ensure that those in urgent need, particularly children and the most vulnerable, are provided with that support. The best way that we can achieve this, as I say time and time again, is to stop the fighting, get the aid in, ensure the facilitation of all the medical services and get the hostages out. Human suffering does not look at religion, race, colour or any other creed; it looks at humans, and we must put humanity at the core of everything we do.
Combined Authorities (Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Swinburne
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 March be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 May.
Representation of the People (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 April be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 May.
Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 18, Schedule 2, Clauses 19 to 29, Schedule 3, Clauses 30 to 36, Schedules 4 to 7, Clauses 37 to 44, Schedule 8, Clauses 45 and 46, Schedule 9, Clause 47, Schedule 10, Clauses 48 to 69, Schedule 11, Clauses 70 to 104, Schedule 12, Clauses 105 to 109, Schedule 13, Clauses 110 to 124, Title.
Arrangement of Business
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, before we start today’s Urgent Question, I thought it might assist the House to follow up from proceedings on yesterday’s Urgent Question and to clarify the procedure. As noble Lords will know, Urgent Questions are not dissimilar from Oral Questions, in that both the Questions are put to the Minister, and the Minister’s Answer should be direct, short and with no long speeches. The Statement or Answers given to the Commons are normally repeated by the Minister only when they are taken on the same day as they were made in the Commons, but occasionally, with the agreement of the usual channels, the Answers are read out. In these instances, today’s list will make clear that the Statement or Urgent Question Answer is being repeated.
I am aware that, yesterday, there was a bit of confusion around this, and that that led to Back-Benchers being unable to speak. The Minister will be speaking to those who were present and may have wanted to ask a Question but were unable to because of time constraints. If noble Lords have any further questions or would like to be contacted, I request that they speak to the Government Whips’ Office, which can help.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I fully endorse the comments from the Government Chief Whip. As I have said before, if we follow the Companion we will get more interventions from Members across the House. As she said, Question Time is Question Time; it is not speech time.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, let me point out that the problem yesterday was that Front-Bench questions were so long that there was no time for any Back-Bench contribution.
Illegal Migration Act: Northern Ireland
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that, if this Belfast judgment stands, we will be in the chaotic and damaging situation of asylum seekers having different levels of protection in different parts of the UK? How on earth have the Government let it come to this? What assessment has been made of that discrepancy in the movement of asylum seekers across the UK?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I start by expressing the Government’s disappointment at this judgment. We continue to believe that the policy is lawful, that our approach is compatible with international law and, specifically, that the Illegal Migration Act proposals are compatible with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. The Government will take all steps to defend their position, including through an appeal. We have consistently made clear that the provisions in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement referred to in the Windsor Framework were developed specifically against the background of Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. They do not concern, and should not be brought into, the complex debate on illegal migration.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister still acknowledge that the European Convention on Human Rights is an essential part of the Good Friday/ Belfast agreement? In that context, will he reconfirm the Government’s commitment to upholding the rights of all people residing in Northern Ireland?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have made it very clear—but I will say it again—that all the provisions in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement referred to in the Windsor Framework were developed specifically against the background of Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. They do not concern, and should not be brought into, the complex debate on illegal migration.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, whatever the rights and wrongs of people’s views on the Rwanda Act or the Illegal Migration Act, it has always been a clear principle that immigration law is a matter for application on a UK-wide basis. This is the latest in a string of rulings in the High Court in Belfast that says that Acts of Parliament not only are incompatible with the human rights convention but can be struck down and disapplied by the Windsor Framework agreed by the Parliament of this United Kingdom. Surely the Government have to deal with the fundamental problem. They said in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper that the Windsor Framework did not deal with anything other than trade or goods—that is clearly and totally false: there will be a people border if this continues. Will the Minister deal with the fundamental, underlying problem of the continued supremacy of EU law over vast swathes of the economy and other areas of society in Northern Ireland?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes the very good point that immigration is a reserved matter and that the Government have consistently applied immigration law on a UK-wide basis. This judgment relates to the Illegal Migration Act, so it does not impact our planning or operations for Rwanda. I am afraid that I cannot speculate as to the other matters that he raised.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Will my noble friend the Minister follow through on the implications of what he just said? As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, pointed out, the Windsor Framework was sold in this House and in the other House as something that would apply only to pork pies and technical standards. If it is now being interpreted that the Windsor Framework can be used to strike down primary legislation passed in our Parliament, surely that is not operating as we understood it. Does it not call into question the whole basis of it and make the case for a fundamental renegotiation of the entire agreement?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as I stated in my original Answer, which I will repeat to my noble friend, the Government intend to take all steps to defend their position, including through an appeal. Of course, these are the matters that will be debated in that appeal.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, long before the Windsor Framework, there was the Good Friday agreement, which was hard won, not least by people from all communities in Northern Ireland. Can the noble Lord confirm that if this decision of Mr Justice Humphreys in the Belfast High Court is upheld in our Supreme Court, the Government will respect that decision, protect the Good Friday agreement—which is an international treaty signed up to by this country and the Republic of Ireland and supported by our closest ally, the United States—and protect the peace and human rights in Northern Ireland?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, again, I was very clear at the start; we have consistently made it clear that the provisions in the Good Friday agreement, referred to in the Windsor Framework, were developed specifically against the background of Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. That position has not changed.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, the Minister will recall that last week in this House I raised my concerns about the Irish Government’s plan to mobilise 100 Garda officers to stop asylum seekers crossing into the Republic of Ireland from Northern Ireland, in effect, creating a hard border on the island. I asked the Minister directly to clarify what His Majesty’s Government were doing to remedy this situation, and his response was that he did not think it was appropriate to
“comment on the internal policies of another country”.—[Official Report, 9/5/24; col. 315.]
Given the potential consequences for Northern Ireland of the Belfast High Court judgment, does he now believe that it is time for the Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular to prioritise the well-being of the people of the Province of Northern Ireland over the shallow quest for voters in Great Britain?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I would go back to my original answer of last week: I still do not think it is appropriate to comment on the internal policies of another country. As I have repeatedly said—and as I will continue to say as often as I am asked—the Government will take all steps to defend their position, including through an appeal. I would also say that this is not about prioritising one part of our country over another. It is about maintaining the UK’s border integrity.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Illegal Migration Act is the basis on which the Home Office has any authority to accommodate children. I understand from my noble friend that the Government are appealing, but is the Act disapplied and, if it is, what does that do to the authority of the Home Office to accommodate any unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Northern Ireland?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, obviously the Government are still seeking advice on all aspects of what the judgment means, but we will be appealing. I should also say that the final order will not be handed down for another two weeks, so an appeal cannot be lodged until after that final order is handed down.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, in the meantime, what is the position of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland who no longer come under the Illegal Migration Act? Are they able to apply for asylum?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
No, I do not believe they are. I do not think this has any impact on, for example, the safety of Rwanda or relocation to Rwanda under existing legislation. As noble Lords will be aware, migrants currently in Northern Ireland can be relocated under the NABA.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said that the Government were going to appeal the decision when it is finalised. How quickly could that be brought on and, if indeed the Government lost the appeal, could they then legislate?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I do not understand or know anything about the workings of the court processes, so I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the Minister is a Home Office Minister. However, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, will be able to educate him on the fact that anybody who knows the primary legislation implementing the Belfast/Good Friday agreement will not be in the least surprised by the High Court judgment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That may be the case, but, as I have repeatedly said, the Government intend to appeal the decision. Until that appeal is heard, I do not know that there is much else to say on this.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Illegal Migration Act gives Ministers the power to detain those who have arrived in small boats. My understanding is that that is still not yet in force after a number of months—since last July. What prevents anybody who has arrived on a small boat since last July then travelling to Northern Ireland?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, we do not believe that this will induce people to go to Northern Ireland. The cohort we are detaining has been considered under existing legislation, so those who are part of that cohort can and will be removed to Rwanda. There would be no benefit to their going to Northern Ireland to avoid this removal. The NABA cohort is anyone who arrived in the UK on or after 1 January 2022 and who received a notice of intent prior to 29 June 2023, which informed them that their asylum claim may be considered inadmissible and that they may be removed to Rwanda.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, until any appeals in relation to the Northern Ireland cases are concluded, will the Minister undertake not to commence Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act, concerning age assessment, which has now been disapplied in Northern Ireland?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I cannot make that commitment. I will come back as and when I have more to say on the subject.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, during the passage of the Rwanda Bill, my party flagged up these concerns. Of course, we were told that we were wrong. It now transpires that we were right. Surely the quick and efficient way to satisfactorily resolve this issue is an urgent but short piece of legislation that asserts without doubt that we control our own borders. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point but, as I say, the first step in this process is to appeal the judgment. I am sure that all other considerations will then be taken as to what might happen in the future.
Renters (Reform) Bill
Wednesday 15th May 2024
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 View all Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 April 2024 - (24 Apr 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)
My Lords, I thank those Peers who have already taken an interest in this Bill and those who have worked to improve the private rented sector over many years. The Renters (Reform) Bill brings forward the most significant changes to the sector in 30 years.
For England’s 11 million tenants, representing some 4.6 million private rented sector households, the Bill provides the robust protections needed to increase security and standards, helping people to put down roots in their communities, keep jobs and build careers in their local areas. We are also supporting England’s 2 million landlords and recognising the importance of privately rented homes to our economy. The Bill will give good landlords the confidence to let their properties, equipping them with the tools needed to charge a fair rent and reclaim their properties when they need to, while driving out rogue and bad actors who undercut the majority. The Government have worked closely with those across the sector and across political parties to ensure that our measures strike the right balance. I will now move to the specific content of the Bill and outline the ways in which, when taken together, this package of reforms will support responsible landlords and tenants alike.
The measure that noble Lords will be most familiar with is the abolition of Section 21 evictions. We know that the threat of a Section 21 eviction can make tenants feel very insecure in their homes, with good reason. Unexpected evictions can cause real financial difficulty and interrupt employment and schooling for parents and children. By removing Section 21, we are helping tenants to feel settled and to challenge poor practices if their landlord is not meeting their basic responsibilities. We recognise that the vast majority of landlords provide an excellent service. In the absence of Section 21, it is important that they have the confidence that they can get their properties back. That is why, alongside abolishing Section 21, we will strengthen Section 8 possession grounds.
Landlords will be able to get their properties back if their circumstances change—for example, when they are selling or moving into their property. We are also protecting landlords and expediting their ability to evict those who disrupt neighbourhoods through the evils of anti-social behaviour, as well as introducing new grounds for persistent rent arrears. To protect tenants where there are more complex circumstances, such as a breach of tenancy conditions, the grounds will remain discretionary so that judges can consider whether it is reasonable to evict them.
After listening to concerns from the sector, we have also made changes to protect the functioning of the student market by introducing a new ground for possession to ensure that student landlords can continue to offer tenancies which align with the academic year.
To further protect people from homelessness, as well as abolishing Section 21, we will make sure that tenants still have certainty that a homelessness prevention duty will be owed when a valid Section 8 possession notice is served. This means that vulnerable households will continue to receive support while the threat of homelessness remains.
The strengthened grounds are fair, comprehensive and efficient. It is reasonable for landlords to regain their property when they need to, but they should rightly give tenants a specific reason for ending a tenancy rather than securing possession simply to avoid the responsibilities of being a good landlord.
We are also simplifying the tenancy system by abolishing fixed-term tenancies and moving to a system of periodic tenancies. Fixed terms lock in both tenants and landlords, even when their circumstances change, on a property of poor quality. Much has been said and written about fixed terms, and not always accurately. It is important to acknowledge that under a fixed term, tenants cannot end the tenancy and landlords cannot evict them using Section 21. However, at the end of a fixed-term contract, a tenancy does not automatically end, and to regain possession a landlord still needs to issue a notice and apply to the court if the tenant does not leave. In the new system, after the minimum six-month initial period at the start of a new tenancy, either party will be able to end the tenancy when they need to.
The Government are also exploring potential exemptions to the minimum six-month initial period where it is absolutely necessary for the tenant to end the tenancy early. This could include, for example, where a tenant has died, instances of domestic abuse or where a landlord has not remedied a serious health hazard such as severe damp or mould. We remain committed to abolishing Section 21 as quickly as possible. However, we should be clear that delivering a smooth transition to the new system is essential so that tenants understand their rights and landlords have the confidence to remain and invest in this important sector. That is why we have committed to ensuring that county courts are ready to deal with our tenancy reforms so that landlords and tenants can benefit from a modern, efficient possession system. To ensure the courts are ready, we will work with the Lord Chancellor to assess the readiness of the county courts ahead of abolishing Section 21 for existing tenancies.
To help illustrate this, it may be helpful for me to explain what needs to happen to prepare for the new tenancy system. Following Royal Assent, a raft of secondary legislation is needed to switch on the Section 21 ban, alongside important consequential amendments to other legislation. Guidance is being developed so that the sector is fully prepared for the new system. Court rules and systems need updating to reflect these new rules, and we have already committed to aligning changes to the tenancy system with improvements in the courts. We are working closely with the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service to digitise the county court possession system, and we are investing some £11 million this year to design this new digital system. Other target areas for improvement include the prioritisation of certain serious cases such as anti-social behaviour and improving bailiff enforcement by enhancing recruitment and retention practices. We will also provide early legal advice and better signposting for tenants.
Although we know that a majority of landlords provide an excellent service for their tenants, the Government are committed to providing tenants with free and easy access to redress where their complaint has not been dealt with as it should be by their landlord. That is why the Bill allows for a new private rented sector landlord ombudsman. The ombudsman will have strong powers to support tenants, including being able to compel unscrupulous landlords to take or cease action and issue an apology or an explanation, and to award compensation where needed. For the vast majority of landlords who provide a quality service, the ombudsman will have the power to protect them by dismissing vexatious, malicious or unfounded complaints. It also means that fewer cases will need to be dealt with in the courts, further reducing burdens on the judicial system.
In the other place, we set out that the Government’s preferred provider for this service is the existing Housing Ombudsman, which already provides redress for the social rented sector. Although no final decision has been made, the Housing Ombudsman is uniquely placed to deliver a single streamlined service for both social and private tenants.
Home should be where we feel comfortable and safe but, for some tenants, the rooms and homes they live in, the stairs they climb and the air they breathe can be a clear and present danger. To improve quality and drive up standards, we are introducing a decent homes standard in the private rented sector for the first time. This will ensure that all tenants have access to the safe and decent homes they deserve. It will also support the Government’s aim to reduce the number of non-decent homes by 50% by 2030. We know that the vast majority of landlords already provide decent housing and a good service for their tenants. The decent homes standard will help good landlords by simplifying and clarifying requirements, while providing local councils with effective and proportionate enforcement powers to deal with the minority—I stress that it is a minority—who do not meet their obligations. It is imperative that we get the new standard right, ensuring that it is proportionate and fair. We are working closely with the sector to co-design it and make sure the balance is right between landlords and tenants. We will set out our proposals in due course.
The Bill will also introduce a new property portal, which will set out landlords’ responsibilities clearly in one place and support tenants to make more informed choices. It will also support local authorities by providing them with the information and tools they need to support enforcement and drive out the bad actors from the private rented sector. To ensure the new property portal works with existing requirements, we will review how it interacts with selective and HMO licensing. This includes how we can reduce administrative burdens and make the system more effective for landlords, tenants and local authorities.
Blanket bans on letting to families with children or people who receive benefits have no place in a fair and modern housing market. People are much more than their benefit status, and no two families are identical. Everyone in the private rented sector is entitled to access a safe and decent home, and landlords should consider prospective tenants on their individual basis. That is why the Bill will also ensure that no family is unjustly discriminated against when looking for a place to live. We are making it illegal for landlords and agents to have blanket bans on renting to people who receive benefits or to families with children. The Bill will address overt discriminatory practices, such as “No DSS” adverts, and indirect practices designed to intentionally prevent someone entering a tenancy. Working with the devolved Administrations, we intend to extend these measures to Wales and Scotland, further protecting vulnerable tenants from discrimination.
Everyone has the right to make the house they rent into a home and, for many, pets are part of that, which is why we are making sure that private landlords do not unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests to have a pet in their home. We will give tenants the right to challenge unreasonable refusals. We know that some landlords are concerned about potential damage caused by pets, so landlords will be allowed to require insurance covering pet damage. This will provide landlords with reassurance that any damage caused by a pet can be taken care of, with the responsibility for damage caused by a pet falling explicitly to the tenant.
All the changes I have set out today must be underpinned by a robust, proportionate and effective enforcement framework. That is why we are extending councils’ powers to collect and retain revenue for future enforcement work from financial penalties against landlords who flout the rules. Local authorities will be able to issues fines of up to £30,000 in the most serious cases, with the alternative of a criminal prosecution. We are also introducing enhanced investigatory powers that will make it easier for local councils to obtain financial information from bad landlords when seeking to build a case against them for suspected abuse.
We understand that supporting local authorities to deliver these functions is critical. That is why we will ensure that additional burdens created by the new system are fully funded and that local councils are able to keep the revenue they receive from civil penalties ring-fenced for further enforcement activity.
I hope we can bring to scrutiny of this Bill a shared perspective that, when it works best, the private rental sector can deliver both a stable home and a healthy return for investors. The Bill seeks to support these aims by providing a comprehensive, balanced package of measures that will meet the needs of the sector for the 21st century. The Bill will give tenants the protections and security they need to feel truly at home in their communities, and give landlords the confidence that, if they do the right thing, they can be rewarded for providing those very homes. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate for the Opposition. I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction, and for all the time she has taken in meeting us prior to the Bill coming to the House.
Given the expectations generated among renters that the Bill will make improvements to their situation, it is of considerable regret that the Government have dragged their heels in getting it through the other place. The Bill finished its Commons Committee stage last November, but did not return for Report until last month. In the meantime, the concessions made considerably watered down the initial potential. However, as the Bill delivers some improvements, it is not our intention to hold things up any further.
It is also very regrettable that the Government appear to have put the priorities of some grumpy Back-Bench MPs—I do not blame them for being grumpy—before the needs of millions of aspirational renters, people who simply want the secure, affordable and comfortable home that they have every right to expect. For a fifth of UK households—over 4.6 million people—who live in private rented housing in England, this Bill held out a great deal of promise that they would see much-needed fundamental reforms of the sector. As the Local Government Association put it:
“We have argued for the Bill to go further in supporting tenants’ rights and providing stronger regulatory and enforcement powers, and for government to ensure sufficient funding”
for councils to enforce these measures. However, during the Commons stages, concessions were made on a number of these key measures, and the Bill no longer lives up to its stated intention of creating a fairer and more secure private rented sector. That is from the LGA’s briefing. I apologise—I should have declared my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.
I thank the many organisations that have sent through briefings, met with us, and expressed their concerns about the Bill. There are too many to mention them all, but I particularly thank the LGA, the Renters Reform Coalition, Generation Rent, the National Residential Landlords Association, Shelter, Crisis, Citizens Advice, London Councils, Universities UK, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, and the Law Society for keeping us informed of their campaigns and for their views on the Bill.
Unfortunately, and at the risk of my sounding like a stuck record on legislation I have dealt with in your Lordships’ House, the reforms that the Bill delivers come hand in hand with a missed opportunity to improve the situation of the UK’s growing band of renters. Of course some elements of the Bill are very welcome; it changes possession grounds, introduces compulsory periodic tenancies, extends the decent homes standard, and introduces a new ombudsman and a property portal, as well as introducing the very important right for tenants to keep a pet. We very much welcome the Minister’s comments about blanket bans; she is absolutely correct in saying that they have no place in a modern housing system.
However, other key elements have been watered down in the Commons. Absolutely critical, and of fundamental importance, are the barriers put in place to delay the commencement of the abolition of the punitive and much-abused Section 21 no-fault evictions. Recent figures show that more than 80,000 households have been threatened with homelessness and had to approach their local authority for support following a Section 21 eviction notice, since the Government’s 2019 pledge to end them. As the charity Crisis tells us, this equates to 52 households a day being threatened with homelessness.
In my time as a councillor, I saw the dreadful impact of that on families. Having to move on short notice is incredibly expensive; the Renters Reform Coalition estimates that each move costs around £1,700—that is quite a low estimate. These moves disrupt employment and education, and shatter connection with communities and family support.
Indeed, it has a particular impact on vulnerable children. Imagine spending months trying to get your child with special needs into a suitable school and then being evicted from the home near that school. It also takes a terrible toll on people’s health and mental health, with parents often feeling guilty that they are not able to provide the stability they know would benefit their children. There is a very significant economic cost of this as families present as homeless to their local council. The cost of temporary and emergency accommodation has risen to £1.74 billion and consumes around 30% to 40% of net revenue budgets for some local authorities.
It is surely time for a definitive ban on Section 21 no-fault evictions, but recent amendments made in the other place just kick the can down the road. The Bill now requires the Lord Chancellor to publish an assessment on the readiness of the courts. Of course the court system must work effectively to get decisions made in a timely way for the benefit of both tenants and landlords but, with that pledge having been made five years ago, why was this work not already under way or even thought about until the final stages of the Bill? We are now left with an indefinite timeline for court reform and, although the Minister has today given us some indication of the necessary steps, there is no clear route map to say what needs to change and how it will be done and funded, and families are left with sword of Damocles-like evictions still hanging over them. The Secretary of State repeated his pledge this weekend that this court reform would be completed before the general election. Will the Minister say which general election he was referring to? It is shameful that the Government did not have the courage to face down Back Benchers in the Commons on this and put their concerns over the trauma of eviction faced by private renters. We will try again with amendments to enact a ban on Section 21 evictions on Royal Assent of the Bill, although I suspect this too will have to wait for a Labour Government.
We have significant concerns about the introduction of what could represent a tenant trap in the Bill. One of the key purposes of this legislation was to bring the UK more into line with the longer-term tenancies enjoyed in most other parts of Europe by creating open-ended tenancies. In Germany, for example, the average length of a tenancy is 11 years compared with just over two years in the UK. We welcome these more flexible tenancy proposals but, in a move which runs completely counter to this flexibility, the Bill now extends the right to move out from within two months’ notice from the start of the tenancy to six months. This could lead to some real issues in certain circumstances—for example, if a property has been mis-sold and the renter finds themselves living in a property not fit for purpose, whether through damp and mould or other maintenance issues. Being trapped in this way for six months could be extremely damaging to their health or that of their family. Yes, there are consumer protections, but these are difficult to enforce and may not be enacted as quickly as would be necessary.
Noble Lords know that I have a particular passion for supporting victims and survivors of domestic abuse, and indeed set up our local organisation, Survivors Against Domestic Abuse. It is of great concern therefore that victims and survivors may find themselves trapped in a property in a dangerous situation, potentially even with their abuser, because of the six months’ notice period. We are also concerned that there may be other vulnerabilities, such as mental health issues, which make it inappropriate to force this fixed period on certain tenants. Does the Minister feel that there may be some scope to amend the Bill to allow for those exceptions? Domestic abuse and support charities are also very concerned that the vague definition of anti-social behaviour as a ground for eviction could lead to people being evicted on ASB grounds while still undergoing their trauma.
We have outstanding concerns about why the Government have not used the opportunity of this Bill to extend the provisions of Awaab’s law to the private rented sector. It seems nonsensical that protective provisions introduced for the social rented sector to give tenants more power to have issues such as damp and mould rectified are not available to those in private rented properties—or in Army properties, which were debated earlier today in your Lordships’ House. My noble friend Lord Khan has detailed knowledge of them and will say more later in the debate.
Like many noble Lords, I have been lobbied heavily by student bodies regarding the provision to exempt landlords of student properties from the move away from fixed-term tenancies. We understand the purpose of that but, as Universities UK has pointed out, there may be significant unintended consequences. I quote Universities UK:
“We note the government’s amendment which would see landlords serving notice between 1 June and 30 September. This is welcome as it would not be in the interest of students if landlords could evict tenants at any point in the year. However, given the increased diversity of how and when courses are delivered there will be some courses which are inappropriate for this model. The government should consult with the sector to identify where this is the case and what amendments can be made”.
Students and professionals in higher education have made the point strongly to me that there may be students who cannot live at home—care leavers, for example—and need longer tenancies than an academic year. If this measure is too rigid, it may cause significant problems for those whose study pattern is different from the traditional undergraduate pattern. Can the Minister outline what discussions have taken place or will take place with the sector in this regard?
On the appointment of the ombudsman, I know that my noble friend Lady Warwick has questions about whether there will be a process to appoint the most appropriate body. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that.
We welcome the pet-friendly provisions in the Bill, including those that prevent the unreasonable refusal of pet requests from tenants. I have seen from personal experience the great health and social benefits that pet ownership can bring, and for those who live alone or who have other vulnerabilities it can be extraordinarily life-enhancing. Passing the legislation would mark a significant step forward for renters across the country who have pets, as well as those who aspire to do so. However, pet charities and organisations, including Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and Cats Protection, have asked for some strengthening of the Bill—for example, shortening the time limit within which landlords must respond to a written pet request from the current 42 days to 28 days, and giving a presumption of acceptance if no response to a legitimate request is forthcoming. I hope the Minister will give due consideration to amendments in that regard.
We have no intention of holding up the Bill as it will put in place some provisions that will improve things for renters, but we wanted to see a much more fundamental reform and have called for that for many years. Regardless of whether you are a home owner, leaseholder or tenant, we believe that everyone has the right to a decent, safe, secure and affordable home. Hopefully, a Labour Government will soon be able to build on the foundations put in place by the Bill. In the meantime, I look forward to the debate today and to hearing the Government’s response.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor, a vice-president of the Local Government Association and an accidental landlord. I too thank all the groups that have provided informative briefings on a wide range of issues, which I and my colleague, my noble friend Lady Thornhill, have found immensely useful.
There is much in the Bill that we support. Legislation that rebalances the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants in the private rented sector is long overdue. However, the context in which the Bill is being debated is important. Much has changed in the rental sector since the Housing Act 1988. The private rented sector has continued to grow, with, according to the latest figures from the ONS, 5 million households renting from a private landlord—the equivalent of 20% of the housing market—whereas 17%, or 4.2 million households, are renting in the social housing sector.
The private rented sector has doubled since 2002. The stark fact is that for many households, especially families with children, private rent is the only option. Even 20 years ago, the first choice for families on low incomes would be social housing. Rents in social housing are within the local housing allowance, and there is a much higher degree of security. That is not to deny that some social housing fails to be of a decent standard, and that some social landlords neglect the needs of their tenants. However, the right-to-buy legislation without the right-to-build replacement housing has resulted in a large reduction in social housing, putting the most vulnerable households at risk of homelessness or leaving them with limited, or often no, choice as to where to live.
The solution to this fundamental problem is not provided by the Bill. What is needed is a substantial increase in the number of homes for social rent being built every year. This is not “affordable housing”—the vast majority of homes provided through that route are not for social rent. The Government have a much-vaunted principle of choice for consumers but tenants needing housing at a social rent are not given that choice. Can the Minister explain why the Government deny the choice of housing at a social rent to so many families in need?
I will be more positive now. Many of the changes in the Bill are positive, although they do not go far enough, as my noble friend Lady Thornhill will demonstrate. The key change must be the abolition of Section 21 eviction notices—without delay. The disruption to family life by the constant need to find another rental property is not considered anywhere near enough by the Bill. Children having to change schools on a regular basis because of the insecurity of tenure must be a thing of the past. Ending Section 21 and implementing the decent homes standard are key to the Bill.
Apart from the fundamental policy changes that the Bill offers, there are inevitably consequences for areas of housing provision that may not be fully recognised by the Bill as it stands. My colleague in the other place, Helen Morgan MP, raised the issue of decent housing standards being required for military accommodation. The Government gave her a commitment that they would table an amendment to do so. On these Benches, we look forward to that amendment from the Government in Committee.
Student accommodation is the first issue I want to raise. On Report in the Commons, the Government introduced new provisions regarding student accommodation, as the Minister outlined. This has the effect of enabling landlords of student accommodation to ensure that student tenancies end with the academic year. I ought to say, perhaps, that I am vice-chair of the council of the University of Huddersfield. I know that many courses start in January and many, particularly master’s degree courses, last 15 months. Many students, particularly international ones, need permanence in their accommodation. I would like to hear from the Minister what protections there are for these students. Can she explain the reasons for expecting students to pay six months in advance for accommodation?
I turn now to what I hope are the unintended consequences of the Bill. With regard to social housing, the National Housing Federation raised concerns in its briefing about the impact of ground 1B, rent to buy, in the possession orders because in its current form it prohibits social landlords from converting rent-to-buy properties into social or affordable rented homes. Perhaps the Minister can consider concerns from the sector on this and on ground 6 where social landlords are redeveloping properties. I am sure that we can overcome these issues but I think they are very important to social landlords.
In its helpful briefing, the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance seeks remedies for specific concerns regarding the use of the repossession order at ground 14, where safeguards are especially needed for the victims of domestic abuse; and ground 8A regarding rent arrears, where women in controlling relationships may not have the financial oversight of domestic bills and fall foul of that particular reason for repossession.
Finally, there are 10 clauses which give new statutory responsibilities to local housing authorities. For these reforms to be effective, it is vital that enforcement powers are clearly defined and able to be implemented; therein lies the crux of the challenge for government. Councils are experiencing very significant financial pressure—local authority external auditors are regularly making that case. The Bill gives councils the right to retain financial penalties but, quite obviously, that will be inadequate to fund the enforcement teams necessary. The Minister rightly pointed out that the new burdens agreement between government and local authorities is to fully fund new duties. However, in practice that rarely occurs in full, so the Bill relies on strong enforcement; the powers are there, but currently not the means. I really look forward to the Minister reflecting on that, because the whole of the Bill depends on enforcement powers being effective.
It is good that the Bill is tackling some of the long- standing injustices in the sector. However, to be the sea-change Bill that was promised, it needs to put consideration of individuals and families at its very heart —and on that important test, currently the Bill fails.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my housing and property interests as on the register. This Second Reading provides an opportunity to review the current state of the PRS—the private rented sector—and to consider the impact on this sector of the Renters (Reform) Bill. Does the Bill address the key problems facing renters and, if so, will it fix those problems?
Let us take a quick look at the private rented sector today. By the late 1980s, the PRS accounted for only some 9% of the nation’s homes. Then, in the early years of this century, the sector dramatically doubled in size to around 20% of the stock, and it achieved this growth without building virtually any new homes.
Two factors propelled this extraordinary turnaround. First, the Housing Act 1988 removed rent controls and security of tenure for new shorthold lettings. This created a profitable opportunity, enhanced by low-interest buy-to-let mortgages for investors: today, there are 2.3 million private landlords. Despite tax and regulatory changes to dampen this phenomenon and the recent interest rate hikes, the PRS has continued to sustain its new-found size, bolstered by the shortages that have pushed up prices and rents.
The second big change, which has led to today’s dependency on the PRS, was the demise of council housebuilding. At its peak, local councils regularly accounted for some 150,000 to 200,000 new homes built in a single year. The housing associations have only ever built a fraction of these numbers. Along with council house sales under the right to buy, now approaching 2 million homes sold, the social housing sector—that is, councils plus housing associations—has suffered a huge decline. It has gone from around 34% of the country’s housing stock to just 17% today. Those who would have looked to the social housing sector in the past must now turn to private renting instead.
Has this switch from social housing to private renting been a success? Although PRS rents are higher and security is lower, the PRS has provided a satisfactory home for many. But the switch has not helped with the nation’s biggest housing problem: supply. There are simply not enough homes to go around. Building new homes has not kept pace with increases in households. PRS landlords do not build new homes, with the exception of a valuable but modest program of build-to-rent and purpose-built student accommodation; rather, private landlords have inevitably outbid others, particularly first-time buyers, to acquire existing properties. Critics argue that this has inflated house prices and led directly to a reduced number of people being able to become home owners. We are left with acute housing shortages, which only a big expansion of social housing can fix.
However, the Bill does try to address other serious criticisms of the private rented sector. These criticisms are, put simply, that landlords can—and some do—take advantage of the acute housing shortages and lack of options; and that the power imbalance between landlord and tenant means that renters have had to put up with rents that absorb half their incomes, with poor conditions and appalling service, all because they have nowhere else to go. Underpinning this imbalance is the constant threat—whether articulated or not—of retaliatory eviction, whereby the landlord can get rid of a complaining tenant through the notorious Section 21 no-fault eviction route.
The Bill takes some important steps to correct the landlord-tenant imbalance. It does not have much to say about the affordability of rents, because it is a fundamental characteristic of a private rented sector that rents are set by the market. As economists frequently tell us, tough rent controls could lead to an exodus of landlords. While a gentle reduction in the size of an overextended PRS could rebalance the sectors, too many landlords exiting the market at the same time because of controls on rents would create chaos. However, the Bill does seek to block rent increases in excess of market levels, to stymy an underhand way of forcing a tenant out when no legitimate grounds exist.
On other matters, the Bill has some valuable ingredients. Landlords will have to meet a set of decent standards, which will be established to address poor conditions such as cold and mould. Renters will all have access to a new ombudsman who will handle complaints and will be able to levy quite serious fines for incompetence and bad behaviour. As in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a register will be available online: a property portal will be maintained of all PRS properties, covering their compliance with legal requirements, to enable prospective tenants to check for health and safety features, and so on. The Bill will also make it more difficult for landlords to refuse a tenancy for those with a pet.
All these changes empower tenants in helpful ways. However, there are modest changes, which your Lordships’ scrutiny may achieve, that would amend the Bill for the better. There is also a desperate need for energetic enforcement. In addition, renters need a good online advice service to explain all their rights and responsibilities —one is being developed by the TDS Charitable Foundation.
However, a cloud hangs over what was the centrepiece of the Bill: the fundamental issue of renters’ security—their consumer protection against arbitrary evictions. As well as particular concerns about lettings to students, there are at least three further issues here. First, new grounds for possession will allow landlords to get the property back for a family member’s occupation or their own, or because they are selling. This means, perhaps inevitably, that any private sector tenant could still be evicted through no fault of their own. These are understandable grounds for repossession because a sector based on private investment has to enable the investor to sell up at some point, but could this change be made less sudden and less painful?
Secondly, the new measures to speed up the gaining of possession in arrears cases introduce some tough changes that may have gone a step too far. This needs exploring.
Thirdly, the biggest problem with the Bill is not content but implementation. The all-important ending of no-fault Section 21 evictions is now to be delayed until such time as the Lord Chancellor reports that the county courts are likely to process cases speedily. This could take a long time and, with no fixed date and no backstop for triggering the end of Section 21, the central plank of the Bill is missing.
In conclusion, the doubling of the size of the private rented sector and the halving of the social housing sector has exacerbated shortages and led to some cases of poor performance and exploitation of tenants. The Renters (Reform) Bill introduces some welcome measures, for which the Government deserve full credit, to redress the landlord/tenant imbalance. But last-minute government amendments to delay the ending of no-fault evictions for an indefinite period have led to anger and frustration from tenants’ representatives, such as Generation Rent and the Renters Reform Coalition. Perhaps the Minister can head off a Lords rebellion on this issue by indicating a willingness to address this concern, alongside more modest changes to a Bill that is worth having but could be much better.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, from whose wisdom and experience I have personally gained such a lot. I am grateful for his contribution today. I declare my interest as the Church of England’s lead bishop for housing. Also, as I am in clergy-tied housing myself, my retirement house is currently let to a long-term tenant.
My starting place is that good homes are the building blocks of strong communities. Bad homes threaten mental and physical well-being, hinder personal and economic development, and compromise safety. Everyone needs a good home so that we have a good society where people can flourish. As others have said, there is much to welcome in the Bill. Private renting is the most insecure and expensive tenure, and it requires significant reform. I am pleased that the decent homes standard will be applied to the private rented sector for the first time. I am also pleased that the Government have tabled amendments to prohibit landlords and letting agencies from discriminating against families with children and people in receipt of benefits. I will seek more details on how this will work in practice.
I have three children, all of whom are young adults. Without a significant shake-up of the entire housing market, it is likely that they will struggle ever to buy their own property. With more than 11 million people renting privately, they are not alone, and young people face particular difficulties in switching to home ownership or social rent. With some notable exceptions, young people are not particularly well represented in either House, which might be one reason the Bill has taken so long to reach us. I am determined to speak up for them as the Bill progresses. Those 11 million, including my three children, know how important it is to improve the private rented sector. The old phrase that we are a “nation of home owners” is now outdated. We are a nation in which many people are in the private rented sector for long periods, if not permanently.
So there is much to commend in the Bill. However, I am concerned that it has lost some of its most important measures during its passage through Parliament so far. As drafted, the Bill will not provide a significantly better private rented sector. The most well-publicised reversal is the delay in abolishing Section 21 evictions, and I add my voice to the calls of other Peers for the Government to set out a series of tests for the courts, or a timeline, for abolition. Without this, I fear that this reform will be delayed indefinitely.
This Bill provides us with an opportunity to make significant reforms to one tenure, but the private rented sector houses only around 20% of the population. We need to think bigger to fix our housing crisis. Nothing short of a long-term strategy which considers all tenures as interconnected parts of a whole system will do. A few weeks ago, I was pleased to launch a report from Homes For All, which set out a vision for England’s housing system and the need for a long-term strategy—and I am grateful to the Minister for being there. I commend the report and its ambitious proposals to all noble Lords who have an interest in fixing the UK’s housing crisis. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have supported it, including the late and much mourned Lord Stunell.
A vision for better housing which delivers for everyone requires a set of values that we can all support. The Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community set out five values that should underpin good housing. It said that housing should always be safe, secure, sociable, sustainable and satisfying. As it stands, the private rented sector is often unsafe, insecure, unsociable, unsustainable and unsatisfying—and it is frequently the most expensive tenure for tenants. I shall be assessing the quality of this Bill against the five values outlined by the commission.
Achieving these five goals may require a certain amount of sacrifice. To reverse pervasive issues of low quality and high costs, a new balance must be struck between the needs of landlords and renters. This might involve some sacrifices if we are to reform the tenure meaningfully. The needs of landlords and renters are often presented as being in opposition but, in reality, the vast majority of landlords demonstrate a duty of care in line with legal obligations, and the vast majority of tenants treat their homes with respect. We need both groups to come together to make this tenure work.
To turn to specifics, a sense of security is vital for renters. I would like to see the notice period for tenants extended from two to four months, which would provide more time for them to find a new home or for local authorities to offer homelessness prevention support. At the other end of the tenancy, there are questions to ask about the newly introduced six-month tenancy commitment for renters. If the Government will not commit to removing it altogether, will they set out the extenuating circumstances that would allow tenants to serve notice earlier, such as the death of a resident or a serious hazard in the property.
Judges should have more discretion to consider extenuating circumstances when assessing Section 8 evictions. Repeated non-payment of rent can be for a huge number of reasons, some of which will not persist beyond just a few months. Judges should be able to use their discretion about whether they issue an eviction notice on those grounds. We also know, and have heard already, that domestic abuse is often misreported as anti-social behaviour. Given those sensitivities, why has the threshold for a Section 8 eviction been lowered to
“capable of causing a nuisance”?
That framing is extremely broad and will inevitably capture behaviours that should not count as anti-social behaviour.
One other issue that I would like to raise affects providers of retirement housing for clergy, including the Church of England’s pensions board. I should declare I am part of the Church of England’s pension scheme, but I am unlikely to turn to it for housing in retirement. However, many members of the clergy enter retirement without owning a home. It is then that pensions boards or similar schemes are able to step in to provide affordable and assured housing for them in later life. Some changes will be needed to this Bill to ensure that the Church’s model of provision is still financially viable. I have set these out in a little more detail in a letter to the Minister, and I look forward to corresponding further on the matter.
Finally, the Bill presents us with the first opportunity in a generation to make our most expensive and insecure housing tenure fit for purpose. Will we take the opportunity or will we squander it? I hope that this House and the other place will work constructively to pass legislation that protects renters, reassures landlords and ensures that everyone has access to good housing that is safe, secure, sociable, sustainable and satisfying.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend the Minister for her comprehensive opening statement and for the time that she has already devoted to discussing the provisions of this Bill privately.
I think that I am the first speaker in this debate not to have to declare a relevant interest. I do not have any institutional housing interests, social, private or any other. I own one house and I live in it. If I do have an interest—and it is the reason that I speak today in this debate—it is the interest in living in a country that one day has a minimally functioning housing market. Unfortunately, we do not have that in this country. That should be the starting point for discussing the Bill.
We have an utterly dysfunctional housing market. We have far too little supply, as has already been noted. We last met the 300,000 building target in 1977 and, if we had been building at the same rate as the French over the past few years, we would have 4 million more houses than we do now. It is therefore not surprising that house prices are at nine times incomes—a historic high. Most policy has focused on Help to Buy schemes rather than expanding the supply.
Ideally, we would want a policy approach that involved building more houses of all kinds by liberalising planning, expanding supply in the rental market and, meanwhile, trying to make the market that we have work better and reducing the dysfunction. In fact, we are seeing that housebuilding is falling further. Last year, we built only 189,000 houses and, in the first quarter of this year, we are building at a rate of only about 100,000. There has been an attack on private landlords through the tax regime and the rental sector is shrinking. That, plus anticipation of the measures in this Bill, is taking private rental property off the market. It is therefore no surprise that, while sale prices for houses are flat, we are seeing rental prices in the private sector accelerate by 9%.
Now we have this Bill. I have philosophical concerns—that I think it is fundamentally unconservative, speaking as a Conservative politician—and I have practical concerns; namely, that it ties up and restricts the market still further and the practical effect will be to make things worse, not better. I regret that I must speak in these terms of a Bill that my own Government are bringing forward, but I think it is extremely problematic. If we want to help people—as has been said—into safe, secure, sound housing and reliable tenancies, we need to produce a better housing market and not distort it still further.
I have four specific concerns that I will briefly outline: first, the nature of the Government’s manifesto commitment and, secondly, its extent; thirdly, the restrictions that the Bill brings in on the use of property; and, fourthly, its developing complexity.
First, on the nature of the manifesto commitment that the Conservative Party and this Government made, I entirely accept that we committed to abolishing no-fault evictions—Section 21 evictions—but we also set in the manifesto a
“target of 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s”,
which has not been met, and promised to
“make the planning system simpler for the public and small builders”,
which also has not been met. We made an effort in the early years of this Government; it got blocked and, since then, we have given up the attempt.
These two things go together: one liberalises supply; the other constrains the market. I wish we had focused only on building houses and reforming the planning system, but at least together, there is some sort of balance. Now, we have dropped the commitment to build more houses and liberalise the system, but we are pushing though the provisions that tie up the market still further. This will only damage housing affordability further.
My second point concerns the extent of the manifesto commitment. As I said, we committed to abolish no-fault evictions. We did not commit to end fixed-term tenancies, and they are not the same thing. Section 21 is a way, among other things, of ensuring that landlords can reliably get possession, after the first 12 months in an AST, at two months’ notice. If we abolish Section 21, another way of providing some certainty for landlords that they could get their property back would be to leave open the option of agreeing another fixed-term tenancy, for another year or whatever. The Bill removes that option. It scraps fixed-term tenancies entirely and makes every tenancy rolling, bringing in the possibility that landlords will have to go to court much more often to recover their property. I repeat: one commitment is in the manifesto and another is not. That is why my honourable friend Anthony Mangnall MP tabled Amendment 10 in the Commons providing for the maintenance of fixed-term tenancies, and I am ready to table it again to ensure that we can have some debate on the subject and so that the Government can explain why they have expanded their commitment to take in fixed-term tenancies.
My third concern is philosophical. The Bill takes another step away from normally understood property rights. Even if both parties want to, they cannot agree a fixed-term tenancy; it is illegal. A landlord may no longer choose who they want to rent to. Landlords must accept pets. They cannot simply recover their own property but must persuade the courts—the state—that they have a justifiable reason for doing so. We are already too far down the road, as a Government and as a country, of accepting that people enjoy property rights only at state whim, and only in line with the purposes of the state. I am afraid that the Bill takes us a step further down that road.
My final concern is practical. Looking at the way the Bill has evolved in the Commons, I cannot avoid the impression that, in their heart, the Government know it is a bad Bill and are trying to mitigate it, under pressure. They have realised, for example, that the redress schemes, the decent homes standard and the PRS database, all of which may be good things in themselves, will reduce flexibility and push up costs. The Government have realised the risk that restrictions on long-term lets might bring in a shift to short-term ones, so they have brought in some rules to cover that situation too—though I note that these too will now require further mitigations to deal with special circumstances.
Of course, as has been noted, the Government have had to accept that the court system is not ready to deal with the abolition of Section 21 in full, and they have had to delay its introduction, so we are not even getting credit from our political opponents for the one thing that was supposed to be the purpose of the Bill in the first place. Everything that has happened in the Commons has brought in complexity, cost and delay to the system, and these are the very things that will drive more landlords out of the market, push up prices further and make the market even more dysfunctional than it is now.
To conclude, and I am sorry to conclude in this way —noble Lords will know that it is with great reluctance that I criticise the policy of my own Government—it is a poor Bill and I do not think it is getting any better as it proceeds through the Commons and through this House. It is inevitably going to make the private rented sector smaller and more expensive. It is pursued from the best of motives, but its consequences will be that housing supply shrinks and the cost of housing goes up. It will generate more social problems rather than mitigate them. I am sorry that the Government are pursuing it, but I hope that it will still be possible in Committee to improve on some of the fundamental points that I have mentioned, and in particular to retain fixed-term tenancies as an option. I hope some noble Lords will join me in that effort.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Property Ombudsman. I warmly welcome the Bill. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the large number of organisations from which we have all had briefings. The Bill has taken a long time to get here, and expectations are riding high.
That is not surprising. Since 2001, the number of families forced to rent privately has doubled. High housing costs both cause and worsen poverty. The number of family homes available to social rent has reduced dramatically. For households on low incomes, this has significantly worsened living standards. The Bill needs to be seen in that context. We must not miss the opportunity to tackle long-standing issues of unfair eviction, rent increases and access to dispute resolution.
A number of issues will be raised in this debate from organisations such as Shelter, Crisis, Marie Curie and others, which I hope to be able to support in Committee. Today I will say a few words about Section 21 —in effect, the centrepiece of this legislation. I will then look briefly at some points that affect social housing providers and the property portal, the front door that will be crucial to enabling enforcement, then focus my main attention on the new PRS landlord ombudsman.
There is now some real doubt about when Section 21 evictions will actually be abolished. This part of the Bill has near-universal support, and tenants and landlords need certainty. The Government have said that it would be wrong to introduce it before the courts are ready, but have not defined what ready means or how we—or they—will know. It is five years since the Government made this commitment, yet there is still no progress. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to give the House, as well as landlords and tenants, the certainty they need, by providing a plan for court reform and a timetable for when the abolition will come into effect.
The Bill largely concentrates on the private rented sector, but it will also have an impact on social housing providers, particularly where they use assured tenancies. The Government responded to some of these points on Commons Report and introduced amendments, but these themselves are likely to have unintended consequences, which I hope the Minister will be ready to consider. I refer to the new rent-to-buy ground 1B, introduced in the Commons as Amendment 158, and ground 6. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has given the House the details of these and I will not repeat them, but this has been raised by the National Housing Federation and I am sure it would welcome a meeting with the Minister to discuss the technical detail.
Next, I would like to mention the new portal. The Government have recognised the need for local authorities to have information about PRS properties in their area, for landlords to be clear about their responsibilities, and for tenants to know where to go for help if their landlord fails to put right a problem. The TDS Charitable Foundation’s survey work raises serious concerns about the ability of tenants to enforce the new rights that the Bill will give them. It is developing a new “My Housing Issue” gateway or portal, to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred, which will act as a signposting service. I understand that it will identify for tenants the correct route to solve their problems, encourage an early resolution of disputes and provide relevant information about housing rights and options. I certainly encourage the Minister to look at this in relation to the new portal; it may be very helpful.
I now turn to my main concern: the way the new PRS ombudsman will be selected. The new ombudsman will play a vital role in delivering the Government’s objectives to improve experience in the sector for tenants and landlords alike. I declared my interest as chair of the board with responsibility for the Property Ombudsman. TPO deals with complaints and requests for assistance from private sector tenants of the 39,000 property agents who subscribe to this service. The new ombudsman will provide that service for PRS tenants whose landlords do not use an agent. This has been a huge gap in redress, as my ombudsman knows all too well from the thousands of requests for help that we have to refer elsewhere or to the courts.
We should not underestimate the scale of the new regulatory role proposed. The latest data from HMRC states that there are almost 2.4 million incorporated private landlords in England, with almost half owning only one property. Moreover, local authorities, which are responsible for investigating poor housing standards and taking enforcement action against rogue landlords, are overstretched, as we know. At the same time, many tenants struggle to enforce their rights through the courts, not least because, as the Law Society notes, 44% of people in England and Wales do not have access to housing legal aid providers in their local authority area.
The scale of, and challenges for, an ombudsman for this part of the private rented sector will be completely different from those presented, for example, in the social housing sector. Given the size of the task, it seems right that the Government have said they have yet to decide how the new position will be filled and supported. Clearly, this requires an open competition among the existing bodies in this field, to determine which might provide the best service.
However, the Minister made clear today that their preference is for the Housing Ombudsman, which covers the social rented sector, to have its remit extended to cover private sector landlords. I find that quite confusing because, although the decision about who should operate the service looks like a foregone conclusion, the Government have been at great pains to explain that no decisions have yet been made about whom to appoint to run the service. Indeed, the Housing Ombudsman has indicated that he is undertaking preparatory work, funded by the Government, to investigate how the PRS ombudsman could work and how it should be funded.
In a Written Question I put to the Minister some weeks ago, asking for the extent of the support provided to the Housing Ombudsman and the terms under which it was provided, the Government declined to provide that information. I can tell her that the gossip in the sector is that it is about half a million pounds. That does not bode very well for fair, open and transparent processes. Given what the Minister said about the Government’s preferred option, has she considered that TPO has uniquely detailed knowledge and experience in the private rented sector and is certainly well placed to be considered to deal with complaints for the landlord part of the sector?
This is my main point: in making important appointments for this role, it is imperative that the Government follow a clear and transparent procurement exercise, not least to ensure the best value for the taxpayer. Given that, can the Minister confirm that the Government will publish clear criteria setting out how they expect the new PRS ombudsman to operate and ensure that they fully consider all potential providers of the service? I reiterate that I broadly welcome the Bill as a chance to empower tenants to call out bad practice in the private rented sector, while supporting the vast majority of private landlords who do the right thing.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I declare at the outset that, although I do not own any property in the private rented sector, my husband owns a number of such properties. I am grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for engaging with me on some of the issues that I will raise in this debate.
Like others, I warmly welcome the Bill’s additional protection for tenants. But, in judging the overall merits of the Bill, it is necessary to have regard to the state of the PRS and the possibility of unintended consequences. In that respect, I will elaborate to some extent on the description of the PRS given by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Best.
Paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Notes states that
“4.6 million households (c 11 million people) … rent from a private landlord”,
representing 19% of the entire housing market. According to a DLUHC publication in June 2022, it appears that this includes some
“1.3 million households with children and”
nearly 400,000 households with people over 65. The crucial importance of the PRS is highlighted by the fact that there is a shortage of about 1 million homes. In excess of one in five households in England—and one in four in London—rely on the PRS for accommodation.
Who are the landlords of the PRS housing? According to figures given by the Department for Communities and Local Government in 2010, 89% of landlords in England were private individuals, and 98% of these owned fewer than 10 properties. In 2019, the successor housing department indicated that 45% of private landlords, representing 21% of tenancies, owned a single property—the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, alluded to that—and a further 38% of landlords, representing 31% of tenancies, owned between two and four rental properties. What does that show? First, the PRS plays an absolutely crucial role in the provision of accommodation; secondly, the overwhelming majority of landlords in the PRS are private individuals; and, thirdly, nearly 50% of them own a single property for let and some 83% own four or fewer properties for let.
All this is important background for the Bill. It demonstrates the need for an extremely careful balance between, on the one hand, protecting tenants in the PRS from bad landlords and giving them appropriate redress in the case of landlords’ defaults, and, on the other hand, not imposing on the many small investor landlords standards and obligations that drive them from the sector. Does the Bill achieve that balance? I ask the Minister what steps have been taken by the department to obtain data on the possible number of private landlords who are likely to leave the market because of fears arising from the Bill. In the absence of such data, I consider that in some respects the Bill does not achieve the right balance and runs a high risk of driving many small investors from the sector. I will focus briefly on four areas.
First, local housing authorities are given powers in some cases to impose a fine on a landlord of up to £30,000. Those are cases where the local authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord has committed an offence under the Bill, and instead of prosecuting the landlord, the local housing authority can impose such a fine. The reality is that, because of financial constraints, the local housing authority will usually wish to impose the fine itself rather than pursue the matter by way of prosecution in the criminal courts.
I do not consider that it is appropriate for a local authority official to act as judge and jury in relation to a criminal offence, enabling the local housing authority to impose a fine of as much as £30,000 on small investors in the PRS. I have no objection to the court deciding on whatever fine it wishes, but it is not appropriate for a local authority employee to impose fines of this size. For them to do so will result in litigation as to whether the criminal standard of proof has been satisfied and whether the amount of the fine is appropriate. It will lead to a lack of consistency across the country in the amount of fine for any particular infringement. I suggest that, if an offence has been committed and the local housing authority is not willing to limit the fine to £5,000, it should be left to the court to decide whether an offence has been committed and what is the appropriate remedy. It must be remembered that the rental return on many of these rented properties, particularly those owned by a single investor, is relatively modest. Even a small fine will push the investment into an unprofitable one.
Secondly, the standard of proof that is required in the case of a fine by a local housing authority under the Bill is inconsistent. For example, in some places— I will not elaborate today—the local housing authority may impose a financial penalty of up to £5,000, whether or not an offence has been committed, provided the authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the matters constituting the offence. In other cases, one in particular, it can impose a penalty of up to £5,000 if satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached certain provisions in the Act. There is no obvious reason for such differing standards of proof for the same £5,000 level of fine.
Also, the standard of proof should always be beyond reasonable doubt. Anything less than that, which depends upon probabilities assessed by a local authority employee, will undoubtedly give rise to dispute and appeals.
Fourthly and finally, in relation to two offences under the Bill, the landlord can be liable only if his or her mental state is one of knowledge or recklessness as to the relevant facts. The mental state of recklessness in criminal law is an extremely difficult one and has given rise to case law. It is something less than intention but more blameworthy than carelessness. In broad terms, recklessness will arise if the accused consciously—that is, looking at the matter subjectively—takes an unjustified risk. Such difficult concepts should play no part in this legislation, which will mostly affect landlords who own one or at most relatively few homes. It certainly should not be left to a local authority which wishes to impose a fine of up to £30,000 to reach its own conclusion on the application of recklessness in criminal law. The only state of mind which should be capable of giving rise to an offence under the Bill is intention—actual knowledge or an actual intention of the landlord to do the matters comprising the ingredients of the offence. This is clear, easy to understand and fair. At the end of the day, that is the test of good legislation.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a landlord of almost 30 years and before that as a renter in the private rented sector, so I have seen the private rented sector from both sides of the fence. It has been a long time coming, but this Bill is welcome. I support the creation of an ombudsman for the private rented sector and the application of a decent homes standard. There are some rogue landlords and action needs to be taken against them. The fact is that 81% of private renters are satisfied, according to the English Housing Survey.
Some seek to blame the current housing crisis on landlords, but I think that is a little unfair. The issue with rising rents and lack of supply is a failure of government housing policy over a long period, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, mentioned earlier. His Majesty’s Government have repeatedly failed to meet their housing targets of 300,000 new homes per year—a point made by the noble Lord. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out in the recent debate on affordable housing, an estimated additional 90,000 social rented homes need to be built every year, partly to offset the 1.5 million social homes sold under the right to buy. The Government are nowhere near to achieving this.
It is also estimated that an additional 50,000 private rented homes are needed to help fill the gap, yet that does not look feasible. It is undeniable that renters are having a tough time, with sharply increasing rents. While I wholeheartedly agree that tenants’ rights should be protected, let us also look at this from the landlords’ perspective so that we have a balanced debate.
We must be wary of unintended consequences—a point referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I am reminded, in that context, of a documentary that I saw about Chairman Mao’s response when told that sparrows were damaging China’s crops. He ordered all sparrows to be killed—millions of them. The next year, locusts, which were previously kept in check by the sparrows, destroyed all the crops, leading to the great Chinese famine of 1958 to 1962 that killed up to 30 million people. The documentary was a brilliant piece of anti- communist propaganda, but it showed in colours how policies must be properly thought through.
Due to the macroeconomic climate, landlords are being seriously squeezed. Some 1.7 million landlords have buy-to-let mortgages, and some face a tripling or quadrupling of their mortgage interest because of interest rate hikes. Over the last year, the number of landlords defaulting on their mortgages has doubled. Landlord profits are at their lowest for 14 years. According to recent research, approximately one-third of landlords plan to retire or exit the buy-to-let market altogether, and over a quarter are considering selling more than one rental property. There are some new entrants to the market, but these are not enough to meet private rental demand.
This crisis in the PRS has been building for years and can be dated back to the then Chancellor George Osborne’s decision in 2015 to end mortgage tax relief. As a result, the private rented sector, unlike any other business, is taxed on turnover rather than profit. Some saw this as the City’s attempt to destroy the PRS as a viable and rival form of investment. However, the PRS survived during buoyant times, but it is now in serious trouble. In parts of the country, investing in rental property just does not add up. Capital values are so high, and rentals so relatively low, that the return on capital, even without a mortgage, is less than 2%. The noble Lord, Lord Etherton, referred to most landlords owning only one or two properties: they are, in a way, small-scale investors, but the returns for many of them are very low. With tax and voids, a landlord may end up paying a tenant to rent from them in parts of the country. It is simply better to put the money in a bank. Even those with properties bought many years ago, with no mortgage, would be better off putting their money elsewhere.
One former Housing Minister told me that, if landlords sold off their properties, it would be good for the market and first-time buyers. Landlords generally do not want to sell off their properties, but some will have to in the current circumstances. Others will move their properties to Airbnb or similar ultra-short-let platforms, which make better returns for landlords but result in fewer long-term homes for residents and less student accommodation in cities and resorts. These ultra-short lets create a growing black hole of lost long-term rental property, including a growing black market in the rental sector. The headline in yesterday’s Evening Standard summed it up: “London’s Airbnb Wild West: capital ‘hollowed out’ by short-term lets eroding the private rental market”.
In some blocks of flats in the capital, 90% of the flats are Airbnb or similar ultra-short lets. Last year in London, between July and September alone, 455,000 stays were booked in short-term lets. It was found that more than a fifth had previously been long lets—so you can see the shift away from long lets to ultra-short-term lets. That means fewer homes available for London residents, and fewer B&B and hotel bookings. It reduces the supply of long-term lets, pushes up rents and forces tenants out to the suburbs and beyond.
The same is happening in many of our cities and resorts. If we want to provide more long-term rentals, Airbnb and other ultra-short let platforms need to be properly regulated and restricted. Incidentally, that is why I support the amendment to the Bill which provides for tenants to stay for at least six months initially. Purely short-term tenancies would be a disaster. Most banks require six-month minimum tenancies to lend in the first place. Long-term tenancies should be allowed when all parties agree—in that sense, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Frost. This can provide more security, not less, for both parties.
Regulation of the private rented sector is welcome to rein in poor landlords—of course it is. According to Foxtons, there are already over 150 pieces of legislation governing letting a property. When a landlord lets a property, they have to ensure there is an annual gas safety certificate, a portable electric appliance certificate and an energy performance certificate. In addition to the letting agent’s letting fees, often payable in advance, the landlord has to pay a tenancy paperwork charge, a professional cleaning charge, charges for tenant reference checks and tenant right-to-rent checks, and an annual TDS deposit check charge. Then there are insurance and service charges, which the landlord pays—plus they need to make good any damage or wear and tear to the flat not covered by the deposit or insurance. This can all come to several thousand pounds or more. The idea that this could happen every couple of months would simply mean landlords would further increase rents to cover this and repeated voids.
HMRC is currently piloting quarterly returns for landlords, who normally have just one or two flats as their pension, as I mentioned. This fails to take into account the nature of letting: many costs are up-front in the first few months, and then there can be a period of a couple of quarters of full rental, followed by a later period of voids and no rent. Landlords will potentially be changing tax brackets every quarter and chasing tax refunds at the end of the financial year.
While I am in favour of an ombudsman scheme and property portal, I am concerned that the fee for this would be yet another burden on landlords. Similarly, some local authorities are charging landlords to license their rental properties, which can result in landlords becoming local authority milch cows and increasing rents for tenants. In the light of all the reforms in the Bill to bring the PRS up to standard, which I welcome, selective licensing should be abolished.
With the right to request a pet, I hope that the Minister will reconfirm that, where these are banned under the lease or accepted at the discretion of the RTM or RMC, this will be maintained. Dogs can be a nuisance, particularly in blocks of flats, and even dangerous; we have seen a dramatic increase in dog attacks across the country.
On Section 21 no-fault evictions, I agree that these should go, but only when courts are ready. Landlords must have the ability to sell their property, move back into it or deal with significant rent arrears or anti-social behaviour in a timely manner. As the Law Society mentioned,
“without investment for housing, legal aid and the courts, the bill will not achieve its aims and may lead to an increase in backlogs and landlords and tenants alike will be unable to enforce their legal rights”.
I welcome that the Housing Minister in the other place said the Government were taking significant steps to ensure that the county court system would be ready to deal with the expected rise in possession-related caseload once Section 21 had been abolished.
His Majesty’s Government are investing £1.2 million in His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to deliver a better end-to-end online possession process. But I ask the Minister a question that a lot of noble Lords have asked: when will this system be ready and up and running? It is clearly of crucial importance.
There will be much to discuss as the Bill progresses. I suggest that we focus on the practical application of the Bill and avoid unintended consequences. Some have argued that, instead of sorting out the housing sector and focusing on providing more affordable homes, we should instead try to shore up renters at the expense of landlords. For example, there is the idea of a rent cap. That is fine, but will His Majesty’s Government or local authorities cap mortgages, service charges, and insurance and maintenance costs? If landlords default on their mortgages or are otherwise driven from the housing market, there will no security for tenants at all.
In the past, rises in capital values have enabled landlords to subsidise tenants, but this is not the case today. In Scotland, rent controls have not worked out well. Scotland has the shortest time for rental listings in the UK: properties are listed for just 15 days on average before being snapped up. There is an acute shortage of long-term rentals.
We need to make homes affordable again, by building and providing more homes, stemming the massive rise in ultra-short lets, and making home purchases attainable once more, especially for young people. I take the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford about the housing plight of young people. In its remit, the Bank of England should consider the state of the economy as a whole, not just the rate of inflation, and never forget the aspirations of British people to be part of our property-owning democracy.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I will address the fundamental change that the Bill makes, which is to Section 21 evictions. Although there is a difference between the two sides of the House on this issue in terms of what will happen, and Ministers have rightly been asked what their timescale is, the Minister set out some measures that will be taken. She mentioned one or two figures but did not give any timescale as to when the courts would be ready. None the less, given what my noble friend on the Front Bench said, it is pretty clear what will happen: by the time the Bill is enacted, and we have had a general election and probably a change of Government, the Government will not have brought this Section 21 abolition into play, but the next Government will do so, so we will get the change.
However—and this goes to the fundamental issues that have been raised about the PRS—the question then, given that we are likely to see the abolition of Section 21, probably within the next year to 18 months, or however quickly legislation can be brought in by the next Government, is what will happen in the courts in respect of the new requirements for eviction, and the new burdens there will be with Section 8 procedures, anti-social behaviour requirements, and so on. What will happen to see that the courts interact with the private rented sector in a way that does not stymie supply and lead to another generation of seriously dissatisfied and maltreated tenants?
The House needs to understand the scale of the issue here. The backlog in the county courts, which deal with these issues at the moment, is not minor. On the latest figures, published at the end of last year, the average time taken to go to trial in the county court is over a year—52.3 weeks—for small claims, and 78.2 weeks in respect of multi/fast-track claims, which will encompass quite a number of those envisaged under the Bill. Compared with 2019, that is 15.7 weeks longer for small claims, and 19.1 weeks longer for multi-track claims, so it is no exaggeration to say that the county court system has, in effect, broken down in dealing with housing cases at the moment. Unless that can be rectified—it appears it will be rectified on the basis of introducing the new regime, not before the new regime can be brought in—we will get a crisis in the management of the private rented sector, which needs to be addressed.
Apart from some fairly unconvincing measures so far for improving the county court system, we do not have any answers to this. The Minister referred to digitisation; well, as a habitué of these schemes in government, I think the idea that a nationwide county court digitisation scheme will produce dramatic improvements any decade soon is probably remote, but it will certainly not do so in the next few years. The sums of money the Minister referred to—I think it was £12 million—in her opening statement are trifling in this respect.
Therefore, I scouted around for the best course of dealing with these issues, if we do not want to see a crisis in the private rented sector as we bring in the new regime and while we have a problem in the court system. The best solution I have come across, scouting all of those that have been put forward over the last 10 years or so, is bringing in a dedicated housing court: a streamlined judicial process focusing specifically on housing cases—eviction, anti-social behaviour and enforcement measures.
It turns out that this has been considered seriously. There was a consultation on it in 2018. The case for it, which was put forward by the Government at the time, seems to me still to be compelling. The consultation looked at the problems with the current system and at streamlining redress schemes and considered the options for doing so. Paragraph 10 of the call for evidence stated:
“The government wants to explore whether a specialist Housing Court could make it easier for all users of court and tribunal services to resolve disputes, reduce delays and to secure justice in housing cases. The potential of establishing a Housing Court has been raised by some members of the judiciary. Presently, housing cases are heard in a range of settings. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) deals with a variety of specialised housing and property disputes. However other housing cases, including possession cases and claims for disrepair and dilapidations, are heard in the county court … The processes and procedures involved can often be confusing for tenants, landlords and property owners in leasehold cases”.
That was the Government’s view in 2018 when there were far shorter queues in the county courts for dealing with these issues, so should we be considering a more radical answer to this problem of judicial overload if we are going to see, as we clearly are going to see under this new regime, a great onus on the speedy resolution of housing cases? A Select Committee of the other place recommended a dedicated housing court at the same time as the Government were consulting on it. Clive Betts, the chair of that Select Committee, said that
“many more tenants may go to court over landlords refusing to do repairs, because they will no longer fear retaliatory evictions”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/23; col. 639.]
under Section 21, so we could see an escalation in the number of cases. A dedicated housing court that can bring together the various different parts of the judiciary that deal with these issues at the moment and set in place clear and expeditious timelines for dealing with these cases seems to me to be an option well worth exploring. I say this to my noble friend on the Front Bench as well because we will have to deal with exactly the same issues in a year’s time.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, set the wider context, which is a massive undersupply of new homes in both the private sector and the public sector. I think he said that 1978 was the last year when we got anywhere remotely close to the 300,000 a year target, which went back to Harold Macmillan when he was Housing Minister after 1951. Actually, it is only in the 1960s that there were more than 300,000 new homes being built per year across a whole decade, which is a crucial thing to understand about the last phase of significant housebuilding in line with projected demand. The noble Lord said that if we had continued at the rate that the French have built since the late 1970s there would be 4 million new homes. The French now have 12 million more homes than we have, population-adjusted, so there is a huge supply problem. When you go back to the 1960s, when more than 300,000 homes were being built, with a peak in 1967 when 400,000 new homes were built, developments were almost equally balanced between the private sector and the state. It was the huge effort on the part of local authorities and new town corporations which produced a big surge in housebuilding in the 1960s.
We cannot get away from the fact that, if we are going to see a return to the levels of home building that are required to meet demand, and to get to or exceed the 300,000 figure, then not only will we need planning reform that incentivises the private sector to build but we will have to fundamentally change the role of the state. The state is going to have to become a major property developer again for the first time since the demise of council housebuilding in the 1970s. That means hugely empowering local authorities; it means looking at the case for significant urban extensions on the model of the new town corporations, which did so much of the building in the 1960s and 1970s; and it means a readiness to make significant new public investments, which would also mean harnessing the potential of pension funds and others with big concentrations of capital to undertake these investments.
My final point is that the peak year for home building since the Second World War was 1967, which was also the year when Milton Keynes, the largest of the new towns, was established. There is a clear connection between those two events, which demonstrated the mentality of a state that was prepared to take the responsibility for significant home building at scale in new communities. That level of ambition is going to be fundamental in dealing with the housing crisis. It is the only way that we will deal with the underlying issue of supply, which is what is leading to the pressures that we are debating today.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I have interests to declare as a chartered surveyor and a small-scale private rented sector landlord, both of some 50-plus years’ standing.
I welcome the Bill, which contains much good, for no other reason than that I hope it consolidates the good and prevents a small proportion of bad actors from providing a reason for criticism and discord. I thank the Minister for her willingness to engage, although I remind her that I sent her a list of questions beforehand that are not covered in what I have to say, and I hope she will be able to answer them.
The test will be whether the Bill results in more choice, supply and competition, with better outcomes for renters, while providing a balance of flexibility, opportunity and returns for lessors. The Minister said much about existing standards by landlords but nothing about ensuring good behaviour by tenants, and I suggest that we need both. There would be little purpose in giving renters a better deal if overall supply failed to grow or even shrank, so a polarised critique of supply side is rather unhelpful.
Current PRS market dynamics are opaque at best; the statistics are not sufficiently granular to enable cause or immediate effect to be established. Recent research by Savills, generally considered a reliable sector source, shows a modest but potentially significant decline in rental stock, but the reasons remain unclear. Some suggest that highly geared buy-to-let investors are put off by poor returns due to higher interest rates and fiscal changes. Even the Bank of England, in its note on that subsector, admits that it cannot definitively establish cause and effect. There are too many variations in circumstances and aspirations to reach a pan-sector conclusion.
I am particularly interested in an excellent piece on right to buy in the latest House magazine by the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I know of no focused research into lessor views other than that of the CLA, of which I am a member, and that only in the rural context, where it suggests that its member lessors are spooked. Poor yields and higher risks discourage new entrants—that must be obvious—and it is safe to say that the private rented sector, with its costs of entry, exit and interim returns, competes with other investment opportunities here at home or anywhere else in the world. There is nothing special that mandates investor participation in the PRS or that it must match unmet need for a place to live. The impact assessment suggests a ready replacement of departing lessors, but without evidence or research into that—and I find none—I conclude that the policy enters unknown territory. So far, not so good.
It is a common ground here that there are currently large numbers of people wanting to rent and far too few available properties. It is likely demand is rising because of severe social housing shortages, and because getting on the housing ladder has become so expensive—this despite those already having mortgages and in occupation having lower debt servicing costs compared with equivalent rental payments. However, I must say at this point that that is a bit like comparing apples and pears. More broadly, I consider that this is due to other government policies impacting on a sector that has become more volatile over the years. Such policies are characterised by the word “buy”—right to buy, help to buy, buy to let—and other fiscal prompts and exhortations to build, build, build, which cannot keep up. Stoking demand which necessitates housebuilding rates never achieved without council housebuilding—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—is at best unwise. Relying on affordable housing on the back of market sales while selling off existing social housing at a discount is equally questionable, however popular that might be.
Near where I live, new market housing totally unaffordable to the locals is being offered to Far East buyers. We need a new model altogether for providing housing that the nation can afford, and to take some of the heat out of the PRS demand sector. My fear is that we are tinkering with the fallout from much bigger historic decisions about commoditisation of the roof over one’s head, stretching back to the Thatcher era. We have little or no idea what the effects of this Bill will be. The intention seems simply to accommodate demand. On supply, for which it has obvious implications, if it does not foster an increase then the policy will simply fail.
In turning to some of the Bill’s specific provisions, I will keep clear of the Section 21 question for a moment but simply remind your Lordships that the exit route under the Housing Act 1988 from the 25-year impasse of rent control and security of tenure created in the 1960s was to free up and revitalise the PRS through something called a shorthold tenancy. Superimposing longer-term aspirations of some renters on an essentially short-term model designed to give mobility both of occupation and investor finance may be a tactical error. Proper provision should be made in parallel for longer-term lettings. Measures which now make things less flexible inevitably alter supply-side dynamics. Demanding higher levels of competence and compliance raises fears of added cost and risk. These may increase rents, as we have already heard, especially if quality improves and/or the numbers of available properties, or of lessors, shrink.
On the exceptions in the Bill, I note the points made by the CLA that carving out an exemption for agricultural and forestry workers fails to address the wider diversified rural business need, where parks, gardens, hotels, food processing and the like also involve providing staff with accommodation. Dealing with the normal turnover in staff housing needs has to be considered further.
A promise that Section 8 terminations will not be caught up in a severely underresourced court system— I am grateful to other noble Lords who have pointed this out—does not remove the suggestion of a process less certain and more contestable, protracted and costly. In the market, you cannot achieve vacant possession value if there is a tenant in place as it prevents immediate occupation by a purchaser. For a lessor intending to sell, this can impede choice of the moment to enter the market—a market characterised by seasonal fluctuations, with political and financial sector volatility. It is how markets work and how investors react.
As to blanket bans, I totally accept that unfair discrimination is completely unconscionable. A prudent lessor who already has responsibility for checking a renter is entitled to be in the UK—which I always thought to be a UK Border Force task until this Government decreed otherwise—should not object to complying with standards many already observe, or to acting with proper probity. These are likely no more onerous than the scrutiny that they themselves apply to would-be renters. However, I would venture to suggest that deliberate misrepresentations by either party to the other should have consequences, and merit access either way—from a landlord or a tenant point of view—to dispute resolution.
The renter should be no less fit for purpose and conduct than the lessor and the description of the property. Logically, the renter’s net income should be sufficient to pay the rent and outgoings and meet living expenses, as a minimum. After all, if the renter subsequently finds that they cannot afford the heating costs, the property and the renter’s health are both at risk. I remind your Lordships that the majority of PRS lessors are not big corporates but, as we have heard, private individuals who are just as entitled to the reasonable use and enjoyment of their assets as the renter is to quiet enjoyment of a residence that may or may not be their only home. Professionally, over the years, I have encountered both poor renters and rubbish landlords.
On decent homes, I agree with the principle although I have yet to see a revised standard. Arguably, quite a lot of PRS properties are of older construction and may be difficult to upgrade to anywhere near modern thermal standards. If this becomes a fitness issue, there will be failed properties that become uneconomic to rent and will go on to the freehold sale market. The Bill is silent, however, on what happens if a property cannot be upgraded without the tenant moving out. That needs clarification.
I accept some of the generality of the claim that terminations of tenancies are a major source of homelessness, but it rather overlooks the practice of local authorities insisting on an eviction order before acting by stepping in themselves, thus exacerbating an already difficult situation and making even reasonable lessors look like ogres. I hope the Bill will improve that, but if the view is that it is the role of the PRS to underwrite social support and be a safety net for those who would otherwise be homeless, then that needs a better and upfront justification.
There is provision for possession on grounds of redevelopment, but I am unsure what this means in practice. If a lessor has a project substantially to convert, remodel or otherwise carry out major works—it might be a developer assembling a site—with a view to eventual sale or re-letting but in the meantime decides they wish to let short term, do the Government consider that reasonable or would they rather that such properties were held vacant? It is a waste of a resource if you cannot let short term.
That is where I have concerns about the elimination of the fixed-term lease. It quite obviously suits lots of people if they are on secondment or whatever it happens to be—they may be away on a job or know that something is going to happen—that they can enter into a fixed-term contract. It is perfectly legitimate for a renter to decide they want only that. What is it about adults that we cannot trust them to freely contract in a market environment? I find that really strange. Clearly, there must be some safeguards against misuse, but I really do not see what the problem is. I would like to know what would happen to a sublet flat in a block requiring a decant for fire safety remediation, a matter that I have raised on many occasions in this House. Will frustration of that renter’s contract apply?
Other noble Lords have said that the private rented sector has a fundamental and pivotal role in housing provision. Much ultimately depends on whether there is political consensus on the measures in the Bill or whether the Opposition would wish to go further. It is unlikely that the availability of homes to rent will be improved until this is settled, possibly at some stage after the next general election. Much doubt and uncertainty are generated by this political fog. If there is an identifiable, serious decline in the availability of homes to rent, that will be a significant part of the reason. The language we use, therefore, has considerable significance for how things turn out.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register as a Suffolk farmer with rented residential properties.
I will focus primarily on the rural implications of the Bill. I start from the premise that it is the role of the state to protect tenants—as it is to protect consumers, investors, savers, employees and everyone else—from abuse or exploitation. Of course, there are bad landlords, and they should be firmly and severely dealt with, but I am with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, in that I do not accept that to allow tenants and landlords to enter into mutually agreed contracts is wrong.
During the 1960s and right into the late 1980s, rural housing was subject to severe constraints on both tenancies and rents. Rents set by rent officers were extremely low, often providing zero return on capital, and cash flow was so fragile that there was no surplus to finance the proper maintenance—let alone improvement and modernisation—of rural dwellings. Farmers were advised to sell all the housing they did not need for their own employees. The supply of affordable housing accommodation withered and its condition deteriorated.
As mechanisation advanced, farmers found themselves with a surplus of housing. The big leap forward came with the introduction of the assured shorthold tenancy in 1988. John MacGregor was then the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Nick Ridley was the Secretary of State for the Environment. The AST gave security by mutual agreement to both tenants and landlords for initial fixed terms of six, 12 or 24 months, with annual rent reviews and the ability to continue leases on a rolling two-monthly basis. The AST has worked very well for 36 years. It has greatly reduced the proportion of inadequate rural housing, yet Clause 1 of the Bill abolishes AST. This is inexplicable. Section 21 of course needs reform—no legislation that could be described as no-fault eviction can survive—but that does not justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Significantly, the Government seem to have recognised the folly by modifying the Bill in the Commons to allow a fixed term of six months. If that is legitimate, why not 12 months, with the continuation of a two-monthly basis? There are market forces the Government do not seem to understand. The long and troubled journey of the Bill through the other place has already become a deterrent to the supply of affordable housing. Supplying housing for rent is now a key diversification for farmers, at a time when agriculture in Britain and elsewhere is in crisis due to falling yields and prices; it is a very relevant factor.
Affordable housing needs a clear definition. Traditional government guidance that rents should be no higher than 30% of gross tenant income is a valid test. Wise landlords would apply clear financial tests in selecting tenants. Landlords cannot be expected to subsidise tenants whose job insecurity—of whom there are many—makes them vulnerable to being unable to fulfil their rental obligations. The Work Foundation at Lancaster University claims that in 2023 1.4 million people were in severely insecure work and were living in privately rented accommodation. This is why it is better to subsidise tenants rather than houses. That is the role of housing benefit. To subsidise rents would mean that changes in tenants’ circumstances would result in tenants getting either more or less than they needed. This has profound implications for public finances.
Rents are a return on capital. Housing supply in the private rented sector depends on adequate rents. It is unlikely that a gross rental return of much less than 3%, from which the costs of maintenance and administration have to be deducted before arriving at any taxable profit, will produce much more housing for letting.
The Bill proposes an ombudsman to adjudicate between tenants and landlords. This may be a sound idea, provided that it is not a signal for the return of the rent officer. There is no justification for also retaining the First-tier Tribunal system in addition to the ombudsman. Membership of the ombudsman scheme will be mandatory for private landlords; I hope the Minister will offer some guide on the expected cost to landlords. The ombudsman will collect a great deal of information about both landlords and tenants. Surprisingly, the privacy implications have not been spelled out, and this aspect does not seem to have been raised in another place. We will have to deal with this in Committee. It would be quite wrong to publicise details of all individual leases. There can be no obligation on landlords to make such information public. Provided market rents are not exceeded, landlords should be entitled, at their discretion, to offer lower rents to particular people for good reason.
My overall concern is that the Bill has not been properly prepared or fully debated before it came to your Lordships’ House. It is crucial that this important and potentially useful legislation should not be enacted with details of crucial aspects of its administration left to secondary legislation at a later date—we simply cannot legislate like that. That would mean regression from increasing private sector supply of good housing and fair rents to the bad old days of bureaucratic domination. An overall consequence could be the taxpayer having to finance an increasing supply of housing for rent, with little hope of the resources to do so. Frankly, the problem I see with the Bill is that it is a superficial political solution to a tough economic and migration challenge.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I declare my conflicts: I am a former chartered surveyor and I have buy-to-let properties, as declared and set out in the register. I began research on the Bill by trying to establish its primary purpose—what is its core objective? I know it sounds obvious, but I was not convinced; it is not clear. It was revealed as a 2019 manifesto pledge and relates to key proposals from the 2022 private sector rental report, but there is no real indication of the underlying purpose.
However, there is much good in it: the key measures to abolish Section 21, new grounds for repossession, amending rent increase provisions, the ombudsman, blanket bans, pets and other key measures. All these are interesting, helpful and, for the most part, constructive, but there is no real underlying core purpose, and none of these things needs a new Bill, particularly bearing in mind the shortage of parliamentary time. They could have been accommodated in the concurrent debates we are having on the leasehold and freehold Bill or even in the levelling-up Bill last year. I believe the real root of this should be, and indeed lies in, the shortage of housing and, in this case, of properties to rent, as we have heard particularly eloquently from the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Adonis, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
There have been numerous attempts by successive Governments to deal with housing supply—we all know that. Some imaginative ideas have been proposed to attract private finance into it, and the measure whereby Section 106 agreements were attached to planning conditions for the larger developments was quite successful. But the sale of council housing goes on, and we seem no nearer to reaching anything like the levels of new housing required to provide a sustainable balance between supply and demand. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, in his comments could not have made this clearer.
There is no point in expecting the Treasury, or the taxpayer by any other means, to finance the level of development required to meet the necessary demand. We have heard some impressive statistics. If we look back and reflect on the housing market after the Second World War, we see that tens of thousands of residential units were owned freehold by City institutions. This was an ideal scenario; they were socially responsible landlords, who invested in residential properties to meet their obligations to customers, and they were largely made up of life insurance companies and others. It is the perfect formula for housing supply: it does not involve the Treasury but comes from the private sector and is socially responsible. However, this pattern of responsible ownership was shattered by the Rent Acts in the post-war era. Rent controls arrived, and probably necessarily so, but with a sledgehammer rather than with negotiation by the City institutions.
The result was disaster for the sector. Tens of thousands of units were sold, or dumped, by the City institutions. I spoke to some of them in the early days of my career, and they explained the reasons for it. It was an avoidable tragedy for society as a whole. City investment was lost, and low-income tenants found themselves at the mercy of private landlords, many of whom were ruthless or simply uninterested in looking after their properties. The era of tenant exploitation, exemplified as some of us will remember by tales of Rachman, had begun in earnest. We must recreate an institutional market in social housing—and we can.
The long-term problem is not about rental levels; the market does that. The long-term problem is shortage of housing for rent. It is about supply and demand. Capping rentals is a catastrophic solution. The SNP-led Government in Scotland have done this; they have done the market testing for us. So many landlords have abandoned the market that one nationwide letting agency has closed its renting department permanently—and it represents an entire region of Scotland.
We can fix this problem by attracting private investment, particularly institutional investment. I am convinced that it can be done. There are examples, such as the Legal & General insurance company, which tried with great purpose and financial commitment recently not only to invest in rented housing but to build modular homes, keeping down the costs, removing layers of the development process and enabling an economic return from affordable rents. It built a factory to construct prefabrication and showed the commitment that the challenge requires. It invested millions of pounds—but I believe that it has given up on the project, sadly. I shall inquire as to why, but I suspect that the challenges were simply too great. The political commitment has been lacking.
We have heard that, when the ASTs was introduced, it was hugely successful in bringing private capital into the rental market. Initially, the private sector responded cautiously; the doubt was about whether it could trust in long-term stability and long-term freedom from political interference. The bruises of the Rent Acts have a long tail. However, ASTs have worked, as we have heard, and now the private sector is responsible for thousands of units. Sadly, the number is declining. Successive Governments have interfered, with the removal of mortgage interest as a legitimate cost, for example. Any AST landlord with a reliable tenant would not dream of serving a Section 21 notice; it is the unscrupulous few who neglect their properties and squeeze the last penny of rent from their tenants against the threat of eviction who spoil the system for everyone else. They should be the focus of this Bill and of government attention—and indeed they have their place in this Bill.
The free market must be allowed to operate with private capital. Now, the rout of private investor-owners continues, as we have heard, and more and more are selling up. The ASTs probably never replaced the provision of those early City institutions, but it was a good attempt, until political interference spotted a tempting opportunity to use it as a source of revenue. What a political mistake. The taxpayer now houses thousands of council house waiting list families and others in hotels, at public expense.
It is not all bad, however. A key positive is the reference to penalties and forfeiture to penalise bad landlords, but this is subject to a process managed by local authorities. That is a logical choice, I agree, but we all know that local authorities are strapped for cash. They are pruning their meagre resources and will have little chance of effective intervention. Without significant further central government funding, it will fail; proposals that it should be self-financing ring hollow, certainly in the early years.
Perhaps the most loudly trumpeted feature of this Bill is the abolition of Section 21. However, the government amendments have effectively delayed this by years; it may never happen under this Government.
As I explained at the beginning, the Bill at its heart should be encouraging the provision of more rental housing. We are tinkering with the details surrounding the challenge, but even the effectiveness of the tinkering has been diluted in the other place through its tsunami of amendments. We need to accelerate the supply pipeline as a priority. Wholesale investment by City institutions is required. The residential rental market needs to become an accepted, accredited investment sector in the eyes of these investors. It can be done. It has been done before. It was done 30 years ago—long after the Second World War—with shared ownership. The Government must work with these organisations and the advisory fraternity which understands it to create an investment product that will be sustainable to all parties and provide the hundreds of thousands of homes we need. It can be done.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I think I have received more briefings on this Bill than on any other Bill in the nearly 11 years I have been here. It is clearly a very important issue. It hits a vast number of people, but often especially the poorest in society. It is a human right to have shelter, and we are apparently failing on that.
It would be wrong of me to pick out a particular briefing—but I will. The briefing from the Renters’ Reform Coalition was excellent and starts by saying:
“The private rented sector in England is characterised by poor standards, a lack of affordability, discrimination and insecurity”.
That is a very fair summary, but it is obviously very worrying. In the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto, there was a promise to make a “better deal” for renters, but this Bill probably does not solve the problems.
I grew up in a council house on an amazing estate in the days when working-class communities took pride in their environment and neighbourhoods, and the NHS took care of us and kept us healthy. We felt incredibly lucky. We did not own our own house, we did not have a car—when I was very young, we did not have a phone or a fridge—but we had a huge garden and a relatively car-free street to play in. It was a good life. My parents just thought they had won the lottery—which did not exist at the time.
However, then Thatcher happened along, with deindustrialisation and the right to buy. All the well-built and desirable council housing was sold and resold. In my home town of Brighton, 86% of the right-to-buy social housing is now relet by private landlords. That means that most of our £23 billion housing benefit bill goes straight into private hands: a big subsidy payment going from taxpayers straight to those who can afford to own and sometimes rent out multiple homes.
I completely understand why my old neighbours bought their homes at bargain discounts and resold them to get themselves a retirement plan, but the scandal is that Thatcher effectively stopped councils recycling and reusing the funds to build more homes. Some noble Lords have agreed that supply is the problem, although we might have different ideas about how to solve that problem. The Thatcherites hated social housing, and that legacy has resulted in a largely privatised housing market. Since 2020, rents have risen by 28%. Over 200,000 people have been served no-fault eviction notices in that same period, as landlord businesses aim to squeeze more money from their properties, and 1.2 million people are on local authority waiting lists. What many people feel, at the mercy of private landlords, is failure and frustration. So, what are the solutions?
The Renters (Reform) Bill is the smallest of steps; it must be tougher in order to be fairer. We need rent controls, first of all. The Mayor of London has asked for these powers and Greens at all levels of government will fight to give him them. Local mayors and local authorities know their areas and understand the local housing market. This Government should give them the power to make that choice.
Secondly, we Greens would lengthen the notice periods for rent increases and stop landlords using spurious grounds to evict people.
Thirdly, we will support all the amendments that aim to make life easier for student renters. I declare an interest here, as I now have grandchildren who are starting out in the world as students, so they clearly have a vested interest in this.
Above all, we would end the right to buy council properties and start to rebuild social housing. Our dream is to return to the days when we were spending as much taxpayer money building homes as we currently do on housing benefit. Because the more social homes we have, the less we will be filling the pockets of landlord businesses with taxpayers’ money. This includes buying back the supply, with local, regional and national schemes to bring properties back under the ownership of local government. It is estimated that in many coastal towns, up to a fifth of the housing is empty. We must bring those communities back to life.
The cross-party London Assembly Housing Committee, when chaired by the Green Party’s Siân Berry, assessed that there are around 6,000 to 8,000 affordable homes in London that could be immediately added to the social housing mix. These do not have to be built from scratch, because they are empty homes that already exist. There are a lot of empty properties all over the country sitting in investment portfolios—so-called ghost flats—that should be actual homes for actual people. We can amend the Renters (Reform) Bill to turn it into legislation that will really help people, but it is a small step compared to the building of new social housing, buying back the supply, and rent controls. Those are the policies that will have the biggest impact on the housing market and reduce rents in the private sector. I really hope that the Government will accept some of the amendments that will be coming forward.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for last week’s very helpful drop-in briefing session, which was particularly helpful for those of us who cannot claim expertise in housing law. I come to the issue from my long-standing concern about poverty. A growing proportion of those in poverty live in the private rented sector, and as many as 46% of children living in the sector are in poverty after taking account of housing costs. The failure to uprate local housing allowance annually as a matter of course does not help, especially at a time of spiralling rents, which the Bill will do little to curb. Issues of affordability and security are of particular importance to those whose housing options are limited by lack of money, or by vulnerable circumstances such as those stemming from domestic abuse or disability. For all too many, homelessness is then the outcome.
I would therefore like to be able to welcome the Bill, and indeed there are some welcome provisions, including the expansion of the homelessness prevention duty, and the creation of a decent homes standard for the PRS. Nevertheless, the 20 leading housing organisations which make up the Renters Reform Coalition are clear that it fails to achieve the White Paper’s promise of quality, affordability and fairness, and comes from the Commons watered down and fundamentally weakened. Their concerns are echoed in most of the many other briefings received, for which I am grateful.
I applaud the aim articulated by the Minister at our briefing to create a fairer balance of power between landlords and tenants. However, according to the coalition, the Bill
“preserves the central power imbalance at the root of why renting in England is in crisis”.
Moreover, as the National Residential Landlords Association stresses, quoting the Law Society, without investment in housing legal aid
“the Bill will not achieve its aims”,
and neither tenants nor landlords may be able to enforce their legal rights, a point raised too by Crisis and the Large Agents Representation Group. To enforce their rights, tenants first need clearer information, as the TDS Charitable Foundation argues. If local authorities are to deploy their enforcement powers effectively, they need adequate resources to do so.
To put it charitably, the indefinite pause on the abolition of Section 21 is disappointing to say the least, and increases the vulnerability faced by, for example, older tenants, renters with children, and domestic abuse survivors. Justice challenges the idea that the courts are not ready. I hope that at a minimum, we might be able to subject total abolition to a clearer timeline.
However, I was also struck by the coalition’s plea to us to focus on the inadequacies of the new tenancy system proposed by the Bill. In particular, it is concerned that first, the notice period remains at only two months, despite over 100 council leaders urging an increase to four months, and the Government’s initial highlighting of the short eviction notice period as an important factor in why reform is needed. Secondly, the coalition is concerned that the period of protection against eviction under grounds 1 and 1A remains at six months rather than the two years proposed in the Government’s original 2019 consultation. This will not provide the greater security promised. Its third concern is the lack of strong legal safeguards to prevent abuse of the new grounds for eviction. In addition, my inbox has been flooded by emails from students who fear that their exclusion from the Bill’s safeguards will mean, among other things, that they will in effect remain subject to Section 21-type evictions in all but name.
One provision that I warmly welcome is making illegal the introduction of a blanket ban on renting to tenants in receipt of social security benefits or with children, which will widen the protection that already exists in theory for those with protected characteristics. However, if the Government’s aim that
“no family is discriminated against”
is to be achieved, I hope that they will consider amendments put forward by Shelter to ensure that landlords cannot indirectly discriminate against social security claimants by making a new tenancy unaffordable. This is all the more important given the provision in the data protection Bill that could mean landlords’ bank accounts being made open to scrutiny if the LHA is paid directly to them, thereby making them even more reluctant to rent to tenants on social security. I am pleased to see the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, in his place as I make that point. The amendments would place a limit on rent in advance, restrict the scenarios under which a landlord could legitimately require a guarantor, and remove the requirement to prove intent to discriminate.
In addition, reflecting the principle enunciated earlier by the Minister, Justice recommends that the provision should be extended to prevent blanket bans on other groups which have experienced discrimination, such as prison leavers and non-UK passport holders. The latter, I would suggest, points to the abolition of right-to-rent checks.
Another group particularly vulnerable to the power imbalance that exists between landlords and tenants is disabled people. Disability Rights UK, Inclusion London and many other groups have raised concerns about the proposed change to the definition of anti-social behaviour as grounds for eviction. As we have heard, instead of
“conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance”,
the Bill proposes to define it as behaviour “capable of causing” nuisance or annoyance to a person, and so hearsay evidence will become admissible. They fear that the new wording could be open to interpretation in such a way as to cover some behaviour of, for example, neurodiverse people and those with learning disabilities or experiencing mental distress. The admissibility of hearsay evidence could open disabled people up to potential abuse, harassment or even extortion.
The briefing also raises concerns about the implications of the new wording for those experiencing domestic abuse, as do Generation Rent and the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance—DAHA. The former points out:
“Victims and survivors of domestic abuse are more likely than other tenants to have ASB complaints made against them”.
Given the considerable concern, can the Minister please explain the justification for the new wording? As the “capable of causing” formulation is being removed today from the Criminal Justice Bill, will she undertake to reconsider its usage here in this Bill?
Two other main issues have been raised in relation to domestic abuse victims and survivors. One concerns what has been dubbed the “tenant trap”, introduced by the government amendment that means that tenants cannot end a contract during the tenancy’s first six months, as we have already heard. It was welcome that the Minister in the Commons confirmed that there will be an exemption for domestic abuse victims and survivors, as the Minister here mentioned in her opening remarks, but we do not yet know what it will be. Can she tell us more, including whether the exemption will be included in the Bill itself? It is important that it is. Can she assuage the anxiety of DAHA that it will require tenants taking court action, which is likely to take too much time and money for it to be an effective remedy for those who have good reason to leave a property before six months?
The other issue relates to the new repeated rent arrears ground for eviction. Both Generation Rent and DAHA warn that victims and survivors of domestic abuse are particularly likely to be in rent arrears, especially if they have been and/or continue to be subject to economic abuse. Moreover, because this ground for eviction is mandatory, judges will not be able to use their discretion where, for instance, the arrears can be linked to abuse. I hope that the Minister will be willing to take another look at that issue. We cannot have a Bill which purports to offer greater housing security threatening even greater insecurity for those in vulnerable circumstances, such as domestic abuse survivors.
Another group of renters who face especially vulnerable circumstances is those living with a tenant who has died. Surely the idea that the death of a tenant can constitute grounds for eviction is unconscionable, when we think of what the bereaved survivor will be going through. Marie Curie argues that the Bill offers an opportunity to bolster protections and rights for grieving private renters, but that, in its current form, it would actually make the situation of bereaved renters worse. I hope that the Minister can also take a look at that.
In conclusion, on Report in the Commons, the Minister referred to his willingness to
“listen to suggestions for how we can improve the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/4/24; col. 987.]
Unfortunately, in too many cases, that listening has resulted not in improving but in weakening the Bill, so that it neither provides tenants with the security originally promised nor adequately tackles what the impact assessment calls the “systemic issues” that underpin their poor experience. It would be a real shame if the improvements the Bill does contain are overshadowed by the clauses that take us backwards. I hope that we will be able to make changes in line with the Government’s original intention to strengthen tenants’ security and achieve a fairer balance of power between tenants and landlords.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the rural private rental sector, as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for her time in briefing me, as well as all the organisations that have also sent me such excellent briefs. I thank all noble Lords who have iterated many of the points that I will make.
I welcome this Bill, including the removal of the sometimes misused Section 21 for the ending of tenancies. The Bill attempts to balance the interests of tenants and landlords, to both improve the letting experience of tenants and to secure the future of the PRS through protecting the possession rights of landlords. The Bill deals with a wide spectrum of industry interests and characteristics, and is principally demand-driven. Sadly, it is unable to address the underlying supply problem of insufficient housing, which has a direct effect on the availability and cost of rental properties—points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and many others. In the five or more years that we have been waiting for the Bill, the supply of rental accommodation has worsened. Hamptons has calculated that there were 43% fewer homes available for tenants to rent in the first 10 months of 2023 compared to the same period in 2015.
Leaving aside the supply of housing, another major challenge facing the Bill is the perceived inadequacy of the court system, which, of course, is not under the control of DLUHC. I would be most grateful if the Minister could assure us that the two ministries involved are united in their efforts to make the necessary reforms.
The abolition of Section 21, under which some unfair evictions have taken place, involves the reform of the court system and the efficiency and timeliness of procedures under Section 8. Although Section 21 notices are now referred to as no-fault evictions, they are typically used for justifiable reasons, including rent arrears, anti-social behaviour, or landlords needing to sell or move back into a property. It is the unjustifiable reasons, such a landlord seeking to up the rent or failing to properly maintain a property, that have brought it into disrepute. Currently, Section 21 is being used as a substitute for other methods to secure possession because it is easier and quicker. Its abolition will add to the court’s workload under Section 8.
The loss of Section 21 notices means the loss of the ability to issue accelerated possession proceedings. There is therefore a practical fear on the part of landlords that, without reform, the courts will be even more overwhelmed and will not be able to deal with cases in a reasonable time. This is a major reason for landlords exiting the sector.
The Government are now committed to abolishing Section 21, but only when reforms are made to the court system, including the need to increase resources and ensure a timelier resolution of justified possession cases. In addition, in order to secure fairness for both tenants and landlords, a properly functioning justice system is essential. This involves access to and funding for housing and legal aid, as well as the courts. Landlords and tenants need to be able to enforce their legal rights in a timely and efficient manner.
Reviews, reports and surveys are all part of the reform process, but there is an absence of published information on the metrics of improvement. This all resembles the age-old question: how long is a piece of string? Please can the Minister give us a timeline, and even consider a drop-dead date, for the abolition of Section 21? What are the parameters for an improved court system?
My other concern is the proposal to make all tenancies assured periodic tenancies. With the abolition of Section 21, there is no need to abolish fixed-term tenancies or assured shorthold tenancies. The Government, by accepting the minimum term of six months, whereby a tenant can serve two months’ notice at the end of the first four-month period, concede the importance of securing landlord and lender confidence to make private renting financially viable. The problem is that, for some tenants and landlords, six months is too short, bearing in mind the favourable terms that can be negotiated under these agreements.
Last year, the cross-party Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee agreed a strange statement, indicating that
“fixed-term tenancies should remain available where both parties want them, but … given the current shortage of private rental properties, this would likely result in tenants having fixed terms forced on them”.
This is plain wrong. No one is forcing a fixed term on anyone. A landlord cannot and should not be held responsible and suffer for a lack of housing supply that is out of his control. That would be a very good reason for exiting the business, whereas, conversely, the continuation of fixed terms for a year or more would stop more landlords exiting the private sector.
As other noble Lords have said, fixed-term tenancies suit many landlords and private renters, and have the attraction of solid security of tenure that allows the landlord to gain possession in mid-term only in the case of anti-social behaviour and non-payment of rent. If a landlord fails to adhere to his obligations, including the proposed decent homes standard, the tenant should be able to terminate the tenancy with the advice and support of the local authority. This could also be dealt with by amendment to Section 30 of the Housing Act 1988.
Since the late 1980s, ASTs have worked well for most tenants and landlords. They are based on the freedom of contract between consenting parties. The average tenancy length in the most recent English housing survey was 4.3 years. Allowing tenants to fix a longer period that suits them is in a tenant’s best interest—surely a vote of confidence in the system. There is a place for them in the new world, albeit as an option open to both parties if they wish to fix a term rather than accept the new norm of periodic tenancies. At the end of the fixed term, the tenancy would revert to being a periodic tenancy, but surely there should be an option for the landlord and tenant, if they agree, to opt out of this periodic tenancy and agree a further fixed term.
At Third Reading in the other place, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, several Members raised the abolition of ASTs leading to some landlords moving to short-term lets and the holiday-let market. The amendment of the MP for Totness asked for a fixed-term tenancy option, but it was not called, although it had secured 50 signatures of support, as well as a powerful speech at the end of the debate from Sir Christopher Chope regretting the move away from privity of contract. He also warned of the potential loss of housing available to rent and the likely increased cost.
My third major concern with this legislation is much the same as that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, but I am pleased to say that the Government have largely accepted that it is a problem: that is, the housing of agricultural and other workers in the rural context, where housing, particularly affordable housing, may be in short supply. Access to affordable accommodation is a key part of rural employment, and we should remember that 85% of rural businesses are not farming or forestry. In Schedule 1 to the Bill there are listed the various grounds for possession, which partly cover my concern, but I will be supporting various amendments to strengthen these clauses, which are so important in the rural economy.
I welcome much that is in the Bill, from the new decent homes standard to the creation of a private rental property portal and an ombudsman scheme that will, I hope, resolve matters that might otherwise go to court. However, student letting requires more amendment, including measures to allow flexibility for students to alter accommodation arrangements during the academic year.
This Bill has many of the right ingredients for reform of the PRS, but there is room for sensible refinement to enable both landlords and tenants to be comfortable at the same time as ensuring that the supply of housing for rent is not threatened but encouraged. In parallel, government should concentrate on housing supply, particularly in the social and affordable sectors, as mentioned by many other noble Lords.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I thank my noble friend the Minister for her helpful introduction to take us through the Bill. Before speaking, I should declare my interest as in the register of interests; I am and have been a landlord, as well as a tenant and a leaseholder. I am not confident that this Bill will do what paragraph 1 of the Explanatory Notes says it aims to do, which is
“to ensure private renters have access to a secure and decent home and that landlords retain the confidence to repossess their properties where they have good reason to”.
I think we all agree with this very important aim; the Government are right to want it, but I am not sure that the Bill is the best method for achieving it. Rather, it will make for uncertainty in a number of ways. Here are some of them: the ending of assured fixed-term tenancies under the 1988 Act; the ending of no-fault evictions under Section 21 yet the introduction of alternative provision for landlords to repossess their properties when the Bill says they have good reason to do so; and the provision for a two-stage transition period for these arrangements—the second stage uncertain, to be fixed by the Secretary of State once the arrangements for the courts have been changed to accommodate the new system.
Other problems have been discussed by noble Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, spoke about the powers granted to local authorities to impose fines of £30,000—powers which I agree, and I urge your Lordships to think along the same lines, are properly for the courts to impose. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, discussed the implications for privacy around the data that will be collected on individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, talked about pressure on the courts, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, spoke about the costs for private landlords.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Frost, I am particularly concerned about ending assured fixed-term leases. I will focus on what I see as the most problematic and unsettling proposal in the Bill: the abolition of assured fixed-term tenancies under the 1988 Act, which lays down that tenancies can be periodic, renewable after the rent period—typically a month—or fixed-term. We have heard today about some of the lengths of tenancy which are already in use and popular. This arrangement gives both landlord and tenant the security of knowing how long their letting is for and the option to propose and agree a variation to reflect wishes and circumstances, including renewal. Instead, the Bill proposes that in future all tenants will be on a single system of periodic tenancies, which are little more than a rolling tenancy of a month where tenants give notice of leaving and landlords cannot provide any notice of ending the lease other than on the stipulated “reasonable grounds” set out in the legislation. This is conceived in the Bill as part of a package, along with abolishing no-fault evictions. The overall aim is said to be to give greater security to the tenant to deal with problematic landlords who use no-fault evictions to end the tenancies. I understand that was a manifesto commitment by the Conservative Government, but getting rid of fixed-term tenancies was not, and, as other noble Lords pointed out, it is unnecessary to do so given the aims of this Bill. Yes, there are bad landlords, and the problem can and should be addressed, but you do not need to overturn the arrangements under settled law to address the problem of shameful properties let in appalling conditions.
I disagree with the Secretary of State, who told the House of Commons that this is a Conservative measure in the tradition of measures introduced by Conservative Prime Ministers. Previous measures were based on the principles of common law and the protections that it offers both parties, while improving on how they operated. Labour’s Rent Act 1977 did not permit no-fault eviction, but subsequent Conservative measures did. The Housing Act 1988 introduced the concept of the assured shorthold tenancy only when complex notice procedures were followed, while the Housing Act 1996 introduced amendments to make the assured shorthold tenancy the default option unless the parties agreed to the tenancy. I am grateful here to iHowz and Andrew Butler KC, who made available to Parliament an analysis of the background and have provided a more nuanced proposal than that provided in the Bill.
We have seen the extension of the private rental sector to account for one in five households. It seems rather silly, to put it mildly, to end the arrangements on which the private rental sector is based and has succeeded so well, and mushroomed, since the 1980s.
In a free society, the less interference there is by the state in people making contracts with each other the better, rather than politicising transactions in an area that should be a politics-free zone under the principles and protections of settled law. Yes, there should be regulation against unfair contracts. People should be able to enter into a contract with full knowledge of what they are taking on—each party, tenant and landlord. Entering an agreement with each other with full knowledge, openly, protected by law, should be for them to decide. Tenants should be able to stipulate their conditions, and so should landlords, and an agreement met. I agree that fixed-term tenancies should be an option for landlord and tenant alike.
Our think tank has been a commercial tenant. We have been on the receiving end of a request—not an obligation—to end a lease early, and the landlord made a generous offer of a rent-free period of a few months which gave us a cushion on which to perhaps find a more expensive property, have confidence and sort out problems before the lease would have otherwise come to an end. Indeed, during the pandemic, when the service charges amounted to more than the cost of the lease per annum, I asked a landlord whether we could leave because of our not-for-profit status being charitably funded. In both cases, these requests were met with due consideration by the tenant and the landlord —I being the tenant and the landlord making an offer on another occasion—and without any interference or bureaucracy on the part of the courts. This is how it should be when we enter into a transaction in this country: two parties under the rule of law.
I hope that we can amend this measure to leave in place fixed-term assured tenancies so that landlords and tenants alike will have the option of the certainty, if they want it, of a fixed-term lease, and that the security that the Bill aims for can be achieved by compensation clauses; for instance, by giving tenants a rent-free period in the case of a no-fault eviction. Such arrangements leave in place the clarity of contractual arrangements, rather than replacing them with a cocktail of written statements, responsibilities, letters, property portals and an ombudsman, the individual parts of which will become opaque under the bureaucracy that will surely follow in the Bill’s wake—that is, unless, with your Lordships’ help, we can ensure the real security at which the Bill aims.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests, in particular my interest with Peers for the Planet, which probably provides a clue as to what I will talk about in, and contribute to, this debate—energy efficiency in the private rental sector. I have much enjoyed other noble Lords’ contributions; it has been incredibly interesting. I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones: I have had more things coming into my inbox about this debate than about pretty much anything I can remember. Noble Lords have dealt with all the points I agree with, but I will make a few specific points about the environmental effectiveness of the PRS.
Energy efficiency improvements always contribute to better living conditions, as well as tackling emissions from home heating: that is a crucial part of meeting our climate commitments. By improving air temperature, humidity levels and air quality, energy efficiency can help address multiple physical and mental health issues: we have heard a lot about that this afternoon. It can also help reduce fuel poverty by reducing energy demand, and therefore landlords—good for them—can increase the value of their properties; it is a win-win.
However, this is an area where the Government are seriously delaying action. This is particularly disappointing when the CCC highlighted in its last progress report to Parliament that the Government was “off track” in relation to energy efficiency measures in all buildings, with progress in the private sector remaining “slow”. Government policy in this area has been piecemeal and consultation subject to delay. Plans for all tenancies to meet EPC band C by 2028 followed a consultation that ended in January 2021. There has been no response from the Government since then; that is a long time. Instead, in September last year, the Prime Minister “scrapped” the plan on the basis of the financial pressures it could place on landlords—despite evidence, from numerous corners, of the financial and wider benefits for renters, as well as potential benefits for so many landlords, in the form of property value increase and tenant demand, if there is a clear and supportive plan in place.
On the other hand, this Bill offers the Government a real opportunity to reconsider their approach and inject ambition back into making the private rented sector more energy efficient. Indeed, their own 2022 White Paper on making the PRS fairer recognised the impact of poor-quality housing on renters’ health and well-being—which we have heard a lot about today—and their educational attainment, as well as the impact on energy bills and the pressures on low-income renters, and the burden we know it causes on public spending. It also recognised:
“To meet our net zero target, we need to have largely eliminated emissions from our housing stock by 2050”.
This is an important part of it.
I believe that businesses and good landlords would support the Government delivering on their commitments, if they are given the confidence, long-term policy certainty and support they need. Following the Prime Minister’s row-back last September, the National Residential Landlords Association—one of the many groups emailing—said that the Government’s delay in responding to their consultation meant
“there was never any hope of meeting the originally proposed deadlines”,
and that it
“wants to see properties as energy efficient as possible, but the sector needs certainty about how and when”.
The UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association, a finance and investment community of over 300 members managing £19 trillion in assets, also lamented the “stop-start nature of policymaking”, and that the Prime Minister’s announcements had removed the “clear targets” that would give investors confidence. More broadly, hundreds of leading businesses and professional organisations from within the built environment have expressed their concern over the decision to delay or weaken green policies, and disagree with the
“narrative that delaying climate action would reduce costs to households”—
that is something we have debunked in this Chamber many times. They said:
“The longer we delay and the more we see stop-start piecemeal policy … the harder and more expensive the task becomes”.
They have also asked for a national retrofit strategy, which will ultimately pay dividends in tax returns.
The Bill offers the Government an opportunity to respond positively but, as I have mentioned, it is not just about business but about the impact on households, including vulnerable ones, and the question of fairness around delaying action. As the Bill’s Explanatory Notes say, the PRS increasingly provides homes for families and older tenants.
The decision to delay energy efficiency improvements has led to additional costs on fuel bills. Analysis by ECIU showed that, if minimum energy efficiency standards had already been in place, private renters could have saved more than £400 million in total, or £140 per home, in gas bills over the last winter. That is a lot of money if you are on universal credit. Generation Rent research shows that fuel poverty has fallen by only 4% for private renters since 2010. This is compared with 35% for owner-occupiers and 54% for council tenants. If we introduce energy efficiency measures to bring a home up to EPC band C, we could take households completely out of fuel poverty.
Citizens Advice has reported the widespread problems of damp, mould and cold, driven by the really poor energy efficiency of some privately rented homes. Some 31% of renters said they were unable to heat their home to a comfortable temperature. That rises to 45% of people with disabilities. That is awful. By its analysis, upgrading all homes could prevent 670,000 children developing asthma and 6,000 winter deaths per year. This must be something we all want.
In the other place, the Housing Secretary said that improvements needed to be balanced against the costs to individual landlords and tenants. There will be costs, but there are solutions for providing support and incentives to make the investment for landlords much more attractive. As business has said, the sooner the Government commit to a proper plan in the PRS and for all housing, the sooner the costs will come down and we will be closer to decarbonising our housing sector.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I should begin with a short disclosure that my wife and I have in the next-door house under our ownership five one-bedroom flats, which are occupied by tenants whom we do our very best to look after well.
I do not often speak in your Lordships’ House, but in recent times I have found myself always at the bottom of the speakers’ list. I had higher hopes for this debate— I see that the noble Lord, Cromwell, takes bottom place and I am one away from that—because I was next to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, in the earlier draft of the list of speakers. He has kept his place and I have tumbled down to the bottom.
However, speaking late in a debate does give one the opportunity to refer to earlier speakers, and I do so most willingly. I thank the Minister for her excellent introduction, with which I found myself largely in agreement. I also take the opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage for her opening speech on behalf of my party. I particularly agreed with her comments on the impact of the changes in the many amendments that were moved in the House of Commons, and also with her comment that the Government have ended up just “kicking the can down the road”. I also agreed with her reference to the need for fundamental reform.
I am not going to go through all the speakers. I could do, because there were excellent speeches to comment on, but I will just refer to the noble Lord, Lord Best. His description of the switch of social housing to PRS was quite excellent. I am sure we are all grateful to him for his brilliant analysis of the current status of the landlord/tenant market.
I turn to the complexity problem. This is not the first Bill that inflicts much complexity on us and then on the users of our Bills. If only our parliamentary draftsmen could remind themselves of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, which sets out in the simplest and clearest terms the liabilities of all occupiers of land.
What about this Bill? Its size is colossal. It is 194 pages long, containing 140 clauses and six complex schedules. In mastering this torrent of proposed legislation, we have had the benefit of excellent briefings from the Law Society, Justice and, most of all, our Library staff in their excellent briefing paper. Therefore, should we not remind ourselves, as we can remind ourselves in other Bills, that this Bill is directed to the fundamental right of all our citizens in the private rented sector to have the security of a decent home and to pay a fair rent, while likewise enabling landlords to provide just that?
I will return later to the great importance of such ordinary citizens having proper access and an understanding of the provisions of the Bill, but for now I will speak about when I first became aware of the relationship between landlord and tenant in the private rented sector. I was a young barrister in the 1960s when we were operating under the old rent Acts, where there was security of tenure and protection from unaffordable rent increases. It was in the terms of those Acts that no eviction could be made without cause.
There was one interesting provision in the old rent Acts that enabled a landlord to move a tenant from one property to another on the grounds of offering suitable alternative accommodation. That has not reappeared in this Bill. I criticise that not, but it is a rather nice memory.
I remind the House that under the old Acts the rents were controlled by the rent tribunals. What went wrong was that the rent was too low for landlords to invest in their properties, and many were in shocking condition. That was brought home to me in the 1980s, when my wife and I moved into a square in London then dominated by rent-protected properties, and we learned some appalling things. I will refer to two of them. There were two spinster ladies, I think well into their 80s, next door to us. They had no hot water in their rented property, nor indeed any heat provided except perhaps from the electric fire. They had a bath but no hot water to go into it. So they bought a washing machine and put it through all its motions without putting in any detergent, and when the hot water exited from the washing machine they had some water in the bath in which they could bathe themselves. We also learned in the square of a top-floor tenant who had no supply of electricity, and his only form of getting light into his flat was using a gas supply.
We should therefore be aware of what happened in this Bill’s long journey through the House of Commons. This was referred to by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, but let us look at it in a little more detail. In Committee the Government tabled 183 amendments, including 52 new clauses and one new schedule. Well, bravo—but has the balance, as my noble friend suggested, been disturbed? My party tabled 81 amendments in the other place but they were all rejected. Those amendments were non-political, dealing with such things as proposed rent levels, notice-to-quit periods and financial penalties for landlords in breach. There are other examples that I could give.
On Report the Government excelled themselves even more. They moved 225 amendments, 24 new clauses and one further new schedule. Bravo again, but was the Bill improved? My noble friend Lady Taylor suggests the very opposite. Once again, all my party’s amendments were rejected. I have to say that the treatment of the legislature during the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons was most shoddy. As is the custom in this House, the Government can expect constructive amendments from all quarters. May all our amendments be properly treated.
The creation of the obligatory requirement for landlords to enter into the ombudsman scheme, the setting up of a digital property portal and the application of the decent homes standard are all most welcome, but they will all be defeated unless the court system can promptly deal with eviction or possession cases. Also, unless housing legal aid is massively increased to the levels that I remember in the 1960s, tenants will be forced to appear in the county courts as litigants in person to deal with the complexities of the provisions of this Bill. This is a burden on the judiciary and a cause of delay in the courts transacting this business. I look towards the Minister: may the Government in this House listen to us on the Back Benches and be willing to consider our amendments and judge them on their merit.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I am neither a landlord nor a tenant, I have managed properties in the past and I have a property qualification. All four of my children were tenants during their student days and remain as tenants at the start of their professional lives. I have also had extensive briefings from both landlords and tenants and their respective representative bodies, providing their perspectives and their chosen statistics.
As the last Back-Bench speaker today, I will not re-run all the statistics because most of them have already been cited, so I hope that will be appreciated. I am also not going to namecheck everybody, but we have had, I think we can agree, a diverse but fascinating set of speeches. I congratulate all those involved—forgive me if I do not namecheck them.
There are some emotive issues here. For a tenant, the property they rent may become emotionally their home. For the landlord, the property is often their most valuable asset—they paid for it and they maintain it. It is their source of income or pension, and renting it out also means taking on costs, regulations and the risks of placing it into the hands of strangers. Into this sensitive environment have come terms such as “no-fault evictions” and “kicking people out on the street”, even stating paradoxically that landlords actually create homelessness. There have been distressing anecdotes—and I underline this—from both tenants and landlords.
In recent days I have heard a good deal of pantomime stereotypes, and I really hope we can set these aside and address the underlying issues. There certainly are some rogue landlords—albeit that the Government assure us they are a small minority—who provide substandard accommodation and treat their tenants badly. I support those aspects of the Bill that are helpful in addressing that minority. But I add a note of caution, as others have, about enforcement.
The Bill will not touch the rogues unless it is enforced vigorously against some nasty, elusive and, in some cases, dangerous people. The Minister, in very kindly meeting me with her officials yesterday, for which I thank her again, advised that fines levied by local authorities would fund enforcement. I remain sceptical, not least because local authorities are already so strapped for cash. I welcome the requirement to have a written agreement; I suggest that it should automatically include, as an annexe, an inventory of contents and condition, as the lack of one of these frequently leads to disputes later on. I also support the register portal idea, provided that it is better than the Companies House register, which we discussed in some detail during the economic crime Bill and where there are many companies registered to an “M. Mouse”, et cetera.
In acknowledging that there are bad landlords, however, we should also accept that there are bad tenants who will play the system and abuse the landlord-tenant relationship. There are also market and other factors beyond the control of landlords and tenants. The underlying issue is a simple one that many speakers have addressed: lack of supply. A recent debate in this House referred to a shortfall of more than 1 million homes and many speakers have also touched on this today. Private landlords were encouraged, in particular under the Housing Act 1988, to reduce this gap between supply and demand but the difference between them remains stark. The Bill is presented as achieving a better deal for tenants, not through increasing the supply but rather by altering the landlord-tenant relationship, primarily perhaps by reducing the rights of landlords. It begs a simple but fundamental question to the Minister: will the Bill lead to an increase in the supply of rental accommodation?
Section 21 notices are at the heart of the debate around the Bill. Introduced as an incentive for the provision of accommodation by private landlords, they have enabled an increase in the private rented sector, as many speakers have covered. This is based largely on landlords having the confidence that they could recover their property when they required to do so. To lose sight of this confidence—the understanding that, even if they never use it, landlords know that they can get their property back through serving a notice—is to put the sustained supply of rental accommodation at risk.
Tenant representative bodies tag these notices as no-fault evictions, but we should also remember that tenants can and do—to coin a phrase—make no-fault departures should they, without needing to give any reason, decide to move out on just one or two months’ notice. This leaves the landlord with costs and no income until a new tenant is in place, and quite possibly a lengthy overhanging dispute; for example, about the deposits of tenants who are now departed and possibly even out of the country. The Bill would mean that tenants can leave on short notice and without a reason, while landlords would be able to recover what is, after all, their property only on limited and specific grounds. That does not feel equitable to me.
An underlying concern for tenant representatives about Section 21 is that once the initial tenancy period—a security that the Bill seeks to reduce or remove, as others have said—is over, a Section 21 notice can be used should the landlord want their property back. In some cases, it is to seek—or, if noble Lords wish to use emotive language, to extort—an increased level of rent. As regards wanting their property back, the landlord can do so, and the Bill reasonably supports this, if they wish to sell the property or make it available for a family member. As regards raising the rent, I believe there is a point here. I would support rental movements being limited to inflationary increases but, again, supply and demand are relevant. A landlord cannot expect to succeed in renting out a property for more than the market rent. To bring the rate down, we need more supply rather than fewer landlords.
The underlying concern for landlords, apart from the psychological aspect of restriction on their ownership rights, is that to recover their property is going to mean going to court. It has been put to me that a landlord would perhaps have to go to court anyway, if a tenant refused to leave under the current Section 21 notice provisions. I contest that: given the clear simplicity of the Section 21 notice, the great majority of tenants accept its validity.
Speaking to landlords in recent months, I have learned about a couple of reality checks that we need to think about. First, Section 21 notices are already being served by landlords who want to get their properties back and avoid the drawn-out, adversarial and expensive legal processes in due course to recover their property. Secondly, landlords are becoming far more risk averse, and tell me they will continue to be, as to which people they might rent to. As one landlord put it to me starkly, “After this Bill, I will never rent to a family again”.
Speaking to those who say that they represent tenants, I have been struck by how sanguine they seem to be about the impact of the Bill on rental accommodation. They tell me that they assume landlords will sell up, perhaps to a first-time buyer, a local authority or another private landlord—although that seems a circular expectation. Not only is this dismissive of those who provide rental accommodation, it is a pure gamble. Depending on which statistics you choose, some say that there will be a decrease in rental accommodation—this is borne out by the discussions I have just referred to—and others say that there will be no impact. I find that hard to believe. In any event, no one is saying that there will be any increase in the availability of rental property, which is what we are all seeking to achieve.
Given the risks and costs involved for landlords by the removal of Section 21, what mitigation does the Bill provide? It has a, yet to be created, swift and fair court system, which is perhaps even cost-free. There seems to be no objective metric, as many have mentioned, for the Lord Chancellor to deem that the county courts will be working sufficiently well. I hope that we can address this in later stages of the Bill. Court hearings on property matters are already increasing. By definition, a great increase in such cases will be inevitable as all tenancies are now being ended under Section 8. These will be cases brought by tenants and by landlords.
This swift judicial process is a fantasy, and it is strictly for the birds. Speaking of birds, it was the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who warned us some months ago that the last time the Government meddled with the rental sector the supply shrank. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bird, knows more than many in this House about homelessness. In short, making responsible landlords recover their property via legal action will reverse the expansion of rental accommodation, and rogue landlords will probably continue to enforce their will via less formal methods.
I turn to the question of initial fixed terms. We are told that tenants need security of tenure so that they can put their children into school, develop a sense of community and hold down a local job—all of which makes complete sense, at least in some cases. But its logic must surely therefore support long initial terms, and not their abandonment by making them legally void beyond six months, as the Bill does. Tenants and landlords can both benefit from longer fixed terms. Both get continuity, less frictional cost and less disruption. Tenants will also benefit where landlords offer rental discounts or property enhancements to tenants wishing to enter longer-term agreements. I have seen that in practice.
I was struck by the repeated comments on this from tenants. One simply said to me: “There is absolutely no way I would be willing to sign up for less than a one-year fixed initial term. I do not want the prospect of having at last found a place I can afford and having to move on in a shorter period than that”. A tenant such as this—there are many—who wants to be sure that they have security for longer than six months is prevented by the Bill from obtaining it. The circumstances in which the landlord can remove them—to sell the property or provide it to a family member—would be limited, but beyond six months the tenant has no protection should the landlord serve a notice to that effect. The problem presented to me is that a tenant may get “trapped”—this has been referred to by some speakers—for a fixed initial period in a property that is not what they were led to believe.
I do see that issue, but two points occur to me. First, this is a caveat to both parties when signing up. After all, the landlord may find themselves trapped with a bad tenant. Secondly, a correctly drafted tenancy document provides for either party to quit in the event of contract breaches by the other. A long agreed fixed term is still escapable—if that is the right word. A system where tenant and landlord lose the ability to agree a tenancy for any period over six months of secure occupancy seems perverse. It is a further disincentive to the supply of accommodation.
Landlords face the risk of tenants changing every few months, with the associated costs and delays of repair, redecoration, reletting and disputes over deposits. I have not mentioned tenants bringing in livestock, but this could also be a feature if they are seeking insurance payments for damage by the tenants’ assorted livestock, which landlords would not now be able to refuse to allow to be kept on the property. In that situation, landlords would probably have to seek higher rents to cover the associated costs of tenant turnover.
However superficially well intentioned the Bill is, it satisfies neither tenants nor landlords. Both need certainty —certainty of tenure balanced with certainty of recovery—but none of this is attainable without certainty of supply, which is the core issue that we must return to. Although the elements of the Bill that deal with standards of accommodation and portal registration are largely to be welcomed, its approach to landlord and tenant relationships will deplete supply and exacerbate the problems that it seeks to solve. I am most grateful for noble Lords’ indulging me going on at such length.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I declare my interest as a member of the cohort of Local Government Association vice-presidents. This has been an interesting, informed and wide-ranging debate. Noble Lords have shown their different expertise, in the time-honoured tradition of this Chamber. It is clear that the Bill has given us all food for thought and that we will have our work cut out during its passage. It is also clear that noble Lords have some serious concerns and that views are somewhat polarised.
The state of the private rented sector was clearly outlined by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Truscott, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, so noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will not go into detail. But the bottom line is clear: there is a significant shortfall in the availability of homes for private rent. Rightmove data—nobody has quoted this, so I will go with it—tells us that the number of available rental properties is 26% below 2019 levels, and the number of people looking for a rental home is 54% above 2019 levels. Staggeringly, some 50,000 properties are needed to bring the supply back up to pre-pandemic levels. Yet, at the same time, agents are receiving three times as many inquiries about every home available to rent. This leads to a rationing of a scarce and precious resource, which one agent described to me recently as a “beauty parade”. Landlords can now pick the best tenants—and we all know who they are and, more importantly, who they are not.
As my noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Lord, Lord Best, said passionately, the real issue at the heart of this shortage is the lack of homes for social rent. What is noticeable about all the charities lobbying us about the Bill is their commendable protection of the most vulnerable in society: the elderly, those suffering domestic abuse, families on low incomes and those who need additional support to get and keep their lives on track, as well as, lately, students, who clearly feel that the Bill turns them into second-rate tenants denied the rights of other tenants. Excepting students, 10 or 15 years ago all those groups of people would have been living in social housing, with a landlord who would give them not only stability through security of tenure but additional support if needed.
Let us turn to the detail of the Bill. This is a selective gallop around the course to show our areas of concern on these Benches, and where we will be working across the House to try to persuade the Government to make some changes. To the Minister I would say, while I acknowledge that there are good aspects, and some very good aspects, I shall not be mentioning those.
The big one is the non-abolition of Section 21, which is the cruellest and biggest disappointment in the Bill for some of us, for sure. So much has already been said most ably by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and others. We know that Citizens Advice has seen significant increases in those seeking help with Section 21 evictions and facing homelessness, and that the numbers being served Section 21 notices have risen. We know that the number of families in temporary accommodation is rising month on month, and that those costs are spiralling, causing serious issues with the budgets of some councils. Of course, this has ultimately led to an increase in the number of homeless people on our streets. On what basis is that delay truly justified? We will be seeking to ensure that the Government put a date for ending Section 21 in the Bill, which should be no later than six months after Royal Assent. That is optimistic, you might say. Perhaps, but there is hope. We welcome the Labour Party’s announcement that it would introduce this on its first day in government.
The new tenancy regime was broadly welcomed by all stakeholders when the Bill was introduced in the other place, but I note today that the debate on the abolition of fixed-term tenancies will certainly exercise us in Committee. However, we have concerns about the government amendment whereby tenants cannot give notice until they have been in the property for four months. We understand that landlords will want to know that they get six months from each tenancy and, as the noble Lord opposite said, that tenants will want security. But things happen and circumstances change, and sometimes the property is not all that it should be.
It is worth pointing out that the present market conditions and the stresses of finding and funding a tenancy mean that a tenant will not usually give notice unless something is seriously wrong, either with the property or with themselves or their family. Most renters want that security of tenure, so they do not want to move unless forced to, as it costs them, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said, around £1,700, according to figures from Generation Rent. We believe that it should be possible to make compassionate exceptions in cases of fleeing domestic violence, or illness or death, for example, as mentioned by several noble Lords. I was heartened by the Minister’s comments in her introduction.
In lieu of the abolition of Section 21, Section 8 will contain the grounds for terminating a tenancy, and those grounds have been extended in the Bill. We have concerns, particularly about grounds 1 and 1A, and landlords evicting a tenant if they wish to move one of their family into the home or sell it. Both are entirely reasonable scenarios, but the Bill as it stands means that a tenant can be out after six months. We would seek to extend that period, I hope to a year. We are concerned that these two grounds will be used in much the same way as Section 21, because of the very low burden of proof on the landlord. Who do we think will be checking that the home is sold, or that a family member has moved in? What will be in place to prevent landlords gaming the system? We will support amendments requiring landlords to prove the use of those grounds. We note that the Bill provides for a three-month ban on landlords letting the property following the use of these grounds, but that simply is not long enough to disincentivise its use.
Whether the Government will agree to a longer protected period or not, we believe that the notice period for eviction under grounds 1 and 1A should be extended to at least four months to give a little more time to sort a new place to live. Shelter has said that, under the present circumstances, it takes 40% of renters with families longer than two months to find a home. We fear that, without this extension, even more renters will be forced into homelessness—so the burden on councils increases, not to mention the very human cost. I remind the House of the letters signed by more than 100 council leaders asking for a similar extension period because of the rising costs of temporary accommodation and the lack of suitable properties. We hope the Government will think again on this.
Unfortunately, the dire situation in the courts, as very well amplified by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has led to this back-pedalling. It is true that the length of time a landlord currently waits to get a court hearing varies, with the mean time being seven months. We agree that this is far too long, but we do not accept that this should lead to a delay in abolishing Section 21; rather, the Government must and should be investing in the courts and, in particular, housing legal aid. The situation regarding access to legal aid is particularly poor in rural areas. The Law Society has drawn attention to this, stating that almost 44% of the population of England and Wales do not have a housing legal aid provider in their area.
We are concerned that, while the Bill seeks to introduce stronger powers to evict anti-social tenants who are persistently disruptive—we completely agree with that—the definitions are not suitably defined and appear too subjective or open to abuse. There are also serious issues regarding victims of domestic abuse where such abuse is regularly mistaken and reported as ASB. These need to be listened to and taken seriously. We cannot just ignore the unintended consequences of this Bill on such a group—remembering that, on average, two women a week are killed by a former or current partner. On this, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, said in her excellent contribution.
It is good to see that the Bill will make it illegal to have blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits and those with children. Let me say to the noble Lord opposite, I do not see what is in this Bill that could possibly make a landlord not want to rent to a family. Perhaps he can explain it to me afterwards.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I would be happy to speak to the noble Baroness afterwards.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
This will hopefully end that discrimination towards—yet again—the most vulnerable.
We would, however, urge the Government to look at several other practices where discrimination occurs. If a landlord insists on several months’ rent up front—and they do—that disadvantages many people for obvious reasons. Likewise, on the use of a guarantor, not everyone has family or friends willing or able to act as a guarantor. Both these measures in effect marginalise the less well off.
On rent rises, we feel that the Bill does not go far enough. The proposed annual limit of one rent rise is positive, but it still gives no guarantee as to how much the rent could rise, and the process to challenge an unfair rent rise is complex and lengthy. I was concerned by the statement that tenants could find themselves in a position where the First-tier Tribunal could say that the rent is worth more. That felt like a bit of a veiled threat that this would act as a deterrent to challenge a rent rise. Surely, to link increases to CPI or median wage growth would be fairer and transparent, and would obviate the need to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal at all.
We cannot escape the fact that the real issue is lack of supply. We know that much supply has been lost to short-term lets, which was expanded on very well by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. There are no incentives in this Bill for landlords to return to long-term rentals—as opposed to the damaging overprovision, in some areas such as Cornwall, Cumbria and other tourist spots, of the more lucrative Airbnb. These should include making the playing field level between the two tenures using taxation, regulation and health and safety requirements.
There is much more to say and time to say it in detail at later stages, but I end by reinforcing the words from my noble friend Lady Pinnock and others regarding the role of local authorities in making this Bill work. As things stand now, they cannot do the job that we or they want them to do. These additional demands will only make things worse. The fact that the Bill—at last—expects the private rented sector to meet the decent homes standard and has given some additional powers to councils will come to nothing without the resources to do the job properly. Likewise, extending the homeless duty on councils sounds admirable, but some councils are barely coping now.
Finally, we do not feel that the Bill as it stands has rebalanced the relationship between landlord and tenant. It still feels to us like the landlords have the upper hand, which is perhaps why, in their briefing, they wish to see the Bill passed as soon as possible, and why the Renters Reform Coalition has branded it a failure.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this Second Reading debate for the Opposition, and I thank all noble Lords who have participated at this stage of the Bill. The expertise, skills and knowledge on this subject in your Lordships’ House have been demonstrated in a most eloquent manner, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that it has been a fantastic and diverse debate. I also pay tribute to all the campaign groups and organisations that have campaigned consistently on the Bill. I thank all of them for their very helpful briefings, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I have never had this number of briefings on any Bill I have worked on in your Lordships’ House.
On these Benches, we welcome the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, this is an improvement, with steps to redress the landlord and tenant imbalance. As my noble friend Lady Lister rightly said, it achieves a fairer balance between landlord and tenant while increasing tenant security. In fact, I actually welcome much of what the Minister said in her opening remarks. However, the point has to be made that, unfortunately, three Prime Ministers and 10 Housing Ministers later, and five years since committing to abolish Section 21, nearly 85,000 households have been threatened with homelessness by a no-fault eviction. The Government’s dither and delay have had a catastrophic effect on families across the nation.
I want also to turn to a point made by my noble friend Lord Hacking—I apologise that he was not at the top of the list; nevertheless, he made some very important points. There were 225 amendments and 24 new clauses tabled in Committee in the Commons, and 183 amendments and 52 new clauses tabled on Report. The amendments and new clauses were actually lengthier than the Bill when it started out, which I think is cause for concern. We are seeing too many Bills coming here with huge numbers of amendments tabled in Committee and on Report.
Renters are at the sharp edge of the current housing crisis and urgently need the protections and support in the Bill. We will be pleased to finally see the abolition of Section 21, whenever that actually happens—let me repeat, “whenever that abolition actually happens”, a point made by noble Lords across this House. Since October 2023, the Government have stated that they
“will not commence the abolition of section 21 until stronger possession grounds and a new court process is in place”.
The Bill as drafted already provided for a two-stage commencement process for the introduction of the new regime, with precise dates for new and existing tenancies to transition to be determined by the Secretary of State. However, the government amendment on Report in the other place was very widely drawn, with no time limits or obligations on the Secretary of State to enact the ban on no-fault evictions, regardless of the outcome of the Lord Chancellor’s assessment. This would effectively allow the Government to stall on the enactment of the ban indefinitely. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said, this could happen in a year, in 18 months or not happen at all. Landlords and tenants should be given certainty about precisely when the Government’s manifesto commitment to abolish Section 21 no-fault evictions will be enacted. As my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage said in her opening speech, we will bring forward an amendment to ensure that Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 will be repealed on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.
We also welcome the simplification of tenancies, which will give renters more flexibility and more rights. It is right that periodic tenancies should become the norm. For too long, renters have lacked basic power and control over one of the fundamentals of life, their home. Tenants have struggled to challenge unfair treatment without undergoing lengthy and expensive court proceedings, a point made very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Adonis.
Hence, we welcome the creation of a new ombudsman who has the potential to be an essential part of the redress system. I agree with my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe on the need for the proper steps to ensure that there is a fair process for the procurement of the new private sector ombudsman. If this ombudsman is given the proper teeth and resources, they will have an important role to play in levelling the playing field.
The tragic death of two year-old Awaab Ishak, caused by the damp and mould in his home, shocked the whole nation. With our support, the Government introduced Awaab’s law in the social housing sector, and they were right to do so. But the problem of debilitating damp and mould, and landlords who fail to investigate such hazards and make the necessary repairs, is not confined to social rented homes. A Citizens Advice report published last year made it clear that the private rented sector has
“widespread problems with damp, mould and cold, driven by the poor energy efficiency of privately rented homes”.
The report went on to evidence the fact that 1.6 million children in England currently live in cold, damp or mouldy privately rented homes.
According to the English Housing Survey, 23% of homes in the private rented sector do not meet the decent homes standard. That is around 1 million homes. This compares with 13% of owner-occupied and 10% of social rented homes. In the face of such a pervasive problem, we can think of no justification whatever for restricting Awaab’s law purely to the social housing sector. We hope that the Government will agree and accept the same law for the private rented sector, because we can think of no reason whatever why they would resist doing so.
In the other place, in relation to the issue of safe and decent homes, Minister Jacob Young said it would be dealt with through enforcement by local housing authorities as well as the private rented sector ombudsman, and that the Government considered that this was of no interest to tenants. We are not convinced by the Government’s response. How have the Government determined that there is no interest in Awaab’s law among tenants in the private rented sector? Have the Government consulted with them?
If anything, there is a stronger case for applying Awaab’s law in the private rented sector. Things are worse in the private rented sector, as illustrated by the Citizens Advice statistics I have just read out. We will come back to this at a later stage in the Bill. If the measures are appropriate for the social rented sector, they should be appropriate for the private rented sector. Does the Minister accept that conditions in the private rented sector are far worse than in either the social rented or owner-occupied sectors, with 1.6 million children living in cold, damp or mouldy homes? If so, why does she not support tougher measures to compel landlords to rectify these problems?
I further ask the Minister to tell us what estimates the Government have made of the number of households likely to be threatened with homelessness by a Section 21 notice, from now until the time when the Lord Chancellor completes his assessment of the courts. Is the Minister concerned that the new, more vague definition of anti-social behaviour could lead to victims of domestic abuse being evicted on anti-social behaviour grounds while undergoing the trauma of abuse? This point was made by my noble friend Lady Lister, as well as by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. My noble friend asked for justification for the wording; I look forward to seeing what response the Minister will give.
There have been a number of excellent contributions, but I want to pinpoint the interesting historical significance that the noble Lord, Lord Best, provided us with. The noble Lord outlined that, in the 1980s, the private rented sector was 9% of the nation’s rented homes. In the 2000s, that became 20%. Some 2.3 million private landlords are still looking to this Bill to ensure that their life gets better. The noble Lord talked about the demise of council house building, and how social housing has gone from 34% to 17% of the sector. The noble Lord also reminded the House that there has been a doubling of the private rented sector, and a halving of the social housing sector. At the heart of what he said—the very centrepiece of the Bill—is the lack of housing: there has not been enough housing built.
I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who also made this very important point. In fact, he outlined that the target of 300,000 was last met in 1977. I liked the fact that he talked about reforming planning and building 300,000 houses per year; he sounded like he was reading the Labour Party manifesto for the next general election. I understand the point that we need to create better housing. There is a dysfunctional housing market, as the noble Lord stipulated, and the Government are consistently missing the housing targets.
The Bill is an important step forward. Supporting renters at the sharp edge of the cost of living crisis is very important, so we should all support this. On these Benches, we will work constructively throughout the passage of the Bill. This is a vital piece of legislation, because it seeks to provide greater security and stability for renters. This matters, because housing instability destroys wealth creation, damages life chances, restricts educational prospects and harms health. It is not just about policies; it is about people and their dreams, fears and aspirations. We need to build a system that uplifts everyone, regardless of their housing situation—a point that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford made in terms of “safe, secure and sustainable”.
On these Benches, we strongly support fundamental reform of the private rented sector and have called for it for many years. Regardless of whether they are a home owner, leaseholder or tenant, everyone has the basic right to a decent, safe, secure and affordable home. Much more needs to be done to decisively level the playing field between landlords and tenants, and a Labour Government will seek to truly strengthen protections for private renters, so that they finally get the long-term security and better rights and conditions that they deserve. We look forward to working with noble Lords across the House to strengthen this much-delayed Bill and commit to a future where renters are empowered and their rights protected, and where housing stability is not a privilege but a fundamental right. We need to build a fairer, more compassionate housing sector that truly serves the people. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this debate and to reflect on the thoughtful contributions that we have heard. I should first perhaps disclose that I have been a very happy tenant for many years, with successive landlords who have welcomed my dog, cat and children—so, for me, the private rental sector plays a valuable role, and the Bill’s intention is to make the system work better for both landlords and tenants.
I am grateful for the diverse, wide-ranging and sometimes contradictory contributions that have been made today, and I will attempt to address the points raised in turn—although they may not be in order, because my papers seem to have got a little jumbled.
I turn first to the abolition of Section 21 and court reform, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. She raised the issue of Section 21 being abolished immediately following Royal Assent. Our priority remains ending Section 21 as soon as reasonably possible. As these are the largest changes to the private rental sector in over 30 years, it is critical that we introduce them in a way that both protects tenants’ security and retains landlords’ confidence in the new system. As I stated in my opening remarks, there is a raft of secondary legislation that will be required to achieve that; therefore, it cannot be done at Royal Assent.
The reforms in the Bill will need to be supported by a robust and efficient court system for possession. While the vast majority of tenancies end without any need for court action, an effective and efficient court system must be available for landlords and tenants who need it. We are committed to ensuring that the reforms in the Bill are appropriately supported in the courts. We have already invested £1.2 million in the Courts and Tribunals Service to deliver a new end-to-end online possession process. On top of that, this financial year we are investing a further £11 million to deliver the digital architecture for a new, fully digitised system going forward.
The analogue system is being worked on now to help process the new Section 8 possessions on new contracts as soon as possible. The digitisation of the processes will follow as soon as possible for the existing contracts, provided that the Lord Chancellor’s court assessment suggests that the system can cope. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and other noble Lords asked about this; I will attempt to supply a visual chart for setting out indicative timelines for the Section 21 phases and the total abolition as we discuss this over the coming weeks.
With regard to abolishing the fixed terms, noble Lords raised concerns about the shift to periodic tenancies and the removal of bilaterally agreed fixed-term contracts, and we have had two sides of the House completely disagreeing on how this should be carried out. As noble Lords suggested, we have introduced a restriction on the tenant giving notice to leave within the first six months. That will ensure that landlords have a sufficient guarantee of rent and enough notice to find new tenants, and will stop tenants using rented properties as short-term lets. After six months, tenants will be able to serve two months’ notice at any point, which is a significant improvement in flexibility compared with the current system. Of course, we expect many to stay for the long term.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I think the tenant can serve notice after four months but they leave after six months. Can the Minister confirm that that is correct?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I will check that but my notes tell me that it is six months before they can serve their notice.
I reassure the House that we are exploring potential exemptions to this six-month period in extreme circumstances, such as where there are serious health hazards, the death of a tenant, for victims of domestic abuse, and other such important issues. We will bring these forward as the Bill progresses.
With regard to domestic violence, as many noble Lords raised, we recognise that domestic abuse can be interpreted as anti-social behaviour by neighbours—for example, frequent shouting and intolerable noise. It would be wrong to evict victims, which is why it is important that the judicial discretion is used in ground 14 eviction cases. To consider eviction would be a reasonable step in these circumstances.
Many noble Lords raised the issue of a longer notice period for possession grounds, and powerful arguments for that have been made today. However, we believe that the notice periods for the grounds are set at a length which balances the needs of both tenants and landlords. They give tenants time to find a new home while ensuring that landlords can manage their assets when they need to.
Noble Lords have called specifically for tenants to be protected from the moving and selling ground for a longer period at the start of their tenancy, and we are already protecting tenants’ security by ensuring that landlords will not be able to use these grounds in the first six months of a tenancy. We believe that six months strikes the right balance between improving security and, of course, allowing landlords to continue to feel confident in the market.
The Government are committed to preventing homelessness before it occurs. The Bill will help to do that by abolishing Section 21 evictions, giving tenants greater security of tenure and, we hope, reducing the risk of homelessness. We are also providing total support of £108 billion over 2022-25—an average of £3,800 per UK household—to help households with the high cost of living. This includes increasing the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile of market rents from April, which will mean that 1.6 million low-income households will be around £800 a year better off on average in 2024-25, and over 740,000 have been prevented from becoming homeless or supported into settled accommodation since 2018 through the Homelessness Reduction Act. Between 2022 and 2025, we are investing over £1.2 billion into the homelessness prevention grant, which funds local authorities to work with landlords to prevent evictions and offer alternative sources of accommodation.
With regard to Awaab’s law, I am grateful for this being raised. We agree that no tenant should have to live in dangerous housing conditions. We are taking steps to ensure that hazards in rented homes are dealt with, but how we achieve this needs to take into account the differences between the private and social rented sectors.
Awaab’s law was developed for the social housing sector, in which landlords manage large portfolios of usually between 1,000 and 10,000 properties, and have dedicated repairs and maintenance teams. We believe that it is not the right approach for the private rental sector, in which 82% of landlords have fewer than five properties. Instead, we are strengthening enforcement against hazards in private rented homes. Local councils will be able to issue immediate fines of up to £5,000 if a dangerous hazard is present in a privately rented property and the landlord has failed to take reasonably practical steps to address it. We are also introducing the decent homes standard in the private rental sector for the first time, providing local councils with enforcement powers to require landlords to remedy failures to meet requirements.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
We had all these enforcement measures in the social rental sector but we still brought in Awaab’s law. The argument is for enforcement and the decent homes standards, but in the social housing sector we had all the support mechanisms in place—I understand the difference between large social housing and houses for couples or mum-and-dad families—so why the differentiation? Why could we not have Awaab’s law? The Minister says that this is a different situation, but there is still the opportunity to enforce and fine social housing landlords, so why differentiate?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
The difference, as I have just alluded to, is between one person having to get external maintenance people in, and so be at the mercy of their agenda, and maintenance crews that can be sent to those areas that need prioritising. I have a huge number of questions to get through, so I apologise for being abrupt.
Many noble Lords raised concerns about the impact of reforms on the student market. Since introducing the Bill, we have heard from across the sector that, as originally drafted, the Bill would have interrupted the student housing market, reducing the supply of vital properties in university towns and cities. We have listened to these concerns and have introduced a new ground for possession which will allow landlords renting to students to seek possession ahead of each new academic year, facilitating the yearly cycle of short-term student tenancies. The ground has been carefully designed to balance the needs of both landlords and students. It will apply to any property that is let to full-time students, as long as the landlord gives prior notice to tenants at the start of the tenancy that the ground will apply.
Regarding different dates being used rather than the traditional academic year, there is nothing to stop landlords renting properties in January to students starting their studies at that time. Most students will continue to move in line with the traditional academic year. This ground provides a backstop for the majority of students studying from September. The alternative would be to allow the ground to be used at any point in the year, which would give tenants no certainty.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I asked whether the Minister would talk to the universities sector about this. It has made very strong representations and knows far more about this than I do, and noble Lords around the Chamber have mentioned that as well. Will the Minister please meet the universities sector to understand properly its concerns before we go much further with the Bill?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that those discussions are already ongoing. The department is in intense discussions with that sector, and has been since the introduction of the Bill in the other place.
Regarding MoD accommodation, as a result of discussions in the other place we are looking to apply the decent homes standard to homes for service personnel and their families. Service personnel and their families deserve homes that are safe and decent, just like everybody else. While 96% of service family accommodation already meets the decent homes standard, it is right that we explore whether we can put in further safeguards on housing quality for this sector. However, there are features in service accommodation that mean that we must consider carefully the approach that will work best in practice. This includes the fact that significant proportions of this accommodation are located on secure military sites. The department is therefore working closely with the Ministry of Defence and local authorities to urgently explore these matters and work out how this can be done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and others raised local authority funding. We are fully aware that local authorities need to prioritise taking enforcement action against criminal landlords and that it is essential to the effective implementation of the reforms. We are taking steps to facilitate and resource action against landlords who flout the rules. The new property portal will support local authorities in their enforcement action. It will provide information sources to enable local authorities to take action, and we are extending ring-fenced penalties to support a “polluter pays” approach. We will also ensure that net additional costs that may fall on local authorities are fully funded, and we have already taken action to support local authorities now. Our pathfinder programme has allocated £14 million to test innovative ways to create sustainable enforcement teams that can be shared across all local authorities. In addition, our healthy homes project provides funding for local authorities to test ways of increasing the compliance of landlords in tackling damp and mould.
On pet notice periods, while I appreciate that tenants will want their requests answered as quickly as possible, 28 days seems to be too short, following discussions. A landlord could be on holiday or there may be other reasons why they have not responded within a 28-day period. Therefore, we suggest that 48 days gives reasonable time for landlords but prevents them delaying indefinitely.
Regarding affordability, the local housing allowance and rent increases, some noble Lords rightly highlighted concerns about the affordability of housing; others expressed their concern about being able to charge market rates—I will try to try cover both of those points. We recognise the cost of living pressures that tenants face and that paying rent is likely to be a tenant’s biggest monthly expense. The Government are investing £1.2 billion in restoring local housing allowances, and raising them, and that significant investment means many of these low-income households will gain a significant amount of money to help them towards their rental costs. For those most in need, discretionary housing payments are available to help meet housing costs, and the household support fund has been extended to March 2024 to help with the cost of essentials. I will check those dates for the House—I just said March 2024 and we are beyond that, so I will check and make sure we correct it.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank noble Lords.
Some noble Lords were concerned that the Bill restricts landlords’ ability to charge a market rent. I will be very clear: this Government do not believe in rent controls, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Nothing in this Bill prevents landlords increasing rents to the market rate each year or dictates what rent they can charge at the start of a tenancy. Tenants can appeal above-market-rate increases to the First-tier Tribunal, which will make an objective assessment and determine whether to raise, or indeed lower, the proposed rent. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to the First-tier Tribunal—I think he wanted it to go. We are working closely with the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary to assess the impact on the First-tier Tribunal of this new Bill. We anticipate that the reforms will lead to an increase in cases, but we will ensure that the tribunal has the capacity to deal with these cases.
Regarding overall supply, noble Lords asked what measures in the Bill will mean for supply in the private rental sector. I will try to reassure noble Lords—if not today, maybe as we go through the Bill—including the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Carrington, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that there is no evidence to suggest that a fairer private rental sector for tenants and landlords will lead to a reduction in supply. The statistics I have from the department suggest that the sector doubled in size from 2004, peaking in 2016, and has remained roughly stable since then; we will continue to monitor the impacts. New costs to landlords are expected to amount to a tiny fraction of average annual rents, at approximately £10 per landlord in England. We are by no means complacent and recognise the vital role that good landlords play in providing homes for millions of people across the country. That is why the Bill requires the department to provide an annual update to Parliament on the state of the private rented sector, to include stock, size and location of properties.
With regards to social housing supply, noble Lords have heard me talk at this Dispatch Box, on a number of occasions, about the affordable homes programme of £11.5 billion. I will not rehearse those arguments today in the interests of time, but they underpin the supply part of the equation. Since 2010, there have been an additional 482,000 affordable homes for rent, of which 172,600 are for social rent.
On retired clergy, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford raised concerns that the Church of England Pensions Board will no longer be able to evict existing tenants to house retired clergy. The way this has been achieved until now is through the use of Section 21, which we are abolishing. Ground 5 allows landlords to evict tenants from properties which are usually held to allow ministers of religion to perform their duties when needed again for that purpose. She is therefore correct that the ground will not apply in situations where they wish to house retired clergy. We have carefully considered the needs of tenants and religious organisations when reviewing the grounds for possession, and we believe that the ground balances the unique needs of the sector—ensuring that religious ministers can occupy properties where needed to carry out their duties—with the rights of existing tenants.
I will write to the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Warwick, about the ground 1B impact on social landlords and how we will select the administrator for the PRS ombudsman. I bow to the experience of ombudsmen of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, which is much greater than mine, but I can tell her that the Bill allows for government either to select a scheme through an open competition or to appoint a provider to deliver a designated scheme. To reiterate, we have not made a final decision on what is happening, and we are not ruling out the possibility of delivering this through alternative provision. Our priority is choosing a provider that offers a high-quality, value-for-money service. I will seek the clarification that she has asked for and will revert with more detail on the process being used as discussions continue on the Bill.
On the cost of the ombudsman, which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, raised, it is right that the landlords pay for this scheme. It is in line with common practice for funding other redress schemes, including for social landlords, who pay some £5.75 per unit for membership of the Housing Ombudsman scheme. We will ensure that the fee for private rental is proportionate and good value.
On portal offences, local authorities will have a duty to enforce where landlords fail to comply with their portal obligations. Tenants who become aware that a landlord is, for example, not registered on the portal or has provided inaccurate information can contact their local authority so that they can take the appropriate enforcement action.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, that we recognise the importance of having a healthy supply of private rented homes at affordable prices in all parts of the country, which is why we are taking decisive steps to stop short-term lets undermining the supply of long-term homes for local people. This includes abolishing the furnished holiday lettings tax regime, introducing a national mandatory register of short-term lets, and introducing a new planning use class for short-term lets.
On the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that we should introduce a specialist housing court, we do not think that this is the best way to improve the court process for possession. This view is shared by the judiciary, which responded to our call for evidence. A new housing court would not address the concerns raised by landlords, such as the timeliness and complexity of the processes. We are committed to reforming the court system instead. Indeed, the majority of tenancies end without ever going to court. For those that do, where court reform is necessary, we will make sure that the system is working. The new system will have great new training for the analogue system to do the immediate new contracts, followed by digitisation. I am a lot more optimistic that new, large digitisation projects can now be delivered on time, and I am confident that we will be able to scope and deliver this as quickly as needed.
If it is okay with the House, I will continue, as there is not much left. On the portal duplicating the work of selective licensing, unlike the property portal, selective licensing schemes aim to target specific local issues by enabling more intensive, proactive enforcement strategies. The two are therefore complementary and do not prevent each other from working.
The question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, was very detailed and, I am sure, very precise. I will write to him on it once my department’s legal experts have had time to consider his points—otherwise, I am in danger of stepping into waters that I cannot.
With regard to the comments on guarantors, we recognise that some tenants have difficulties in meeting such requirements. The use of guarantors and upfront rent can give landlords confidence to rent to individuals they might otherwise not choose to, but we will continue to carefully monitor both practices, to ensure that they are not having an adverse effect on the market. We have already committed to limiting upfront rent through the Tenant Fees Act if necessary.
With regard to the death of a tenant, we are extending the period for ground 7 to be used. The Government are aware that tenants who have been living in a property for a while may reasonably believe that they have a right to remain living there, which is why we have introduced an extension from 12 to 24 months to help resolve cases where disputes might arise, particularly for grieving tenants.
With regard to legal aid, which was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Lister, the Ministry of Justice is investing an additional £10 million a year in housing legal aid through the non-means-tested Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service—HLPAS—to give people the best chance of keeping their home when they fall into difficult financial times. Through this scheme, tenants can receive free, non-means-tested advice as soon as they receive written notice that their landlord is seeking possession of their home. The MoJ is funding a panel of specialist legal advisors to provide grant funding for the recruitment of trainee solicitors to support that endeavour. Free on-the-day legal help will continue to be available when a tenant is facing the loss of their home at a possession hearing in the county court.
It is true that private landlords must meet existing minimum efficiency standards—the MEES regulations—which are set at EPC E. Although we will not tighten that requirement, as we have in the social sector, we will work with landlords. We are currently investing some £6 billion this Parliament and a further £6 billion to 2028 on making buildings cleaner and warmer; this is in addition to the £5 billion that will be delivered through the energy company obligation, ECO4, and the Great British insulation scheme up until March 2026. Landlords can and should participate in these schemes to upgrade their properties.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords—
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this. In relation to the comments that the Minister made on ongoing discussions about the role of the landlord ombudsman, could she undertake to ensure that the following is taken into account? The Cabinet Office guidance makes clear the importance of avoiding
“multiple redress schemes within individual industry sectors”,
and goes on to note that this is best achieved
“by utilising existing Ombudsman schemes”.
I hope she will take that into account, or ensure that it is taken into account.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I will take that into account, but I also extend an invitation to the noble Baroness to meet my team to discuss this in more detail.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Just before the Minister sits down, I have a very simple and short question; it is the one I raised right at the beginning of my contribution. Is it the Government’s view that this Bill will increase the availability of rental accommodation, or not?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
As a quick answer, I cannot give the noble Lord that clarification. The intention here is to improve the quality of private rental sector stock, improve tenants’ rights and make sure that landlords have the ability to get back their property when they require it. With regard to the numbers, I will go back to officials in the department and ask for an assessment of whether they think that it will increase the supply. They tell me they do not think it will decrease the supply; I will now go back and ask whether it might increase it.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank the Minister for that very worthy answer; these are very worthy objectives. I think the answer she is giving me is: “No, it’s not going to increase”, but I appreciate that she is not quite vocalising that. I think all the indications are that it will decrease it, but we shall see.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
As I said, there will be an annual report, which will monitor in detail the impact of the Bill, and going forward we will have the data in granular detail as a result of the private rented property portal, once it is established.
Lord Frost (Con)
I apologise. I too do not want to prolong this, but I and a number of noble Lords mentioned concern about the abolition of fixed-term tenancies. The Minister mentioned that briefly at the start of her summing up. Will she undertake to set out in a little more detail—not now, but on a future occasion or in writing—the Government’s reasoning as to why it is necessary to abolish fixed-term tenancies, as well as Section 21, as an option?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I undertake to do that. I invite all Peers who would like to do so to come to discuss these things in detail over the course of the passage of the Bill. I will put further dates forward ahead of Committee, so please make use of them. I am available to have those discussions throughout.
I believe the Renters (Reform) Bill honours the Government’s 2019 manifesto commitment to create a private rented sector that works for everyone and to level up housing policy in this country. The reforms in the Bill will give tenants greater security in their homes for generations to come. The Bill will also support landlords, ensuring that they have the confidence to invest—to invest more, we hope—in the private rented sector in England. I look forward to working with noble Lords during the passage of this important Bill.
Baroness Swinburne
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 to 26, Schedule 2, Clauses 27 to 65, Schedule 3, Clauses 66 to 90, Schedule 4, Clause 91, Schedule 5, Clauses 92 to 138, Schedule 6, Clauses 139 and 140, Title.