Prayers
09:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 0 / Noes: 37 - Question accordingly negatived.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
Licensing Hours Extensions Bill
Friday 17th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Licensing Hours Extensions Bill 2023-24 View all Licensing Hours Extensions Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is the first time, but I sincerely hope not the last time, that I have proposed legislation in this House that has not only enjoyed strong cross-party support throughout all stages of its passage, but strong support outside this place. There has not been a single objection to the Bill from the police, local authorities, the public or, which is to be expected, the hospitality industry. In fact, the industry has been asking for this small legislative change for some time now, and It has asked for it because it makes sense.
I want to apologise in advance that this speech is a little dull and technical, but it is important that the details of what I am proposing are made clear to the House, a point I discussed at length with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who I am sorry is not with us in his usual Friday slot today.
Love for our pubs is strong across all our constituencies. If there is one thing guaranteed to unite us, it is sporting and royal events. We tend to gather for these events in our local pubs, because they are the beating heart of our communities. As hon. Members will know, such events do not always take place when our pubs and hospitality venues are open, which is why the Licensing Act 2003 makes two provisions for licence extension. First, individual licensed premises can apply to their local authority for a temporary event notice. Each application costs £21 and takes a minimum of five working days to be approved, although it often takes longer. The provision is not designed for scenarios in which many venues across the country wish to extend their licensing hours at short notice and at the same time, so a second provision, under section 172 of the 2003 Act, enables licensing extensions for
“an occasion of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
That allows the Government to make a relaxation order applicable to all premises in England and Wales, specifying the dates and times of the relaxation, which cannot exceed four days.
Such orders, which are made under section 197 of the 2003 Act, are subject to the affirmative procedure and need approval from both Houses of Parliament. Best practice is for the Home Secretary to complete a public consultation, and then for both Houses to debate the order, which can take up to six months to implement. As mentioned on Second Reading, the process has been used for the coronation of His Majesty the King, the 90th birthday and platinum jubilee of Her late Majesty, the 2011 and 2018 royal weddings, the 2014 FIFA World cup, and the Euro 2020 final in 2021.
Last summer, our whole country was immensely proud of our Lionesses reaching the women’s World cup final. As hon. Members will recall, we found out only four days before the match that our Lionesses had made the final. It was taking place on a Sunday in Sydney, and there was an 11-hour time difference. The match kicked off at 11 am, with many venues unable to serve alcohol until 11 am or 12 noon. There was no time left for them to apply to their local authority for a temporary event notice and, because Parliament was in recess, there was no mechanism for the Government to issue an extension. Our communities missed out on all the pre-match excitement and much-needed extra revenue.
Clause 1 will allow the Home Secretary or Ministers to make an extension order in similar situations without going through the costly, overly bureaucratic, time-consuming and restrictive process that exists now. Clause 2 simply states that the Bill will come into force on the day it gains Royal Assent, and will extend to England and Wales only. The Bill does not propose a change to the circumstances with which discretion may be exercised by the Home Secretary. The provisions in section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003, which relate to the length, purpose and consultation requirements of any relaxation order, will remain intact.
This is a Bill to simplify the parliamentary process, not to change the substance of the Licensing Act’s provisions. Using the negative procedure instead of the affirmative procedure does not remove parliamentarians’ voices on applications. As Members will know, the majority of statutory instruments are laid before Parliament under the negative procedure, and there is a process for objecting to them or having them annulled, both in this place and in the other place.
Next week, the Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA European Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2021 is due for debate. Like all previous extension orders of this kind, it is very likely that it will pass through both Houses unopposed. Considering the many problems that our constituents and the country are facing right now, it is a waste of precious parliamentary time to debate an uncontentious order that has such cross-party and public support.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I recall spending many hours as a Home Office Minister taking through statutory instruments for exactly this kind of occasion, even though nobody opposed them and everybody could see that they were very good, particularly for the hospitality industry. I declare an interest: my brother is a pub landlord and my father was before him, so I know how much such orders matter. I fully support the hon. Lady’s Bill. Does she agree that these events are exactly the kinds of times when we need to get together in the great British pub?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention, and I hope that her family welcome the Bill as well. Like much of our hospitality industry through covid, pubs were absolutely battered. While this Bill is small and will not apply all the time, when it does apply, the revenue that our local hospitality venues and pubs will gain from it will make a huge difference to them.
Even with my Bill, the Government fully intend to continue to plan ahead so that, wherever possible, licensing hours extension orders can be brought forward with sufficient time for public consultation and notice, as they have been for the upcoming Euros licensing order next week. This Bill has received such support because it is straightforward and sensible. I am sure that we all look forward to joining our constituents down one of our brilliant locals in celebrating the next national, sporting or royal event. I commend the Bill to the House.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on the success of her private Member’s Bill, and I am delighted to join colleagues from across the House in speaking in favour of its provisions. The United Kingdom is a nation that likes to support our national teams and our chosen football teams. For any sporting or ceremonial event, whether the Olympics, the Paralympics, the football World cup, the Euros, the Ashes, coronations or royal weddings—I could go on —when our teams, our sportspeople and our royalty are doing well, we want to support them. And where better to support them and celebrate than in our local pub or sports or social club? These are venues where we want to share our joys and woes, often with like-minded people. That is why this Bill to provide a blanket extension of licensing hours makes sense—to allow people to gather to mark an occasion of exceptional international, national or local significance.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about moments of celebration in pubs. She represents the Cities of London and Westminster, and I expect that she has the most pubs in any single constituency. While it may be unfair for her to single out just one, I wonder whether there is a particular sporting occasion, or other occasion of joy, where she has—certainly—enjoyed that in a pub locally.
Nickie Aiken
There have actually been far too many to be able to name them. As my right hon. Friend says, there are so many amazing venues in my constituency. I think that, at my last count, we had 13,000 licensed premises in Westminster alone, and as a former licensing chair of Westminster Council, the largest licensing authority in the country, I can say with some authority that we have amazing licensed premises here.
As the hon. Member for South Shields says, the alternative to this Bill is to go with temporary event notices, which are used for individual businesses looking to extend their hours. I know, from my experience as a licensing chair, that those are a bureaucratic nightmare for licensing authorities—especially for a city centre such as Westminster, central Manchester, Birmingham or wherever—and the £21 charge never matches the cost of the administration of those temporary event notices. This Bill will do away with that time-consuming bureaucracy.
In practice, the blanket extension orders go unopposed, and the public are often in favour of proposed licensing hours extensions. Some 85% of respondents to the consultation were in favour of an extension for this year’s Euros, and 77% were in favour of one during the King’s coronation.
Another important point to make is that there is a massive, vital economic benefit from this Bill. Pubs and late-night venues in my constituency employ more than 22,000 people and turn over £1 billion each year; it is the No. 1 constituency for turnover, and economic value, from the hospitality industry in the UK. That is just in central London, but pubs and other venues play a vital role in the local economy of every part of the United Kingdom. The Bill will support them. We know the hospitality industry has had a tough time over the past five years.
While I welcome making the process to extend opening hours easier, it is important to remember that such extensions will see an increase in the consumption of alcohol. Sadly, often, that will result in an increase in antisocial behaviour and disturbances for residents. The extension order for the 2020 Euros final allowed for an extra 45 minutes of serving time. However, for the 2024 Euros, the Government consultation proposed extending licensing hours by two hours, meaning many pubs will close at 1 am.
I am sure everyone in the House agrees that we do not want to see a repeat of what happened during the 2020 Euros, when Trafalgar Square, in my constituency, was the scene of some very unruly behaviour, including excess drinking and revellers climbing on buildings and buses. It was an absolute nightmare. I am aware of residents’ concerns about the current licensing application for the fanzone for this year’s Champions League final, which will allow up to 20,000 people to gather in Trafalgar Square and a further 30,000 in Victoria Embankment Gardens.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the hon. Member for her fulsome support for my Bill. I stress to her and to the House that there will be continued consultation with the police and local authorities, even when the regulations in the Bill are in play. We are simply changing the parliamentary process, not the process that happens outside this place. I want to give her that assurance.
Nickie Aiken
I absolutely accept that point. I just want to take the opportunity to ensure we do not forget that, in my constituency in central London, we have a massive and vital hospitality industry, which employs tens of thousands of people, but we also have residents living cheek by jowl with those premises, many of them in social housing. I visited a social housing block in Mayfair last week. People do not expect to see social housing in places like that, but we have social housing in Mayfair, Belgravia, Soho and Marylebone, and it is important we do not forget that.
The UK should take pride in hosting internationally renowned competitions, such as the Euros and the Champions League final, and make provision for those seeking to celebrate them. I understand why the Government and the Greater London Authority want to have fanzones, but I am also aware that local councillors, businesses and residents in the St James’s ward object to the licensing application for the fanzone on the basis that the venue and location are wholly unsuitable. Local residents are particularly sad because they feel that there has been a lack of consultation in the process.
I note what the hon. Member for South Shields says about the Bill being about the parliamentary process, which is why I support it. In this day and age, it is ridiculous that we have had to have the House of Commons and the other place agree to extending licensing hours for an hour, or whatever, just for one day, so I appreciate and support the changes in the Bill. However, we have to remember the knock-on effect of extended licensing on the police and local councils.
When the licensing hours were extended for the 2020 Euros, we saw huge amounts of waste and litter across the west end. Westminster City Council collected 20 tonnes of waste over 19 hours during and after the historic England versus Italy final, with the use of 20 vehicles. As ever, I take my hat off to the cleansing services of Westminster City Council: they deliver every time we have a major celebration or protest. They clean up and people would never think anything had happened. However, such events put a strain on local authority spending, particularly in Westminster, where we are not provided with extra Government funding to undertake the cleansing after those special events. Again, I know that the Metropolitan police spend a lot of time and resources putting in extra police officers to police these events.
I note what the hon. Member for South Shields said. It is crucial that police and local authorities are provided with the guidance and support they need during national celebrations and moments of national significance when licensing hours are extended. For my long-term goal, we need to make sure that residents living close to hospitality venues and those within licensed hours are considered in any extension. I absolutely accept that the consultation system is not changing under the Bill, which I welcome.
I welcome the Bill, which I see as a move to simplify the process of extending licensing hours within the parliamentary process when needed. I look forward to seeing the Bill complete its journey through this and the other place.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to stand in support of the Bill on Third Reading. I commend and congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who has navigated this important Bill, which, though small, will have a significant impact on the wellness and joy of people throughout England and Wales. She came into the House in a by-election in 2013 and has always made a positive impact. She has, of course, been diligent in her constituency work, but I hope she will be toasted in every pub the next time a licence is used in the way introduced by this change in law.
The Licensing Act 2003 was important legislation. The reason for that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) set out, is that while we want hospitality to thrive in many ways, for people living very near a pub or other venues, those venues can have a big impact on their lives. That is why the processes that are gone through are important. I do not know the rationale for deciding, more than 20 years ago, that it was important to make this particular legislation via the affirmative resolution procedure, but it is sensible and pragmatic streamlining to switch to the negative resolution procedure.
This simple legislative change will not make bureaucracy a thing of the past; it is important that the appropriate procedures go through. However, we often think about how Parliament needs to be in touch with the challenges that people have. It may not be the greatest challenge in the world that a pub cannot open longer for a particular event, but when we try to explain to people that the reason such a change cannot be made is that Parliament is not sitting because it is having a summer break, there is an element of, “Let’s look at that again.” That is why the hon. Member for South Shields was wise to pick up and work with the Government on this modest change.
On the negative resolution procedure more broadly, within Parliament, and in particular the other House, I would say there has been an anti-negative resolutions revolution in the passing of secondary legislation. About 80% of our regulations are made through the negative route. There will be a variety of reasons as to why it is unpopular for certain aspects, partly because, if people object to those statutory instruments, although there is quite a systematic process, it is not always easy to get a particular vote on it, particularly in this House. One thing it has done is to clog up a lot of parliamentary activity, with more and more time being spent on modest pieces of legislation that really do not need further consideration, apart from the wisdom of discussions or debates that could be had outside of what is quite a formal parliamentary process. That is why I think this matters.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster might not want to single one pub out in her constituency. For what it is worth, I live in her constituency when I am carrying out my parliamentary duties, and I go to the White Swan on Vauxhall Bridge Road to watch sport. I think it is really good. It has a fantastic TikTok account. Don’t worry, I am not expecting a free Guinness—I would not abuse my position in that way. I had hoped to be having moments of joy this Sunday, with Liverpool winning the Premier League. Sadly, that is not going to be the case, and I expect we will end up third, but I am going to a Liverpool fans’ pub in London in the afternoon with some friends. It is that sense of community and of coming together that really matters.
Covid has had so many impacts on our country: not just the huge amount of investment that was put in, which we are now paying for across the UK, but what it did to community and the anxious generation we now have of people who interact solely on something like this phone—I am using it to look at the legislation today. For me, what is critical is not just drowning our sorrows by going to a pub, but that sense of occasion. I remember the joy of some of the sporting events I have been lucky enough to go to in person. That sort of joy can be replicated, and it need not necessarily be in a pub; it can be in a community hall or at other sorts of temporary events. However, it is vital, not only for economic reasons, but for genuine societal reasons, that we make it as straightforward as possible for Parliament to allow these things to happen. While we still have a moderate amount of regulation in recognising what licensing conditions may apply and what concerns local residents or businesses may have, I come back to my original point: this simple change, meaning that it does not matter whether Parliament is sitting, is the key element of this legislation.
I am going to be shameless and name a few more pubs in my constituency. I forgot to do so in discussing previous bits of legislation. I even served on the hon. Member for South Shields’ Bill Committee and did not do it. I cannot name them all, but I have been to every single pub in my constituency; that is the reason I won the beer parliamentarian of the year award over a decade ago, and still have the mug to prove it—though I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no beer in the Chamber today. But who knows? We might crack on over in the Strangers Bar if it is open later, to toast the hon. Lady’s success in getting the Bill through this House.
We undoubtedly have a lot of events in Europe coming up, but it is important to recognise our international community here in this country and people’s desire not only to watch sports here, of course, but to watch sporting events with their home teams in different parts of the world. I had better not get into too much trouble by naming loads of pubs, but—
Nickie Aiken
My right hon. Friend is making a very excellent speech. She asked me for my favourite watering hole in my constituency. I think it is only fair, surely, that she names one pub that she went to.
Dr Coffey
Of course there is the Felixstowe Conservative Club, which is very good in that regard, but I must admit that when I go to watch sports, I have been to the Douglas Bader in Martlesham Heath and I love going to the Anchor in Woodbridge. My first home was in a village called Westleton, where I used to go to the White Horse Inn a lot. There are just so many. Not all of them show football, and I must do better in ensuring that I get down to many more pubs in Felixstowe, where that does seem to happen.
However, I will continue to champion and go around pubs, and I now have a great excuse, with the hon. Member for South Shields’ Bill, to explain why Parliament is going to make life for our hospitality sector a lot easier. We have a great brewery and pub chain called Adnams in Southwold in my constituency. Adnams still owns a lot of pubs, some managed, some tenanted, and I hope it will take full advantage of this great opportunity. So without further ado, I am really pleased to be here on a Friday to support this legislation, I am sure the Lords will toast it as well, and I look forward to sharing a glass or two in the Strangers Bar later today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am afraid the Strangers Bar is closed. I am sorry to bring such bad news, but I think the House of Lords bar may be open—you never know. I am a former president of the all-party parliamentary group on beer, so I do not think we could have a more appropriate Chair for this particular debate.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for introducing this important Bill and for all her commendable work on it so far. I am sure that pubs up and down the country will be grateful for her work on the Bill if it passes.
I also pay tribute to all Members who have contributed today and at other stages, particularly the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), as well as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), whose constituency has some of the best pubs in London, of which she should be proud. Anyone here on a Friday should take a stroll through the City of London, because it is beautiful and there are some incredible gems in its tiny streets. Tourists often just wander around looking for something, and they will most likely come across those wonderful pubs.
I absolutely recognise the issues that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster highlighted about the potential impact on residents of the measures. In inner-London boroughs, as she said, pubs are often close to residential areas. However, as she will know, having spent time on licensing committees, local authorities and police spend a lot of time on ensuring that licences come with conditions in order to prevent such issues.
I will acknowledge some of the wonderful pubs in my Enfield North constituency, but before I do, let me say that it has been a pleasure to see the Bill pass through this House with cross-party support. As we have heard, the Bill amends section 197 of the Licensing Act 2003, granting our hospitality sector more freedom to extend licensing hours with shorter notice, and giving the Government of the day the ability to respond to the needs of the industry. That would allow our communities to celebrate events of national significance in hospitality venues for longer, providing a welcome boost to businesses and fans.
As we have heard, when our Lionesses progressed in Australia and New Zealand to reach England’s first World cup final since 1966, there was a missed opportunity at home, where progress stalled. Pubs, bars and restaurants could open from 10 am on the day of the final, but could not serve customers until 11. Licensing hours were not extended, despite requests, because Parliament was in recess, so it was too late. Businesses missed the opportunity to serve customers early, and supporters were denied the chance to get behind their team. With England and Scotland set for the European championships, another busy summer of sport will provide a welcome boost to our hospitality sector, which has suffered so much over the past few years.
If football is to come home again this summer, we must ensure that our hospitality sector is ready to embrace it. I know that the Bill will not solve all the problems facing the industry, but it will provide the sector with the welcome boost that it is asking for. From speaking to those at the many pubs in my Enfield North constituency, including the Plough, the Wonder and the Cricketers—where I go every Sunday with my children —I know that they support the proposals in the Bill.
Let us be clear: our hospitality sector brings a huge boost to the UK economy. In 2022 alone, it generated £54 billion in tax receipts and £7 billion-worth of business investment. Clearly, what benefits our pubs benefits local communities, but the impact goes much further: a staggering 42% of tourists want to visit a pub when visiting the UK. They are a vital part of our communities, high streets and households. I know that many Members present today will share that view, yet we are currently denying pubs, bars and restaurants the full opportunity to benefit. It is clearly an opportunity, so for the reasons set out today, the Bill should progress.
The negative resolution procedure would allow an order to be debated if successfully requested by any parliamentarian, and the option of consultation would be retained, meaning that concerns will be considered, so relative safeguards are in place. It is common sense that the Bill should proceed, and I am delighted to support it and my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, today.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, and for the charm and expertise with which she has piloted it through the House. This is probably the shortest Bill I have ever been involved with as a Minister; I think the longest one was the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which ran to about 220 clauses and several hundred pages. This Bill is a model of pith and conciseness —if only every Bill were as simple.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on marshalling both sides of the House behind her Bill, and I thank the Members who have spoken today. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), for her support; my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for talking about the pubs in her constituency, here in the heart of London, and for bringing to bear her expertise as a former chair of licensing at Westminster City Council; and, of course, my right hon. Friend the incomparable Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who brought to bear her very extensive experience in this area that she has diligently amassed over many years, across the length and breadth of the kingdom. There are few colleagues with greater or deeper expertise than my right hon. Friend when it comes to visiting pubs, which I intend as a profound compliment.
As we have heard, this Bill amends section 172 of the Licensing Act, which already makes provision for the Secretary of State to make orders relaxing licensing hours in England and Wales on occasions of exceptional international, national, or even local significance.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Under that definition —international, national and local significance—tomorrow is the play-off final at Wembley between Oxford United and Bolton Wanderers. Would that qualify under the changes in the Bill, and since the play-off is tomorrow, can the Minister make sure that all parts of the Bill have completed their passage by that time?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend will have noticed that the second and final clause of the Bill states that the Act will come into force on the day on which it is passed, but of course it has to complete its passage through the other place first, so unfortunately, I do not think that play-off final will benefit from these provisions. Whether a play-off final between such auspicious teams as Bolton Wanderers and Oxford United would qualify as an event under this Bill would be for the Home Secretary of the day to determine. In all seriousness, although the parliamentary mechanism is being changed from the affirmative resolution procedure to the negative resolution procedure, the underlying criteria are not changing; I do not think we would want to usher in a wholesale change of licensing hours through this mechanism. The threshold is quite high and it is used fairly rarely, so I would like to temper expectations. We do not expect the provisions to be used indiscriminately, although that in no way detracts from the importance of the game taking place at Wembley—obviously I wish both teams the best of luck.
These orders will benefit businesses, as we have heard, allowing them to stay open for longer when important events are taking place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, it is much easier to use blanket licensing extensions than to require pubs to go through the onerous, expensive and tedious process of applying for a temporary event notice from their local authority. This approach is much better.
To give a flavour of the kind of events that might qualify for these provisions, they might include things such as His Majesty the King’s coronation last year, Her late Majesty the Queen’s 90th birthday and her platinum jubilee, the royal weddings in 2018 and 2011, and the Euros final in 2020. If anyone is wondering whether the Bill will apply to future England appearances in finals, let me say that, while that might be more in hope than expectation, we should none the less legislate in hope.
We have already heard Members set out the reasons why we should make this change, which has commanded widespread support. We have heard that such games can often arise at relatively short notice—for example, England reaching the final, which has been referred to. When Parliament is not sitting, it is obviously not possible to use the affirmative resolution procedure, although let me be clear: even with the negative resolution procedure, scrutiny is possible. Where necessary, it is possible to pray against resolutions made under the negative procedure, so if a Member feels strongly, they can obviously pray against the instrument in the normal way.
As Minister for crime and policing, I am obviously aware of how important it is to consult the police regularly and make sure that they are happy that, where we extend licensing hours, that will not cause any undue problems with public order. It is important that the Home Secretary of the day consults the police appropriately to make sure that risk is considered, but I am sure that will not stop the power being used when appropriate. As I have said, the power in section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 has been used relatively sparingly, and that approach is not going to change. The test is an event of exceptional significance, which imposes quite a high bar.
To make just one final point, for the avoidance of doubt, this instrument applies only in England and Wales, because it amends the Licensing Act 2003, which applies only to England and Wales. Licensing is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which I assume explains why there are no Members from either Scotland or Northern Ireland joining us this morning to hear about all the pubs in the constituencies of the various Members who have spoken—in which context, I should commend the pubs in Croydon South, such as The Fox in Coulsdon and the Wattenden Arms up by Kenley airfield. [Interruption.] Of course, there is a Member from Scotland sitting right behind me, who I did not notice.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
The Minister is making an excellent speech. I, too, give my wholehearted support to the Bill, on behalf of pubs across Scotland and in my constituency. It might not have a direct impact there, but we recognise its importance right across the United Kingdom and the important message it sends, so I thank the Minister —and remind him that I am still from Scotland.
Chris Philp
I offer my abject and heartfelt apologies for overlooking my hon. Friend, who is sitting right behind me. She is Scotland’s only voice in Parliament today, and Scotland is all the better off for her presence here—particularly on this side of the House, where she belongs, and where she is very welcome and held in high regard and great affection.
There are many Bills to get through today, and I do not wish to test the patience of the House or colleagues by speaking for too long. I fear that the most popular words in any speech I give are the words “and finally,” so—and finally I thank once again the hon. Member for South Shields, who has piloted the Bill through Commons, and those who have spoken in support of it and served on the Bill Committee. This straightforward and simple measure will free up valuable parliamentary time, as we heard earlier, and allow the Government to respond in an agile way in what I hope is the likely event that teams from the home nations make progress in various international sporting events, meriting an extension to the licensing hours of this nation’s fine pubs. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
As I said on Second Reading, I get my love of the pub from my dad, who knows a good pint when he sees one, and from my mam, whose footsteps I followed in as an excellent barmaid. People who work in this industry deserve our support, and our communities deserve every opportunity they can get to come together for important events. I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who has long championed our capital’s pubs and nightlife, and to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who served on the Bill Committee. I also wish that my locals would all toast me, but as she was here on Second Reading, when I listed all the cracking local pubs in South Shields, she will know that that would result in a very sore head the next day.
I have many more people to thank: the Minister, the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), Home Office officials, the Public Bill Office, in particular Anne-Marie Griffiths, and my invaluable senior researcher, Rebecca Natton. I also thank the British Beer and Pub Association, the Night Time Industries Association, along with its chair and hospitality champion Sacha Lord, and on the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark). Finally, I wish to say a big “cheers” to the Government for supporting my Bill, and in commending it to the House, I say to the Minister, as I said to his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris), that I definitely owe him, and a lot more people, a drink.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Pensions (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill
Friday 17th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pensions (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill 2023-24 View all Pensions (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 May 2024 - (17 May 2024)
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 22, leave out from “force” to end of line 23 and insert—
“at the end of the period of four months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment would bring the provisions of the Bill which extend to England and Wales and Scotland, and section 1(5) which extends to England and Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland, into force four months after Royal Assent.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, page 2, line 1, leave out from “force” to end of line 2 and insert—
“at the end of the period of four months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment would bring the provisions of the Bill which extend only to Northern Ireland into force four months after Royal assent.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (7)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (8).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (9).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (10).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.
Dr Coffey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and to the Government and the Department for Work and Pensions. I have tabled these amendments because, as has been seen with other Bills to which we have given Third Reading, they concern the timing of when an Act comes into effect. I am conscious that there are a number of situations where more work needs to be done to get some of the details and guidance, and other elements like that. Regrettably, for a variety of pieces of legislation, waiting for the Secretary of State to create regulations has somewhat delayed the introduction after Royal Assent of the effect of the Act that so many people have worked hard to achieve.
I am not in any way trying to detract from the regulator or from the Department for Work and Pensions, of which I was proud to be the Secretary of State, but I am particularly conscious about the uncertainty of the timing of a general election. Of course there are still procedures that can be done to some extent, but those who have held ministerial office will know some of the challenges that take place in terms of process, procedure, and different Cabinet committees. Put simply—this is why I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to the Government for listening to my concerns—the amendments would remove extra steps of process. That matters because I am keen to see the Bill enacted. I am not seeking in any way to hold it up. I want certainty about making it happen, and I was concerned about the uncertainty of timing. I was careful to check that the amendments would not affect the legislative consent motion that has already passed the Northern Ireland Assembly. If there is any way that they do, I have not been made aware of that—I have been given the opposite assurance.
I am keen to ensure that the United Kingdom moves together. We have two formally separate systems. These are transferred powers—they have always been powers for the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly to deal with—but I know that the Executive and the Assembly have been keen, particularly in social security matters, for the United Kingdom to proceed in step so that we do not give different treatment to the same things, especially when we all pay the same tax and we all tend to have the same service providers.
After careful consideration, I wanted to ensure that the Bill becomes law in a timely fashion, without the need for further process, and that is why I will be pressing my amendments.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for tabling her amendments and for discussing them with me over the last few days. We have worked to try to ensure that the best outcome is found. She makes the point that when there is a general election coming, albeit that that is an unusual circumstance—one hopes that it will arise only every five years—it throws things into doubt. The last thing we would want is for the Bill to get Royal Assent and then, for some reason—probably the election—not come into force. I understand where she is coming from on that.
I also thank the Minister and the Government for discussing these issues and coming to an agreement to accept the amendments. I am certainly very happy to accept them. There is no need for me to drag proceedings out any further at this point. I thank all concerned for their work.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I rise just to seek some reassurance on the amendments. I am not at all against them in principle—when I read them on the amendment paper, I could understand what the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) was attempting to do and exactly why—but it strikes me that they rather run roughshod over established procedures, particularly with respect to the devolved Administrations, by giving quite a strict timetable. I wonder whether the Minister could reassure the House. Although it is not the case here, the changes made by Bills can often be quite complex and have to be made appropriately, and putting a very hard stop in a Bill, regardless of context, sets rather a difficult precedent.
Although I do not object to what the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal is trying to do, I was slightly surprised by the bulldozer approach that the amendments create. In this circumstance it is manageable, but it might not be quite so manageable in other, more complex circumstances. I suppose I seek some reassurance from the Minister about the precedent that the amendments will set. How wide will it go? Are we going to start including in Bills a precise timetable for when they will be put into effect, with a hard stop, regardless of their complexity?
I understand that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) wants his Bill—we all want this to be done quickly—but there are some precedents being created here that would be slightly worrying if they were to extend more widely. I wonder whether the Minister might give us some thoughts and insights in that respect. I want to make it clear that the Opposition do not object to the Bill at all, but I am quite surprised by the innovative way in which the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal has sought to pursue her desire to get this thing done quickly.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for her considered amendments, and for the reasoned arguments behind them. I know that she has been engaging extensively with our excellent officials at the DWP, whom she knows extremely well.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) asked about innovations. My right hon. Friend is incredibly innovative, and I am not surprised that that is attracting attention. Let me also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) for the attentive way in which he has listened to all this. As for the question of precedent, it is not unusual for Bills to have set commencement dates when we are sure that they can be commenced on the date in question. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady.
I think we can all agree that we want the provisions in the Bill to be commenced with minimal delay. They are important, and will provide much-needed financial support up to six months earlier than is currently the case for those who have received the devastating news that they have a terminal illness. My right hon. Friend is clearly mindful of that following her own experience in the DWP, and it is what is driving these changes. They build on the work that the Department began in 2022, under her formidable and inspiring leadership. She will be only too well aware of the importance that the Department has placed on doing all that it can to help people at these difficult times.
The amendments are intended to ensure that the Bill specifies the point at which the provisions will come into force. They provide for this to be a period of four months after the Bill has received Royal Assent. Putting the commencement date on the face of the Bill would mean that the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations commencing the provisions, or transitional or saving provisions, would no longer be necessary, and amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6 seek to remove all those provisions. Similar amendments are made to the provisions covering Northern Ireland, and at this point it may be prudent to remind the House that the Northern Ireland Assembly has already provided a legislative consent order for the Bill as drafted. I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend.
When the Bill was drafted towards the end of last year, it was unclear to the Department how quickly the Pension Protection Fund would be able to implement the changes. The decision to commence them via a commencement order gave the Department the flexibility to ensure that the fund was in a position to implement the new conditions at commencement, and that the corresponding changes to the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 could be made at the same time. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), was very clear about commencement, saying:
“I can confirm today that the intention is for that to happen as soon as practicable after Royal Assent. I see no reason for delay or obfuscation.” ––[Official Report, Pensions (Special Rules for End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 24 April 2024; c. 10.]
Hopefully we are all agreed, and can all be assured that we have absolutely no intention of creating any unnecessary delay in enacting these vital measures, which will make a massive difference to people at the most difficult time in their lives, and, indeed, to their families, bringing real comfort.
At the end of Committee stage on 24 April, officials from the Department sought further clarification from the Pension Protection Fund on how quickly it could implement the changes. Its response was very positive, and I want to put on record our appreciation for the work it has been undertaking. It has confirmed that its internal teams have been working towards having everything ready by the beginning of July, the earliest date on which the Bill could potentially have received Royal Assent. I therefore confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal that DWP officials have been in touch with their counterparts in the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland, who have helpfully confirmed that they do not envisage any problem with commencing the relevant Northern Ireland provisions in a timely manner to retain parity across the United Kingdom.
Notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for Wallasey, and with that in mind, I see no reason why the Department cannot meet the new requirement that the amendments will impose, and I have recommended that the Government do not oppose them. I thank my right hon. Friend for raising her concerns and bringing them to the House in the manner and the style that she did.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments made: 4, page 2, line 1, leave out from “force” to end of line 2 and insert—
“at the end of the period of four months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment would bring the provisions of the Bill which extend only to Northern Ireland into force four months after Royal assent.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (7)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (8).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (9).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (10) —(Dr Coffey.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.
Third Reading
Mr Robertson
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am pleased that the Bill’s passage through the House has been relatively smooth, so I thank the Government and indeed the Opposition for their support. Although the Bill’s scope is narrow, it will provide financial assurance to those who have received the devastating diagnosis of a terminal illness and who have also seen the sponsors of their pension schemes become insolvent. The Bill will do that by amending the definition of the words “terminally ill”.
When someone receives the awful news that they may have only months to live, it is only right that financial problems should be the least of their worries. The loss of their rightful pension payments should not mean that they must live out their remaining time constrained by their financial circumstances. The Bill aims to address that problem directly.
For wider context, the Bill focuses on the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme. The Pension Protection Fund, established by the Pensions Act 2004, pays compensation to individuals when the sponsors of their defined-benefit schemes—usually their employers—become insolvent and lack the necessary assets to pay those pensions to the level that the Pension Protection Fund ordinarily would. That is for cases when such insolvency takes place on or after 6 April 2005. The financial assistance scheme applies to individuals whose pension schemes were unable to meet their pensions liabilities in full when those schemes started to wind up between 1 January 1997 and 5 April 2005. The Bill concerns the compensation payments made to people diagnosed with a terminal illness from those schemes.
The Pension Protection Fund provides a one-off lump sum payment to those who receive such a diagnosis, while the financial assistance scheme will begin to make payments to someone at any age. The issue that the Bill seeks to address is the definition of a terminal illness.
The Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme both use the same legal definition of terminal illness, which that is that
“a person is ‘terminally ill’ at any time if at that time the person suffers from a progressive disease and the person’s death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months.”
The same definition was used by the Department for Work and Pensions for the purpose of calculating benefits, but that was reformed in the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022, where the six-month period included in the definition of “terminally ill” was extended to 12 months. The change in definition for these two pension schemes seems only logical. That would keep the definition consistent with making social security payments.
It is difficult to say how many people will benefit from the Bill, and in reality we do not really want people to benefit as that would mean that the sponsors of their pension funds have become insolvent, which we do not want to see. However, where that is the case, this legislation will benefit terminally ill people.
The Bill’s scope is technically limited to the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme, but I hope it will encourage any workplace pension that does not have provision for terminal illness, where the member has a life expectancy of 12 months or less, to consider putting such a scheme into place. Depending on the scheme’s rules, many private pension schemes can already make what are called serious ill health payments under tax law, if the member has up to one year to live. The change will be well worth making.
The heartbreaking job of giving a terminal illness diagnosis falls to health professionals. Modern medicine, surgery, palliative care and the general care provided by our incredible NHS staff make that judgment even more difficult. It is therefore right to extend the definition of terminally ill from the narrow band of six months to the more accommodating threshold of 12 months. That is fairer not only to the ill person but to those who have to make the difficult judgment, especially when those health professionals know that a person’s pension payments may rest on that.
As we just heard, the Bill extends throughout the United Kingdom, and comes into force in England, Scotland and Wales four months after Royal Assent, and likewise in the case of Northern Ireland. I commend it to the House.
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to support my hon. Friend in this important change. I commend him on the detail in his speech, which he also displayed in the Bill Committee, on which I was happy to serve. The Bill recognises that regulations have moved on. Back in 2022, the Government, with the support of Parliament, made changes to social security benefits to align ourselves with what was happening in the NHS. Plenty of people who get a terminal illness could find that their lifetime may be longer than six or 12 months. The Bill considers particularly where people are diagnosed later, and to accelerate or extend potential benefits.
The national health service considers people to be terminally ill when they estimate that they have around 12 months left to live. That is never an easy message to give, or for people to receive. There seems to be very little medical accuracy in getting the timeline right, but that length of time has been well established in the NHS. That is why this is sensible legislation—to align with how the NHS treats patients, as opposed to the somewhat arbitrary 6 months. The reference to the PPF and the financial assistance scheme available will be welcomed by people right across the country. I am keen to see this legislation pass through the Commons and the Lords at great speed.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I wish to begin also by thanking the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) for introducing this important Bill. It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading.
Pensions offer individuals peace of mind, knowing that they have a dependable source of income after years of dedicated hard work. As well as alleviating the stress of financial uncertainty in old age, pensions allow retirees to retain their standard of living during retirement. I welcome the Bill as it seeks to provide the same opportunity for financial security for those with a terminal illness, and thus offers a more dignified end of life experience in what I can only imagine is an unstable and devastating time for the individual and their families.
The Bill seeks to extend the definition of terminal illness for the PPF and the FAS to 12 months, rather than the current six, to allow those who are eligible to receive vital financial support. I welcome the fact that the Bill will bring the PPF and the FAS in line with the NHS and Department for Work and Pensions definition of terminal illness, which is 12 months. Indeed, thanks to the brilliant work of our NHS and the consistent progress in medical science, it is difficult to predict how long someone is likely to live. In some cases, patients are able to outlive their initial prognosis. That is why the Bill is so important.
It is also due to our NHS and medical advancements that more and more of us are reaching pensionable age. As we all know, many developed nations are now facing an ageing population as birth rates decline. Therefore, the amount of British people accessing their pensions at any one time will steadily increase. In fact, pensioners represent 18.6% of the population, and 12.5% of my constituency is 65 and over. The Government have done so much to support pensioners. We heard in the autumn statement that the Government announced an 8.5% increase in the state pension, in line with the Government’s initiative: the triple lock. As a result, the new state pension is now worth up to £900 more a year and ensures that older people get the support they deserve.
Those nearing the end of their life deserve to have access to the same level of financial support. It is thanks to the compassionate Government that people with terminal illnesses are able to get faster and easier access to certain benefits through the special benefit rules for end of life. Recent changes mean that special rules now apply to people who have 12 months or less to live, rather than six. Those who are eligible are able to claim universal credit, employment and support allowance, personal independence payment, disability living allowance, and attendance allowance. The Bill will simply align the PPF and the FAS with those existing provisions, reflecting the Government’s commitment thus far to aiding those nearing the end of their lives. The Government have also provided necessary cost of living support worth over £1.4 billion. The support includes two rounds of means-tested cost of living payments, disability cost of living payments and pensioner cost of living payments.
We have all heard from our constituents the anxiety felt over the cost of living crisis, with rising prices that were caused by the pandemic and Putin’s weaponisation of energy due to his illegal invasion of Ukraine. Imagine now how the situation would worsen for individuals facing a terminal illness: the cost of heating their home, travelling to medical appointments, and potential childcare costs as their life is turned upside down.
Marie Curie, the charity that does tremendous work in this area, has published an eye-opening report, “Dying in Poverty”, which reveals that on average a pensioner’s energy bill doubles once they are diagnosed with a terminal illness. I find that incredible and very, very worrying. The report also highlights that people of working age who die are twice as likely to spend their final years of life in poverty, compared with people of pensionable age. That poignant reality demonstrates the crucial need for Bills like this one by enabling individuals in these unfortunate circumstances to access their pensions early. The Bill addresses the crisis outlined by charities such as Marie Curie and aims to restore dignity to those affected.
I also pay tribute to amazing charities registered in the Cities of London and Westminster that support those nearing the end of their life: Compassion in Dying, a national charity that provides advice and information to those at the end of life; the Sunseeker London Charitable Trust, which provides financial support to organisations dedicated to the care of terminally ill people; and the Bennett Kleinwort Charitable Trust, which provides care and treatment for terminally ill people. The work of these charities plays a crucial role in advancing progress towards addressing the challenges faced by terminally ill individuals, which is also the objective of the Bill.
Once again, I express my support for this Bill. I understand that the hope is that it will encourage pension providers that do not currently have provision for serious ill health payments for those with a life expectancy of 12 months or less to consider putting it in place. Although the Bill may be narrow in scope, I am confident that it is a necessity and will have a wider positive impact. Any one of us can be diagnosed with a terminal illness, and it is important that there are provisions in place to offer financial assistance. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury for bringing forward this admirable Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on bringing this Bill before the House on Report and Third Reading. As we have heard, the Bill seeks to ensure that there is financial support for terminally ill people who have seen the sponsors of their pension schemes become insolvent. Thankfully, it is a small number of people, and we hope it does not get any bigger, but that illustrates the narrowness of the Bill. It seeks to expand eligibility for terminal illness payments from the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme from those with less than six months to live to those with less than 12 months to live, bringing the definition of “terminally ill” in line with that used for social security payments by the Department for Work and Pensions, which the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) formerly led.
As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury highlighted, the Bill is narrow in scope and, thankfully, concerns a fairly small number of people, but its impact for that group will be significant, because it will unlock access to a vital lifeline of support when they have received a diagnosis. For that reason, Labour supports and welcomes the Bill. Receiving a terminal diagnosis is devastating, both for the individual themselves and for their family and loved ones. Such a diagnosis brings with it a slew a challenges and difficult decisions.
As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) mentioned, the Marie Curie report on this issue makes for very sobering reading. It points out that one in four people of working age who are diagnosed with a terminal illness spends the last years of their life in poverty, and that one in six pensioners is below the poverty line at the end of their life. There are different reasons for all those things, but one has to imagine the circumstances in which people find themselves to understand that this Bill is a tiny step in the right direction for a group of people in a particular context. By no means will it solve a lot of issues related to old age, poverty and illness, which the Bill touches on.
Marie Curie has also highlighted that, all too often, terminal illness brings with it huge financial burdens and extra costs of between £12,000 and £16,000 per year for a household. This is the so-called double burden of income loss and the additional costs that a terminal diagnosis can often bring about. It pushes families towards insecurity and fear about their income, and forces them to confront poverty at a time when they have to deal with other insecurities and fears, adding another layer of distress at the hardest of times. Those with a terminal illness should not be forced to spend the end of their lives worried about making ends meet, and I am sure that all Members would feel a lot happier if not so many of our pensioners found that that is what they face.
By opening up eligibility for support, be it through a lump sum payment from the financial assistance scheme or payments through the Pension Protection Fund in the narrow range of circumstances that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has rightly identified, this Bill will go some way to ease the financial burdens on those who are lucky enough to have a defined benefit pension entitlement, but unlucky enough to have had their pension fund go bust and end up in the Pension Protection Fund. Extra access to cash can allow those nearing the end of their life to focus on spending the time they have left with those they love, supported with dignity and respect, which is what I think everyone in this House wants to see.
Labour welcomes this change, but I question why it has been left to a private Member’s Bill, albeit we are very happy to support the glorious achievement of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury in bringing it forward. We supported the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022, which amended the DWP’s definition of terminal illness, for the purpose of social security rules, to less than 12 months to live, raising it from less than six months. It was right to make that change then, but I wonder why more work was not done by the Department under the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal to check the consistency of those rules when the Act was put on to the statute book. If that had been done, we would have had two more years of support for the terminally ill between 2022 and 2024, and many people would have been helped.
I wonder whether any other inconsistencies are lurking in the DWP on the change from six months to 12 months, and whether the Minister might trawl through the many bits of legislation and many statutory instruments that deal with such things to see whether any other inconsistencies could be quickly put right. Will she commit from the Dispatch Box to ensuring consistency across all the definitions of terminal illness and, because the move has been made to shift the definition from six months to 12 months, undertake to make certain that there are no other inconsistencies lurking, so that we do not have to do this again with another private Member’s Bill to make sure the definition finally lands at 12 months, with no remaining six-month definitions causing inconsistency?
Every hour, 10 people die in poverty in the UK, and one in four terminally ill people of working age spends the last year of their life in poverty. The cost of living crisis has acutely affected those who are nearing the end of their life. A terminally ill person’s energy bill can rise by 75% after their diagnosis, with critical equipment often sending bills soaring. For example, the cost of energy to run an oxygen concentrator can be £65 a month. A dialysis machine can cost £27 a month and a ventilator can cost £35 a month. Very few people wish to be in hospital when they have access to these services but, all too often, it appears that we are leaving them with the cost of running these vital bits of machinery to keep them alive.
It is an indictment of 14 years of Government failure and neglect of our public services that so many people are spending the end of their life in poverty, struggling to make ends meet and worrying whether they can afford to run the equipment that is keeping them alive. The way our country treats those nearing the end of their life should be a mark of how civilised we are, and I fear that we are not passing that test as well as we should.
I finish by repeating my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury on his work on this Bill. We fully support its aims, and we hope to see further work in this area.
Mims Davies
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) for bringing this important legislation to the House and for the way he has successfully navigated it to this stage. I thank him for his important speech and insights on why the Bill matters, matched equally by those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken).
I thank the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) for her support for the Bill. She asked why these regulations were not included in the 2022 Act. Unfortunately, they were out of scope as that Bill was altering entitlement conditions for benefits. I assure her my officials have said no other areas are in need of amending—I see that gets the thumbs up from the Opposition Dispatch Box. On consistent definition, the Bill will build on previous legislation that changed special rules for social security benefit. This final change brings the payments made by the Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme into alignment with those changes.
I thank all Members who have taken part in the debates that have led the Bill to progress to this stage, including the Committee stage, and for the cross-party support it has rightly received. As has been outlined, the Bill builds on the 2022 changes the Government introduced to social security benefits. That legislation was welcomed by excellent key charities, such as Marie Curie, the Motor Neurone Disease Association and Macmillan Cancer Support. It changed the special rules for a number of benefits, ensuring claims were rightly fast tracked. Those who were thought to be in the final year of their life were able to receive vital financial support six months earlier.
This week is Dementia Action Week, bringing the UK together to take action on dementia and promoting an understanding of its impact. The Alzheimer’s Society and many groups and charities do so much on this important issue. I extend my thanks to them from the Dispatch Box.
By extending the definition of terminal illness from six to 12 months’ life expectancy for payments under both the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme, the Bill completes the journey. The Bill will mean that members are able to rightly claim compensation on the ground of terminal illness, if a medical professional confirms that they have less than 12 months to live, rather than the current six months.
Hon. Members have spoken about the terrible time that people will be going through and the financial impact. There is often more financial assistance than perhaps people know, if they are not used to being part of the benefits arena. I urge people to look at the benefits calculator at gov.uk and to work with Citizens Advice, which runs our help to claim service, so that costs can be met and understood at a difficult time.
To assure the hon. Member for Wallasey, in my role as Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, I met with the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), this week to discuss costs and other matters concerning the national disability strategy and the disability action plan. As the hon. Lady said, the issue is at the forefront of my mind and we are aligned on those concerns.
Decisions on terminal illness will be made by healthcare professionals, such as clinicians and medical practitioners. We thank them for that great work at such a difficult time, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury. As we heard during Committee stage, the definition will include advanced cancer, dementia, motor neurone disease and other neurological diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease.
The changes restore the original policy intent of alignment between the social security special rules, and the Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme terminal illness rules. Just as importantly, they bring both schemes in line with the tax definition of serious ill health, which currently allows private pension schemes to make payments when the member has less than 12 months to live. I will briefly reiterate what I said in the earlier debate on the amendments and repeat what the Minister for Pensions said in Committee: it was never our intention to delay the commencement of these provisions. There is no practical reason for us to do so. However, as discussed today, putting a commencement date on the face of the Bill will provide certainty around the change at a time when people value certainty, and we will ensure that the provisions can commence four months after Royal Assent, as signalled.
I do not want to detain the House any further. We know that being told you are nearing the end of your life can be a frightening experience not only for the individual concerned, but for their family and their loved ones. This Bill, although seemingly small, will have a really positive impact on those whom the provisions cover, at a very difficult time. As with the 2022 Act, the Bill will ensure that when someone reaches the final stages of life, they will not have those additional financial concerns. Receiving a payment at an earlier stage in their final illness will help those people to plan more effectively, providing them with the opportunity to focus on their time with the people who matter to them.
This debate gives me the opportunity to thank the St Peter & St James Hospice, the Hospice in the Weald, St Catherine’s Hospice in Pease Pottage, those local hospices that I am sure we all have, and those charities mentioned in this debate, who bring real comfort and support in all our constituencies at such difficult times. This Bill will help people to live well to the end, with their loved ones and with that comfort. I greatly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury for bringing the Bill forward. We all wish it safe and speedy passage through the other place, so that it can reach the statute book and support those who need it, our loved ones and people in our communities, with no undue delay.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, I call Laurence Robertson.
Mr Robertson
I am pleased to draw this debate to a close by thanking the Minister and the Opposition for their support, and in particular with regard to setting the date for the commencement of legislation. In that context, I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for her amendments. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate and particularly those who served in the Committee stage. I also extend my thanks to those at the Department for Work and Pensions and the Bill management team, who have been so very helpful, and to the staff at Marie Curie, who were mentioned earlier and who campaigned so strongly on this issue. Hon. Members will know we cannot function in this place without the help of our staff, so I particularly thank my staff, Benjamin Jones and Harry Wallace, for the work they have put in. I hope by working together on this piece of legislation that we will have made a difference.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill
Friday 17th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill 2023-24 View all Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 April 2024 - (24 Apr 2024)
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a long journey to get this Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill to this point. I am grateful for the cross-party and public efforts and acknowledge the international interest in it. At the outset, I particularly express my thanks to the Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, for his personal and vocal support for the Bill, including in the other place.
It is pertinent that this is a private Member’s Bill because, while it implements recommendation 6 of the Truro review and is therefore implementing a manifesto commitment, its origins are on the Back Benches of the Commons and the Lords. In 2013, the inaugural report of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief recognised the challenge for attention and concern for the right to freedom of religion or belief—as in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights—and described it as “an orphaned right”. This Bill will ensure that the office of the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief is secured as a permanent fixture in statute, and will embed the progress that the UK has made in promoting the fundamental and universal human right to freedom of religion or belief around the world.
Since the all-party parliamentary group first produced that report, it has grown in number to more than 180 parliamentarians. I believe it is the largest all-party group in this place. That reflects the increase in awareness and support for the right of freedom of religion or belief here in the UK, and I am very proud of that. Having worked internationally in this role as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for some three and a half years, I know that the parliamentary work on freedom of religion or belief stands out as a beacon across the world. It was with great delight that I heard one of my parliamentary colleagues from the Opposition Benches say, “In this work, there isn’t a piece of paper between us here in this House in what we believe in.”
However, the increase in awareness here for this work sadly reflects the reality that, across the world, the rights of religious minorities are under severe attack. Freedom of religion or belief has never been more important a cause to champion, for the simple reason that there have never been more people at risk—not just millions but hundreds of millions discriminated against and denied life’s chances, simply on account of what they believe.
Some may point out that having a special envoy in statute would be unprecedented, but if the objection to any change was simply that it was unprecedented, we would never make any progress. Indeed, that is why we are here in this place—to make legislative change. What is unprecedented is that people have never been more heinously and despicably denied their wish to live out their beliefs. They have never experienced, in the numbers they do today, more abuse, emotional or material hardship, incarceration, or even death, simply on account of what they believe. I hope to give some examples of that a little later in my speech.
In the time that I have been the UK’s Prime Minister’s special envoy—from late 2020—we have seen such an increase in instances of concern. There has not just been an increase in the number of authoritarian regimes; we have also seen new challenges to freedom of religion or belief through ever increasingly sophisticated technology used to oppress people, and the darkly sinister expansion of transnational repression.
Let me mention a few examples from countries around the world. We have seen, for example, the military coup in Myanmar exacerbating the persecution of religious minorities, not least the Rohingya Muslims. We have seen the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, with every religious group there, other than those willing to succumb to the Taliban’s ways, now oppressed and living in fear. In Russia, Jehovah’s Witnesses, including the elderly, are now being imprisoned as criminals simply for being pacifists and being unwilling to serve in the army, and Putin is weaponising Orthodox Christianity in the war against Ukraine, with places of worship deliberately destroyed and reports of pastors disappearing.
We have seen daily disturbances in Iran, for which some have paid with their lives. At the core of those is the cry for every Iranian to be free to live in accordance with their individual beliefs. In Nigeria, thousands of Christians and some moderate Muslims are being massacred by Islamic extremists every year. Just on Tuesday this week, we commemorated the 21st birthday of Leah Sharibu, who was abducted by Boko Haram seven years ago and not released—as were other Chibok schoolgirls —because she refused to renounce her Christian faith. In Nicaragua, the Catholic Church is being particularly targeted. Many people have been expelled, including those running religious schools or medical centres. Even Mother Teresa’s nuns, who have been working there for over 30 years, were required with no notice at all to leave the country.
We are all aware of the situation in China, where over 1 million Uyghurs and, reportedly, increasingly more are egregiously incarcerated in 20th-century concentration camps. Many have disappeared forever, and many are reported as having died. The allegations of forced organ harvesting against Falun Gong practitioners would simply defy belief had those allegations not been persistently made by so many. In Tibet, according to recent UN reports, up to 1 million children as young as two are being sent away to boarding schools, alienated from their families, cultures and beliefs. The world should not stand silent about such things.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Before my hon. Friend moves on, I would like to thank her specifically for her work as envoy. As she has just shown, she has used her voice endlessly to shine a light on some of the darkest corners of the world. I know that she will want me to mention Sudan, where we have seen systemic ethnic cleansing of non-Arabs, perhaps more on the grounds of race than religion, and that she will also want me to mention the fact that religious leaders can be a force for good in trying to stop violence. In particular, in South Sudan, we saw the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland work together to call for an end to violence. I would like to say a massive thank you to my hon. Friend for her work as envoy, which shows why this role is so important.
Fiona Bruce
I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention, and even more so for her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Sudan and South Sudan, as well as for her acknowledgment of the importance of freedom of religion or belief when she was a Minister in the Foreign Office. She is absolutely right: the influence that religious leaders can have in bringing communities together and preventing the kinds of atrocities I have referred to cannot be overstated. This year, it has been my privilege to have collaborated with the Archbishop of Canterbury to highlight and focus on this issue, including at an event at the Foreign Office attended by over 100 of those engaged on the issue here in the UK and internationally, among them several parliamentarians —I remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) was there.
The role I have gives the UK an additional privilege: that of holding out the importance of freedom of religion or belief across the world. However, the men, women and children around the world who suffer—whether under the hard arm of authoritarian regimes or at the ruthless whim of militant mobs—need not just our voices, but our partnership. They need not just our words, but our actions; not just our intentions, but our effective help. That is why the role of envoy, the office that I have the privilege of holding at present, needs securing and resourcing over the long term, beyond the term of any particular Government or party in power. Of course, this Bill intends to do just that.
As I say, the Bill fulfils the Government’s manifesto commitment to act on their words and fully implement the Truro review, which included a recommendation to make the special envoy role permanent, with the requisite authority and resources. There is only one other country in the world with a similar office. The US has had a permanent office promoting and protecting freedom of religion or belief for over 25 years. The stability of that office over time has ensured a build-up of resources, expertise and research capabilities that enable it to make a significant contribution towards combating FORB abuses across the world.
The UK may be smaller, but if we had such an office, and secured and resourced it as a continuation of the office that I have the privilege of holding at present, it would enable us to speak across the world with a powerful voice for good. We have seen the good influence that the current Foreign Secretary is having as he speaks out across the world. Having represented three Prime Ministers now, I have been so encouraged by the respect in which the UK is held as we speak out internationally. We sometimes underplay that here, to our detriment.
It was noted in Committee that although, of course, the Prime Minister will personally appoint their special envoy, the legislative description in the Bill is of a “Minister of the Crown.” The title of “Prime Minister’s special envoy” provides the vital authority internationally to advocate of behalf of the UK, as I have just touched on. Clause 1 reflects the current purposes of the envoy and the requirement to report directly to the Prime Minister. That direct accountability is so important, and I have found it so helpful under each of the Prime Ministers I have served. I thank them all for their active support for my role.
Clause 1(6) provides for the continued office of the special envoy and resources to fulfil the role. I say to my hon. Friends, across the House, that we are all on the same side when it comes to advocating for freedom of religion or belief. In fact, I do not know of a single Member in this House who opposes the Bill. Why? Because we recognise that it will provide an opportunity to do good—real good—and to change lives. We recognise that anyone who opposes the Bill, or seeks to prevent its passage in any way, is in effect opposing the opportunity to do good.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I absolutely support the Bill. I am not a religious person—I do not follow any religion—but I support the Bill because I believe in freedom, which is so important. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is about not only freedom of religion, but freedom of belief? At the heart of the Bill is freedom for people to feel what they feel, whatever their religion.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The clue is in the title: the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. “Belief” indicates that there are some who do not hold a religious belief but who are equally entitled to our support, advocacy and protection on account of their beliefs, whatever they are.
I will give the House some examples of the good that this office, if secured permanently, could continue to do. About 18 months ago, my office—the office of the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief—initiated our monthly “religious prisoners of conscience” scheme. Every month we champion, and call for the release of, a prisoner across the world who is incarcerated—sometimes in inhumane conditions —simply on account of their beliefs. We have championed a Jehovah’s Witness in Tajikistan, Buddhists in Tibet, Montagnards in Vietnam, a Sufi Muslim in Nigeria, Christians and human rights leaders in Myanmar and Nicaragua, a pastor in Cuba, Baha’is in Iran and others. This monthly programme was quickly taken up by the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, now made up of 43 countries, which the UK chaired for two years, 2022 to 2023. That means it is not just the UK calling for the release of these prisoners, but the collective voice of countries around the world.
That advocacy, along with the advocacy of others internationally, has resulted in the release of four of those prisoners, all of whom were facing several years. They include an elderly prisoner who was extremely ill and needed medical attention, and who I believe would have died had he not been released; he has now had that treatment and is getting better. Two other prisoners were young girls in their 20s who faced several years in prison simply for having changed their faith; they are now free and starting new lives safe in another country.
Just this week, we heard good news about another of the prisoners of conscience we have championed—this will interest my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). We championed the case of Mubarak Bala, a humanist in Nigeria, who was sentenced to some 25 years in prison simply for his belief; in fact, the deputy special envoy, David Burrowes, went to Nigeria and met Mubarak’s wife last year. I am pleased to say that this week we heard that his sentence has been reduced to five years. That is good news, but we are not giving up—we will carry on campaigning for his full release. That is the good this role can do, and does.
Apart from challenging autocratic regimes, as we do, working in this sphere and standing up for those whose basic human rights have been trampled over simply because of their beliefs can make all the difference in the world to people like those I have just mentioned. This has enabled the UK to show global leadership. I am proud to say that the special envoy team for freedom of religion or belief recently won an international award for Government leadership on FORB.
As the Bill hopefully passes its final stage here in the Commons today, I look forward to it going forward to the Lords. Again, I thank everyone who has been involved in its passage to date.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I rise to speak briefly in support of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). Putting the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief on a statutory footing is an extremely good measure that we should all support.
I want to very briefly talk about the way I have seen my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton carry out her role in my capacity as chair of the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. My hon. Friend regularly attends events that we hold here, where we host parliamentarians from around the world. She has the ability to connect with those parliamentarians to offer them the support they need. Very often, those politicians might be subject to persecution in their own country because of their religion, despite being elected politicians. My hon. Friend really does provide great support and offers them hope that the work they are doing can have a positive outcome.
My hon. Friend was also able to demonstrate the UK’s lead in this area at the first Inter-Parliamentary Union parliamentary conference on interfaith dialogue, which was held last year; it is so far the only such conference, but I hope there will be more. My hon. Friend was one of the star speakers at that event. She was able to come in and talk about the work we do here in the UK. This was an event that brought together faith leaders and politicians from around the world. There were some authoritarian regimes represented, to try to open up that dialogue and show that freedom of religion and belief is a very valuable matter, and that we as politicians need to communicate more with faith leaders than we probably do.
When I was Minister for modern slavery, it was the faith groups that were able to offer the most support to victims of modern slavery. Mr Deputy Speaker, you are one of the most amiable and approachable chaps I know, but I suspect that many of your constituents find it easier to speak to their local priest, rabbi or other religious leader than to you, because of the trust that people have in the religious and faith leaders they interact with. Therefore, it is incredibly important for you to have a dialogue with your faith leaders, as it is for all of us here, because it is how we find out about what is going on for our constituents and how we can get support to them. We cannot overstate the importance of faith and its interaction with politics, and how we must all be part of it.
Fiona Bruce
I thank my right hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of interfaith dialogue. I must not miss the opportunity to promote one of the projects being undertaken by the international alliance of 43 countries. We have a working group on interfaith dialogue, which was launched this year, and we are calling for contributions of good examples of such dialogue from around the world. I encourage anyone in this place, and anyone listening to the debate or reading about it afterwards, to contact our alliance—they can do so through me —in order to contribute.
Dame Karen Bradley
I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. I know that we will all take note of it and look to promote it to our constituents.
I will conclude by saying the UK already has a leading role in this area, but putting the envoy on a statutory footing will reinforce that role, ensure continuity and emphasise the intent of Parliament to ensure that freedom of religion and belief is always observed.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I rise to support this important Bill. I will be the first to say that Parliament often rushes too quickly to create offices and commissioners for this, that and the other, when a lot of this work should be done by Ministers, who should be held to account by Parliament for their activities. But I am also very conscious that something that may seem quite narrow in its scope may be lower down in the day-to-day life of a Minister.
The challenge that people of faith face around the world is so acute that creating this special role permanently, as Parliament wishes, is a really important step in ensuring that one of people’s most fundamental freedoms—freedom of religion or belief—is protected. It is something that the United Kingdom cherishes so much that the Prime Minister will have somebody performing that role in their name, working with them and the Foreign Office to ensure, through interventions and by convening things like the international alliance, that it is not just an afterthought. It is something that Parliament has decided really matters to the outcomes that the post seeks to achieve.
I had the good fortune this week to visit the Vatican with three other Members of Parliament on the all-party parliamentary group on the Holy See. We met a variety of groups as well as being part of the general audience and meeting His Holiness Pope Francis. I was struck by the conversations that we had with sisters who are part of the International Union of Superiors General. Those nuns undertake really valuable, often dangerous work right around the world, not only in the traditional forms of education or helping with care, in hospitals or palliative care settings, but increasingly in trying to tackle things such as modern slavery.
Dame Karen Bradley
I declare an interest as a trustee of the organisation Arise, which does exactly that: we train sisters around the world to identify potential victims of forced labour and exploitation. We give them training on how to make sure that workers—for example, on tea plantations in India—are properly regularised, know their rights and have the right documentation. It is the sisters who do that work, and they are utterly wonderful. My right hon. Friend gives me a great opportunity to pay tribute to them, and I thank her for that.
Dr Coffey
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I know how much this issue mattered to her when she was in the Home Office. Traditionally, the sisters will stay in places of conflict and real difficulty despite the threats that they receive. In the past, a religious such as a nun or a priest would have been given some sort of protection, but unfortunately that is no longer the case, and in fact such people are starting to become targets.
I am led to believe that 12% of the world’s nuns are in India. India is an amazing country, but many of us will have been horrified by the regular and active persecution of Christians in parts of that country. Of course the UK Government need their important relationships with our Commonwealth friend, which recently hosted a very successful G20 summit and is a very important part of the global economy, but they also need to challenge aspects of the way in which it deals with freedom of religion and belief. I believe that our Ministers do that successfully, but it is of additional benefit to have a special envoy of the Prime Minister’s who works with many countries, through the international alliance, on raising these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) mentioned a case that she had tackled in Nigeria.
Fiona Bruce
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. May I augment what she has just said about the international alliance? Just this week, three members of its council of experts produced a report on the continuing atrocities in Manipur, which have been going on for a year. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary has spoken in such positive terms about our experts’ first report, which was produced a year ago, and I hope that Members, and those who are listening to the debate, will look at the further report led by the well-known and prestigious former BBC reporter David Campanale. Those atrocities in Manipur require much more attention.
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to make that point, and a permanent role will continue to bring that focus. As the Bill makes clear, staff and accommodation will be provided when they are considered to be necessary, which I think is important.
This role has been occupied by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti)—whom my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary commended when I was speaking to him the other day in the Vatican —and now we have my hon. Friend, whose approach has been exemplary. The report commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) when he was Foreign Secretary led to the Truro review, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton referred at length, but it is important to note that this role has evolved, and is now not simply about Christianity. Events targeting Christianity were the initial trigger, and gave rise to the Foreign Office working on this, but my hon. Friend has spoken eloquently about the need to expand the role further, and has undertaken to do that. She mentioned that the United States also has a permanent office. I believe that that will trigger the potential for posts elsewhere in the world, and that has to be a force for good.
We need people who can focus solely on these matters. The Bill does not require them to be politicians. For what it is worth, I think that a sensible balance can be struck, but that will be for the Prime Minister to decide in the future. Nor is the Bill trying to create a platform for someone who is disgruntled. I believe that a Prime Minister, regardless of which political party runs this country, will have the wisdom to appoint someone who is seeking headlines not for their own purposes, but on behalf of those who have been deprived of the freedom to practise a religion or hold a belief.
I am conscious that the Front Benchers are yet to speak and that progress needs to be made on various pieces of legislation today, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) also wishes to speak, so I will abbreviate my comments. This issue really matters to me, and I believe it matters to my constituents. It matters that we have a world where these sorts of freedoms are treasured and protected, and having a special envoy on freedom of religion or belief in the name of the UK Prime Minister will help to make sure that happens.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on all her work on the Bill and in this area. I was privileged to be involved in Committee, and I fully support the work that she has undertaken and wishes to be taken forward under the Bill.
The Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief plays a role that is so important to many people internationally, as we have heard, and the post firmly places the UK in a leadership role in this area. I was privileged to see what happened in my constituency of East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow when my hon. Friend visited St Bride’s parish church in East Kilbride, on the Scottish leg of her United Kingdom tour. So many members of my local community, from different faiths, came to hear her speak about the importance of the role, and about how she was reaching out internationally and making a difference for the most vulnerable people in the world. All of those who attended were united in seeing the value of the role and her work, and how vital it is that it should continue.
It is testament to my hon. Friend’s selflessness that she does not wish at all to champion the work that she is doing; rather, she wants to champion the plight of the most vulnerable, and wishes from the bottom of her heart to make sure that this work continues for decades and Parliaments to come, under the auspices of this important role. I have seen that at first hand, and I know that my constituency is reflective of those across the UK. My constituents who value the role—so many came to the meeting; the church was packed—are no different from those across the UK. They too very much value the role and the UK’s leadership, and see the good work that is being done and its tangible outcomes, which help the most persecuted across the world. I thank my hon. Friend once again for that work, for her selflessness and for making sure that it continues for posterity.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on bringing forward her Bill for its remaining stages. I have been in many debates with her over the years, and her commitment to the cause of freedom of religion or belief is second to none. As speakers have outlined this morning, the concept initially focused on Christians being persecuted abroad, but I have been so impressed by the way that the role has developed into something much broader, with so much international resonance.
Freedom of religion or belief is a core tenet of fundamental human rights, and human rights will always be at the heart of Labour’s outlook on the world and the centre of the shaping of our foreign policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has made that clear, and has, in meetings, considered many of the suggestions that the hon. Member for Congleton has made to him. I put on record her commitment to cross-party working to address international concerns. She has been party-blind in her work across both Houses. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has made it clear that Labour will ensure that the UK stands against persecution and oppression in any form, and will promote freedom of religion or belief as a key component of our foreign policy, if perchance we are entrusted with the responsibility of government by the British people at the next election.
In her assiduous campaigning, the hon. Member for Congleton, and indeed Members across the House, have raised issues with the treatment of religious minorities across the globe. As I look around the Chamber, I am rather surprised not to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). If he were here, he would now be intervening to say how much he supports the Bill.
In many countries, including the UK, religious freedom is taken for granted, and people can worship or choose not to worship, whatever their belief, but that is sadly not the case in vast swathes of the world. There has been a growing trend in recent years for religious minorities to be persecuted simply for the beliefs that they cherish so dearly. We sadly see an increase in all sorts of persecution, including of those in the LGBTQ community.
Hon. Members often point out examples of religious persecution during debates in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Congleton mentioned the Chinese treatment of the Uyghur Muslim, and we heard in a speech about the treatment of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar. I know that those two causes mean so much to the hon. Member.
It is clear to all of us that the persecution of religious minorities happens in many parts of the world, and it is in that spirit that the hon. Member has brought the Bill forward for its remaining stages today. The Opposition will not stand in the way of the Bill moving forward, but I repeat—I said this last time—that we should bear in mind that there has been backsliding on the situation for women and girls in many parts of the world, and particularly their reproductive rights. That is often tied into religious expression. I am keen to put that on record as a concern that needs to be borne in mind when the post is established.
While freedom of religion or belief does not necessarily conflict with either LGBTQ+ issues or the rights of women and girls to reproductive health, it would be wrong to give the impression of putting rights in a hierarchy. I am pleased that in the Bill Committee, the technical issues around how the statutory basis would work and the flexibility and responsiveness of the Government to appoint the special envoy were addressed and ironed out, cross party.
In recent weeks, a representative for humanitarian affairs was appointed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; that demonstrates how important these roles are. I am sure that the House will continue debating and scrutinising freedom of religion or belief on many occasions. I welcome comments from the hon. Member and the Minister on any of the issues as we conclude the debate. We will not divide the House on the Bill.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for promoting the Bill, which the Government are pleased to support. It is a pleasure to set out today why the Bill is so important in cementing and supporting our long-standing commitment to freedom of religion or belief—FORB, as it is known for short. I thank hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, and indeed to so many before.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), mentioned the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); he found me yesterday to give me his apologies for not being here today. She is right that we all miss his voice in this important debate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton set out, the Bill will make the role of the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief statutory. Establishing the role permanently and in perpetuity was a recommendation in the Bishop of Truro’s 2019 independent review of the work of the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office on freedom of religion or belief, and the implementation of that recommendation was a manifesto commitment for the Conservatives in 2019.
This Bill will ensure that the special envoy has clearly defined duties, that they will report to the Prime Minister on their work and that a Minister of the Crown must provide resources for the special envoy to carry out their functions. It reinforces the Government’s long-standing commitment to FORB for all, which will support us in continuing to embed freedom of religion or belief within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Perhaps most significantly, it will ensure that the positive work being undertaken by today’s special envoy in this human rights priority area will be continued by future role holders.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, the current special envoy, for all the work she does to promote and protect FORB globally. She recently concluded her second term as chair of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance. This was the first time in the organisation’s history that a chair was requested to serve a second term, which is testament to her dedication to the role.
As chair of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, our special envoy established a scheme to raise awareness of a different prisoner of conscience every month. The scheme has championed the cases of individuals belonging to a range of religious and belief communities, and in three cases individuals were subsequently released.
Fiona Bruce
I hesitate to correct the Minister but, just for the record, an additional prisoner of conscience was released very recently, which is why I referred to four, not three.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend continues to demonstrate both why her role is important and why her indomitable presence in the role is of such value to all those who need to be championed.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
May I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)? I am co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Egypt, and she has been such a help on the issues of freedom of religion or belief.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank my hon. Friend.
Another achievement of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, with my noble Friend the Minister for human rights, Lord Ahmad, was hosting the fourth international ministerial conference in 2022. This event brought together Government delegations, faith and belief group leaders, human rights actors and civil society from over 100 countries to address the challenges to the right to freedom of religion or belief. This is just a small example of the work so diligently undertaken by our special envoy. Last month, in the other place, I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary restate his support for this Bill and acknowledge the excellent work being done on freedom of religion or belief.
On a more sobering note, the scale of abuses and violations of the right to FORB across the world remain deeply concerning, which data, including from the Pew forum and the Open Doors world watchlist, continue to reinforce. And history has shown us that, too often, where freedom of religion or belief is under threat, other human rights are at risk too.
We are firm in our position that no one should be persecuted, abused or intimidated because of their religion or belief, or lack thereof. Protecting and promoting the right to FORB has been a long-standing commitment of this Government, and the FCDO is working on this in a number of ways, including through our multilateral and bilateral work, to embed FORB across our programmes.
I now turn to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and agreed in Committee on 24 April. Legislation imposing duties on the Prime Minister is very rare and limited, and the amendments thus remove the statutory duties placed on the Prime Minister, instead placing them on a Minister of the Crown, which is more appropriate in this instance. However, the special envoy will continue to be known as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for FORB. Retaining this title will ensure that the role continues to have the appropriate authority and recognition internationally, enabling future role holders to continue advocating for FORB globally, as my hon. Friend does with such dedication.
The duties of the special envoy have been clarified, setting the same high expectations of delivery for future incumbents as have been achieved by my hon. Friend. The Bill’s title was also amended to Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill so that it refers specifically to the special envoy. This adjustment more accurately reflects the Bill’s scope and content. The amended Bill furthermore removes the requirement to establish a separate office of the special envoy, ensuring that existing resourcing arrangements are maintained.
To conclude, His Majesty’s Government are committed to protecting and promoting freedom of religion or belief for all. The Bill cements our commitment to the role of special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and delivers on our manifesto commitment to implement the recommendations of the Bishop of Truro’s review. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Fiona Bruce
I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), and my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for their speeches today. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for her support. I know that her personal commitment to this issue, from the very many debates we have shared and the all-party parliamentary groups we have worked on together, is genuine and profound. I thank, too, my right hon. Friend the Minister. May I also ask her to convey my thanks to all the Ministers in the FCDO, who have strongly supported the Bill to ensure its passage through this place?
Finally, I would like to thank all the members of the Public Bill Committee for their wonderful support, and the Clerk, Anne-Marie Griffiths, for her unflappable counsel and patience. Thanks, too, to the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) for her terrific and efficient support, and to my private secretary, to Sue Breeze in the FCDO, and, finally, to the Prime Minister’s deputy special envoy, David Burrowes, for his unfailingly wise and calm counsel.
This short Bill embeds our collective commitment and solidarity with individuals across the world who courageously stand for their faith or belief, and do so suffering discrimination, harassment, persecution or worse.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Another person who I know would have been here, and who it is right to remember, is Sir David Amess. He was a huge supporter of the mover of this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
Friday 17th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2023-24 View all Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 May 2024 - (17 May 2024)
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 10, leave out
“clarify the penalty that applies”
and insert—
“increase the penalty that may be imposed”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 2.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2, schedule, page 5, line 29, leave out—
“not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.
This amendment increases the fine that can be imposed on a person convicted of the livestock worrying offence. It allows for an unlimited fine to be imposed.
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to speak to my own Bill. It has its origins in the topics to be considered on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, but for a variety of reasons, which I expect we may go into again on Third Reading, this is now a single-issue Bill. I also rise to speak to the amendments.
In Committee, there was considerable discussion on what penalties would be deemed appropriate. One concern I had—I tabled my own amendment—was simply to ensure that we were not in a situation where the penalties could in any way be less than what had been intended in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. There was no question of that in many ways because the penalty in the original 1953 Act was so small, but it did allow a situation to emerge where there was an increase in penalties or fines against owners of dogs if there had been repeat offences. That is what I sought to discuss with hon. Members, the Minister and officials, to ensure that that was not the case. I was delighted that the Government agreed with that principle and that officials were able to come forward with a different amendment, which I am delighted to be moving today.
Amendment 2 is the substantive amendment—amendment 1 is consequential to it—and if the House agrees to it, the person who commits an offence under the section is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine. There is no limit on that fine; it is an unlimited penalty. This has become a trend in legislation in recent times. That matters because Parliament is not putting in place a cap on what can be done. The flexibility that we can give to the courts is an important way of tackling unacceptable behaviour, such as effectively neglecting the conduct of a dog so that it attacks other animals.
I would still expect the Sentencing Council to issue guidelines regarding what will be appropriate, but in Committee it was deemed important to ensure that we reinstate that element of ensuring there could be an escalation, and not some arbitrary cap where Parliament decides once and for all on what the fine could be, depending on the severity of the offence. In Committee we heard of multiple situations involving either one ewe or lamb, or indeed several. As a consequence, I think it right to allow our courts discretion to adjust the fines accordingly, in line with what the public would expect.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this Bill, which I fully support. Will she briefly give a summary of the Bill for those Members who might not have been following its passage as closely as I have?
Dr Coffey
I would be happy to do that, but I think Mr Deputy Speaker might say that is out of order while we are discussing specific amendments. I will make sure that I do that on Third Reading, if my hon. Friend is amenable to that. I am also hoping to get leeway from Mr Deputy Speaker to talk about amendments that we did not table.
Another significant discussion in Committee was about disqualification orders, whether we should be able to apply those, and what legislation was available to do that. The Minister and I both committed to look into the issue further, which we did, and there is a variety of other legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which relates to this sort of activity. I am grateful to the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer) who responded to members of the Committee who wanted to go further, and discussed why that was not the case.
As I indicated in Committee, I understood that powers were available to undertake such actions, but not specifically in this Bill. I do not know whether that has been shared with the House, but depending on the procedures that are allowed, I would be happy to ask for such information to be placed in the Library of the House. In essence, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 sets out a non-exhaustive definition of when a dog is to be regarded as dangerously out of control, and if necessary a prosecution could be brought under that Act, instead of the Bill. Further legislation even dates back to the Dogs Act 1871, regarding when a magistrates’ court can make a control or destruction order if it appears to the court that the dog is dangerous and not under control. A disqualification order can also be made if the court has decided to make an order for the destruction of a dog by virtue of legislation. That will, I hope, answer some of the questions that I have received from members of the public regarding why certain powers are not specifically included in the Bill.
Although it can be understandably tricky to navigate our legislation, political parties such as the Liberal Democrats seem to excel in ignoring legislation and trying to create it and then accuse others of not doing something when something is already a criminal offence. I want to ensure that it is on the record that we are not ignoring the opportunity for people to be refused the opportunity to own dogs in the future, if they are simply being irresponsible in allowing this sort of attack, it is just that it will not be covered specifically in the Bill. We have basically allowed unlimited penalties to be applied. I think that is good news for aspects of animal welfare, and it will, I hope, be a significant deterrent to people, and encourage them to be more careful with their dogs—we will get into that on Third Reading and discuss why we are doing this at all. The Bill will add strength so that we see a massive reduction in livestock worrying.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on her progress with this important Bill. Livestock worrying causes havoc for farmers up and down the country. The vast majority of dogs are lovable and good-natured family pets, and most owners are responsible and would never dream of letting their pet chase down, never mind attack, livestock in fields. However, a small minority of dogs are not kept under control, and run loose and aggressively chase down, attack and sometimes even kill livestock, leaving farmers to deal with the stress of their animals’ injury and death.
We have heard growing concerns in the farming community about dog attacks. Farmers regularly tell me about their personal experiences of dogs chasing or attacking their livestock. A horrific incident was reported to me where someone deliberately set several aggressive XL bully dogs on a flock of sheep, deliberately training them to become more aggressive. The farmer called the police, but they did not consider it a serious enough crime even to turn up—far too often the story with rural crime. There are too many cases like that.
The National Farmers Union found that UK farm animals worth an estimated £2.4 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2023 alone—a staggering cost at a time when farmers face a devastating storm of rising energy bills, high personal taxation and the damaging effects of severe and repeated flooding. I am deeply concerned about the emotional and psychological impact of these incidents on farmers, when their mental health is increasingly at risk. We see that in the tragic fact that farming now has the highest suicide rate of any sector in the UK economy.
I am very pleased that the right hon. Member and the Minister have listened to calls made on Second Reading and in Committee for stronger sanctions against owners of dogs involved in livestock worrying. I welcome the right hon. Member’s amendment in response to requests to allow much more severe penalties, but it is a shame that the Bill does not go further on disqualification in facilitating further deterrence. I listened to what she said about disqualification, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said in Committee, the fact that disqualification was brought forward in the original Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill suggests that the Bill is an appropriate place for it.
I wonder whether the right hon. Member has looked further into the merits of including a requirement for dogs to be kept on leads when in close proximity to livestock. The Opposition were not convinced by the Minister’s explanation of why he thought the costs outweighed the benefits of doing that. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge argued, it is entirely reasonable to require dogs to be on leads around livestock. At the very least, we should do more to educate dog owners on how to control their pets and stop them escaping and causing havoc while on the loose. We should certainly promote greater awareness of the countryside code.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution by highlighting the need for dogs to be on leads and the terrible pressures on farmers at this difficult time. Further to the point about education and information for owners, sadly there is a small minority of irresponsible dog owners who have caused terrible problems for farmers. There is a much broader group of dog owners who are responsible, and the point about encouraging the use of leads is important. Would he like further information to be provided to dog owners and families with dogs, to remind them of the importance of having their dog on a lead when they are near livestock?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important point and perhaps the Minister will address it. In many cases, of course, when a pet dog attacks animals, the owner will say, “They’ve never done that before—it didn’t happen before,” but clearly it can. The more education people have about the risks, the more likely they are to take action that would prevent that from happening.
In summary, the Bill is a big step forward in supporting farmers and protecting their livestock. The Opposition are keen to see the measures in the Bill introduced as quickly as possible, as they are long overdue and clearly urgently needed. We continue to support this legislation and I wish it well as it continues its journey through the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to speak on what I consider to be a very important Bill. Not only is it important to many countryside lovers, but it has been very much supported by the National Farmers Union and the National Sheep Association, and it will play an important role in strengthening our legislation to deter livestock worrying. I must thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for her dogged support for the legislation, and those on the shadow Benches for their support; I know the Bill is fully supported.
While I have a farming-linked remit within DEFRA, I am also the access Minister, and the legislation is important in terms of access to the countryside, as well because it will give added awareness to people who are going out with dogs. We are encouraging people into the countryside for many reasons—the health and wellbeing benefits and all that—but, as the shadow Minister mentioned, we need to raise awareness of the countryside code. Taking one’s dog out into the countryside is a wonderful thing, but respect and understanding must be given to the farming community and to all the responsibilities that lie therein for dog owners walking their dogs. This is important legislation and it will help.
I will speak briefly to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. She has listened very carefully to the comments in Committee, which is why she has tabled these amendments. They seem to make complete sense and I know they have had a great deal of support. She wants to be sure, as do others, that the courts have the appropriate discretion to impose a higher fine where it is warranted. The current maximum fine that might be imposed is a level 3 fine not exceeding £1,000; increasing the maximum fine to an unlimited amount would serve to provide an additional deterrent and help to reduce the likelihood of livestock worrying.
My hon. Friend for the Minister for Water and Rural Growth committed to supporting this amendment in Committee, and I reconfirm that support today. Just to clarify, as was mentioned in the Committee, the maximum fine available will be determined by this legislation and will not depend on the sentencing guidelines. Sentencing guidelines are developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales, in fulfilment of its statutory duty. As an independent body, the council decides its own priorities and work plan for reviewing guidelines to reflect any legislative changes.
A comment was made about dogs on leads, which I know was discussed in Committee. The 1953 Act does not make it mandatory for a dog to be kept on a lead around livestock, although a person does commit an offence under the Act if the dog attacks or worries livestock on agricultural land. I am pleased to say that the offence includes roads and paths nearby. However, there are often signs stipulating when to put a dog on a lead or where it would be helpful to do so, for example, if there is livestock in the field or in particular where there are cows with calves.
I personally would not go into a field where there were cows with calves, because a cow with a calf attacked me when I was a child, but that is a decision for people to make. If a dog owner keeps their dog on a lead, that can sometimes attract cattle to the dog, so the Committee’s view, which I support, was that, in certain specific circumstances, there is a risk to the owner of keeping the dog on a lead. I think my right hon. Friend agrees with that; perhaps she will add some comments shortly. For those reasons, the Bill is not proposing to go down that road. On that note, I urge all hon. Members to support the Bill.
Dr Coffey
With the leave of the House, I wish to respond to the comments made by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I am aware that, in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, there was a much greater element of rewriting lots of law. I am conscious that this is a private Member’s Bill with five clauses and a schedule that is already reasonably comprehensive. I looked at the issue very carefully and I am satisfied that it is perfectly straightforward to get the control disqualification orders necessary through existing legislation, without needing to legislate further.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the police already have the necessary powers. We will come to the substantial changes in the Bill shortly, but these amendments are about ensuring sufficient financial penalties. Provisions to have a dog destroyed or to disqualify people from owning a dog are already covered. On his point about keeping dogs on leads, there is a variety of situations in which people will have a dog with them. In addition, people can put a dog on a lead but still not be in control of it. Ultimately, that is what this is about.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment made: 2, in the schedule, page 5, line 29, leave out “not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”. —(Dr Coffey.)
Third Reading.
Dr Coffey
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is pleasure to be able to give a short summary of the Bill. The 1953 Act already provides legislation on the subject, but the Bill seeks to make it more straightforward for the police to do their job. In particular, it will allow them to seize dogs to take samples, dental impressions and the like. At the moment, being able to do that relies on the good will of dog owners.
The Bill extends the scope of the provisions, so they do not only apply to a field that a farmer may own where livestock are kept. It recognises that agricultural practices mean that animals are often transferred from one field to another. For example, current legislation does not apply when animals are crossing a road and a dog is out of control, so the Bill extends the scope to cover such situations.
It is important to ensure we have the power of entry. An application to a justice of the peace is still required to get that. The Bill is all about trying to ensure the police have appropriate powers and to make it more straightforward to prosecute the owners of dogs that are not behaving responsibly.
Right hon. Members and hon. Members have rightly talked about what the Bill is really about. It is not about penalising people who want to enjoy the countryside on casual walks, which I fully encourage. It is important for people to have access and awareness of nature and to enjoy the countryside responsibly, but they need to recognise that a living, thriving and working countryside provides many farmers with their livelihoods, which is why livestock need protection.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
A few years ago, I was delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend to the Smithills Estate to plant the first tree in the 15 million tree-strong Northern Forest. One of the key parts of the visit was when children from St Peter’s Smithills Dean Primary School helped to plant those trees. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the importance of education? We want more people from all backgrounds to enjoy the countryside and to know about how to keep livestock safe.
Dr Coffey
I agree very much with my hon. Friend, who is right to recognise that. There have been particular concerns since covid that the training of dogs can often be challenging. The NFU and others have led me to believe that dogs left at home can often break out. The owner will not even know anything about an attack or livestock worrying, but the consequences can be significant. It is not simply that a dog will bite or kill a ewe or a calf; it is important to recognise that even just dogs running around can cause ewes and pigs to have abortions and so on.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I thank her for bringing forward this Bill. She is a true champion of the farming community in Suffolk and across the country, and she talks about the NFU. She will know that it is not just about the individual cases but about the scale of this problem, which I am happy to say does not exist in Southend. The NFU Mutual data shows that the value of claims for dog attacks on farm animals rose to more than £1.8 million in 2022. I did not know before preparing for today’s debate that, as she points out, it is not necessarily about when a dog comes into contact with a sheep. Just having dogs chasing sheep can cause a pregnant ewe to die or miscarry—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that interventions are interventions, not speeches. If she wishes to speak on Third Reading, she will have the opportunity to do so.
Dr Coffey
I hear what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think my hon. Friend was getting so passionate about this issue that her intervention may have gone on a little too long, but she is right to point out the financial cost and to say that it is about not simply the attack but potential injury and stress, which can have consequences. She is right to highlight that.
I recently held a roundtable about this issue in my constituency, and I spoke to farm managers and shepherdesses about the situation. Members may know that, without any consequences, a farmer or landowner may shoot a dog that is causing worrying, although often farmers do not want to go around shooting other people’s dogs. Indeed, beyond the impact that it would have on them, not all farmers are licensed to do that, which is the situation in which some of the people at my meeting find themselves. They simply want people to have better control of their dogs, which does not necessarily mean that dogs should be on leads. As I have already mentioned in responding to the amendments, dogs can be on leads that are not even attached to the owner. It is control and recall that really matter, but leads are important for people who are unfamiliar with walking in the countryside or who cannot control their dog, for whatever reason. Leads are vital in that regard, and they are a way for us to make sure that people have responsible access to the countryside.
This is the fourth Bill before us today, and I am conscious that those on both Front Benches would like to see further progress on other legislation before the House. I want to thank Tim Pratt, Tilly Abbott, Will Pratt, Ed Hawkins and Heidi Crick, as well as Ella Thackray and Jen Cox from the NFU, who came to speak to me about this issue. I have had multiple representations from right around the country. This Bill extends to both England and Wales, in line with the original 1953 Act, but other legislation is already in place in Northern Ireland and Scotland, where different legal systems have evolved over the years. I believe that this Bill is a straightforward way to make sure that we help our farmers, whose primary role is to grow food to put on our plates and should not be about worrying—literally—about other people’s animals worrying their livestock.
The measures in this Bill were originally included in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. I am pleased to say that we are starting to see other elements of that proposed legislation going through. Just this week, the ban on live exports received Royal Assent, and there have been regulations on other aspects of that issue. It was explained at the time why the Bill was split up, but I am pleased to have played a part and to have fulfilled my commitment to get this legislation through the House.
I am very grateful to our Clerk, Anne-Marie Griffiths, who has given excellent guidance along the way. I really want to thank the officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as the Ministers and the shadow Ministers. I also thank my team, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) and the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who have helped through the usual channels to progress this piece of legislation, which I think will be welcomed across the House. Once it gets through the Lords, it is intended that the Act will commence automatically—three months after Royal Assent, I think —so that it is well in place in 2025. I thank Mr Deputy Speaker and colleagues who have spoken in today’s debate, as well.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I will begin by talking about two principles: first, we want people to be able to enjoy the countryside. We are lucky to have it. It can help us keep well, both physically and mentally; it supports wildlife; it is beautiful, of course; and it is world-renowned. I have always been someone who enjoys the countryside—a countryside walk is a fantastic way of clearing one’s mind—but so much of it is accessible and available for us to enjoy only because farmers maintain it. I have previous and current family members who own farmland and keep livestock, and we all benefit from the work and effort that goes into that.
That brings me to the second principle, which is that enjoyment of the countryside has to be respectful. That is why I welcome the Bill that has been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), undoubtedly using a wealth of experience gained from her distinguished service as the DEFRA Secretary of State. She has always demonstrated a common-sense approach when it comes to balancing issues such as this.
One of the features that so many people enjoy about our countryside is seeing farm animals, such as sheep and cows, grazing peacefully as they pass by, but of course we are a nation of dog lovers, so many people are not enjoying the countryside alone. Sadly, not everyone who takes their dog with them manages to do so responsibly, which can have terrible consequences. As has been mentioned, NFU Mutual data shows that claims from dog attacks on farm animals rose to more than £1.8 million in 2022, and behind those financial claims are distressing stories of killed, injured or frightened livestock and farmers seeing animals for which they care deeply suffering unnecessarily. There is existing legislation aimed at tackling this issue—the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which we are amending today—but as the figures I have mentioned demonstrate, more needs to be done. The NFU and others have long called for reform of the legislation, and it is welcome that we now have the opportunity to do that.
Let me now talk about some of the things in the Bill that are particularly welcome. First, it widens the scope of the 1953 Act to include, for example, roads and paths. The movement of livestock along our country roads is another particularly welcome feature of our countryside—many people have a funny story about being stuck behind a moving herd of cattle. That is something that we enjoy about our countryside, and it would not be the same without it, so the law should protect livestock in those circumstances as well. Secondly, the Bill allows the police to seize a dog that they believe has been involved in an incident when the owner is not present. That is the kind of common-sense reform that is long overdue. Thirdly, the Bill allows samples and evidence to be collected from dogs and livestock. Although policing in urban areas increasingly makes use of CCTV, that sort of evidence is not often available in the countryside, so police need to make use of other evidence to prosecute people successfully.
I am also pleased that, when enacted, the Bill will enable any existing cases to make use of the new powers we are introducing—that is an additional positive feature. I know from my time as a volunteer policeman that so often a small minority of people are responsible for most crime, and I am sure that it is no different in this case. Most people enjoy the countryside responsibly, and most farmers understand that it is important that they get to do so, but we have to protect our countryside, and the farm animals that live in it are a fundamental part of it. As an MP who represents rural areas and farmers, I particularly congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing this Bill. I have really welcomed the opportunity to speak, even briefly, in support of it in the House today.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill, and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on having brought it forward. I am very lucky to live in and represent a lovely, beautiful area of Lincolnshire that has gorgeous countryside. Like many people, I like taking my dog, Bonnie, for a walk through the countryside, but as a farmer’s wife, I also recognise that it is a working landscape—that crops are being grown for food, and that livestock is being looked after, too.
Dog ownership has increased since lockdown. Although most dog owners are responsible and most dogs good-natured, research suggests that dogs are now more likely than before to be left off leads or out of sight. The natural behaviour of all dogs is to chase. Many people are unaware that if their dog chases a sheep, it may cause that sheep distress. They may not be aware that even if the dog does not catch the sheep, the simple fact of being chased can cause a pregnant ewe to miscarry her lamb or to die. Not only does that have an emotional effect on sheep by causing them to suffer, but it causes an emotional and financial stress for the farmer, as we have heard, so I welcome these steps to strengthen the law.
As others have mentioned, education on the countryside code is important, and it should extend beyond the Bill to include littering and the closing of gates to keep livestock safe. I welcome the steps to detect where crimes has occurred, as well as the unlimited nature of the fine, which will help to deter people from committing the crime in the first place and encourage them to look after their dogs. I hope that the publicity that my right hon. Friend has generated for the Bill will serve to provide educational opportunities.
Steve Reed
I do not think that I need to add to the comments that I made on Report. We think this is an important piece of legislation and we wish it well as it continues its progress through the other House with wholehearted support from both sides.
Rebecca Pow
I must start, of course, by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on guiding the Bill through the House, and by thanking her for all her detailed work, including the holding of roundtables with farmers and country people in her constituency, which was absolutely the right thing to do in order to hear about the matter from the horse’s mouth. I also thank the Opposition for supporting the Bill—it is great to sing from the same hymn sheet once or twice—and everybody else who has contributed today.
We have heard really useful inputs from Members, who have used knowledge from their own constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) mentioned countryside access, which is such an important point, as I said on Report. The Bill will also help to educate people and give them an understanding about how to respect the workplace of farmers while enjoying the countryside.
The workplace of farmers was mentioned by our own farmer’s wife and doctor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). She said, importantly, that this is not just about the straight slaughter of animals; it is about the frightening, terrifying situation that can arise among a flock of sheep, say, which might later abort or die. That is covered in the Bill through particular references to the situation at large in relation to dogs and sheep.
To summarise, we know that livestock worrying and attacks on livestock can have terrible impacts. I do not think that a week goes by when I do not open Farmers Weekly or Farmers Guardian and see a ghastly picture of such incidents. I am especially proud to be the Minister responding today, because I was co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on animal welfare, which did that first report about livestock worrying in 2017. I think that a lot of the data has gradually fed into the legislation as we have moved it along. The APPG reported then that 34,000 livestock worrying incidents occur every year, so it is a significant problem. Not only is it terrifying in terms of animal welfare, but it has a big economic cost: an estimated £2.4 million a year is lost through destroyed animals killed by dogs.
That is why the Bill is so important. It will support our commitment to ensure that new powers are available to the police so that they can respond effectively to the worrying or attacking of livestock by dogs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal said—she did so much on this when she was at DEFRA—the Government are absolutely committed to the animal welfare agenda outlined in our 2021 action plan. We have a proud record of delivering on that agenda through a raft of measures brought through in a range of ways. We have increased penalties for animal cruelty, extended the Ivory Act 2018 to include more endangered species, passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, introduced microchipping for cats, banned glue traps, introduced new powers for hare coursing, banned the trade in shark fins and protected service animals via Finn’s law. There is a whole list, and people in this Chamber have been involved in many of those pieces of legislation. It is a very proud record. The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill has just passed Third Reading in the House of Lords, and we are supporting Bills that will deliver a new offence of pet abduction, and cracking down on puppy smuggling.
Rebecca Pow
Loud cheers from behind me. We are making great progress on delivering so many of those measures that were originally intended in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. I think the record shows, as does today’s Bill, that the Government are dedicated and committed to improving animal welfare. Indeed, we have the highest welfare score of the G7, according to the World Animal Protection index. That is something of which the Government should be proud. I know that Mr Deputy Speaker is a great animal lover as well, so this is very pertinent to him.
We have given the Bill a thorough review today. It will give much added protection to our valuable livestock, and will send important signals to the public regarding access to the countryside with a dog.
Nothing more remains than to thank everybody involved—all of the officials who have worked so hard on the Bill and helped to guide it through both House, and the Opposition for their support. More thanks also go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. I am delighted to support the Bill, and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal on taking her Bill through the House.
Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill
Friday 17th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill 2023-24 View all Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Secure 16 to 19 academies, otherwise known as secure schools, are an innovative new form of custody for children and young people that the 2019 manifesto committed to trialling. They will be schools with security, rather than prisons with education. Normally when children commit an offence, they are managed in the community with community sentences, but sometimes the offences committed are so awful or the offending is so frequent that a custodial sentence is necessary. Thankfully, that is not common; there are currently around 530 children in the secure estate, and the House may be interested to know that fewer than 12 of them at any time in the last year have been female children.
Many of these children have significant social, emotional or mental health issues, which are root causes of some of the offending behaviour. Even if they have very long sentences, they will come out into the community at a relatively young age, which means that they will have a long time free to contribute to society if they can be effectively given greater rehabilitation opportunities in prison.
In Sleaford, we have a secure children’s home that takes younger children into a small environment and gives them a better chance of turning their lives around. The first secure school will be built in Medway in Kent, providing education to a small number of young people —up to 49 of them—and giving them a good opportunity to bring themselves on to the straight and narrow.
The Government have already acted, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to establish the secure 16 to 19 academies in legislation, and this Bill makes further necessary amendments to the Academies Act 2010 to make specific provisions relevant to the establishment of new secure schools, as opposed to other types of academies.
The changes proposed cover the termination period in which the Government continue to fund the secure school should there be a need to end a funding agreement into which they have entered. In general, normal academies would have a seven-year period, but the Bill will reduce that to two for the secure estate. The seven years is calculated on the basis that students would normally spend seven years at a school, but in the case of secure schools, the sentences vary considerably, and the amount of time that a child spends in such an establishment is determined primarily by their legal status. The Bill will enable the Government to prioritise value for money, which we would expect a Conservative Government to continue to do. It will also provide more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a school provider.
For such an important part of our vision for the future of the youth custody estate, it is important that we have efficient processes for opening new schools. The Bill will modify the consultation requirements in the 2010 Act so that they do not apply to secure schools, and help future secure schools to open with minimal delay. For example, anyone who wants to open an academy is required to consider the impact that it will have on pupil numbers in other local schools, but clearly that is not a relevant consideration for a secure school. Engagement with local communities is a key part of the Ministry of Justice selection process for new custodial sites. The Bill gives providers the opportunity to engage with their local community, ensuring a more constructive consultation process that will seek to consult on how the secure school works with local partners. It should be noted that a proposal to build an entirely new site would of course go through the regular planning procedures too.
By supporting the Bill, the House has an opportunity to tailor the legislative framework for secure schools, thereby creating better services and strengthening the impact of secure schools on the lives of children in the justice system. I have been most grateful to hon. Members across the House for their support and valued contributions during the Bill’s passage so far. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth (Dr Evans), for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for Southend West (Anna Firth), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) and for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for Neath (Christina Rees), and the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) for participating in the Bill Committee. I thank in particular my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and the hon. Member for Neath for their valued contributions in Committee. I also thank the Ministry of Justice officials who have been so helpful to me with the Bill; the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), for his support with it; Anne-Marie Griffiths in the Public Bill Office; and my great team for Sleaford and North Hykeham.
I hope I have addressed the aims of the Bill and the positive impact it can have, and I am proud to move its Third Reading.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I am conscious that this is a small Bill, but it is an important one. It recognises the need to make sure that the legislation is up to date and does not limit the opportunities for secure academies to proceed. I have two prisons in my constituency, and during my time as an MP one of them has been a young offenders institution. Warren Hill is now a category C prison, but when I visited it as a YOI, I saw how important it was to have that educational ethos. I am conscious that young people who are housed in YOIs have often performed pretty horrific crimes, but I think there is an opportunity with this Bill to expand the focus on education while maintaining aspects of the relevant categories.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on taking on what is perhaps a less attractive area of legislation, but one in which important things need to be done. I know that her Bill, if it flies through the Lords as it has through the Commons, will be a really good legacy for her and for thinking about the future of young children.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing this Bill and on her speech? Like others, I have a long-standing interest in youth justice, having served on the Justice Committee, but also because I have a young offenders institution in my constituency, which I have visited on many occasions.
Reforms to youth justice are essential, and we support the measures in the Bill. The hon. Member is right that secure schools—schools with security rather than prisons with education—are an innovative form of custody for children and young people. The 2016 Taylor report laid out why we need to reimagine how we care for children who commit offences serious enough to warrant their detention in custody. The Government committed that year to phase out young offender institutions and secure training centres, and to replace them with a network of secure schools, since renamed secure 16 to 19 academies.
Media reports today reference the first secure school being set to open in Medway on the site of the Medway secure training centre, which is set to house 49 children aged 12 to 18 who were sentenced or remanded to custody by the courts. However, as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows, the journey has been beset by delays. The Public Accounts Committee report in 2022 said that the first secure school had not yet opened more than six years after it was recommended, and costs had indeed spiralled—from an estimated original £4.9 million, I think, to £40 million—because of unexpected additional requirements that had not been factored in. The first secure school was originally set to open by autumn 2020, as the Public Accounts Committee identified; the former Medway STC site was then to open by November 2023, but was again delayed to February 2024, and it is still yet to open. The main point, with which I am sure the hon. Lady will agree, is that we need effective planning and risk management to be much better than we have seen to date in the history of the secure schools implementation. I will make a couple of further comments in that regard, but will first make our comments on the proposed changes, which we support.
We support the reduction of the minimum notice period; as has been mentioned, the seven-year termination period was clearly intended for continuity of education provision for those who might be in year 7 who might expect to be able to go on to year 13 in their school. It is also right to say that secure schools are not competing with other schools in their area.
On the third amendment, on consultation with appropriate persons on how the school will work with local partners, the hon. Lady made an important distinction between where there might be new developments to go through a full planning process and where an existing facility may be adapted or refurbished. On the latter, I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that we want people to be confident in these schools and to feel engaged in what is happening in their community. It is important that we have learning and best practice from the implementation of the first secure school as well, and that we keep under review the way in which communities are being engaged.
I hope the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham will also agree—perhaps she will comment on this—that it is important to keep under review the continuity and quality of the education being provided. As she says, the children going into these secure schools may be there for a period of months, or they may be there for longer. Bearing in mind there has to be an assessment of their education on entry, what consideration is there for the continuity and quality of that education, as well as the maintenance of relationships with family? Children as young as 12 are being cared for in these secure schools—that is very young. How will visiting arrangements and temporary release arrangements be determined? It is important that risk assessments are followed so that families and communities continue to have confidence in the reforms as they are rolled out.
I will also make a point on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who would have spoken in this debate, about levels of violence. How would they be considered on the youth estate, and how would they be managed in secure schools to ensure confidence?
I want to raise two important matters. The first is around capacity and the implications of a lack of capacity on the quality of provision. Based on analysis of data from the Department for Education, Article 39 says:
“At any one time, around 25 children each day are waiting for a secure children’s home place and around 20 are placed by…local authorities in Scottish secure units due to the lack of available places. The…number of secure children’s homes places means that, even when children get a place,”
they are likely to end up living far away from home. Given the severe shortage of places in secure homes, and although the first secure 16-to-19 academy is set to be run by Oasis, there is no guarantee that, with the growing pressure to create places as we see the reforms continue, other quality education providers with the necessary expertise across both education and justice, youth justice in particular, will come forward.
I hope the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham will agree that we need to monitor how we build capacity, otherwise the outcome will be to sacrifice the quality of provision for children against the pressure to create places. I would be grateful for her comments on that.
The second challenge is about rehabilitation, to which the hon. Lady referred, and prevention. At the moment, there is no cohesive plan to stop young people picking up knives, which is why Labour has announced a Young Futures programme that would require new local partnerships to identify the young people most at risk of knife crime and to build a package of support to prevent them from ever offending. This will draw on up to £100 million a year, based on combining existing commitments to fund new youth mentors and mental health hubs in every community, youth workers in pupil referral units and A&E, and a programme of public sector reform to deliver a targeted programme in every area. She may have broadly considered this in relation to her amendment on community engagement, but the community engagement of secure academy providers may be important to wider community youth crime prevention.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on this important Bill, which I wish every success as it continues its passage through the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for her excellent work on this important Bill, and for navigating it to this point. It is to her great credit that the Bill has such support.
It is a sad reality that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty in order to protect the public. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that they receive the appropriate support to prepare them for their eventual release and to turn their life around.
As the House will be aware, Charlie Taylor published his landmark review of the youth justice system in 2016. The report made a number of important recommendations, including on the need to reimagine how we care for children who commit serious enough offences to warrant detaining them in custody. His proposal was to create a new type of custodial environment, focused on the delivery of education, to offer children the opportunity to gain the skills and qualifications necessary to prepare them for their release into the community.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 established secure schools in legislation as secure 16-to-19 academies, under both the Academies Act 2010 and the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015. The first ever secure school, Oasis Restore, is in the process of Ofsted registration and hopes to welcome children in the very near future. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), visited the site yesterday to see for himself the impressive progress made on the school’s facilities. As work has continued, and as we near the opening of the first ever secure school, this Bill is now needed to ensure that the specific provisions of the Academies Act are relevant to secure 16-to-19 academies.
Why do we need secure schools? The number of children in custody has fallen drastically in recent years, with 82% fewer children under the age of 18 in custody than in 2010. It is right that we should deprive children of their liberty only as a last resort, and the decline has rightly been commended as a success of the youth justice system. However, for children who commit the most serious crimes, there remains a need to protect the public by detaining them in custody.
The children now in custody are among the most complex and vulnerable in society, and they present with very challenging behaviour. The majority have committed violence-related offences and are much more likely to reoffend upon release than adult prisoners. The latest Government statistics show that 62% of children released from custody go on to reoffend within a year. Secure schools are a necessary change to break this cycle of reoffending. The children in custody are also more likely than their peers to have had a disrupted education. Government analysis shows that around 90% of children sentenced to custody had a record of persistent absence. That means that these children have lost out on months or years-worth of learning. The evidence about the importance of education as a preventive factor in childhood offending is clear. Secure schools offer these children an opportunity to re-engage with education and make the most of their potential.
The secure school model has been developed in accordance with the best available evidence of what works in addressing the underlying causes of youth offending. That is why secure schools offer small and homely environments, with healthcare and education at their heart. In secure schools, children and young people will engage with integrated care services, including health and education, tailored to their individual needs. On entry, each young person will have a full assessment of their needs, to establish a baseline against which progress can be measured and to ensure that any unmet health and special education needs are identified. They will have personalised programmes that build on their strengths and develop their potential, with the use of evidence-based interventions that help them to build resilience and develop vital skills that will help them in the future.
Curriculum delivery will take place in appropriately sized groups, including through one-to-one interventions where needed. Children in secure schools will have the opportunity to make educational progress on a par with that of their peers in mainstream schools, proportionate to the length of their sentence. Secure schools will work closely with youth offending teams, with education, health and other community service providers and with young people’s families where appropriate. Planning for resettlement will start when a young person enters a secure school and will be adapted to support transition to the adult estate where appropriate.
The Government support the Bill, because secure schools are a landmark reform in youth custody that, as has been mentioned, will help to reduce reoffending and ultimately lead to fewer victims of youth crime, thereby protecting the public. However, it is only by ensuring that secure schools function well, with proportionate termination measures, and appropriate and efficient processes for opening new schools, that we will achieve that goal.
In closing, I would like to thank the Opposition for their support for my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and also officials at the Ministry of Justice for supporting her in preparing the Bill. I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend for bringing it before the House. I also reiterate with great pleasure that the Government support this important Bill. I wish it well in its progress in the other place.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I rise to thank again those who have helped with the passage of the Bill. In Sleaford, we have a secure children’s home that runs a small unit providing great education and rehabilitative care to those young people. I welcome the fact that the Bill will help to extend that educational and holistic approach to helping young people to turn their lives around.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I again congratulate the hon. Lady on piloting her Bill through the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
School Attendance (Duties of Local Authorities and Proprietors of Schools) Bill
Friday 17th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate School Attendance (Duties of Local Authorities and Proprietors of Schools) Bill 2023-24 View all School Attendance (Duties of Local Authorities and Proprietors of Schools) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill on school attendance is important to our nation’s children and to their futures. At time when there is so much discord in politics, it has been truly uplifting to know that, when it comes to our children, even Members of Parliament can agree with each other and do the right thing. I want to start by thanking all colleagues, from all parties, for their unanimous support for the Bill at every stage of its proceedings through the House.
As a mum, I always wanted my children to have a wide range of choices available to them, so that they could choose the best opportunities for their future. Getting five good GCSEs gives a teenager a lot of choices. With these grades, they can do A-levels, T-levels or an apprenticeship. Without them, choices suddenly become much more limited. One of the schools in my constituency analysed the performance of two identical cohorts of students. Of the group who had attended 95% to 100% of the time, 82% got five good GCSEs; about five in 30 children did not. Of the group who had attended between 90% and 95% of the time, only 68% of them got good GCSEs; that means that 10 out of 30 did not get good GCSEs. That shows how even a tiny drop in attendance can have long-lasting consequences for our children.
The Children’s Commissioner found that three quarters of children who were rarely absent from school received five good grades at GCSE including in English and maths, but of those who are persistently absent—missing 10% or more of their school time—only one in three were meeting that standard. For children who were severely absent, only one in 20 were doing so. That is why we are all so correct in being so concerned about the rise in school absences.
Before I speak about absences, I want to say that we should be extraordinarily proud of our nation’s young people. Children in England now rank 11th in the world for maths and 13th for reading, whereas back in 2010, when today’s school leavers were just starting out in reception, the same league tables placed the equivalent cohort of children 27th for maths and 25th for reading. I am really proud that every single school in my Chelmsford constituency is now ranked “good” or “outstanding”; 14 years ago under Labour, one in three kids in my constituency had to go to schools that were not even “good”. Let us be proud of our kids, but absence is a really challenging issue.
The pandemic significantly disrupted school attendance levels, not just here but across the world. About one in five pupils in England are still missing the equivalent of half a day or more of lessons a week. That means that over a million children are missing significant amounts of their education. That is limiting not only their education but their choices, their chances to make friendships and take part in enrichment activities, as well as so many other issues that are so important for their behaviour.
We know that the reasons for absence from school can be multiple and complex. Such issues include support for those with special educational needs and disabilities, anxiety or mental health issues. If a child’s SEND needs are unmet, that can lead to their missing out on their education.
Changes in attitudes towards minor ailments may be another driving force behind the rise in absences. I say to parents, who are now much more likely to keep their children at home for minor illnesses such as coughs or colds than before the pandemic, that they should please be aware that in most cases children are better off at school even if they have a minor ailment. For the most vulnerable pupils, regular attendance is also a really important protective factor. That is why I was very concerned to hear from an expert on alternative provision that attendance has dropped below 60% for the first time in some of the settings he covers.
We know that regular absence from school can expose young people to harms such as being drawn into crime or serious violence. Some commentators have noted that absence is higher among children on free school meals, but one multi-academy trust leader I spoke to who had done a lot of research at his school suggested that was not the case for all ethnic groups. Those schools he looked at with a higher proportion of pupils with English as a second language had a much higher level of attendance than school cohorts with a higher proportion of British white students. That really needs further investigation.
Another head of a multi-academy trust with schools in my area said there had been an uptick in poor attendance particularly among girls in years 8 to 10. Many other school leaders have confirmed similar trends and suggested that that may be linked to lower mental wellbeing and self-esteem. Those of us who attended Tuesday’s Westminster Hall debate on the impact of social media and screen time—particularly on teenagers and particularly on girls—noted the link between poor mental health among teenage girls and social media, and the further link between poorer mental health and higher anxiety and missing school. It is deeply concerning. There have also been stories in the press recently about the links, in some families, between the increase in hybrid working and children missing school. As a mum, I completely understand how much more difficult it must be to persuade a sometimes reluctant child to go to school if you yourself are working from home on the day in question.
All those issues are important, but my Bill will make a significant difference. It will mean that every council will have to use its services to help to remove the barriers faced by some children. It will mean that every school in the country will need to publicise a detailed attendance policy and share it with parents, pupils and carers. All schools and local authorities will have to follow best practice guidance on school attendance, which has put a great deal of emphasis on the importance of early help and multidisciplinary support. We know that some children and some parents face specific challenges when it comes to school attendance, such as transport needs or special educational needs, and the guidance covers those in detail.
Schools will be required to have a named attendance champion, and families will be aware of the expectations incumbent on them before choosing secondary schools. Local authorities will need to meet representatives of each school regularly, and together they will need to discuss cases in which multi-agency support is needed. In that event they will need to work with the agencies to provide that support, especially in cases of persistent or severe absence. The Bill provides a “support first” approach for families to help to ensure that children attend school regularly.
This is very simple but crucial legislation. I hope it will help to transform the lives of all children and young people; I hope it will reduce the unfairness whereby different amounts of support are available to families in different parts of the country by providing for a more consistent approach; and I hope it will open up a new conversation on the timings of holidays. I entirely understand the pressure on families to take time off for family holidays in term time because it is generally much cheaper, but if a child does miss out on school for that reason, it will have an impact on that child’s education and life choice, and it will not help the child in the long term.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s Bill, and I agree with her that attendance is vital to a child’s education. She has made an important point about the effect that going on holiday in term time can have on an individual pupil, but does she agree that if pupils are missing, that will have an effect on the rest of the class, and that it is not fair on the teacher or the support staff who may have to work extra hard to ensure that the child who was missing can catch up without the whole class being affected?
Vicky Ford
As ever, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Some children need to take time off school because, for instance, they have appendicitis and are having an operation. Teachers understand that, and will work with children in that position to help them to catch up. However, we are now seeing an increasing number of children taking time off school—perhaps because it is a Monday or a Friday and they are extending a weekend and perhaps because a parent is working from home. It is impossible for the teachers to help so many children to catch up. They just cannot, much as they would want to. All those missed afternoons and missed mornings add up to a loss of learning. Not only does that hit children’s abilities to get good GCSEs, but teachers have explained to me that if it happens in the early years it can become an ongoing behaviour. We might think, “Oh, it really doesn’t matter, they’re not in an exam year,” but it builds in the habit and it builds in with the class, so it is crucial.
In order to try to solve the holiday issue, I would like to see schools use the powers they already have to vary their term times a bit, which might give more families the opportunity to avoid peak season options. Perhaps we will see more regional changes: for example, different parts of Germany have slightly staggered school holidays so that not all the country is trying to go to the beach at the same time. I have discussed with some of the headteachers in my constituency whether we could have an Essex approach.
We had a slightly different February half-term in Essex: our Essex children had their February half-term a week after the rest of the country, which gave families a bit more flexibility. Having a regional approach meant that, for families who had primary schools kids at one school and secondary school kids at another, the family school holidays still overlapped. I would like to see more work done by schools with their local authorities to see whether they can give a bit more of that flexibility.
Coming back to the Bill, I say a big thank you to all the right hon. and hon. Members who took time to sit on the Bill Committee and to the Education Committee for its support. The Children’s Commissioner deserves an enormous amount of thanks for the work she has done on this issue, and particularly from me for the roundtable of real experts that she brought together, including children’s mental health charities, multi-academy trusts, local authority experts and others in this area. The Centre for Social Justice has also looked in depth at the impact that missing school is having on our children. I also thank the Schools Minister, especially for coming to visit a school in Chelmsford to hear directly from staff and students about this issue, and I thank the exceptional team at the Department for Education, as well as the staff in this House, for their very hard work on the Bill.
To conclude, we know that, for most children, the best place to be is in school, where they are surrounded by the support of their friends and teachers. We know that children will invariably fall behind if they miss time in the classroom, no matter how much teachers and others try to help them to catch up. We know that going to school is important not just for our children’s education, but for their wellbeing, wider development and mental health. Sadly, we also know that for many children the pandemic brought loneliness, loss of communication, loss of face-to-face time with their friends and loss of laughter—and for some children, those losses have had a lasting impact. The Bill will not be a magic wand, and it will not undo all the harms caused by covid, but it is a very firm step in a happier and more positive direction.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and fellow Essex MP the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on her excellent Bill and on the skilful way she has guided it through this place. I was very disappointed not to be there in the Bill Committee, but I am delighted to be here to support her and her Bill on Third Reading.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that education is the best way to change our children’s future and thereby our country’s future, giving all our children the opportunity to excel and to develop their true potential. She is right to point out that we have made enormous strides with education, particularly under this Government and over the last 14 years, to a point where we now have the best readers in the western world. She pointed out how we have raced up the PISA tables; we now rank 11th in the world for maths and 13th for reading worldwide. However, I was deeply concerned last year to see reports suggesting that, in Southend, a fifth of school pupils are missing 10% of their lessons over the course of a year. The most recent data from Southend Learning Network suggests that, in primary schools, persistent absence sits at 5.7%, just above the national average of 5.4%. In secondary schools, persistent absence is 7%, which is below the national average of 8.7%. That is good news, but both those figures are still too high.
As my right hon. Friend eloquently demonstrated, only a small diminution in attendance can have a significant impact on exam results and, therefore, pupils’ ability to go on and fulfil their potential. That is why I welcome the action that she has taken. She highlighted how good attendance requires a holistic approach, involving schools, families, local authorities and other local partners, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I also agree with the view of the Education Committee, of which I am a member, that the Department for Education’s 2022 guidance, “Working together to improve school attendance” should be put on a statutory footing. The Bill takes steps to ensure that that happens.
This is an excellent Bill, and I am delighted that it enjoys cross-party support. It is a positive step forward in enabling children to get the support they need and help them not only to return but to stay in school. Again, I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing it. It has my full support. I hope to see it pass today and make swift progress through the other place, so that we can get it on the statute book as soon as possible.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on her Bill and her speech. I think we all agree that the current poor attendance constitutes a crisis that must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Earlier this year, Labour tabled an Opposition day motion containing a range of possible ways to address the problem, but it is unfortunate that the long-term plan to deal with the school attendance crisis was voted down by Conservatives. Labour supports the Bill but, as the right hon. Lady acknowledged, it is a first step and not a magic wand. She is right to lay out the impact of absence on attainment, why we need to be concerned about that and the long-term impact of absence on children’s opportunity. It is important that our systems all work together to support children to stay in school, which is why we welcome clause 1, which introduces a duty on local authorities and clarifies their role in promoting regular attendance and reducing absence. Clause 2 is also important, as it includes particulars that schools must include in their attendance policies, with guidance on how they should be issued and communicated to parents. The measures are welcome and I hope that they will have a positive impact on the situation in our schools. I pay tribute to the think-tanks and mothers who have been involved in many discussions on how we tackle this issue across the House.
The right hon. Lady also mentioned some ways in which there could be variations in the school holidays, which could support greater attendance where holidays may be part of the challenge. In my constituency, I have talked to schools about the variation they have had, with two weeks for an extended half-term in autumn and one week less in summer, which they say has had a positive impact on engagement and support for learning.
Proper interventions are vital to get children back into the classroom. As the right hon. Lady mentioned, the figures are stark. Last year, under this Government, 21.2% of children were persistently absent from school. That is more than one in five, and double the figure just six years earlier. The number of children missing half their lessons has rocketed, too. In my local authority of Hounslow, it has more than doubled in just six years. Other areas have even higher numbers. How can we properly set up a child for the future if they are missing every other lesson in school?
The Labour party firmly believes that every child matters and that every day at school matters. Fixed-penalty notices for school absence must be a part of the system, but they are not the answer alone. There is a view, which the right hon. Lady may have, on guidance in relation to penalties where children may be undergoing assessments for education, health and care plans, but it is important that we look at the wider support. That is why we in the Labour party have set out a long-term plan that looks in the round at the issues causing absence and persistent absence, including supporting schools with the recruitment, which we have announced and committed to, of 6,500 new teachers. We will roll out free breakfast clubs in every primary school. Evidence shows that they improve children’s learning and development, and they have a positive impact on attendance and behaviour.
It is also vital to address the mental health crisis that our children are facing. Mental ill health is a key barrier to learning and attendance, yet children are remaining on long child and adolescent mental health services waiting lists, unable to access the support they need. The waiting list for assessment is over two years in many instances. We would recruit thousands of new staff to bring down those waiting lists and put specialist mental health professionals in schools and community hubs, so that children can get the help they need, solving problems before they get worse.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for her support for further interventions to support children and young people facing mental health difficulties. It is an issue raised frequently in many MPs’ surgeries, including in mine, so I am very grateful for her support in this important area.
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The broader point he is also making is that schools must have that support, because it is a part of how they can tackle absence in schools. That is why we need to tackle this issue head-on and not let it spiral further out of control.
Children are not engaging with the curriculum and assessment system, which has been described to us —I also speak on behalf of the shadow schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell)—as “joyless” and “narrow”. The UK now has the second lowest average life satisfaction of 15-year-olds in the OECD. Opportunities for music, art, sport and drama, as well as for discussion and debate, are often squeezed. Our curriculum and assessment review would look at delivering a broad curriculum that prepares children for the future, reflecting children’s desire for learning, as well as reflecting issues and diversity in our society.
Children’s early speech and language development has also suffered over the past few years, and covid contributed other stresses and anxieties. Getting it right at an early stage will lead to better engagement throughout school life. We would equip primary schools with funds to deliver evidence-based early language interventions. Finally, we would introduce a “children not in school” register to ensure that children who are not being taught in a school environment do not fall through the gaps.
Today’s Bill is extremely important and I again congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelmsford. I wish it well as it moves through the other place, but it is important to acknowledge that it shines a spotlight on the Government’s lack of action to deal with the crisis in our schools. Significantly, that was highlighted by Sir Kevan Collins when he resigned as education recovery commissioner in 2021. In describing the Government’s catch-up plan as “feeble”, he highlighted how there was not the intervention that we need to secure our children’s future effectively. That is why we need much more urgent action from Ministers on how they intend to tackle this problem. Tinkering around the edges simply will not do. We need a proper long-term plan, and if the Government will not deliver it, despite the right hon. Lady’s best efforts, the next Labour Government will do so.
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Luke Hall)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate and outline the Government’s view about the importance of delivering this provision. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for her work on the Bill, and congratulate her on the manner in which she has managed to take it through the House and gather so much cross-party support. This is clearly a subject of huge importance to her. She talked passionately about the impact that the Bill will have in her constituency and across the country, and about how her experiences as a mother helped to shape her view about the importance of getting this issue right. I assure her that it is equally as important to me and to the Government more widely.
All evidence points to school as the best place for children’s attainment, wellbeing and development. This important Bill can play a crucial role in ensuring that all children attend regularly, and I am delighted to lend the Government’s support to it today. It has been clear through the passage of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend and the Schools Minister explained, that there has been significant cross-party support and co-operation at every stage. We thank hon. Members for that, including those on the Opposition Front Bench; it speaks volumes about the way that my right hon. Friend has managed to steer this important Bill through the House. Throughout its passage, Members have taken time to contribute and share experiences and views about how important this issue is, and we heard strong examples of the work that schools and local authorities are doing to improve attendance. We must ensure that that work continues and expands across the country.
The Government support the Bill, because we want to give parents clarity and to level up standards across all parts of England—across all 24,000 schools and 153 local authorities, and their 9 million pupils. Thanks to the incredible work of those schools and councils, we are starting to see signs of improvement. Last academic year, 440,000 fewer pupils were persistently absent or not attending than in the previous year, and 375,000 more children were in school almost every day—95% of possible sessions—compared with the year before. That second figure was based on improvements across the country across all phases, including key vulnerable cohorts such as children with special educational needs or those in receipt of free school meals.
Prior to the pandemic, we gradually reduced persistent absence from 17.4% in the school year that ended in 2010, to about 10% or 11% in the second half of the decade, up until the point at which covid struck. We are determined to get back there as quickly as we can, but there is further to go and the Bill will play an important part in that. There are still areas of the country where families cannot access the support they need, but by placing requirements in primary legislation for local authorities to exercise their functions with a view to promoting attendance, for schools to publicise an attendance policy, and for both to have regard to Department for Education guidance in doing so, we are taking another key step forward in ensuring consistency.
My right hon. Friend has been working closely with the Schools Minister, and he detailed on Second Reading and in Committee the comprehensive strategy that we have in place to support schools and councils to meet their expectations, whether that is through attendance hubs, attendance advisers, or the use of improving and groundbreaking data. I will not go over all that again, but we will continue to ensure that all that support still applies and is available to schools and councils.
My right hon. Friend raised an important point about holidays and staggering term time, and I completely agree with a number of the points she made. Of course, we absolutely sympathise with families who want to avoid more expensive periods, but we are clear that pupils should not miss school for term-time holidays, which cause unnecessary disruption to learning and make it harder for teachers to plan lessons and cover the curriculum. Obviously, those school holidays are not determined at national level: they are set by local schools and, depending on the type of school, by local authorities too. In our view, those institutions are best placed to make those decisions, but I know they will take into account some of the points that my right hon. Friend raised during her remarks, which I thought were very well made.
Some points were also raised by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). As I have tried to emphasise in my remarks, we are committed to tackling this issue through a cross-cutting attendance strategy, alongside wider covid-recovery efforts. Our programmes are aimed at supporting the most vulnerable children, whether that is by investing billions of pounds to expand and transform NHS mental health services or by investing £40 million in our national school breakfast programme, which provides free breakfasts to children in schools in disadvantaged areas. We are also providing wide and comprehensive support for schools—whether through the local government finance settlement, the additional £200 million Supporting Families programme, or £2.6 billion until 2025 through the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan—and are providing £200 million for the holiday activities and food programme, too.
This is a hugely important Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has done a huge service to pupils up and down the country, including those in her constituency, by bringing it forward. Being in school has never been more valuable than it is now, with standards continuing to rise through the hard work of teachers. My right hon. Friend referred to the rocketing of schools’ performance: 90% are now good or outstanding, up from 68% under the last Labour Government. We have the fourth best primary school readers in the world, and our secondary school children have risen from 27th to 11th in maths—that is a transformation in standards and achievement—and from 25th to 13th in reading.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I am very struck by the comments that the Minister is making about the improvement in schools. Will he congratulate the schools in Staffordshire Moorlands, where since 2010, we have gone from fewer than 70% of schools being good or outstanding to nearly 90% now?
Luke Hall
My right hon. Friend’s intervention demonstrates the on-the-ground importance of the improvements in standards that we have seen over recent years. I have no doubt that that is down to the tremendous hard work of teachers, the local authority, parents and students, and I know that my right hon. Friend has been a strong champion of improving school performance. Of course, it is not just in Staffordshire; all around the country we are seeing that drive for standards and rocketing international comparisons. I thank her for raising that point; she was absolutely right to do so.
Crucially, this Bill will help to make sure that every young person and their family, whatever their background and wherever they are in the country, receives the support they need to be in school, to make sure they are attending, and to benefit from the transformation in educational standards that we have seen over the past few years.
I sincerely thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions today; my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) spoke passionately about the importance of delivering this Bill, and I thank her for her contribution. I know that this issue is important to her, and one that she has raised many times with Ministers and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. I thought my hon. Friend spoke very eloquently about the importance of delivering this Bill and its value to her constituents.
Finally, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford on bringing forward this important Bill, which the Government are delighted to support. I commend it to the House.
Vicky Ford
With the leave of the House, I again thank everybody who has taken part during the passage of this Bill. I may have been a little modest. This is a very short Bill—it is only a couple of pages long—but the guidance that it will make statutory is enormously detailed and wide-ranging. That is why making that guidance statutory was the No. 1 recommendation of the Education Select Committee, and the No. 1 ask from the Children’s Commissioner and many others.
I remember the Opposition day debate to which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) referred. I remember asking the shadow Schools Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), whether she would support my Bill on that day, and she declined to do so. We have introduced this legislation in the form of a private Member’s Bill; in order to do so, I had to join the back of the queue, because my name did not come up in the ballot. I remind colleagues that not just one but four Labour Members were in the top five of the ballot for private Members’ Bills. If the Labour party really wanted to do something great for our children, it would have taken the Bill through this route itself. Labour Members say that they have a plan for our children, but we can see that they have not. Otherwise, they would have delivered this Bill themselves.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill
Friday 17th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill 2023-24 View all Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Clause 1(a) is the central and crucial provision of the Bill, so I shall briefly explain its purpose and why it is necessary. Before a company can operate a satellite in orbit or carry out a launch mission from the UK, it must first obtain a spaceflight operator licence under the Space Industry Act 2018. The licence process ensures that spaceflight activities are undertaken safely, securely and in accordance with the UK’s international obligations.
Under United Nations space treaties, the state is ultimately liable for any damage or injury that may be caused by its space activities—even those undertaken by commercial space operators. The 2018 Act therefore contains provisions to help mitigate potential costs to UK taxpayers arising from UK commercial spaceflight activities. The provisions include the power to incorporate licence conditions requiring operators to hold insurance and, under section 36 of that Act, to indemnify the UK Government and other named public bodies against any claims brought against the Government or body in respect of damage or loss.
It is recognised, however, that placing unlimited liability on commercial space activities would be a barrier to operating in the UK. Other space nations, such as France and the United States, limit liabilities or provide a state guarantee for the launch activities that take place from their territory. Section 12(2) of the 2018 Act currently provides a power to specify a limit on the amount of the licensee’s liability to indemnify under section 36. Current Government policy is that the regulator should use those powers to specify a limit on operator liability in the licence so that no operator will face unlimited liability. That policy is set out in guidance, and I understand that all spaceflight operator licences issued to date under the 2018 Act contain a limit on the amount of liability. However, those in the industry have made clear, in response to consultation and in other fora, that they would welcome the legal certainty that they will not face unlimited liability when launching or operating a satellite from the UK.
Clause 1(a) amends section 12(2) of the 2018 Act by replacing “may” with “must”. That will change section 12(2) from being a discretionary power to a mandatory requirement by specifying a limit on the amount of an operator’s liability under section 36 in respect of the licence.
Clause 1(a) is a key regulatory improvement to the 2018 Act. It will provide assurance to investors that limits on the amount of an operator’s liability to indemnify Government and other named bodies will be included in licences. However, the existing provisions in legislation about the circumstances in which the limit on the amount of liability does not apply will continue to have effect. They include circumstances in which an operator is liable in gross negligence or wilful misconduct, or in which damage or loss is caused by non-compliance by the operator with its licence conditions, the requirements of the 2018 Act, or regulations.
Clause 1(b) contains a minor but necessary consequential amendment to section 36 of the 2018 Act. Overall, clause 1 meets a key request from the sector. It will also address a recommendation made by the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform.
The amendments made by clause 1 are consistent with Government policy, which is designed to support and grow the UK’s commercial space sector. By setting a clear requirement in law for a limit on operator liability in the licence, the clause will provide UK industry and those looking to invest in the UK with greater certainty, and carry more force than reliance on policy statements and guidance.
As we convene for Third Reading of this vital Bill, I urge colleagues across the House to consider the profound impact it will have on safeguarding British industrial and business interests in the burgeoning field of space and spaceflight. The Bill seeks to address critical uncertainties surrounding liability and indemnity for our space industry, providing much-needed clarity for current and prospective spaceflight operators and investors alike.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill. Will he confirm that it will give the UK a real competitive advantage in the space industry? It seems to me that it will.
Mr Lord
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I can confirm that the Bill will set us on par with the United States and France, our friends and probably our main competitors in this important arena. The space industry is already worth £17.5 billion a year, and it is estimated that these measures will add tens of billions over the coming decade or more. My right hon. Friend makes a really important point; the Bill will make us competitive in an area where, currently, we are not quite there.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on Third Reading of his Bill, which will make a huge difference to the space industry. Does he agree that it is imperative, as we move through the 21st century, that we encourage more women and girls to consider taking up the skills and employment opportunities that the space industry offers? Sadly, to date the industry has been too male focused. If we are going to pass Bills like this that give the industry the confidence to expand, hopefully we will be able to encourage more women and girls to consider a career in the space industry.
Mr Lord
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Bill will help provide certainty for our space industry for many years to come. Of course, we need all the talent that we can provide in this country. I completely agree that we want more girls going into science, technology, engineering and maths, and considering a career in this fantastic, relatively new industry.
By amending section 12(2) of the Space Industry Act 2018, the Bill will firmly establish in law the imperative that all spaceflight operator licences will have a defined limit on liability. Such clarity will not only fulfil a long-standing demand from the sector, but ensure that our regulatory framework aligns with international standards and best practice. In an era when commercial space activities are poised for the huge growth that I have just mentioned, the Bill is a decisive step towards fostering a competitive and thriving space industry on our shores. Members from Cornwall and Scotland in particular will know the benefits of that, with our new spaceports.
Mandating specific liability limits, essentially forming a type of risk sharing between the commercial operator and the Government, will empower businesses to navigate risks prudently while encouraging continued investment in space-related ventures. As a nation, we must seize every opportunity to cultivate an environment in which British enterprises can flourish and contribute to the advancement of our economy and our technological prowess.
Furthermore, we should acknowledge the collaborative efforts that have shaped this legislation, drawing on insights gleaned through consultation with industry stakeholders and from expert recommendations. The Bill reflects a balanced approach that prioritises the interests of both business and the public purse, ensuring that our regulatory framework remains robust yet adaptable to evolving circumstances. By enshrining these principles in law, we affirm our commitment to fostering a vibrant yet responsible space industry that serves the interests of our nation, our businesses and our citizens.
By passing this Bill, we not only bolster confidence in our regulation but lay the groundwork for a future in which British ingenuity propels us to new frontiers of discovery and prosperity. I urge all Members to support this Bill, recognising its significance in shaping the trajectory of our nation’s space industry for decades to come.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak on this Bill, for which I commend the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Lord).
As others have said, private companies need a spaceflight operator licence, as set out in the Space Industry Act 2018, before they can operate from the UK. I am pleased to say that we continue to support the Act as a means to ensure safety and compliance, and it is right that the Act works to limit the extent to which UK taxpayers are liable for picking up the cost of commercial spaceflight.
I recognise that the limits to liability in the licences that the Act allows are key to ensuring the potential economic viability of space activities. In that spirit, I welcome the move towards legal certainty regarding liability limits when launching or operating satellites from the UK. As we have heard, the Bill seeks to do this by amending the Space Industry Act to legally require liability limits in space operator licences. This will provide welcome clarity and reassurance to investors. We want to see a thriving UK space sector and to help our strong space sector businesses fulfil their potential.
As a nation, we have a proud history of space exploration and global collaboration in this important field, going back to 1957 when British Skylark rockets were launched from Woomera in Australia. In 1962, the UK partnered with NASA to launch rockets from an Italian base off the coast of Kenya, and, at the turn of the millennium, the British National Space Centre was the third largest financial contributor to the European Space Agency. It is also worth noting that pioneering British astronauts such as Helen Sharman and Major Tim Peake have made a significant contribution to space exploration.
Fast-forwarding to today, the UK space sector has a turnover of £17 billion or more and employs over 48,000 people, including 2,300 apprentices, in exciting roles. There is a notable space cluster in Surrey, and my area of Berkshire has significant space businesses, so this legislation affects many of our constituencies.
Space technology is not just for those involved in advanced manufacturing. It is for all of us. Whether it is combating and measuring climate change, using and deploying rural broadband or supporting transport and agriculture, space is vital for security and resilience. Satellite communications play an important role in communications across the world, and space provides opportunities for crucial economic growth, as the hon. Member for Woking mentioned, from Cornwall all the way to Shetland. Indeed, aerospace research and development is a long-term endeavour, and our industrial strength in the UK is the result of decades of support by successive Governments. We would seek to build on that legacy, including by developing spaceports and centres such as the North East Space Skills and Technology Centre, which has created over 350 jobs and injected around £260 million in the north-east economy.
We have also proposed a regulatory innovation office to support our science, research, innovation and space ventures. Our regulators must be responsive to innovation, from in-orbit manufacturing to space-based renewables. Labour’s regulatory innovation office would rewire regulators to support innovation, including in the space sector. The office would set and monitor targets for approvals, benchmarked internationally, and would give regulators steers from our wider industrial strategy. We would also support the Regulatory Horizons Council, with deadlines for Government to respond to its work.
I will turn briefly to the importance of broader economic stability in supporting the UK’s space sector. As well as regulation, industry desperately needs support and stability from Government, and it is somewhat sad that the current Government have failed to always offer that stability. The National Space Council was set up by one Prime Minister, sadly cancelled by the next, then reinstated by the one after that. In addition, the UK left Galileo, a project we had done so much to bring about. The Government subsequently made a U-turn on a rival system, which cost the taxpayer £60 million.
The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has expressed concerns about the lack of coherence in the current Government space strategy. Indeed, it has said this ambiguity added to harmful speculation about the OneWeb Eutelsat merger. Unfortunately, the space industry plan was three months late, and it is unclear how the Government see space relating to key technologies in the science and technology framework. In contrast, Labour’s industrial strategy, with our statutory industrial strategy council, will provide the stability and partnership the industry needs.
Turning to skills, when colleagues spoke at the UK space conference last year, attendees heard the same concerns mentioned by hon. Members earlier: that we need to raise the profile of space careers to secure the skilled workforce that the industry demands. We propose a national skills body, Skills England, to provide leadership and to bring together Government, business, training providers and trade unions to meet local skills needs. We want to reform the apprenticeship levy to maximise the opportunities that learners have.
Expanding opportunities in the industry should, as was indicated earlier, help to create jobs for people from all backgrounds. Space Park Leicester, where the university, local government and industry work together to make space more accessible to all, is an example of the developments we would like to support. If we were to enter Government, we would want to see a cross-Government action plan for diversity in STEM.
I would like to leave the Minister with a few constructive questions. I hope he will address my points about stability and set out how the Government will reassure business that Britain is still a great place to invest in respect of commercial space ventures. In his response, will he agree with me that skills and training are vital to the sector, and that we must provide high-quality jobs for people from all backgrounds?
In conclusion, on the whole we support the Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill. Adequate licensing will be a key contributor to creating important growth in the space sector. However, the space industry lacks stable long-term investment and support from the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these matters.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I welcome the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) to the Dispatch Box for his first outing as a Minister of the Crown.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord) for taking this important Bill through the House. I applaud him on his excellent speech. Given what the shadow Minister has said, I am pleased to confirm that my hon. Friend has cross-party support for the Bill.
From the contributions we heard on Second Reading and in Committee, we know how beneficial the Bill will be to the many businesses in the UK’s thriving space sector. The sector contributes over £17.5 billion to the UK economy and directly employs more than 48,000 people. The Bill supports our Government’s ambition to make the UK the leading provider of commercial small satellite launch in Europe by 2030. We are harnessing the opportunities provided by launch, which will meet the aims set out in the national space strategy and the Government’s agenda to level up the UK. This will create skilled jobs around the UK, as well as inspiring the next generation of space professionals.
To achieve our ambition, the Government have already invested over £57 million through the LaunchUK programme to grow new UK markets for small satellite launch and sub-orbital space flights. Growing our launch capability is already creating highly skilled jobs and opportunities right across the UK, as well as rocket boosting investment across the supply chain, supporting the Government’s aims to grow and level up the economy.
Nickie Aiken
My hon. Friend is making a great speech, and I congratulate him on his introduction to the Dispatch Box. Does he agree that, as I said earlier, the space industry is an excellent place for women and girls to consider, and does he see any particular area of the industry as important for women or girls to consider?
Mr Mohindra
I thank my hon. Friend. Like, I am sure, many colleagues in the House, when I was a child I aspired to be an astronaut. Unfortunately, I was not able to achieve that ambition, but I hope that in today’s debate we will inspire the next generation to ask themselves why they cannot be the next—
Mr Mohindra
The next Buzz Lightyear or equivalent in the years to come. We are at the forefront of a cutting-edge industry and are world leaders in many parts of it. I appeal to all colleagues, whenever they go to technical colleges, universities or schools in their constituencies, to inspire that generation to ask themselves, “Why not?”
The Government recognise that the question of liability and insurance is of utmost concern to the space sector. The industry has made it clear that facing unlimited liabilities could have an adverse effect on the UK space flight industry. If a space flight operator’s liability was not limited, space flight companies and investors might move to other jurisdictions that have more favourable liability regimes.
Dame Karen Bradley
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his debut at the Dispatch Box. I must anecdotally mention that, when I was first elected, we had a visit from a space shuttle crew. Having real spacemen in Parliament was terribly exciting.
I want to press my hon. Friend on a procedural point. He may know that the Procedure Committee is looking into the territorial constitution and how the scope of Bills can extend beyond just Westminster, and England and Wales, and also looking at ensuring that we speak to our parliamentary colleagues in devolved and other Parliaments. I note that the extent of the Bill covers the whole of the UK, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the overseas territories. He is welcome to write to me about this, but will he set out what work the Government have done to ensure that Parliaments around the United Kingdom and others that are affected know about this Bill, and whether we will be looking to get any legislative consent motions?
Mr Mohindra
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. With her permission, I will make sure that I or another Minister writes to her. As she correctly pointed out, Shetland remains very important in the space space, and the Bill incorporates all four corners of our great Union.
I was speaking about the liability regime, how operator liability is limited, and how other states provide guarantees to meet all claims—all those above the operator’s limit on liability—such as the US or France, as has been discussed. That is why the Space Industry Act 2018 contains powers to limit the amount of space flight operators’ liability when carrying out space flight activities from the UK. It is Government policy that the regulator should use these powers and specify a limit on operator liabilities in the licence.
The Bill is therefore fully consistent with Government policy and, furthermore, improves the Space Industry Act by meeting a key request from industry to provide legislative certainty that spaceflight operators will not face unlimited liability when operating from the UK. For those reasons, we are very pleased to support it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I was interested in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about his childhood dream to be an astronaut. When I was a child, I recall one Yuri Gagarin circumnavigating the world, I think for 90 minutes. It seems like a very long time ago. I call Mr Jonathan Lord to wind up.
Mr Lord
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank all Members of this House for attending. For those who attended Second Reading, I am pleased that we had fewer space-related puns today, although it was a very humorous—and, beneath the humour, very serious—debate that went on for some time and covered all issues. I also thank those Members who served on the Bill Committee, and the Clerk of private Members’ Bills, Anne-Marie Griffiths, who has given such good help and advice to me and to other colleagues who have brought forward private Members’ Bills in this session.
Our space industry is thriving, but this measure is vital to securing an equally exciting and dynamic future. I am so pleased that the Bill has cross-party support. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), spoke very eloquently about the space cluster that we have in Surrey and the wider south-east. One of those companies is Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd, which is just outside of my constituency, but has many employees living in my constituency who will benefit. Other firms—large, medium and small—will grow in the UK and come to the UK if this measure is passed.
It was a great honour to see my hon. Friend speaking from the Dispatch Box—the first of many times, I am sure. This measure has cross-party support and, to ensure that exciting and dynamic future that I mentioned, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his successful excursion into space.
Animal Welfare (Responsibility for Dog Attacks) Bill
Friday 17th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Responsibility for Dog Attacks) Bill 2023-24 View all Animal Welfare (Responsibility for Dog Attacks) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a huge privilege, having already had the pleasure of guiding my Pet Abduction Bill through the Commons this Session, to have the opportunity to debate my other private Member’s Bill, which I first introduced in the previous Session. This Bill, as the Minister knows, would amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to require a person in charge of a dog to take all reasonable steps to ensure that that dog does not fatally injure another dog, and would impose criminal liability if they fail to take reasonable steps and their dog fatally injures another dog. That is to plug a gap in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 that was painfully brought to my attention, which I will come on to. Before I go any further though, I thank the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, so ably led by Lorraine and Chris Platt, for all its help in getting the Bill as far as we have today.
We all know that we are a nation of dog lovers. There are now some 12 million dogs in the UK; that is more than the populations of Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire combined, and then doubled. That works out to nearly half of all households in the UK having a dog. And we all know how loved our dogs are; we only have to look at the excitements of the Westminster dog of the year competition to see that. Indeed, as the House well knows, my cavapoochon, Lottie, is a much-loved member of our family. Companionship is the most common reason for having a dog and that was absolutely the case for my constituent Michael.
Michael was one of the first constituents who ever came to see me—in fact, he came to see me even before I became a Member of this House—and he was so distressed and in such anguish that it was a pleasure to take up his cause. Michael had a friend called Emily, who sadly died, and he adopted her beautiful white fluffy bichon frisé bitch, Millie, both to keep him company and to help him to grieve his friend, Emily. However, around two and a half years ago, Millie was savagely attacked by an off-lead, out-of-control dog while Michael was walking her through the rose garden in Chalkwell Park in Leigh-on-Sea.
Michael remembers the attack as if it were yesterday. It was like watching a horror movie. He described how the dog came at Millie like a missile, even though Millie was on the lead, and
“shook her like a rag-doll.”
Poor Michael watched, helpless, as Millie was literally torn apart. After the attack, the best he could do was carry her to the nearest vet’s, all the while bleeding and with serious open wounds to her abdomen. To add insult to injury, the owner of the dog that attacked Millie refused to take any responsibility for the attack, refusing to pay the vet’s bills for euthanasia.
No owner or dog should have to go through what Michael and Millie went through, and Michael is devastated and scarred by that experience even to this day. Obviously, he reported the matter to the police, but he was told there was nothing they could do because the incident was dog on dog and no human had been injured. You will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that dog-on-dog attacks are becoming more commonplace; I am sure you have seen the extensive reports in the media and we only have to google “dog-on-dog attacks” to see a long list of news reports. Just this month, on 9 May, a couple was featured after their dog was so savagely attacked that they were hit with a staggering £23,000 vet’s bill for its treatment.
The loophole in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is unacceptable and that is why I chose to reintroduce the Bill this Session. I am aware that most presentation Bills never make it on to the statute book, so I am pleased to report to the House that, as a result of the Bill and of my lobbying the Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials have been working with the Crown Prosecution Service to update its prosecution guidance on dog attacks and attacks on other animals. That guidance now makes it explicit that a dog-on-dog attack can be prosecuted under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, the offence of a dog being dangerously out of control.
That is a good step forward, but the keyword is “can” —a lot of things can be prosecuted, but simply are not. I remain concerned primarily because there is no exhaustive definition of what a dog’s being dangerously out of control actually means. For example, those same sentencing guidelines state that
“it does not follow that if the dog causes injury, the dog was dangerously out of control.”
We could therefore have the ludicrous situation where a dog kills another dog and it is not deemed to be dangerously out of control—if, for example, the owner of a dangerous dog deliberately sets it on a neighbour’s dog. Although the updated guidance is a step forward, it does not deal with the problem I seek to address.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and giving some very upsetting and tragic examples of how dogs attack dogs. Does she see similarities between this Bill and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill, which we discussed earlier, where the dogs have attacked livestock, and does she agree that more must be done to ensure that dog owners behave responsibly?
Anna Firth
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which is absolutely right. This is about placing responsibility on the owner, not criminalising the dog itself. That is exactly why I am bringing forward this private Member’s Bill.
When I first introduced the Bill, I was contacted by many dog owners up and down the country, who shared heartbreaking tales about the loss of their treasured dogs. Many of them have contacted me again and are delighted that the Bill is being reintroduced today. Let me deal first with the scale of the problem. The Minister knows that, in order to support Michael, I submitted freedom of information requests to all 43 territorial police forces in the UK, asking whether they record dog-on-dog attacks as a separate offence and, if so, how many they have recorded over the last five years. Shockingly, only 14 police forces currently record a dog-a-dog attack as a separate incident. In 2016, they recorded a total of 1,700 dog-on-dog attacks. Five years on, the number had skyrocketed: in 2021, the same 14 police forces recorded 11,559 dog-on-dog attacks—a 700% increase—with a shocking 2,264 in London alone. The true incidence of dog-on-dog attacks is likely to be even higher, because the fact that a police force does not record dog-on-dog attacks as separate offences does not mean that they are not happening.
On the current legislative framework, laws have been strengthened in recent years to protect the public where a dog presents a risk to public safety—whether in public or in private—but it remains the case that a dog owner is not automatically liable for any form of criminal prosecution when their dog fatally injures another, unless the other dog is a guide, assistance or service dog, the dog bites a human, or
“there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person”.
That sounds good—it is an objective test—but it is not universally applied, and the proof of the pudding is what happened in Michael’s case. He was asked whether he wanted to press for some sort of prosecution, but he said that he had not feared for his own safety. It had been clear that the dog was going for the smaller dog, and Michael did not fear that there was a danger to himself at that point. The law does not adequately cover this type of incident, and pet dogs should have the same protection as guide, assistance and service dogs, because the loss that is felt by a family following the death of their beloved companion is the same, if not more.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent speech. Some of the most distressing cases that have come into my inbox over the years have involved a precious pet facing these sorts of circumstances. I completely agree with her that, if we can make laws to protect guide dogs and assistance dogs, we should be able to do the same for precious pets, which mean so much to so many families.
Anna Firth
I agree. That is exactly what this Bill—Emilie’s law—seeks to do. It will close the loophole and deal with this issue as a matter of animal welfare, placing responsibility on the dog owner. It is not about dogs, because dogs have owners. The owners should be responsible.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I am listening with considerable interest. There are a large number of farmers in my area, and some of them are sheep farmers. One of their complaints is that people stray on to their land with their dogs and often let them go. Let us imagine a situation in which a farmer is bringing in his sheep and has sent out his huntaway, which disappears over the brow. Unbeknown to him, a stray dog attacks the huntaway, which will probably be bigger than most dogs, and the stray dog is killed. Who is to blame?
Anna Firth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bill is about placing responsibility on a dog owner to take all reasonable steps. In that instance, it may be that the farmer has taken all reasonable steps, in which case there would not be liability; if he has not, he would potentially be caught by the Bill.
First, the Bill would criminalise fatal dog-on-dog attacks, extending the same protection to pet dogs that already exists for service, guide and assistance dogs. Secondly, Emilie’s law would empower owners to pursue justice if their beloved pet is brutally attacked, while not demonising any particular breed or creating unhelpful stereotypes around certain breeds of dog. As I have said, the issue is poor ownership. Thirdly, the Bill would encourage responsible dog ownership and animal welfare by placing the responsibility for a fatal dog attack fairly and squarely on the person in charge of the dog, and empowering the police to take action, which will have a deterrent effect, thus encouraging more responsible dog ownership.
It is important to note that the Bill also includes a number of defences for good owners who are not to blame if their dog causes a fatality, such as if the dog that caused the fatal injury was responding to provocation from another animal or human, and the steps taken by the responsible person to prevent the situation from escalating. The point is to keep the onus on owners but ensure that they are dealt with fairly, and not punish them for a situation out of their control. Finally, my Bill would ensure that local police forces record dog-on-dog attacks as separate offences, enabling us finally to see the full scale of these offences.
The Bill is about protecting every single dog across the UK. The vast majority of dog owners are responsible but, for those who are not, there must be consequences. Passing the Bill would make our dogs safer, and it would also make our parks, streets, towns and cities—especially the new city of Southend—safer places for us and our dogs to live, work and visit. Finally, the Bill would send yet another signal to the world that we in the UK take animal welfare seriously, and make us the international exemplar that we all know we are. I have left just a little time, in which I hope to hear from the Minister.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for her work in this important area of policy. We are a nation of dog lovers, as was said earlier, and people in Britain care deeply about animal welfare. The Opposition therefore of course support the Bill. I want to speak briefly in support of it and raise a constituency case, which is similar to one that she mentioned earlier.
I found the story of Millie and her owner Michael deeply moving. The hon. Lady was right to describe the attack as being like a horror movie. I had a similar case in my constituency of Reading East, where an attack happened in Cintra Park—a local park—and a woman who was walking her beloved pet dog had that dog savaged by a much larger dog, which was well known in that area of the town. Unfortunately, because it was a dog-on-dog attack, there were no powers available to local police to tackle that terrible incident—it was absolutely appalling. The little dog that was attacked had to be taken for surgery and is lucky to have survived.
Therefore, I think the Bill is well researched and the hon. Lady’s points well made. I seek clarification from the Minister on whether dogs that are not killed but severely injured could be protected by the Bill. I hope for good news on that front. In that spirit, may I offer the official Opposition’s support for the Bill? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, with more detail on that point and other related matters. I thank the hon. Lady again for her hard work on this important area of policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I must, of course, begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for presenting the Bill. She has a commendable record in respect of animal welfare issues and supporting the Government on those issues, and I congratulate her on the success of her Pet Abduction Bill. I also recognise the contribution of all the other Members who have supported the welfare issues that we have discussed. This particular Bill, however, seeks to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to require a person—
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 7 June.
Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging (Amendment) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (22 March), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 7 June.
Child Criminal Exploitation Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 7 June.
Health and Equality Acts (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hajj Fraud
(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I am proud to represent nearly 15,000 Muslims as their MP in Parliament. The all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims recently informed me that my constituency has the 70th largest Muslim population in the country, and I know from my time as a Westminster city councillor, and now as an MP, of the key role that British Muslims play in making the two cities such a proudly multicultural and welcoming place in which to live.
Since being elected, I have worked with a large number and a wide variety of organisations in my constituency, including those supporting my Muslim constituents, such as the Westminster Bangladeshi Welfare Trust and the Westminster Bangladeshi Association, both of which have supported their communities for many years. Last month I was delighted to be invited to attend Eid celebrations on the Churchill Gardens Estate in Pimlico, organised by the residents association, led by their impressive chairman Christina Walsh. The event brought together local people of all faiths and none to celebrate this deeply significant religious festival, enabling us to enjoy it as a community no matter what our background. It was a very special afternoon, and I was delighted to be able to continue to learn more about the Ummah community and, in turn, about the Hajj journey that so many of my constituents will make next month.
Let me explain to those who do not already know that Hajj is the pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of the prophet Mohammed, which every adult Muslim is expected to undertake in his or her lifetime if financially and physically able to do so. From speaking to Muslim friends about their experiences of Hajj, I know what a special and significant time it is for them. Hajj is the fifth of the fundamental Muslim practices known as the five pillars of Islam, and is obligatory. The pilgrim rites begin on the seventh day of Dhu Al-Hijja, the last month of the Islamic year, and end on the 12th day. As it is based on the lunar calendar, this year Hajj is expected to begin on 14 June and conclude on 19 June.
Despite its religious importance, many travelling from the UK to Mecca to perform Hajj are sadly not immune to targeting by fraudsters. I learned at first hand about Hajj-related fraud on a recent visit to the City of London police, based in my constituency, where I met Commander Umer Khan. The City of London police take the national lead on fraud, and thus Hajj-related fraud court cases come under its jurisdiction. Commander Khan is leading the force’s nationwide efforts to highlight how to prevent being a victim of Hajj-related fraud, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him and his team for their outstanding work.
According to the police, only 3% of Hajj-related fraud is actually reported. The reasons for such low reporting can be multifaceted. Some may not wish to report the crime as they booked through a contact of someone they know in their community or from their mosque; others may wish not to complain due to embarrassment or shame. We often hear these reasons from victims of whatever fraud, in whatever circumstances. One of the reasons I applied for this debate is to send a clear message to our British Muslim community that they should feel safe and confident that they will be taken seriously if they report a suspected fraud. Due to the low levels of reporting, we simply cannot know the full extent of what I think is a heinous crime.
In my discussions with City of London police officers about Hajj-related fraud, they informed me that they have accidentally come across incidences of fraud, but are finding it increasingly difficult to receive reports of this crime.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent speech. As a former deputy leader of Westminster City Council, I know the importance of the Muslim community there, just as I have an important Muslim community in Woking. My hon. Friend is making a good point: the message must go out to Members of this House that we should speak with religious and community leaders locally to ensure that this heinous crime is reported. As I say, I have a large Muslim community, but I have not heard of this before. It sounds terrible.
Nickie Aiken
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Before I went on my visit with the City of London police, which takes the lead on this, and met Commander Khan, I was not aware of it either. It is important that we highlight these hidden crimes. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on securing his third private Member’s Bill of his political career so far.
I want to highlight the importance of ensuring that members of the Muslim community in this country know that if they are victims of any type of fraud, but particularly Hajj-related fraud, they can inform the police and have it investigated properly. The City of London police believe that one of the reasons for low levels of reporting may be traditional attitudes that persist: having become “pure” as a Hajji, the person involved may not want to speak of such worldly things as fraud on their pilgrimage. Those who suspect that they have been a victim of any type of fraud should report it straightaway to Action Fraud, the national fraud and cyber-crime reporting service, which is available online at actionfraud.police.uk.
Every year, 25,000 British Muslims travel to Mecca in Saudi Arabia to undertake their Hajj. Many will have saved for years in the knowledge that it will be a once in a lifetime trip. Brits who take part in the pilgrimage spend a combined £125 million each year. These costs include return flights, accommodation, and paying for a guide. Data obtained from the police.uk website show that, sadly, police forces have reported Hajj-related fraud where British citizens have lost anything from £1,000 up to a staggering £33,000 to fraudsters, who promised to arrange their Hajj travel and accommodation but had no intention of ever doing so, and were never heard from again.
Those shopping around for the best deal for their trip to Mecca, both in their local community and increasingly online—particularly on social media—have been attracted to packages covering flights, accommodation and visas, which appear to offer good value for money. Some rogue operators advertise large reductions on what would usually be charged. Accommodation advertised as a 4-star hotel is, in reality on arrival, found to be barely the quality of a 1-star place. I have heard reports of flights being deliberately over-subscribed, leading to people failing to make the trip at all, and of people posing as travel agents, charging extortionate prices for visas—up to £1,000 each—when they are actually free. I have heard of travellers being asked to pay in cash or make a direct bank transfer prior to their trip, and being told that they would receive their tickets and travel documents nearer to the departure date, never to be received. A once in a lifetime trip, often using life savings, ends in heartbreak. I cannot imagine the distress and upset that must cause people so looking forward to undertaking their Hajj.
As we lead up to this year’s Hajj, I thought it important to highlight the dangers that fraudsters can pose to our citizens at this special time, and to ensure that people know that there is a way to protect themselves from becoming victims of Hajj-related fraud. In response to tackling this fraud, which affects not just British Muslims but those planning their pilgrimage from across the world, the Saudi Arabian Government have acted decisively. It is important to highlight that this is a global fraud issue. I read with interest in Arab News yesterday that the Iraqi authorities have prosecuted more than 25 companies fraudulently engaging in commercial Hajj operations.
In 2022, knowing that Hajj-related fraud was increasingly an issue, the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Hajj and Umrah created the Nusuk Hajj portal, which has changed the way that individuals book their pilgrimage. The portal is available in over 50 countries, including the United Kingdom, and was created to provide a seamless and safe pilgrimage booking experience. By centralising the process by which visas are acquired, much of the fraud has been stifled, thankfully. It is imperative that individuals book their Hajj trips only through the Nusuk portal. Anyone posing as a provider of visas or trips to Mecca for Hajj is simply misleading people.
Sadly, even after the creation of the Nusuk Hajj portal and despite its success in reducing fraud, the criminal fraternity continues—as it always does—to attempt to find new avenues to try to take advantage. My advice to Hajjis is to remain vigilant about what is being sold and by whom. I still receive reports of individuals being sold Umrah visas and generic tourist visas and being told that they are acceptable for their Hajj pilgrimage. That is not the case. People can only travel with a Hajj visa from the Nusuk portal. The other visas allow access at any other time of year, but for Hajj period, those reliant on those visas will not be permitted entry to Mecca.
It is important to note that Hajj-related fraud is not just about people buying a package that simply does not exist; it also involves profiteering from a sacred pilgrimage. The fraudsters involved are, to my mind, the lowest of the low. I thank the groups that work tirelessly to highlight the importance of protecting people from Hajj-related fraud and encouraging the use of the Nusuk Hajj portal. As well as Commander Khan and the City of London police, I must thank the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for her work leading the all-party parliamentary group on Hajj and Umrah, which, alongside the Council for British Hajjis, has raised the profile of this fraud immeasurably.
I met the hon. Member recently to discuss Hajj-related fraud, and she was clear that trading standards departments up and down the country, and specifically in Birmingham, have worked hard to uncover such criminal activity, bring those involved to justice, and ensure that the wider Muslim community is aware of possible fraud and the importance of using the Nusuk Hajj portal. By highlighting and encouraging the use of the portal among British Muslims, I hope that we can tackle Hajj-related fraud once and for all. After all, this is UK Finance’s Take Five Week—a week designed to raise awareness of and help tackle all types of fraud.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister how his Department and the Government in general will support British Muslims this year and every year to ensure that they can enjoy their pilgrimage without fear of exploitation and disappointment.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and congratulating her on securing this afternoon’s Adjournment debate. I think she first raised the topic in business questions on 18 April, and here we are just a few weeks later debating it. She is right to raise the issue, particularly given that it is just a few weeks until Muslims from all over the world will travel to Saudi Arabia for Hajj. That will of course include thousands of British Muslims. For many, their pilgrimage is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
My hon. Friend set out clearly the way that Hajj fraud operates. Exploitative criminals prey on hard-working families to dupe them out of their money, sometimes using fake websites and other means to persuade people to pay for goods or services that are not forthcoming. I echo the advice that my hon. Friend gave people to make sure that they book visas only via the properly authorised route. When booking travel via a travel agent, it is essential to make sure that the travel agency or tour operator is a member of the Association of British Travel Agents, to carefully check online reviews, to make sure that the travel company is ATOL-protected by the Civil Aviation Authority, and to make sure that the flight details and Hajj visa are valid. Those are all steps that people can and should take to protect themselves and make sure the counterparty they are dealing with is a legitimate organisation. We also strongly advise people never to pay by cash or by direct bank transfer into someone’s personal bank account.
The Government are committed to tackling both Hajj fraud and fraud more widely. I am pleased to report that overall, fraud is falling, with the latest data from the crime survey for England and Wales showing a 16% reduction year on year. But I am afraid to say that fraud remains the most common crime type, accounting for about 37% of all crime. That means that one in every 18 adults was a victim of fraud in the last year. That is why we must clamp down on all forms of fraud, including Hajj fraud.
That is encapsulated in our fraud strategy, published almost exactly a year ago, which entails investing about £100 million to improve law enforcement capabilities and launching a new national fraud squad, with 400 specialist investigators in post. It also includes steps to replace the Action Fraud service this year, which has been the subject of some criticism, to ensure victims of fraud have the confidence to come forward knowing their case will be dealt with properly.
We are also cracking down on fraudsters online. We know that many cases of Hajj fraud have an online element, which requires particular vigilance. When the Online Safety Act 2023 is fully enacted, it will help the regulator Ofcom to hold to account online social media platforms if they allow fraud to proliferate. That will take time to come into force fully, so to protect people even sooner, we have agreed the online fraud charter with 12 of the largest tech companies, including Amazon, eBay, Meta and Google. That was entered into last November and includes a series of voluntary actions that they will take. When the 2023 Act comes fully into force, it will compel large social media platforms to take proactive steps to combat fraud, including Hajj fraud.
As my hon. Friend said, public awareness is critical, as is people taking steps to protect themselves. That is why the “Stop! Think Fraud” national behaviour change campaign is so important. It encourages the public to always stop and think before they make a payment, and ask themselves, “Is it possible I am being defrauded? Is the counterparty legitimate? What can I do to check their credentials before making that payment?” Criminals are becoming increasingly sophisticated, often now using artificial intelligence to generate images or even videos designed to trick people into paying money. The public’s vigilance is therefore extremely important, alongside the law enforcement response through the fraud strategy and the actions we are taking to compel large online platforms to be more proactive in stopping fraud proliferating online.
In conclusion, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue on behalf of her Muslim communities in the Cities of London and Westminster. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord) raised the issue on behalf of the Muslim communities in his constituency. In my own constituency of Croydon South, there is a significant Muslim community too. I know that other Members with Muslim communities will echo the call made by my two hon. Friends for our constituents to be vigilant and to report immediately any suspicious activity. Hajj fraud is a disgraceful example of criminals exploiting a religious pilgrimage for their own personal gain. I am sure all of us condemn that wholeheartedly and will do everything we possibly can to stop it.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
Instrument of Accession to CPTPP
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
Today the UK officially announced the deposit of its instrument of accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. With this significant moment, the UK has moved a vital step closer to acceding to one of the largest free trade areas in the world. CPTPP currently accounts for almost 12% of global GDP, and when the UK becomes a full party to the agreement, this will increase to almost 15% of GDP, or over £12 trillion, according to 2023 data.
The UK will be the first country to accede to CPTPP and will be the first European member. Our accession will place us at the heart of the Indo-Pacific, a region that will be crucial both economically and strategically in the coming decades. It will also mean we are well placed to benefit from any future changes to the rules of the agreement, and from any future expansion of the agreement, on which the UK will have a full say.
Through CPTPP, we will have free trade deals with Malaysia and Brunei for the first time—economies with a combined GDP of over £340 billion in 2023. We will also see gains over and above a number of the bilateral agreements that we already have with CPTPP parties, bringing new market access opportunities for UK businesses. Overall, our accession to the agreement could boost UK GDP by around £2 billion each and every year in the long run when compared to projected GDP in 2040, and is expected to benefit every nation and region in the UK.
Our accession will also ensure appropriate protections for UK interests. We have agreed quotas which permanently limit annual additional imports from major producers of the most sensitive agricultural products, and we have ensured that CPTPP preserves the UK’s right to regulate to protect human, animal and plant life and health. All food and drink products imported into the UK will still have to meet the respective food safety and biosecurity standards for the UK. Likewise, in acceding to CPTPP we will not be changing any of our high domestic standards of environmental protection or our labour standards. We have also ensured protections for key public services, including the NHS.
The UK has now completed the key processes required to join the CPTPP. As well as the UK’s own processes, the other CPTPP parties need to complete their own respective applicable legal processes for entry into force of the protocol. CPTPP parties have different domestic procedures and scrutiny obligations to complete, which vary depending on the country.
The accession protocol sets out that the agreement will enter into force for the UK 60 days after all parties and the UK have each notified the CPTPP depositary. Notification would follow the completion of relevant domestic procedures. After 15 months have passed since signature, which falls in October 2024, the mechanism changes and the protocol can enter into force 60 days after a minimum of six parties and the UK have each notified. If at least six parties and the UK have already notified within 15 months of signature, entry into force would take place 60 days after the October date. We therefore expect that the UK’s accession should enter into force by the end of 2024.
Japan, Singapore and Chile have already completed their respective applicable legal processes for entry into force of the protocol, and we welcome the support of every party so that all our businesses and consumers can reap the rewards of the UK joining the deal as soon as possible.
[HCWS478]
Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council: Third Meeting
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton) has today made the following statement:
The Trade and Co-operation Agreement Partnership Council met yesterday, 16 May 2024, in Brussels, with delegates attending in person and by video conference.
The meeting was co-chaired by myself and the executive vice-president of the European Commission, Maroš Šefčovič. Representatives from the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive attended, as did representatives from the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey. Twenty-seven EU member state representatives also attended. A joint statement was agreed and published on gov.uk.
The partnership council discussed implementation of the TCA and co-operation in a wide range of important areas, including energy and climate, trade and level playing field, health security, fisheries and wider security, and reaffirmed our commitment to fully exploiting the potential the TCA has to offer.
[HCWS479]
Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee: Thirteenth Meeting
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton) has today made the following statement:
The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee met on 16 May, in Brussels, with delegates attending in person and by video conference. The meeting was co-chaired by myself and European Commission Executive Vice-President, Maroš Šefčovič. A joint statement was agreed and published on gov.uk.
We welcomed the work on the implementation of the withdrawal agreement to date, in particular on citizens’ rights, and progress on the implementation of the Windsor framework.
Under citizens’ rights, we reiterated our commitment to protect the rights of the millions of respective citizens across the UK and the EU. We welcomed the co-operation between the EU and UK and agreed that this work should intensify further, with a view to finding solutions to the outstanding issues in this area.
For the Windsor framework, we took stock of progress on the implementation of the Windsor framework, which has delivered significant benefits for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, and we both welcomed the restoration of the political institutions in Northern Ireland in February 2024. We adopted decisions on the implementation of the Windsor framework and agreed a corrigendum to Joint Committee Decision No. 1/2023.
Alongside this we also received an update on the work of the Withdrawal Agreement Specialised Committees since the last meeting on 28 September 2023 and adopted the withdrawal agreement annual report for the year 2023, pursuant to Article 164(6) of the Withdrawal agreement.
[HCWS480]
Genocide (Prevention and Response) Bill [HL]
Friday 17th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Genocide (Prevention and Response) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Genocide (Prevention and Response) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I would like the opportunity, with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to speak briefly to the purpose of this Bill and the stage we have now reached. Noble Lords will remember that the Bill came into being because of the horrifying global events we have all witnessed over recent years. The levels of violence and degradation are not new, but we thought that the experience of the Holocaust had taught the world lessons that might have enabled early intervention, possible diversion and maybe even prevention.
Genocides do not come from nowhere. They are invariably preceded by terrible atrocity crimes, and even before that there is a long trajectory. The whole point of this Bill is that, in retrospect, we should be responding to early displays of hostility, land grabs and the many different ways in which there are red flags as to trouble ahead. The Holocaust did not start with concentration camps. It started with evictions, sackings, trumped-up prosecutions, assaults by extremist thugs, humiliations and so on—for example, the whole business of cleaning streets with toothbrushes.
The events which led to this Bill were the horrors of what happened to the Yazidis under ISIS: the enslavement of so many women; the slaughtering of men and boys. Similar horrible atrocities happened to the Rohingya, with killings and rapes in Myanmar. There is also the case of the Uighurs in China. There are the horrors of what happened, and is still happening, in Sudan in Darfur. We hear, of course, the language of genocide being discussed by Ukrainians about their current experience, and in the Middle East by both sides who perceive existential threat.
The Bill is designed to strengthen a very small atrocity unit created 18 months ago in the Foreign Office. It consists of three people, working on identifying and working around atrocity crimes. We need to strengthen this work going forward, and that is the purpose of the Bill.
The Bill has five key elements. First, it establishes that we monitor closely, as the Elie Wiesel Act does in the United States of America, the red flags of potential genocides. Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, promoted that. Secondly, it establishes that a Commons Minister will respond to genocide prevention issues, have that as part of their remit and be directly responsible and accountable in Parliament. Thirdly, it establishes training for people entering the Foreign Office—good, extensive training that will continue at different stages of people’s careers, particularly in respect of the hotspots where such things might happen. Fourthly, it establishes that that Minister will report regularly to Parliament. Fifthly, it establishes a small fund to assist particular victims. That would not deal with this issue to a large extent, but it would, for example, help some of the women who fled enslavement and were unable to return to their homes in northern Iraq to re-establish their lives elsewhere.
That is the nature of this Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who met with me, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and another colleague. The Minister gave a very positive response to the Bill. It is very important in the next months and years that we have a much more effective team working on this, specifically within the Foreign Office. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the comments of my noble friend and thank everyone who has engaged on this. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said at Second Reading that many elements of the Bill were commendable and aligned with the Government’s own activities. I hope that, following the meeting my noble friend had with others, the noble Lord will also meet with me to look at how we can progress these things strongly. I welcome the comments and what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has said.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I put on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the noble Lord, Lord Alton—who is not in his place—and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for a constructive meeting recently. The Bill has been an extremely important tool to bring focus to this important issue of atrocity prevention. As I have reminded the noble Baroness a number of times, I am the Minister responsible for this, but I work alongside other colleagues in this respect.
As I have said, there are many elements within the Bill that we are already undertaking and have committed to take forward. It proposes to establish a “genocide monitoring team”—we agree with that, and a dedicated unit is following this issue directly at the FCDO. Following the meeting we had with noble Lords earlier this week, I have asked officials directly to schedule a private briefing on how we compile, for example, the sharing of areas around early warning systems.
The Bill would provide for training for civil servants; again, it has been a useful tool for focusing on that issue. As I outlined to noble Lords, both at Second Reading and during the meeting, we have already invested in diplomats who have benefited from atrocity-prevention training. I am exploring options for making atrocity prevention training a requirement in the training provided directly to diplomats prior to their being deployed to conflict zones or areas with a high risk of atrocities. I recognise that there is more to do on building capacity, but, as I said, we do not believe in the primary legislation route here; much is already being done.
The Bill calls for the Government to report to Parliament. We have the human rights report, but we are also looking to see how we can be more specific on the elements raised in the Bill.
As ever, I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in the important debates on the Bill. We are all at one on trying to prevent atrocities. Sadly, and tragically, we are not succeeding in that objective around the world today. But this means that we need to be more focused. As the Minister with responsibility for such matters, I assure all noble Lords that we at the FCDO are very seized of this.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, and I meet regularly to discuss a raft of issues, and I say to him that I am keen to ensure that this becomes embedded in FCDO policy. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and others who have once again drawn attention to this important issue. I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House on strengthening our atrocity prevention response.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill
Friday 17th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill 2023-24 View all Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 March 2024 - (6 Mar 2024)
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, before moving to the substance of the Bill, I will say how much I welcome, with a heavy heart, the valedictory speech of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who has been a stalwart on the Cross Benches for many decades. We hope very much that he will continue to talk and write on those subjects in which he has long experience and great expertise. I look forward to that, but, as I say, with a heavy heart.
This is a short and, I trust, uncontroversial cross-party Bill which has come to this Chamber having passed Second Reading unanimously in the other place. In brief, the Bill seeks to alter the legal status of two international organisations: the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, in respect of which I declare an interest as a member of the executive committee; and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Both organisations have their own unique constitutional arrangements, reflecting their specific mandates, which now need to be updated.
The Bill will enable the Government to treat the CPA and the ICRC in a way comparable to other international organisations—for example, the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Swiss law and the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie in French law. Prior to the Bill, this was not possible because neither organisation fell within the scope of existing powers under the International Organisations Act 1968, as neither organisation is an inter-governmental body.
At present, the CPA operates as a UK-registered charity regulated by UK charitable law. It is sometimes perceived as a UK institution, rather than an international one. The organisation builds support for parliamentary democracy by recognising, with a non-partisan approach, the national and sub-national contexts of its members. The organisation, reflecting the wider Commonwealth, with 108 member Parliaments, wishes to have the freedom to undertake wider activities in promoting democracy and protecting the values and principles set out in the Commonwealth charter. In so doing, the CPA secretariat would be able to enjoy privileges and immunities, as set out in Part 2 of the Schedule, similar to those of the Commonwealth Foundation, Commonwealth of Learning and any number of other international organisations.
The ICRC operates in accordance with its international mandate of strict adherence to principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence, as well as its working method of confidentiality. This necessary confidentiality extends to court testimony and is accepted by the UK informally. However, UK law, unlike that in other countries in which the ICRC operates, does not provide statutory protection for this fundamental working practice, most especially in conflict zones. The Bill is therefore crucial in enabling ICRC life-saving humanitarian activities, in conformity with its fundamental principles.
This paving Bill, having six clauses and one schedule, creates the power, by means of an Order in Council, to confer the legal capacity of a body corporate on the CPA and the ICRC. Clauses 1 and 2 specify the secretary-general of the CPA and named officers of the ICRC who may be accorded privileges and immunities. These privileges and immunities do not extend to those other than the secretary-general of the CPA and do not affect branches. In the case of the ICRC, the Bill allows for certain confidential information that the ICRC shares with the UK Government to be exempted from legal disclosure requirements, whether in civil UK court proceedings or in tribunals. It grants both organisations certain privileges and immunities commensurate with each of its functional needs, and it provides that references to international organisations in general legislation henceforth include the CPA and the ICRC.
The Bill will allow bespoke enabling powers, by means of secondary legislation, for the CPA and the ICRC to operate as international bodies in the UK, with the attendant privileges and immunities. The powers specific to each organisation will be subject to the monarch’s approval and draft affirmative parliamentary procedure, which requires the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
The exact privileges and immunities for both organisations, their property, information and personnel, set out in Parts 1 and 2 of the Schedule, will be drawn up by the Government according to the functional needs of both organisations and will be detailed in separate written arrangements. Those arrangements will be agreed with both the relevant organisations through prior consultation. These privileges and immunities would normally refer to immunity from such things as legal process, inviolability of archives and premises, and exemptions from tax and duty, as set out in Article 23 of the 1961 convention articles.
There are clear reasons why this status should be conferred on both the CPA and the ICRC. The CPA’s current legal status has been a contentious topic of discussion for many years within the CPA, and many previous attempts to remedy it have led to frustration and even threatened the CPA’s stability due to possible fragmentation. Several member countries have said that membership fees might be withheld if action such as that set out in this Bill was not forthcoming. Given that the CPA is almost 90% dependent on membership fees for its operations, this would be a serious blow. The CPA governing body agreed at the CPA’s annual conferences of 2022 and 2023 that should a new legal status fail to be achieved, the headquarters should be relocated to a member state that would provide the organisation with such legal recognition and the related privileges and immunities. Given that the overwhelming majority of other Commonwealth organisations are headquartered in the UK, this would affect the UK’s involvement, in part due to its regular links with the number of Commonwealth diplomatic missions based in London.
The new legal status would strengthen the influence of the CPA and provide for a more authoritative international presence. For example, at a time when the international order, parliamentary democracy and human rights generally face serious challenge, a new status will encourage members to work together on a level playing field and occupy equal standing in international forums. Above all, gaining international status would enable other parliamentary strengthening partners to see the CPA as a credible, and possibly even preferred, partner for those legislatures involved in capacity building.
The ICRC’s unique international humanitarian mandate and mission have been recognised by more than 110 states, which have accorded it international organisation status. This Bill would ensure that equivalent treatment was given to the ICRC within the UK legal system. The relevant privileges and immunities granted are crucial if the ICRC is to continue its UK operations in accordance with its international mandate.
I very much hope that this paving Bill will have an uncomplicated passage in your Lordships’ House. There will be an opportunity later in its passage to thank all those who have long worked to bring it to this advanced stage and, with luck, on to the statute book. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on sponsoring the Bill and on her cogent explanation of its importance. I also congratulate my right honourable friend Dame Maria Miller on her leadership on this Bill in another place, where she secured cross-party and government support.
I strongly support the Bill. It is right that the Bill should change the status of the CPA and the ICRC to ensure that the Government can treat them in a similar way to that in which they treat international organisations of which the UK is a member. Currently, neither organisation falls within the scope of existing powers, as the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, explained. Therefore, the Government cannot confer on them the legal capacities of a body corporate unless this Bill is passed, nor grant the organisations and their staff privileges and immunities that are appropriate for their functional needs.
As a member of CPA UK, I have been impressed by the opportunities we are given to liaise with and learn from fellow parliamentarians across the Commonwealth. In particular, I commend the training relating to membership of Select Committees. In addition to having discussions in Westminster with members of other visiting Commonwealth parliamentary select committees, I was a member of a small delegation to Botswana to meet members of several of its parliamentary select committees. Throughout this process, we were learning from each other. As Chair of the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House at the time, I found that very productive.
The CPA advises us that, as a UK charity, it is limited in its ability to carry out certain activities that would assist in promoting democracy, human rights and democratic values within the Commonwealth. It is therefore all the more important to pass this Bill, which would enable the CPA to widen its activities and participate in an even more active promotion of democracy.
The importance of the work of the ICRC is very well known. Within a month of being appointed as a Minister for Human Rights about 10 years ago, I visited its headquarters in Geneva and met Peter Maurer, its then president. Under his redoubtable leadership, the ICRC carried out humanitarian work in more than 80 countries. That invaluable work continues apace today.
Until now, the UK has not taken steps to grant the privileges and immunities to the ICRC that have already been granted by more than 100 other states. We can put that right by passing this Bill and protect its ability to act as, and be perceived as, a neutral, independent and impartial humanitarian actor that protects the confidentiality of its work where it is appropriate to do so. I note that parts of Clause 2 put into effect an amendment that was agreed in another place to provide for protected ICRC information to be exempt from disclosure except in circumstances where there was a court order in criminal proceedings or where information had been published by the ICRC. That seems an appropriate way forward, and I cannot see the need for any further amendments to the Bill.
I am keenly aware of the trust put in those who work for the ICRC by people who live in traumatic circumstances, enduring armed conflict and other situations of violence around the world. Privileges and immunities are indispensable tools for the ICRC to carry out its vital work.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza—I call her my noble friend—in looking forward to hearing from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. My only disappointment is that it will be his valedictory speech. He has been a stalwart Member of this House, maintaining high standards of informed contributions to our debates and to the work of all-party groups such as that on Sudan and South Sudan. I thank him.
I support the Bill and wish it swift progress through this House.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Anelay, have outlined out in some detail why this Bill is necessary—I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on sponsoring it. We should also congratulate Maria Miller in the Commons, who has brought this issue forward time and again and been persistent in ensuring that progress was made. It is clear from what has been said already that we need this legislation to give extra protection to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I want to say a few words about why the CPA is worth supporting and assisting in this way. It is unusual legislation, as has been mentioned, but it is justified, and I am really pleased that this issue will be resolved.
I think that many Members know that I had a long parliamentary career in another place. During that time, I did not have a great deal of contact with the CPA; I did not go on many delegations, but I occasionally met people who were here. That was partly because I had young children; it was also because I was on the Front Bench—the successful one and the other one on different occasions. That is very time consuming—I see the Whip nodding—and Members of Parliament do not always get the time to think of these wider issues in the way that they would wish.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, especially when I was Minister for Defence and International Security, I did travel—and on those ministerial visits you very often meet other Ministers and members of the Executive, or speaking at conferences. All that was very useful and could be productive; it could be frustrating, but it was productive at times as well. During my time on the Back Benches in this House, I have had the time and privilege to be a member of two or three CPA delegations and I have to say that it opened my eyes to the fact that a CPA delegation—parliamentarians to parliamentarians—is actually somewhat different from any other contact that we have, whether as Ministers or in any other role.
Perhaps it is hard to put a finger on it, but you can see areas of joint concern, such as codes of conduct, registrations of interest and things of that kind. That two-way discussion has a different dynamic from the ministerial Executive-to-Executive discussions. It is a great help to parliamentarians, and I think it will continue to be important as parliamentarians around the world face new challenges, such as those that come with social media, which are affecting all of us and which we need to think about together as we consider how to prepare and defend ourselves in those circumstances.
Another aspect of CPA work that has been particularly valuable has been learning from each other and spreading best practice. It can be interesting and it can be challenging. I recall chairing a mock Select Committee hearing, where I was asked what I would like the topic to be. I said that I would like it to be domestic violence, because that was a particular problem in that particular country. Bringing people together and showing how a Select Committee can be constructive even in difficult circumstances was very valuable there. I recall meeting a new chair of a country’s PAC and inviting them back here to meet and talk to people here. We also have a network of clerks from the Commonwealth who reinforce each other’s experience and have a camaraderie, which is very important.
I also want to emphasise that this is not one way. When I was Leader of the House of Commons in 1997 and established the modernisation committee, one thing that we heard about was another Commonwealth country that had a second Chamber to allow debates on constituency issues and particular topics. It was that experience and that learning that led to the creation of the Westminster Hall debates, which have been very valuable for Members of Parliament. So the CPA helps us as well as it helps other people. If we are intent on protecting parliamentary democracy, we should continue to give the CPA all the support that we can.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I put my name down to speak in this debate because I have had a long-standing interest in the work of the CPA and the commendable work of the Commonwealth and the Red Cross. I also put my name down because, as a Cross-Bencher who has sat next to my noble friend Lord Sandwich for more than 20 years, I wanted to commend him for his extraordinary work.
The Commonwealth and the CPA have achieved so much after so many years in promoting collaboration between the 56 member states, strengthening parliamentary democracy, assisting those who are sadly victims of conflict and violence and promoting humanitarian relief.
I shall briefly talk about my noble friend Lord Sandwich. He has worked tirelessly, as many noble Lords have mentioned, in international development, promoting humanitarian aid, poverty reduction and conflict resolution with countries including Sudan, Ethiopia, Yemen, Myanmar, Afghanistan and many others. He will be sorely missed in your Lordships’ House.
I addressed the Digital Commonwealth Mansion House summit just two weeks ago on delivering fit-for-purpose cross-border regulations on digital assets across the Commonwealth, which will hugely enhance financial inclusion, promote innovation and, just as importantly, provide more accountability. I have always had huge respect for the exceptional work of the CPA, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross. My noble friend Lady D’Souza has eloquently covered all the objectives and the provisions of this Bill, which I shall not repeat, but they are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The point was well made that, without this Bill, there would be a strong possibility that the CPA would need to relocate its headquarters outside the UK.
In conclusion, it is rare, ahead of a forthcoming general election, that there is cross-party support for a Bill. In this regard, I wish the Bill a speedy passage.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Commonwealth. Like others, I am greatly looking forward to hearing the valedictory speech from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I cannot quite understand why he is going, actually—he seems to be quite a young man to me. His speeches are very young indeed, and of course we shall miss them, because he covers the whole world with great acumen and perception.
Like others, I warmly welcome the Bill. I shall talk entirely about the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association aspect and leave others to deal with the ICRC. I know it may not excite headlines, but there are some important messages about our future and the world ahead contained in this legislation. I congratulate Dame Maria Miller on her persistence in bringing it forward—because of course it is not a new Bill or a new idea—and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on promoting it in her excellent opening speech.
There are those who belittle the Commonwealth as a yesterday affair, but this really betrays a total misunderstanding of the way in which the world is going and the Commonwealth is evolving, and of its centrality to Britain’s position in an utterly transformed world. The CPA is a network within an even bigger—indeed, gigantic—network covering almost a third of humankind. Our late Queen called the Commonwealth an entirely new conception and
“in many ways the face of the future”.
Obviously, it is so statistically, since 66% of its 2.6 billion members are under 29. Far from declining or failing, it is actually growing in membership, with more states applying or interested all the time. In fact, it has become, and has been described by experts as, a haven for independent nations, large and small, young and older—the so-called “neo non-aligned countries”—in what is seen as a divided world of great power hegemonies, from both of which they want to stay as clear as possible.
In a multipolar and populist-driven age, international organisations are becoming much less the monopolies of Governments and remote officialdom and far more the province of popular involvement and influence of peoples as well as Governments—that is, of soft power and understanding as against openly aggressive positions and disputes. So here is an increasing middle ground between citizens and the state, the public and the Executive, with dwindling trust on either side. On that middle ground sit parliamentary institutions of many shapes and sizes. So it is vital that Commonwealth Parliaments should have their proper status and platform in the changing global democratic architecture, both drawing from it and giving strength to it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, rightly emphasised. The Bill greatly helps to consolidate that status.
I know that diplomats, even in our own great Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, are sometimes puzzled by the Commonwealth’s status, being half a people’s affair, half governmental and official. They are puzzled by where and how it fits in to the transformed international order, if order is what we call it. The Bill will remind everyone that in this new landscape, the associations and alliances of peoples that endure will be those that are voluntary, like-minded, not overcentralised, and generally upholding the rule of law, implemented by independent judiciaries.
Maybe Commonwealth Governments and leaders differ and argue, as they do, on specific issues, but what unites them is now becoming stronger all the time than what pulls them apart, because it is rooted in the ancient principles emanating from this old nation of ours, established painfully over centuries; namely, free speech, parliamentary government and democratic practices, which of course means not just elections but the behaviour of democracies, by which I mean the upholding of human rights, courtesy, honesty in presenting issues to the people, respect, good manners—very important—and many other qualities you cannot actually enshrine in law but are essential to make democracies and parliamentary systems work. Of course, most of the Commonwealth is bound by the common language of English, which is now the protocol of the planet.
Parliaments will pay a bigger role in preserving our freedoms in the future, or at least they will if they reform themselves, adjust to the new age of internet governance and use much smarter methods to call the Executive to account than we do at present. We will find that the Commonwealth will play a larger, not a smaller, role in the future international networks of the parliaments of this planet. This Bill brings that future, clouded though it may sometimes seem by the present turmoil and troubles, a little nearer and it deserves our strongest support and commitment, without doubt.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, with his staunch support of the Commonwealth. He is a former president of the Royal Commonwealth Society, of which I am a friend. I declare my interests as set out in the register, as the former chair of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for introducing this very important Bill in the Lords, and the right honourable Member for Basingstoke for her championing of the Bill in its legislative journey.
The Commonwealth of Nations, as a unique non-treaty organisation, is a voluntary association of 56 independent and equal countries. Its great value is its incredible diversity. If the Commonwealth has a superpower, I think it might be the rich insight that its diversity brings to its 2.6 billion citizens. Commonwealth nations comprise some of the world’s largest and smallest nations geographically; some of its richest and poorest countries economically; and some of its most populous nations and some countries with among the smallest populations in the world. Yet, despite these incredible differences in scale, history, climate and economy, they work together with common values in pursuit of shared goals. Its members are bound together by adherence to certain shared values and principles, as set out in the Commonwealth charter.
In my previous career as a publisher, I was privileged to visit more than 40 Commonwealth member states. I spoke at several conferences of Commonwealth Education Ministers, one of which happened just this week, as well as attending many of the important Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings. This experience has enabled me to see, first-hand, the fantastic work done and contributions made by many of the 87 Commonwealth-accredited organisations. This particular and important legal status is conferred on certain bodies by their being intergovernmental organisations; for example, the excellent Commonwealth Foundation and the Commonwealth of Learning.
This brings me, not too belatedly, I hope, to the purpose of the Bill. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—CPA—plays a pivotal role in the promotion of democratic governance across the Commonwealth of Nations. It is the glue that binds these diverse nations together and one of the oldest organisations within the Commonwealth. The CPA’s constitution requires it to pursue the positive ideals of parliamentary democracy, and the core values and principles of the Commonwealth on democracy, development, equality, gender, human rights and the protection of the environment, as declared by the Commonwealth charter. The CPA has played an essential role in promoting these values, and in training Commonwealth parliamentarians and their staff to embody and uphold them.
The CPA currently supports some 17,000 elected members and their staff. It operates in all the Commonwealth regions, across 180 branch legislatures and in nearly all the member nations. It is something of an anomaly, then, that the CPA does not have the status of an international organisation, because technically it is not intergovernmental. It is, in fact, a UK-registered charity, as mentioned by several noble Lords, headquartered here, within the Westminster Parliamentary Estate. The Bill seeks to resolve this issue. Changing the status of the CPA to make it an “international interparliamentary organisation” will strengthen the organisation and enable its staff to avail themselves of additional immunities and privileges, as several noble Lords have said, as they strive to uphold the values we all hold so dear, in sometimes challenging environments.
In our increasingly dangerous world, with autocracy on the rise, the CPA will play a vital role in supporting Commonwealth parliamentarians and the soft power of the Commonwealth in ensuring that we hold firm to the essential values of the charter. It will help keep the flame of hope alive, providing a beacon against the deepening political darkness and ensuring that we can light the way for our diverse family of nations, so that the next generation of politicians can continue fighting for our shared values: respect for all other states and peoples, concern for the vulnerable, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the Bill.
Before I sit down, I just wish to say that, as a relatively new Member of this House, I have not had the pleasure of meeting the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, but I really look forward to hearing his valedictory speech, which I regret will be his last.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill and I commend the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for sponsoring it. It is a privilege to speak before the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. As a relatively new Member of this House, I look forward to his speech and I am sorry that it will be a valedictory speech.
I will focus my remarks on the ICRC. Of the two institutions, it is the one with which I am more familiar, both through my practice at the Bar and through my work as an international law academic. In fact, my academic home for many years was the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law in Cambridge, which hosted the ICRC and British Red Cross researchers who worked on the Customary International Humanitarian Law Project. Promoting and working for the faithful application of IHL is one of the core functions that the ICRC has under the Geneva conventions, but of course most of the ICRC’s work is on the ground. Its key functions under the conventions include assistance to victims of armed conflict and, very importantly, serving as an intermediary between parties to armed conflicts. It is especially for this work that the ICRC needs at least some of the privileges and immunities normally accorded to international organisations.
That said, the grant of privileges and immunities is not something that should be agreed to lightly. It means, in effect, that organisations, individuals and their activities are placed outside the reach of the law. The approach of the Bill, quite sensibly, in my view, is to look at the International Organisations Act 1968 as the model. That means that the specific extent of the privileges and immunities that are to be granted to the ICRC and to the CPA is going to be set out in an Order in Council. There is, however, one important difference. Section 1(6) of the International Organisations Act provides that the Order in Council
“shall be so framed as to secure … that the privileges and immunities conferred by the Order are not greater in extent than those which, at the time when the Order takes effect, are required to be conferred”
under the relevant treaty; in other words, in deciding how much immunity and how many privileges are to be granted to an international organisation, His Majesty’s Government would begin by looking at what the relevant treaty says. These treaties will normally be very complex and detailed legal documents such as the UN Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies.
In the case of the CPA and the ICRC, we do not have a treaty that sets out all of the detailed provisions. In paragraph 4, the Explanatory Notes say:
“It is proposed that the Government will conclude written arrangements with the ICRC and CPA which will set out the parameters of the status change. They will include the privileges and immunities which the Government has decided to confer on the organisations”.
Differently from the case of international organisations under the International Organisations Act, we will get the legal document that specifies the extent of the privileges and immunities after the legislation. The document will not be the result of a treaty-making process, but it will reflect what the Government consider appropriate to grant. As I said, the analogy between the ICRC and international organisations, while not a perfect fit, is the best we have. I appreciate that the approach proposed by the Bill remains the most practical one.
It is important to be reassured that the arrangements, which will eventually be agreed with the ICRC and the CPA, will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The arrangements will not be a treaty, so they fall outside the scope of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. They do not need to be laid before Parliament prior to ratification and there will not be a ratification process in that sense. Given that the arrangements will end up shaping the extent of the immunities that these institutions will be granted under our law, it is appropriate that your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee should scrutinise them.
Others have touched on the important issue in Clause 2 around the protection of confidential ICRC information. I think the reasons for this are compelling, and the definitions of the key terms of “protected ICRC information” and “confidential” are clear and would work well. There is a separate provision on evidence in Clause 3, which mirrors a mechanism we have under other immunity statutes: that the Foreign Office can provide certificates that are conclusive as to the issue of fact relative to the question of immunity. The Foreign Office—I know this from personal experience, having worked on a number of these cases—uses the power very sparingly, and I am sure it would continue to do so. With that in mind, I very much welcome the Bill, and I too wish it a speedy passage.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, it is a privilege to be sandwiched between two younger Members of the House, and to hear what they think.
I thank my noble friend for presenting the Bill with clarity and, in doing so, I must thank her for her friendship over many years, in and outside the House. This is also my opportunity to say a few words before I retire. I thank the other speakers for what they have kindly said.
I have known of the Red Cross ever since the last war, when our home near Huntingdon became a hospital. I came to respect the ICRC soon after I joined Christian Aid in 1973, and I often worked alongside the British Red Cross during emergency appeals. On visits to Geneva, I learned more of the work of the ICRC, going back to the Battle of Solferino. It is remarkable that an organisation so skilled in secret political negotiation has not already had diplomatic status with us. The Bill is putting that right.
I strongly support the Bill and its addition of the CPA. I know the CPA to be a vital organisation, as has been said, linking Parliament with the Commonwealth. It must not be encumbered by UK charity law if it is to be a force for parliamentary work, and it should be able to make statements about parliamentary obligations. I totally agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and others have said about the virtues of the Commonwealth; I only wish that the Commonwealth itself would play a stronger role in international affairs. Perhaps this Bill will help.
I will briefly mention the work of the ICRC and Red Crescent during the civil war in Sudan, where they have 4,000 volunteers working on the front line. These aid workers are often casualties of war, as in Gaza, and two ICRC drivers were killed in Darfur only recently. One of the critical areas of work, alongside emergency aid, is the location of missing persons—an absolutely vital task. Aida Al-Sayed Abdullah, Secretary-General of the Sudanese Red Crescent, said:
“Our staff and volunteers distribute food and essential items, provide psychological support, and search for the missing. We urge the international community to increase their support …We cannot let Sudan become another forgotten crisis”.
In fact, it has been forgotten.
For many years, I have been a member of the Sudan all-party group, now energetically chaired by Vicky Ford MP. Sadly, we hear and publish regular reports of the progressive destruction of the country by two warring generals and the consequent appalling loss of life and malnutrition. A pointer for us is that the Sudan war is generating more displaced people than any other country. This means that a high number of refugees are escaping from Sudan every day, falling into the hands of traffickers on their way to small boats bringing them to this country. We are not doing enough to work with our European and Commonwealth friends to reduce these numbers.
Finally, I much regret having to announce my retirement on Monday from the House owing to ill health—as you can see, I get short of breath. I am grateful to my noble friends on the Cross Benches, who have literally given me a second career of nearly 30 years. I know I was chosen because I had worked with several aid NGOs, including Christian Aid and Save the Children, notably on Africa but also on India, where my wife, Caroline, and I lived for nearly a year.
My title comes from the family naval tradition, starting with Charles II’s senior admiral, Edward Montagu, the 1st Earl of Sandwich. I have also declared another important historic interest in the register: this is the family that brought you fast food, first tasted by John, the 4th Earl of Sandwich. There is one story about him which says that, when he first came into the House, he found so many Viscounts in his place that he said, “My Lords, I know not where to sit”, and so ended up on the Cross Benches. My father refused to come here from the House of Commons, and said it was stuffy—how wrong could he be?
Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Howell, reminds me of our great campaign to persuade another place to allow us to discuss foreign affairs. With Lord Elton and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, we had all been pushing for this. Can you believe they would not let us do it? But it happened. I must also mention the excellent Beyond Pills All-Party Group, in which my noble friend Lord Crisp is a leading light.
I think 81 is the right age to move aside. In saying this, I urge the House to reappoint the Lord Speaker’s committee on Lords reform. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, knows all about this. The committee should look now at the incremental reforms proposed by the Norton group and the Burns report, before someone else takes over as Prime Minister and tells us what to do. Here, I am inspired by Carmen, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, our youngest Member, from Plaid Cymru, who is in her place and who says that she will do her duty right up to abolition.
I am grateful to all my “roommates”—predominantly the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon—and Cross-Bench colleagues who are here today, as well as to the Convenor and the usual channels, today’s smiling Front Benches, the clerks, of course, and all the doorkeepers and staff, for making this such a wonderful place to work. Thank you very much.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, I still find it very daunting to address your noble selves with my opinions on and experiences of certain things, but I feel extremely humble in the wake of what we have just heard. I am sure that there will be other occasions, too, when the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, will receive the thanks and gratitude of so many of us.
I hope that the Red Cross will not think that it has been neglected today, but I think it can be said that, whenever we have referred to the CPA, we have embraced it, because it is in the title of the Bill. The problem we are dealing with today has been a feature of both organisations and an irritant at the same time.
I had the honour of being the chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for a three-year period. Looking back, in my speech urging members to choose me as their next chairperson, I—perhaps foolishly—gave the impression that they only had to choose me and this irritant that had obstructed much of the work of both organisations would be dealt with. After my election, the question of why I had not achieved it was brought back to me all the time. Well, I congratulate Maria Miller in the other place and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, in this place on tackling this so comprehensively.
After a period of time in the original Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, we began to see a women’s organisation within it. Then, there was a separate arrangement for the small jurisdictions, which, in many cases, have wildly different issues compared with many of the other larger countries. I am thinking, of course, of those jurisdictions in the Pacific Ocean that are not just concerned with improving their quality of life on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, but are vulnerable to disappearing altogether.
The seminar is one of the features of this Parliament’s interest in the continuation of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and our membership of it. It is a great feature of what is offered to parliamentarians across the Commonwealth. I saw them coming and being asked to give their names, what they did and so on. It was very calm, but people felt nervous about coming in front of a lot of other people and they were not sure how they would get on. Five or six days later, when they had had the full benefit of this seminar, the mood among those people from across the globe was so much better. There were in-jokes between them on certain issues, and that is a pathway that has led to much better co-operation, on a continuing basis, with all the other countries and jurisdictions of the Commonwealth.
However, there was the business of not being able to have the rights that the Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, seeks to put upon them. The fact of the matter is that we could not get it through. Now, there is a unanimous feeling both in the other place and in your Lordships’ House. I have seen proof of how nations can come together and how people can begin to understand each other, for example in the smaller organisations such as the women’s organisation that I mentioned. I am also passionate about getting more young people involved, to hear from them at their level. At conferences, I have on occasion heard some outstanding speeches from young people.
The CPA is a forum in which to deal with matters that upset us from time to time, and this piece of legislation is absolutely essential. As King Charles said on adopting the post of patron of the organisation, this is a great opportunity for people to come together. We want the young people of the Commonwealth to come together, and then we can all benefit.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak in the gap, first to congratulate Dame Maria Miller, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza—honorary graduate of the University of Hull—and all those other people who have made this extremely sensible and necessary Bill possible. We all turn to my noble friend Lord Howell if we want to understand the profound significance of the Commonwealth today; no one is more eloquent or articulate.
There are 180 legislatures, 53 countries and 17,000 parliamentarians in the Commonwealth. It is an odiously fractious, lawless, dangerous world: we did not think that we would see war in Europe in our generation again. This is a deeply distressing and alarming situation, in which the Commonwealth plays such a critical part. We appreciate what this legislation will do to secure it and to enable it to be even more effective.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, for his comments about the ICRC. Although I appreciated its work, he was fascinating in illuminating it further. My own grandfather was secretary of the League of Nations Union in the run-up to the Second World War and fell out over the issue of appeasement, with which he strongly disagreed—so I am an internationalist by background and I congratulate all those involved.
The reason I had to speak today was that one of our oldest and most admired friends, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was giving his valedictory. People may say, “What do those unelected hereditary Peers know about the price of fish?”—although he is elected, but not by a very large constituency. I think the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, knows a great deal about the price of fish, and much else besides. He gives Parliament a good name. He is a man of intellect, wisdom, huge generosity of spirit and great modesty. We have benefited from his contribution in so many ways. In my very humble view, however hard you try to persuade people to put themselves forward for election, I do not believe that the likes of the noble Earl would do so. So if we lose the appointment process, we will do so to our loss.
People who get elected want to please their constituency. What I particularly like about the House of Lords is that I do not have to please anybody; I can be as unfashionable and unpopular as I believe to be right. If I had to go back and speak to my constituents and please them, and be cross-questioned on all my unpopular views, I dare say that I would have to trim my sails.
There is one serious problem about the noble Earl: he is a contemporary, albeit a little older, of the Father of the House of Commons. They were at university together. We are friends from the Isle of Wight, and we both hugely revere his wife, Caroline—although we are quite frightened of her, from time to time. The noble Earl has said that it is time for retirement. He is forbidden to go anywhere near Worthing, where the Member of Parliament standing for re-election is not yet 80, but he may be by the time of the election. I hope that the noble Earl will keep his ideas to himself, or at least away from West Sussex.
The noble Earl will be very greatly missed. He has been a huge force for good over many years, and we wish him well.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on ensuring that the Bill will, I hope, have a smooth passage. I took careful note of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, on some of the detail of how the Orders in Council are prepared. I very much hope that they will also be scrutinised by Parliament.
I commend our friend the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and indicate that we will miss him. I hope he does not mind me saying that he joined Christian Aid before I was born and entered this House while I was studying. Since I have been here, over the last decade, he has been possibly the most consistent and sincere advocate for international development, and has given the most reasoned and precise arguments. I had the opportunity of looking at his maiden speech, to complete the circle. In 1995, he talked about the need for support for development assistance. He said:
“Let us not pretend that overseas aid is just giving something away to others, as some of its critics say. It means a more equal sharing of ideas, more understanding, advocacy and educational work, and diplomacy through involvement”.—[Official Report, 16/11/1995; col. 39.]
His involvement in this House will be greatly missed, but we have the advantage of Hansard to ensure that his words will remain. I will spare the blushes of the Minister and not read other parts of the noble Earl’s maiden speech, because he went on to criticise government aid cuts, which he has also needed to do over recent years. He will be greatly missed.
To some extent, I also wondered why these measures have not been in place already. Nevertheless, it is right to respond to the concerns of partner Parliaments that have asked us to act—and I am pleased that we will do so—to recognise the unique characteristics that should be provided to the ICRC and the Commonwealth.
I start with the ICRC. It is 160 years since the First Geneva Convention. It is of deep concern to me that, almost every week over the last year, including just yesterday, I have been referring to the Fourth Geneva Convention and the need for protections for civilians in conflict, which continues to grow. The proportion of civilians dying in conflict is a growing trend; therefore, regrettably, the Geneva conventions and the work of the ICRC are even more relevant now than we would have hoped. The recognition of its work is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said that the value of the CPA is that we learn from each other, and I could not agree with her more. In the decade that I have been in this place, my work in Parliament has been informed by the relationships between and learning from fellow Commonwealth parliamentarians. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, indicated, the Commonwealth is young. Not all parliamentarians in the Commonwealth are young, but many are reflecting on the huge challenges that afflict the Commonwealth. Parliamentarians have to be part of the solution and not considered to be part of the problem—there are too many times when that is the case.
This year marks the centenary of the first CPA conference—then the Empire Parliamentary Association —held outside London, in southern Africa, including in Lesotho. Next week, there will be a CPA UK visit to Lesotho, which I hope will cement the deep relationships that we have with our partner parliamentarians. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, indicated, it is also about the clerks, and, I would add, librarians and those in the wider parliamentary staff. It is now not just about procedures but, increasingly, about standards, the conduct of Members, staff relationships and the very contemporary issues of how democratic Parliaments should function.
When I chaired a commission with the Nigerian Trade Minister on trade and development in the Commonwealth, a witness told me something that has stuck with me since. She said that the Commonwealth has two great advantages: the first is that America is not a member, and the second is that neither is China. This means that, when we look at its member countries—including the most populous democratic country, which is going to elections as we speak, and the least populous country, which will also have elections this year—we see that the Commonwealth is a unique institution. When we learn, we learn from huge countries facing enormous developmental challenges and from tiny countries that have their own circumstances and challenges because of their scale. There is no other organisation like the CPA on the planet that allows parliamentarians to discuss, as equal partners, how we collectively address those challenges.
I will support anything that can be done to strengthen the CPA as an institution going into its next centenary of conferences. I hope that the Bill has safe passage through the House.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for introducing the Bill. I also acknowledge the hard work of Dame Maria Miller; after her first attempt, it got through on her second attempt, so she has done a great job in ensuring that it arrives here.
I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I have long admired his work in this House—we have worked together on many debates—and his complete dedication to putting forward the case for a more just and fairer world. After many years of debating together, what I did not realise was just how much work he did before he came here, and which he continues to do, for many NGOs and other organisations, particularly Anti-Slavery International, Save the Children, and CARE International. He has also done a huge amount of work for Christian Aid. This week is Christian Aid Week, and I have participated in a number of events to support the work of that organisation. I admire the noble Earl and am very sad that he is retiring. One thing I know is that his work will continue and he will ensure that those organisations get support—so I thank him very much.
I am pleased to support the Bill today on behalf of the Opposition. I thank all those who work with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am not the only one who has benefited from its expertise, experience, networks, contacts and global stature, which are recognised and valued here in the UK and across the Commonwealth. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and my noble friend Lady Taylor reminded us, many of us here have, at some time or another, relied on its support, whether when visiting Commonwealth countries or our overseas territories and Crown dependencies, or when welcoming parliamentarians here, which I have had the opportunity to do many times.
At a time of deep global uncertainty, our relationships through the Commonwealth—and, indeed, inter-parliamentary relationships—are crucial, and the CPA secretariat, which is hosted here, plays a critical role. I pay tribute to the former Member of Parliament, our friend Stephen Twigg, who is the secretary-general. He is doing excellent work and is seeing this through. I also put on record that Labour is extremely keen to ensure that the CPA headquarters stays right here in Westminster, in London, as the Bill intends.
We recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Commonwealth, which, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, has grown from a group of eight countries in 1949 to a much greater, diverse body of 56 countries. We have had new members join us, which we have to recognise; today it has a population of 2.5 billion. It is an important part of how we bring this very difficult world together and share the same sort of values, and we need to continue that work, particularly with the CPA.
Labour is very proud of the CPA’s ongoing role in bringing together and liaising between parliaments in the Commonwealth family from the building that inspired the way in which most of the Commonwealth is governed today. It is important that the CPA is granted privileges and immunities similar to those enjoyed by comparable organisations such as the Commonwealth Foundation and the Commonwealth of Learning, as my noble friend Lord Leong highlighted. That enhanced status will undoubtedly strengthen the influence of Commonwealth parliamentarians and give the CPA a more authoritative presence internationally. I know that parliamentarians across the Commonwealth will welcome this. Holding a status akin to that of our parliamentary strengthening counterparts should enhance the organisation’s standing.
I also commend the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which obviously plays a critical role globally, working tirelessly and meticulously to support civilians working in conflict and war zones in the most difficult situations and circumstances around the world, and upholding the key responsibilities in relation to the laws of war and humanitarian law.
The International Committee of the Red Cross is a neutral, independent and impartial humanitarian organisation, mandated by the international community to protect and assist victims of armed conflict and other situations. It is right that the ICRC has been granted privileges and immunities by 109 states, but the UK is not one of them. That is why it is important that it is included in the Bill, and I very much welcome that.
It is important that we support and speed the Bill through. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said about how we scrutinise the next part that comes through in the Schedule, and I certainly support his view that it is an opportunity for our parliamentary committees to properly scrutinise it.
I conclude by commending the work that has gone into the Bill by MPs and Peers from all sides. Once again I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for introducing it and ensuring its safe passage through this House. I am confident that there is a will on all sides to ensure that the Bill succeeds.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join all noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for tabling the Bill and for her important opening remarks in detailing the various provisions. Like others, I also thank my right honourable friend the Member for Basingstoke, Dame Maria Miller, for her dedicated work as chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the UK’s branch, and for her tireless work to ensure the Bill’s passage through the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about the second attempt; I have been Commonwealth Minister for seven years, and I look to my dear friends, my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lord Howell, who have also advocated for this. They say that persistence pays, and I am pleased to say that the Bill carries the Government’s full support. We have worked closely with Dame Maria Miller to ensure the passage of the Bill to where we are today.
Before I go any further, I, like others, turn to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, first thanking him for his guidance and insights. I am grateful to his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who brought to my attention some of the noble Earl’s notable insights and said that the first question he asked here as an Earl and a hereditary Peer—this is quite a tribute to him—was about legroom on public transport. As a former Transport Minister, I am told that we are very much seized of that issue even today. His final question was, aptly, on South Sudan. That shows the depth and the breadth of the consistent insights that he has brought to debates across development policy and foreign affairs.
Certainly, as a Government Minister for Foreign Affairs I have sought, I hope to the best degree possible, to answer the questions he has posed to me in his very courteous way. He has brought many insights, as we have heard, such as presenting the challenges on the development portfolio. I am sure I speak for all noble Lords when I say, as a Government Minister who has often been on the receiving end of the noble Earl’s insightful but quite direct challenges, that we have sought to always develop a relationship based on and steeped in respect. He has articulated all his contributions in that way, and I am truly grateful. I join other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Bottomley, in saying that his wide-ranging experience will be sorely missed in your Lordships’ House.
I am pleased that the Bill enjoys cross-party support. Indeed, it is the second Private Member’s Bill that we are discussing this morning that carries support across your Lordships’ House. I am grateful for the advocacy of many across both Houses, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said. I join him in acknowledging and paying tribute to Stephen Twigg. I enjoy a good relationship with Stephen and know that he has been a powerful advocate, as has my noble friend Lord Haselhurst. I was looking through the number of people who have raised this issue over the years, and I pay tribute collectively to them all.
As the Minister of State for the Commonwealth, I assure noble Lords that we will continue to work with both the ICRC and the CPA to ensure the Bill’s safe and speedy passage. It is hugely important. Both key organisations have waited for this status for a long time, and it comes at a particularly crucial time for both the CPA and the ICRC.
The ICRC, as my noble friend Lady Anelay once again reminded us, has been at the centre of international humanitarian work in recent years. As we look at granting this status to the ICRC, with wars raging in Ukraine and the Middle East, it is perhaps an entirely appropriate time to ensure that it continues its important work.
Equally, as other noble Lords said, in March we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the creation of the modern Commonwealth. We continue to work together in partnership with our Commonwealth family on vital issues such as empowering women and girls, bolstering the rule of law and good governance, and protecting the freedom of the media. Both my noble friend Lord Haselhurst and the great advocate for the Commonwealth, my noble friend Lord Howell, reminded us of this. Indeed, my own engagements earlier this week included a discussion yesterday with His Majesty on our planning for CHOGM and his focus on small island states, and earlier in the week a logistical discussion with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth on planning for the CHOGM in Samoa. So, again, this is an entirely appropriate time for us to move forward with the Bill.
The UK values its partnership with the CPA and is proud to support work being done by the CPA and its regional branch, CPA UK. This includes developing benchmarks as indicators of parliamentary democracy and addressing modern slavery in supply chains and gender-based violence with parliaments and parliamentarians across the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, St John of Bletso, reminded us of the important work of parliamentarians, as did others.
The organisation’s current status as a charity has meant that the CPA has been prevented from operating fully across the Commonwealth and international fora. As Minister for the Commonwealth, I know how highly valued this organisation is. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, drew on her wide experience of the important role of the CPA, as did the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Leong. I agree with all of them, particularly on the point about the rich diversity of parliamentarians, in terms of both age and insight, that was provided when we hosted the CHOGM summit. Having the CPA meeting in advance of CHOGM was a valuable tool; we have shared that experience with subsequent hosts, including Rwanda.
Without this legislation, there would remain a high possibility that the CPA would look to relocate its headquarters outside the UK, an outcome that I assure noble Lords neither I nor the Foreign Secretary—indeed, no one—would like to see happen. That is why the UK has supported this Bill coming forward.
As my noble friend Lady Anelay reminded us, the UK has also supported the ICRC’s work over many years. I join her in paying tribute to Peter Maurer, its previous president; I also pay tribute to Mirjana Egger, who is doing a wonderful job at the helm of this organisation at a very challenging time. The UK greatly supports the ICRC’s work. It is an essential partner for achieving the UK’s global humanitarian objectives, having a unique legitimacy to engage all parties to conflicts and unparalleled access to vulnerable groups in conflict situations. Its specialised role in engaging with all arms bearers, including the growing number of non-state armed groups, is coupled with its direct delivery of a comprehensive range of integrated humanitarian assistance and protection programmes. It is therefore critical, as the noble Lord, Lord Leong, reminded us, to give the ICRC its correct status in UK legislation and to work together in order to deliver its objectives.
That is why this Bill and the provisions contained in it are so important. They enable the Government to treat the CPA and the ICRC in a manner comparable to that of an international organisation of which the United Kingdom, or His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, is a member. By creating through an Order in Council the power to give both organisations the legal capacity of a body corporate, as well as specific privileges and immunities, the Bill will support the functional needs of the CPA and the ICRC, including on their property, information and certain personnel.
The list of privileges and immunities that may be conferred on the CPA and the ICRC has been informed by the International Organisations Act 1968. This will allow the Government to agree a framework that is appropriate to each organisation’s unique mandate. The actual suite of privileges and immunities to be accorded, including relevant exemptions and limitations, will be determined by the functional needs of each organisation and will be specified in the Order in Council, as noble Lords mentioned. For example, as is standard practice, the arrangements will make clear that there will be no immunity from a legal suit in the case of a motor traffic offence or damage caused by a motor vehicle.
It would be remiss of me not to mention something that my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, mentioned: the confidentiality provision in the Bill. It provides for the protection of certain information related to the ICRC’s sensitive work that it has provided to His Majesty’s Government in confidence. For example, it is protected from being disclosed in UK court proceedings—except criminal proceedings, as my noble friend said.
This provision reflects the ICRC’s standard working method of confidentiality, which is designed to protect its staff and operations in active conflict zones. The public disclosure of information that the ICRC obtains from confidential dialogue with conflict parties is likely to put this at risk. I have seen that directly in current conflicts and, indeed, through my direct engagement with the ICRC. It is important that this power is granted.
This is also a principle that underpins the ICRC’s ability to operate in dangerous locations on sensitive issues, engaging both with states and, importantly, with non-state actors. Indeed, as my right honourable friend the Member for Basingstoke, Dame Maria Miller, noted in Committee:
“There is a real risk and concern about ICRC information being used in legal proceedings—over the past 15 years, the ICRC’s confidentiality has been challenged some 20 times in the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/24; col. 1220.]
The Government therefore consider that this confidentiality provision is both necessary and proportionate.
The financial implications of the Bill are minimal. There will be little or no loss of revenue as a result of the fiscal exemptions or reliefs, which will be granted by delegated legislation through the provisions in the Bill. Refunds of certain taxes will be made in accordance with the separate arrangements between the Government and the CPA and the ICRC respectively, as is standard for international organisations. Furthermore, administration of the arrangements will be resourced from the existing resources responsible for managing privileges and immunities with international organisations in the United Kingdom.
I assure noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, that the FCDO will continue to consult both organisations ahead of secondary legislation. On the proposals for those statutory instruments, the Government propose that the procedure applicable to any statutory instrument made under this delegated power should be the draft affirmative procedure. I hope that this reassures the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Verdirame, on how scrutiny of this important Bill will continue. Today’s contributions have demonstrably shown that the Bill is warmly welcomed across your Lordships’ House.
We will work closely with both organisations on a functional need basis in terms of specific arrangements detailing the day-to-day management of the privileges and immunities granted to them and other facilities. As I have already said, the FCDO has also committed to laying the draft Order in Council as soon as possible.
I conclude by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions. This Bill is an important step forward. It carries cross-party support; I pay tribute to all of the Members who, over many years, have made invaluable contributions to get us to this point in time. I again pay tribute to my dear friend, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for her stewardship and advocacy on this issue. It is important that the correct status in UK legislation is given to both organisations so that they can continue their vital international operations without restriction. This Bill reflects the Government’s strong commitment to the Commonwealth, which is extremely important in this CHOGM year, and our support of democratic legislators through our work with the CPA. It also supports our global humanitarian objectives through our work with the ICRC.
In commending this Bill to the House—I look forward to working with noble Lords on its speedy passage—I once again pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for his insights. He will be missed but, as he has demonstrated again today, he leaves appropriate challenges for the Government and for whoever holds the position that I currently hold in the months and years to come. I am sure that, now and again, he will remind us with a little note—as he often does for me, saying, “Tariq, you may need to look at this one”. We are fully supportive, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I warmly thank the Minister for his words and his support for this Bill, as with so many other issues. He should know how grateful we all are both that he has enabled this Bill to come to the fore—again, as with many other issues—and that this is likely to become law shortly.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—or Johnnie, as I know him—for his typically sincere and moving argument. Let me say once again how greatly we will miss him, but we all hope that we will stay in touch.
Dame Maria Miller has received many accolades during the course of this debate, and rightly so. I am sure that there are many more to come in the later stages of this Bill, but I want here to acknowledge her absolute determination to get the Bill through the other place, thereby allowing it to come here.
I warmly thank all contributors for their unqualified support. It gives me hope that this Bill will shortly become law. I also thank my noble friend Lord Verdirame for his words. I completely appreciate the cautions that he presented on privileges and immunities. Much as I have been a critic in the past, and continue to be a critic, of the overuse of secondary legislation, I believe that it is appropriate in this case. Of course, I reiterate that, as the Minister said, it will be subject to affirmative procedures and will be drawn up with consultation of the relevant people in the two organisations. I do like very much his idea that the privileges and immunities will be scrutinised by the International Agreements Committee. That is all I have to say. I beg to move.
Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Bill
Friday 17th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 View all Paternity Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 March 2024 - (20 Mar 2024)
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my honourable friend Chris Elmore, the Member for Ogmore, for guiding this Bill through the various stages in the other House. I put on record that I am godmother to his son, Henry, so I am delighted to support his exceptionally important Bill through your Lordships’ House. I extend my thanks to all Members who spoke passionately in favour of this Bill in the other place, especially Darren Henry MP, who initiated this campaign there on behalf of a constituent, Aaron, whom I will return to shortly.
We are here today to provide a safety net for people experiencing grief beyond my comprehension. Whether you are a parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle or godparent, we all know the excitement that comes with news of an imminent addition to the family. For new parents, it must be a rollercoaster of emotions—excitement and joy at the thought of a new baby in the house, and worry about the responsibilities that come with parenthood. Focus will rightly be on the mother and preparing for the arrival of a new baby, whether it is a natural birth or those adopting or using a surrogate. Nothing is more exciting than a new member of the family.
However, many expectant parents will also start thinking about the financial impact of a new baby. After all, the Government’s own MoneyHelper website suggests that a newborn will cost a family £7,200 in the first year, excluding childcare costs. Therefore, it would not be unusual for one of the parents to think about moving jobs to help meet the costs of a growing family, not realising the impact on their employment rights. But the reality can be truly heartbreaking if something goes wrong. Just, for one second, imagine the horror. A mother dies in childbirth. Her partner is left alone with a newborn. I cannot imagine the grief and fear of the new parent, who is now facing the daunting prospect of sole responsibility for a tiny human. You have lost your life partner, and your baby has lost a parent. The grief, pain and fear are unimaginable. You know that your only responsibility is now to the baby you are holding, as you try to keep going just for them. But there is the funeral to arrange, the grief to try to manage—if that is even possible—the paperwork to tackle and some form of plan to make about how to raise your new child without the love and support of your partner.
Everything takes time and work is the last thing on your mind—until you realise that, because you started the new job within the last four months, you do not have the right to enhanced paternity leave you would have had, had you not taken that job. Therefore, rather than having up to a year to get yourself straight, you have a matter of days—and those are at the discretion of your boss. This is not a time when someone needs their employer’s discretion. It is not a time when you want to think about anything other than getting through the day. This is a time when you need to fall back on a legal safety net, to know that you can take the time to focus on rebuilding your shattered life.
But this is what is actually happening, albeit to a mercifully small number of people. There are 180 maternal deaths per year within 12 months of childbirth in the UK, but the small numbers we are discussing do not diminish the pain felt by those affected. Let me tell you about Aaron, whom I previously mentioned. Aaron, tragically, lost his wife, Bernadette, hours after she gave birth to their son, Tim. Aaron had moved employers in the months before Tim’s birth, and because of this did not have access to a statutory leave entitlement to care for Tim following Bernadette’s unexpected and tragic passing. The current rules left Aaron and other parents in this heartbreaking position without access to a statutory right to take time off work to care for their child and rebuild their lives.
Aaron’s story is not the only one to touch me during the passage of this Bill. Gingerbread has also shared the story of Simon Thorpe, who lost his partner not long after the birth of their child and felt at the mercy of his employer. It also raised the case of Lee, a father of two who lost his wife to cancer. Lee emphasised how difficult it is, particularly when you have more than one child. Not only are you grieving but suddenly, you have lost two incomes, and two sets of annual leave per year are now halved, so childcare costs a fortune; plus, there is the cost of living. If someone is lucky enough to be in a good job, there is dependants leave, but Lee’s company offers only five days of this per year. There is also special leave, which can be paid at the manager’s discretion but can also be unpaid.
The Bill before us will remedy this. It is the least we owe Aaron and Tim, Simon, Lee and the dozens of families like theirs, so that they know that their pain has led to us changing the law, meaning that no one else will experience what they have experienced. The Bill gained cross-party support in the other place, and I am pleased that it is now the duty of your Lordships’ House to consider this important Bill.
Once introduced, the Bill will put on the statute book a day 1 right to leave for employees who tragically lose their partner in the time surrounding childbirth or adoption. This will provide these individuals with the support and protection they need during one of the darkest periods of their lives. Moreover, even parents who do meet the continuity of service requirement to qualify for statutory paternity leave may not have access to a sufficient period to care for their child. Parents in this situation would still be reliant on the good will of their employer to take any additional time off work. The Bill will also close this gap in the legislation for all employed parents who have lost their partner around childbirth or adoption and moved employer in the months before the birth.
The Bill will create specific provisions for those bereaved partners using the paternity leave framework. The intention is that they will have access to up to 52 weeks’ leave during the first year of the child’s life, from the day after the mother or primary adopter of the child has tragically died. In addition, the Bill will enable regulations to be made to ensure that adoptive and surrogacy parents are also eligible for this entitlement if they face similar tragic circumstances. As a result, we will be able to offer the benefits of this entitlement to a wider range of parents.
Other sections of the Bill remove constraints on bereaved partners, which will make the leave entitlement easier to access. For example, the Bill removes the restriction whereby a parent who has taken shared parental leave cannot then take paternity leave. This means that a parent who has taken shared parental leave before the death of their partner can still take paternity leave. The Bill also allows provision to be made in regulations for the utterly heartbreaking situation where the child also dies. My heart goes out to anyone who experiences this. This could allow the employee to stay on this extended form of paternity leave, even though they would not be taking the leave for the required purpose of supporting the mother or caring for the child, but rather, trying to cope and find a way to deal with the overwhelming grief they will be experiencing.
The Bill also introduces two new powers. The first provides the ability to create, through regulations, enhanced redundancy protection for bereaved employees when they return from this extended form of paternity leave. The second enables regulations to be made to allow bereaved parents to keep in touch during their extended paternity leave. These “keep in touch” days enable employees to work with their employer for a limited number of days without their right to paternity leave being affected. I assure the House that the delegated powers in this Bill have been used in a way that mirrors the provision relating to existing family leave rights.
In conclusion, I believe that the Bill is in a good position thanks to the work of everyone in the other place. I want to see it succeed, because we have an opportunity today to make a real difference to the lives of those who will seek to rely upon this entitlement in the future. I am not naive enough to think that the Bill solves every problem, but it is a stepping stone to better employment rights for the people who need them most. I hope that, in time, money will follow this policy.
I have just one request for the Minister: in addition to his support for the Bill, can he confirm that it and all the relevant regulations will hit the statute book before the next financial year? I hope that, with the support of your Lordships, we will deliver a piece of legislation that supports people in the devastating situation of losing their partner at the same time as becoming a new parent. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, who so comprehensively and powerfully set out the need for the Bill. I also commend the honourable Chris Elmore, for taking it up and seeing it through the other place.
I am speaking to express Green Party support for the Bill and for fathers and partners who, in the most tragic of circumstances, find themselves a single parent as a result of the death of a partner or spouse. We all struggle to imagine how people survive such circumstances, but they have to. I must reference the amount of discussion that we have had this week about the evident need to improve maternity care dramatically. But, whatever we manage to achieve in that area, there will still be tragic occasions that we need this law to cover.
It is interesting to note that this is a real indication of how Parliament and the parliamentary process can and should work, but so rarely does. We are amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 and, in Committee in the other place, the original proposed Bill was amended to cover a broader range of circumstances, fully covering adoption and surrogacy and, as the noble Baroness said, the situation where a child dies. It was a copybook process, which we would like to see being done a lot more to produce good legislation and do things that needs to be done and that do not need to be regarded as political.
There was discussion in the other place about how this does not cover Northern Ireland. There was some suggestion that it might be extended, so can the Minister comment on whether that is technically possible, feasible or is being taken forward in any way? It was raised in the other place.
I follow the noble Baroness in acknowledging the work of Gingerbread, in making the case for this legislation and driving it through. It is a demonstration that campaigning works. Campaigning can be a long and thankless task, into which people have to put an enormous amount of effort, but it delivers. We need to acknowledge the importance of civil society voices being heard in both Chambers and being listened to and acted on.
Finally, I want to look at the broader context of the Bill. It restates an important principle that, when a child is born, they are not just an individual or a member of a family but a member of our society. They are definitely not the property of their parents. They are not the sole responsibility of their parent or parents, but the responsibility of all of us. Society has a responsibility to make sure that every child has a decent start in life. That is a moral position that, sadly, needs to be increasingly restated these days, but it is also a practical position: if we are going to have a functioning society that can tackle the many challenges and crises that we now face, we need to make sure that every human being in our society is able to develop to their full potential. We cannot afford to abandon any child, or any parent who is struggling to raise a child in impossible circumstances, without the resources to do the job.
This is a really excellent piece of work. I congratulate everyone involved and, like the noble Baroness, look forward to it being on the statute book with the regulations in place as soon as possible.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of this legislation. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Anderson on a not just powerful but very clear outline of why this legislation and this change are necessary.
It is an example of the best use of Private Members’ Bills. I was not aware of this problem; I am sure that a lot of people were not aware of this problem. When the original legislation was going through, I am sure that nobody thought of this particular set of circumstances, which could have a devastating impact on the families affected. Our legislation sometimes has unintended consequences, even when it is drafted in the best possible way—although that has not been the case with much recent legislation. Even the best legislation can leave loopholes or gaps, or create anomalies, and this was one.
I congratulate my friend Chris Elmore in the other House on having the persistence to get us to this situation. It is not easy to steer a Private Member’s Bill through either House of Parliament and I think that this one is an important step forward.
As my noble friend mentioned, we are talking about really tragic circumstances, and they are difficult to talk about without a high degree of emotion. My noble friend mentioned individual cases that must have been devastating for the families involved—not just the partner, but the whole family of any mother who tragically died in childbirth. As my noble friend said, this should be a time of joy and to mix that with grief and overwhelming problems, including financial problems, is truly devastating.
It is an obvious thing for someone, before the birth of their child, to get a better-paid job to support their growing family. To have these kinds of difficulties because of your attempts to improve the situation must be absolutely devastating. So I think it is right to bring this forward and to give it a speedy passage, if we can.
In terms of public spending, this must be the least significant Bill that we are producing but, for the individuals affected, it must be one of the most impactful. Although the figures are small, the impact will be great. The Bill will not solve all the problems of those who have been affected by such a devastating loss, but it could ease their situation and we should certainly be doing that. I congratulate those who have brought the Bill forward and I hope the Minister makes sure that it goes through as quickly as possible.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
I add my most warm commendations to those who have taken this legislation forward. I pay tribute to the politicians, but also to the Minister, Kevin Hollinrake, who is an extraordinary, pragmatic, principled and effective Minister. He is a problem-solver and he has delivered results, working with the politicians and the interest groups.
I wanted, though, to give the House a slight reality check about the problem that we are describing. Obviously, it is traumatic when someone dies in childbirth, and something like 13.41 women per 100,000 die during pregnancy. Some 200 years ago, 2,500 women per 100,000 died in childbirth. We have gone from 2,500 down to 13.41. Whenever we talk about these figures, the United Kingdom’s huge progress is in my mind, but there are still other countries that have worse figures.
I also want to refer to the extraordinary change of attitude about childbirth and stillbirth in hospitals because, in years gone by, a stillbirth was a failure to be hushed away. Now, a great number of health authorities provide excellent work to ensure that those who are affected by a stillbirth are given the proper care and attention that they need. I commend particularly the Childhood Bereavement Network.
I thank your Lordships for letting me intervene. This is excellent legislation and I appreciate the work of the politicians, Ministers and our distinguished Lords Minister.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I start in the same way as my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, by thanking my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Chris Elmore MP for sponsoring this vital piece of legislation. I am very glad to see that the Government have given their support to the Bill, and thank the Minister, although it should not have needed a Private Member’s Bill for action to be taken. We believe that the Government could and should have legislated this change as part of a wider package to help the most vulnerable when in a difficult situation. Nevertheless, we wholeheartedly back my colleagues’ Bill. As was said earlier, the Bill represents the very best of Parliament, and reflects Labour’s and, if the Government support it, the Government’s commitment to strengthening the rights of workers, as well as our desire to see equality pursued in every area of life.
The Bill and the campaigning around it have illustrated the fact that bereaved fathers have been allowed to fall through the legislative gap. It is unjust that consequently they do not receive the same protection as their counterparts; I am glad that we now have an opportunity to change that. The current qualification period of 26 weeks is too high, as we have heard, and a day one right to paternity leave in the case of bereavement is very much needed. This is important not only for grieving fathers and partners but for newborn babies, who require the kind of close care they would otherwise receive from a mother on maternity leave.
We have heard a number of heartbreaking stories of bereaved fathers with newborns, but there are many more out there. Like others, I thank the charity Gingerbread, which supports single parents, for its work in helping raise awareness around this issue. It is cruel that fathers who have the absolute horror of losing a partner are then at the discretion of their employers. Now, we know that most employers show compassion and support, but this is legislating to protect against the worst of employers, who either do not or cannot show that compassion or give that support. The horrors of losing a partner are often compounded by the administrative burden that then surrounds death and, in many cases, the financial impact of losing a second household income.
We need to ensure equality, and that is what the Bill does, equalising the rights of partners and fathers with those of a mother. Those who are going through the most unimaginable grief, and who are placed in the most difficult of circumstances, deserve our help. It is right that the state and employers are there for people going through the worst moments of their lives, and who experience that trauma while also needing to care for a newborn baby. If we cannot, as a Government or Parliament, care for those people, then what can we do?
The debate surrounding this issue has also highlighted the fact that employers must do more to advertise to their employees existing rights around maternity, paternity and shared leave. Both the number of people aware of their rights and the take-up rates for them are shamefully low. Much more needs to be done, and the Government need to be the driving force behind it.
I am glad today to stand here and speak in support of the Bill, particularly as this is all too sadly a relevant issue. A report in April this year found that the number of women dying during or soon after pregnancy is at 13.4 per 100,000 women. This is the highest level it has been at for 20 years, despite the Government’s stated ambition of halving maternal deaths between 2010 and 2025. We stand ready to work with the Government in that ambition. However, this is an issue that does not affect all parts of society equally: women from ethnic minority backgrounds are four times more likely to die in childbirth than white women. More needs to be done on this; I suppose that is for a different debate, and we will deal with it later.
The Bill before us today represents the start of a process of strengthening employment rights for everyone, including parents. The Bill is very much the beginning of that debate. In her comprehensive introduction to the Bill, my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent talked about the grief, pain and fear being unimaginable. They are. We will not be able to do anything about those issues, but today we can legislate to remove one of the worries, to ease the pressure on individuals and make their lives that little bit easier when they are dealing with such difficult circumstances.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
As always, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for his comments. The matters raised in the other areas related to maternity—survival rates and so on—are certainly things the Government take seriously, but they are not specifically relevant to this debate. I thank him for raising them.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, for bringing this important Bill forward for debate. I have much appreciated the collaboration we have had over the last few weeks in the run-up to today. It is without question a personal pleasure to be here today to confirm the Government’s ongoing support for the Bill, following the excellent work, highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, by the Minister in the other place, Kevin Hollinrake. I also express my gratitude to Chris Elmore, MP for Ogmore, for his role in leading us here today to debate such an important topic. I also thank all of those who have spoken on this important matter, including the charity Gingerbread, which has been mentioned, and Mr Aaron Horsey, who I believe is here today. I want to acknowledge the campaigning he has done personally to bring this to debate today, during what is also an extremely difficult time. I was extremely privileged to meet Mr Horsey earlier, and I hope he feels that we are doing credit to his mission.
I am sure we can all agree that extending a right to statutory leave for employed parents in these dreadful and sudden circumstances is clearly the right thing to do. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, I was struck by the fact that we have had to bring this legislation forward in the first place. I think everyone who was confronted with this issue would have probably said exactly what I said—that this seems to be an extraordinary anomaly, and I am not sure how this has managed to pass. I am very glad that we now have an opportunity to rectify this.
We are very pleased to support this Private Member’s Bill, which will provide support and security for bereaved parents during one of the most difficult periods in their lives. The Bill’s progress to this House means that we are not only one move closer to the day this entitlement can take effect but able to demonstrate what can be achieved through cross-party co-operation. I have watched the Bill’s progress through the other place with great interest, and I am extremely pleased it has arrived here for our consideration so swiftly.
As has been mentioned by other speakers, having a child should be one of the happiest moments of a new parent’s life. However, for a small number of people each year, this monumental event is followed by unimaginable grief. Losing a partner is a truly devastating experience for anyone and combining that grief with the challenge of caring for a new baby must, as I am sure we all know, be incredibly hard. My sincere condolences, on behalf of myself and all my colleagues, go to anyone who finds themselves in this devastating situation. By setting out this new entitlement to an extended form of paternity leave in the statute book, we will ensure that those parents are supported and are not burdened with additional stress over whether they can take time off work during the crucial first year with their child.
The United Kingdom already has a range of generous entitlements and protections designed to help parents balance their family and work commitments while also maintaining their place in the labour market. This change will come in the wake of six Private Members’ Bills that the Government have supported to Royal Assent alongside supporting secondary legislation that will better the experience of all our citizens in the workforce.
I turn to the Bill briefly. As set out by the noble Baroness, the Bill will give employed bereaved fathers and partners a day-one right to paternity leave if they are in the tragic circumstance of losing the mother or primary adopter of the child in the time surrounding the birth or adoption. By making this change to the legislative framework, we ensure that employees who lose their partner in the time surrounding childbirth or adoption have access to a much-needed period of leave to care for their new child. This change will make sure that bereaved partners can take time off work without needing to rely on the good will of their employer and, importantly, are able to stay connected to the labour market until they are able to return.
I add, because there have been comments about how employers have functioned until now and Mr Horsey raised this point with me, that many employers wish to do the right thing. But because there is no legislative framework around which they can do it, they are not able to do so, particularly in larger companies where there are legal issues around it. I pay tribute to many employers who probably have done the right thing, but this gives them certainty.
It is right that the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, challenges me and the Government about when these measures can take effect. It is quite complex. There are a number of statutory instruments, but let me be clear that my personal point of view is full commitment to ensuring that this is brought in as speedily as possible, and we should be prompted on a target for the next financial year. If I am in a position to do so, I will take as much responsibility around that as I can. I am sure that colleagues and noble Lords agree about the importance of simplicity in the sense of the mission that we all desire to see completed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised Northern Ireland. We are working with officials in Northern Ireland. Clearly, there are separate structures and systems there, but my officials have been engaged with officials there. It is something that we encourage, and we will be there to support officials in the Northern Ireland Administration if that is something they wish to enact.
These measures will provide valuable support and protection to parents during one of the most awful and life-changing periods of their lives. Supporting this Bill is in line with our ongoing commitment to support workers and build a high-skilled, high-wage, high-productivity economy. It is very good to see from today’s debate that there is support from across the political spectrum in this House for this important measure. I look forward to continuing to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, as the Bill progresses through this House.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton for raising the impact of this heartbreak on the whole family, not just on the parents; to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support and for celebrating the work of Gingerbread, which has been instrumental in getting us to this point; and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, for reminding us that, thankfully, the numbers are so much smaller than they once were. However, one is too many, which is why we need to fix it.
I thank the Minister for signalling the Government’s ongoing commitment to this Bill, for the personal commitments that he has made and for taking the time to meet Aaron this morning. I also thank my Opposition Front Bench for their support and for stating that, whatever happens at the next election, we will ensure that this legislation is duly passed and that families are supported. I hope noble Lords on all sides of the House agree that this is essential legislation that will help support some parents and their families at one of the darkest periods of their lives.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill
Friday 17th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill 2023-24 View all High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 April 2024 - (26 Apr 2024)
Lord Whitby (Con)
My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I move the Second Reading of the High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill. It has already received cross-party support in another place, and I am keen and confident that it will receive an equally positive reception in your Lordships’ House. It is a necessary Bill to maximise the chances of high street renewal with the assistance of local communities and the support of central government under the leadership of informed and empowered local authorities. I happily declare something of an interest in this as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I am a proud champion of what is termed “muscular localism” by my honourable friend Jack Brereton, the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, who has ably taken this Bill through another place. He and I, who between us have considerable local government experience, share a passion for active local government working in dynamic partnership with local businesses and communities. In Birmingham I was proud to play a leadership role in commissioning and developing the internationally acclaimed and award-winning Big City Plan, which aimed to shape and revitalise Birmingham city centre, putting the city’s sustainability, culture, creativity, technology and enterprise at the heart of its future plans, innovating the transport and street scene, attracting £14 billion of committed private sector funding and building upon our historic successes, not least in preserving and enhancing the Jewellery Quarter as a place of active manufacturing, artistry and craft. Importantly, it meant rescuing the Bullring from the concrete cage and reviving it as a prosperous, accessible and welcoming marketing and retail area.
What we learned as we progressed with our compelling vision was that others quickly bought into what we wanted to be and wanted to be part of that journey, so we were able to preserve and enhance the iconic Rotunda—I am grateful to Urban Splash, which came on board thanks to the framework and clear sense of direction that we had given—but, equally, we invited partnerships with an openness to ideas in delivering the overall imperative of Birmingham living up to its civic motto, “Forward”.
It is because of the lessons I learned as a champion and practitioner of informed, active and collaborative local leadership that I am passionate about getting this Bill into statute. It comes with money attached. Those with local government experience will know that this is not always the case when government asks things of local government. Crucially, it comes with a duty on the Secretary of State to do a lot of legwork for local government in collating and crafting guidance from across all government departments and utilising national data resources and best practice lessons from past high street schemes.
This means that much smaller authorities than Birmingham can access the kind of expertise that we in Birmingham had the wherewithal to commission separately. It means that the lessons from the Government’s high streets task force, which has helped numerous councils of all colours, can be shared with all local authorities in a one-stop shop of government guidance.
The same will be true of lessons from the levelling-up fund, the towns fund, the future high streets fund, high street heritage action zones and many more. All of them are commendable and helpful for the authorities that have enjoyed them, but they all need to have their lessons institutionalised for all authorities so they can share that best practice.
It will ensure that councils are fully aware of the range of powers available to them and of their usefulness, including perhaps unfamiliar ones such as rental auctions, from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The Bill will share best practice, and I emphasise that it is about guidance, not prescription.
The support of the Government is imperative, but the Bill recognises the important role of local government, the vital contribution of localism and the mutually beneficial rewards of good public-private partnerships. Everyone recognises the challenges that our high streets face. The long-term rise of out-of-town and online shopping and of online banking, taken together with the short-term crisis of the Covid lockdowns, has changed what high streets can be. It is no longer an option to tread water and hope that something turns up. There needs to be active planning and, in some cases, enforcement. High streets blighted by low footfall and vacant properties accelerate that decline—and decline has proved to be the perfect ground for anti-social behaviour, which in turn keeps more and more local people and outside visitors away from our high streets.
The Bill will require all local authorities in England to designate at least one street, or a network of streets if appropriate, as a high street in their area, and to develop improvement plans for the designated streets. There will be no upper limit on how many streets a local authority can designate. As some local authorities will have a larger number of high streets, as we have in Birmingham, it will be important for councils, local authorities and communities to have flexibility around where they focus their efforts. However, I must reiterate that government funding for drawing up improvement plans will be limited to three high streets per authority.
Once in place, improvement plans will need to be reviewed at least once every five years. Our high streets need to be dynamic places, and the improvement plans will need to be dynamic too. Indeed, while most local authorities will likely work to the five-year period, it might be that some local authorities will more regularly consider whether the plans need updating or refreshing. For example, there is a material change in the make-up of the high street where a new opportunity comes along. I repeat that the Rotunda in Birmingham was saved and vastly improved because of an unpredicted scheme coming forward that was inspired by the predictable development impetus of the Big City Plan. Strategic plans are a magnet for outside interest and inward investment.
Consultation will play a key role in the development of the improvement plans, with local authorities required to consult on the designation of high streets as well as on the plans themselves. The process of designating high streets and creating improvement plans will likely be just as important as the plan itself, because the plans will be the result of robust consultation and conversation between local communities, local businesses, property owners, including places of worship, and local authorities, ensuring community buy-in and support for their particular designated plan.
The Bill will also interact with the planning system, as local planning authorities will have to take into account the relevant high street improvement plans when making planning decisions. Further details will be for the Secretary of State to set out in the guidance, but it is intended that the process should be as streamlined as possible, under efficient guidance and support, to ensure that no net burden is added to the planning system.
There can be no doubt of the pressure currently faced by local authorities up and down the country, and I appreciate that the fear is that an additional and time-consuming task will be required of them. But, actually, the Bill will help to provide a predictable policy framework and a pool of information and best practice that will improve the efficient focus of existing workstreams. That is exactly what the improvement plans will be: a framework and an accelerated journey towards best practice.
There will be an expression of local will that external parties, such as private enterprises, will be able to see clearly and act on. This will help facilitate public-private partnerships, which are key for growth. I know this from the experience of putting together Birmingham’s Big City Plan, which combined the best of the public and private sectors to better the lives of the people of Birmingham. And, of course, in supporting this Private Member’s Bill, the Government have shown a commitment to funding the improvement plans for up to three designated high streets.
It is not just about cost. Clearly fiscal wherewithal is crucial, but it is about local authorities having the agency and flexibility to drive informed change in their local area and benefiting their local communities. The Bill and the guidance that will follow will be just that—flexible and informed—and will give the information and flexibility to local authorities to drive forward the change that our areas need, recognising that the needs of one place will be different from the needs of another, while emphasising the need to develop a compelling sense of place, anchored in the points of difference that make each of our high streets special and attractive and dear to us all. One improvement plan may focus on cultural assets, others on shop-based artisan manufacturing, while others might focus on improving footfall and dwell time for the local visitor economy.
The Bill builds on work already delivered by central and local government to address the decline of our high streets, making sure that local authorities have the comprehensive strategies in place to regenerate their high streets with community support, while ensuring that they effectively use the powers that are already at their disposal. The Bill will be another tool in the armoury of local authorities to drive forward high street regeneration. It provides businesses and enterprising souls with a magnet, a predictable framework and a clear signal that unpredicted offers are welcome for collaborative and dynamic partnership work. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I should begin by mentioning that I am a current member of the Built Environment Committee, which is engaged in considering the state of Britain’s high streets.
The Bill that we are discussing today has excellent intentions and I strongly support it. It proposes that local authorities should have a watching brief over the health and development of a high street in their area and that they should have a development plan that should be reviewed at least every five years. At the best of times, this requirement should serve to reaffirm the good practices that one would expect well-run local authorities to be adopting as a matter of course. However, nowadays is not the best of times, and the authorities will struggle to fulfil the injunctions of the Bill in meaningful ways. Many of them lack the personnel to conduct proper appraisals of local problems and to formulate plans to address them.
There was a time when local authorities could be expected to react with enthusiasm to this Bill. They were endowed with planning departments that typically contained a full complement of architects, surveyors, town planners and other professionals, and they were responsible for, among other concerns, overseeing the stock of council housing and adding to it. Such housing provided shelter for a large proportion of the population.
The policy that gave the right to buy to council tenants was initiated in 1982 during the Thatcher era. It divested the authorities of much of this housing stock, and they were prevented from replenishing it. The planning departments lost much of their personnel and their sense of initiative.
The present Government have aimed numerous poorly funded initiatives at addressing the decline of the town centres and high streets. Many of these fall under the so-called levelling-up agenda. The current web page of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which is from July 2023, lists a bewildering variety of funds aimed at urban regeneration. I have counted 15 of them. The overview on the web page states:
“In the Levelling Up White Paper, the government committed to setting out a plan for simplifying and streamlining the funding landscape and to help local stakeholders navigate funding opportunities”.
This testifies to the difficulties and expenses incurred by local authorities in making applications for funding.
A common testimony of local authorities is that insufficient resources are available for developing a bid, which may be accompanied by a judgment that it is not worth their while to do so. Even if these impediments were overcome and if the money for regeneration were amply available, a more fundamental impediment could block the progress. Local authorities lack sufficient influence over the activities in high streets to address the problems of urban regeneration.
Few occupants of commercial town centre properties are also their owners. A figure of 12.8% has been cited for the proportion of private individual landlords and owner-occupiers. The ownership of the majority of properties resides in the portfolios of real estate investment trusts and other private interest companies, such as insurance and pension funds, where individual properties feature as lines on a spreadsheet.
The rent payable to owners places a heavy burden on the retailers. The burden is heaviest in times of economic recession when the income from trading is reduced; it may force the retailers into bankruptcy. There is little direct engagement of the property owners with the tenants. Although both parties are charged with the upkeep of the properties, there is little incentive to enhance them since much of the benefit from doing so will accrue to the other party. When properties fall vacant, there seems to be little urgency on the part of owners to find new occupants, and there may be good reason for this. The principal characteristic of a property from the point of view of an investment fund is its capital value, which is tied to its rent. To reduce the rent in an attempt quickly to attract a tenant will destroy that value.
Short-term letting to independent retailers may be unprofitable. Among the inducements to a new tenant there are liable to be deferments of rent and contributions to fitting-out costs, which cannot be afforded easily by small independent retailers. Whereas, in the past, retail leases could be for as long as 20 years, they are now expected to be of a limited duration. Moreover, the high rates of failure among small start-up enterprises deters property owners from accepting such tenants.
The planning departments of local authorities face an intractable problem in motivating a collection of remote and disengaged agents to co-operate in any plans they might have for urban renewal and regeneration. Matters were quite different in the early post-war years, when urban reconstruction was an urgent priority. Much of our modern environment was created in that era. One can conjure up an image of a post-war architect or planning officer airily waving their hand over a tabletop model corresponding to a large derelict area that was set for redevelopment. The tabletop would be covered with small, white rectilinear boxes representing buildings in the modernist style. The person demonstrating the plan might have been dressed in an imitation of the sartorial style of the Swiss-French architect Charles-Édouard Jeanneret, known commonly by the pseudonym Le Corbusier.
We have come to regret the depredations of the cheap modern architecture that accompanied this post-war redevelopment; we should remember its vigour and ambition, which we might wish to recapture. We look for contemporary examples of such enterprise, but they are rare. Some of them are the result of private sector initiatives. The Built Environment Committee has witnessed one such example recently, which is from a firm that began working on town centre redevelopment some 30 years ago. The firm is based in the Sheffield area of South Yorkshire. A typical example of what the firm has achieved has been the redevelopment of an extensive site of a derelict steelworks. This degree of enterprise is rare and it cannot be relied upon to achieve the reconstruction that is called for. Only by engendering the same spirit of enterprise within many local authorities can a major transformation be achieved. It is appropriate to remember that once, in the not-so-distant past, they did embody such a spirit.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House that it is an advisory five minutes.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
It is advisory, which means you do not need to go to five minutes; you can go shorter than that. Every one of the previous speakers was below five minutes. It is not mandatory but I remind the House that we have speakers who will speak later on this afternoon, when other Members who have already spoken will be at home.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I warmly support this Bill. As set out by the noble Lord, Lord Whitby, in his introduction, high streets have faced numerous challenges in recent years for a variety of reasons, notably the falling consumer demand for retail shopping, the increase in online shopping and the presence of out-of-town retail parks and shopping centres. In many towns this has led to shop closures, declining footfall and a loss of appeal of the high street.
This House’s Built Environment Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is currently undertaking an inquiry into high streets in towns and small cities. I have been privileged to be a member of that committee, along with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. Our committee has received more than 60 submissions of evidence from many organisations and individuals and heard from a large variety of oral witnesses. Views differ on what should be included on high streets to meet the needs of the whole community while, at the same time, supporting a thriving local economy. It is clear that this will very much depend on local circumstances. Each high street or town centre is different. Correspondingly, local authorities will have different views as to what improvement plans would be most appropriate for the designated high street in their area.
The Local Government Association was the only organisation that gave evidence to our committee to specifically refer to this Bill. It also commented ahead of the Bill’s Committee stage in another place. It has raised concerns that the Bill is legislating to give local authorities responsibility for something that they increasingly have limited control over, due to the impact of national policies. The LGA particularly emphasises permitted development rights, introduced in 2013, which allow changes of use between offices and residential uses. These were extended in 2021 to allow change of use between the very wide range of use class E properties and residential units. The LGA argues that these development rights should be revoked because they undermine a council’s place-making and strategic planning ambitions; property owners can change or remove high street uses without needing to seek planning permission from the council. In the context of this Bill, the LGA surely makes a good point.
The Bill will require local authorities to have regard to an improvement plan when exercising planning functions. How, if at all, would this relate to permitted development rights, and will such rights that allow significant changes of use without planning permission potentially impede the effectiveness of a council’s improvement plan required by the Bill? When the improvement plan is reviewed within five years of its publication, as required by the Bill, that review will presumably be by the council itself. When assessing the effectiveness of its own improvement plan, the council will have to take into account any changes of use under permitted development rights during the previous five years. Those changes of use could be very significant and, outside the council’s control, have adversely affected the council’s improvement plan.
Regarding financial implications of the Bill, the Government have allowed £26 million, the bulk of which will be for all local authorities in England to prepare and review up to three improvement plans for their designated high streets. Is this enough funding? Our committee has heard compelling evidence of local authorities being increasingly deprived of funds; they are already finding it difficult to allocate resources for planning and applying for the many government funding schemes, as referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. Moreover, this £26 million probably covers only the costs of preparing the improvement plans; it almost certainly does not cover any significant costs of the actual improvement. In practice, this means that in preparation of improvement plans local authorities will be restricted to confining their plans to relatively unambitious, low-cost improvements.
I commend to noble Lords the excellent book, recently published by the RIBA, High Street: How Our Town Centres Can Bounce Back from the Retail Crisis. One of its authors, Dr Lucy Montague, from the Manchester School of Architecture, is a special adviser to our Built Environment Committee’s inquiry. She and her colleagues undertook a three-year study of over 100 high streets, which highlighted the importance of broader policies, such as town centre first planning policies. The book is refreshingly optimistic about the future of the high street, arguing that the crisis on the high street is a misleading term. There is indeed a crisis in big retail, and town and city centres dependent on multiple retailers have certainly suffered, but the authors argue that the high streets more reliant on independent retailers and emerging new sectors have a brighter future.
In summary, this is broadly a very positive Bill. By requiring councils to designate a priority area and propose high street improvement plans, the Bill has the potential to pave the way for future government policies specifically to support that designation and those improvement plans. The Bill may be less useful in isolation if other government policies are not introduced or modified in alignment with the Bill. Nevertheless, the Bill’s principal objective is to create thriving high streets, and this is to be warmly applauded.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, this Bill is about high streets. In my early life, I had the enjoyment of a great high street. Although I was born in the small Lancashire village of Grimsargh, from which I take my title, when I was seven my parents moved to the seaside resort of Southport. My local high street was therefore Lord Street, Southport. Lord Street was developed in the early part of the 19th century, and has all the merits of that vigorous Victorian age. It is straight and wide, it has covered arcades each side, and it is tree-lined throughout. One feature of Lord Street is the Westminster Tea Rooms. If you ever go to Southport, I thoroughly recommend it; everyone in the House would feel very much at home there. The story goes that the young Louis Napoleon, when in exile in England, took a flat off Lord Street. When he became the emperor of France in the 1850s, he remembered Lord Street, and called his architect Georges-Eugène Haussmann to say, “Remodel Paris. I want a central boulevard like Lord Street, Southport—only bigger”. Thus was born the Champs-Élysées—arguably the greatest high street in the world—all based on Lord Street, in Southport.
It is difficult to verify the truth of this story, but it does show the importance of high streets. We all love a good high street: it cheers us up, gives us pleasure and enhances local pride, as well as being good for business. A recent survey by the Nationwide Building Society showed that 72% of people judge the vitality of an area by its high street. I therefore welcome my colleague Jack Brereton’s Private Member’s Bill to help high streets. Jack was the cabinet member for regeneration, heritage and transport on Stoke-on-Trent Council before becoming the MP for Stoke-on-Trent South, and therefore has a great grasp of all these issues. The Bill is sponsored in the Lords by my noble friend Lord Whitby, who of course was a great leader of Birmingham City Council and is still a very successful businessman, as well as having a continuing interest in these matters.
The object of the Bill is to preserve and enhance high streets as places of economic benefit and growth. I particularly like that it has all-party support, and I congratulate my colleague Jack Brereton on achieving that—he has done better than most Prime Ministers in recent times. It brings all local people together, including local businesses. It develops an action plan. There is the possibility of some government funding. It gives local authorities fresh responsibilities, but it is not too heavy-handed. It is, by design, flexible and light.
The Local Government Association, I am disappointed to say, believes the scheme is unnecessary. I think that is a bit of “not invented here”. The fact is that it is necessary to emphasise the importance of local businesses to high streets, and I think their views should be taken into account more than they have been in the past.
I said that I spent my teenage years in Southport. I now live in south Fulham, and a perfect test case for the Bill will be the Wandsworth Bridge Road, which goes through south Fulham and is a vital artery. It is perfect for the sort of action area specified in the Bill. It is a great Bill, and I hope it is adopted throughout the country.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am afraid I bring a somewhat different perspective from that of the earlier speakers. It reflects the views that I presented in much discussion on the levelling-up Bill. The last thing our local communities, particularly the most disadvantaged, need is more meddling and more statutory requirements laid on them from Westminster, without the resources to deliver them. As the noble Lord, Lord Mair, pointed out, the Government are offering money to draw up the plans but not to deliver them. It is not within the power of your Lordships’ House to put down an amendment to demand that there also be funding from the centre, but, were it within our power, I would be very tempted to do so. I direct this comment particularly towards those on the Labour Front Bench: should they be in the position of implementing the Bill, I hope they would look at providing such a financial provision.
We need Westminster to get out of the road of local communities: to stop sticking its oar in and give people the power and resources to make decisions locally. One example from the framework of the Bill is that artificial time periods for review are set out here in Westminster, saying, “You will review this every five years”. But it may be that local circumstances are different: maybe everything is going swimmingly and everyone can see it, or maybe something is going wrong in another area and resources need to be moved. That is an artificial imposition from Westminster.
I note that we are in a situation where councils overwhelmingly need a long-term funding settlement—they face a £4 billion gap over the next two years—to protect their statutory services and to provide what is needed on the high street, such as cleaning and maintenance. They are under enormous pressure because there is simply not the money, and this is just one more imposition being laid on.
It is interesting to think about what the guidance will say. There is a question of powers but there is possibly some ability to use the guidance for an issue that was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mair: permitted development rights. Your Lordships’ House has heard from two noble Lords not currently in their place—the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Crisp—who highlighted the terrible nature of the housing that has been developed under permitted development rights. Some 100,000 dwellings have been created since 2013, but many lack fire safety standards, adequate ventilation and natural light—imagine housing without natural light. They do not have the facilities, such as schools and health facilities, that are needed. The Government have ruled out giving councils control over this within these zones, but is it possible to put anything in the guidance that might help to address this issue?
I will particularly focus on privatisation, because public land ownership in Britain is in crisis. Since the late 1970s, half of all of what was public land has been sold off: 2 million hectares in total, or 10% of Britain’s total land area. Can the Minister—or the Labour Front Bench in the future—comment on whether the Government would consider making a recommendation in the guidance that there be no further privatisation of public space in these high street plans? That is absolutely crucial to our politics.
I am going to declare an interest here, because I believe that our high street should be a place of political activity —something that privatisation has often led to the exclusion of. My declaration of interest is that I was with Occupy London on day one, when it was driven out and unable to occupy what many people think of as a public space, Paternoster Square—a long-term historic political space in London. Now, of course, it is owned and managed by the Japanese group Mitsubishi Estate, which was able to close that square off, and Occupy London ended up in front of St Paul’s instead.
I hope that we might see some guidance on this. I hope that we might also see in the guidance whether the Government are going to provide all kinds of prescriptions to make sure that we protect small independent businesses against large multinational companies.
Finally, I will put on the record that I did really struggle with this—but eventually I decided that, however limited and controlling from Westminster it is, it provides a little bit more in the way of resources to local councils. So it is not my intention to seek to slow the progress of the Bill, despite the very deep concern of the Local Government Association and local authorities.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I broadly welcome this Bill, promoted by my honourable friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. I congratulate him on bringing forward this initiative, but I have some doubts as to whether his Bill is the panacea he believes it to be. The question of the decline of the high street is multifaceted and complex. It has not happened just recently; it has been going on for many years, and I believe that it was started by the move to establish out-of-town shopping complexes. They provide convenience, of course, with a multiple choice of outlets, ease of parking and much more. I am not against them by any means, as they hit a good note with shoppers, whose aspirations and needs were changing in any event. The customer in general had less time and a busier working life to browse the high street.
If one couples this with the increasing financial burden of rates and rents on small shops, together with the withdrawal of banks and building society branches and the lack of adequate and convenient car parking, along with online shopping, the writing has been on the wall for some considerable time. Slowly, the high street has become the home of coffee shops and charity outlets. In my local towns in the north Midlands, there appears to be a constant and rapid turnover of outlets starting up and then rapidly closing down again.
Parking is a very serious problem, especially for the elderly and less mobile. In Ashbourne, for instance, which is the gateway to the Peak District, the town lacks a bypass. The locals have been crying out for one for years, but to no avail. Currently, all the heavy lorries travelling to and from the Buxton area, from the limestone quarries and elsewhere, have to drive through the centre of the town. There is no other way. This causes dreadful congestion and parking problems that rebound on the high street shops and shoppers.
In numerous cases, local authorities appear to be more interested in closing or curtailing parking facilities to make way for residential developments. Of course, they need the money. The rates and rents in the high street are far too onerous, and it is a very brave soul indeed who opens a high street shop these days.
In addition, specifically concerning this Bill, with a considerable amount of pressure being placed on local authorities, coupled with their restricted resources, I find it difficult to believe that they will be either willing or able to put into practice the plans promoted in this Bill. Both national and local government have come up with all types of ideas for some considerable while to try to halt the decline of the high street, but the decline continues nevertheless. I hate to be negative, but I cannot see this Bill altering the situation. It is yet another ambitious and well-intentioned initiative to complement a number of previous ones, and I am afraid that it will serve to add a further layer of bureaucracy to an already overstretched system. I do support the Bill and I wish it well, but I simply do not have the confidence that it will achieve its aims.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, it is common ground across your Lordships’ House that many of our high streets are in a mess. Whether this is symptomatic of our rundown country, who of course knows? We see boarded-up shops and closed pubs and post offices—and, obviously, the sub-post offices have not been helped by the Horizon scandal. We now see often an excess of estate agents and—dare I say it?—antiques shops.
I cannot compete with the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and the Champs-Élysées, but I can say that not every high street is in a mess. My own high street in Tisbury still has a thriving butcher and bread shop as well as a small supermarket and a hardware store and two thriving pubs—so all is not lost in Tisbury.
Our high streets have continued to deteriorate over the past 20 years, despite a number of initiatives by the Government. It was as long ago as 2011 that Mary Portas came up with her 25 recommendations to deal with the problems of our high streets. If you look at the list of recommendations, you will be hard pushed to say how many of them have been effectively implemented. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitby, indicated, and the noble Lord, Lord Mair, touched on, a number of funds have been established: the future high streets fund, the town centre fund and the local growth fund—to name but three. Have they really done anything significantly to improve the status of our high streets?
Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the Labour Benches, my party will not oppose the Bill, but it fails to address, as a number of noble Lords have indicated, the two key problems. First, there is the planning system, which the noble Lord, Lord Mair, touched on. There have been successive extensions to permitted development rights, which are a serious block to local people’s abilities to create the sorts of communities in high streets that they want. The noble Lord, Lord Mair, referred to the continuous changes to and increased use of the national use class order, which again restricts the ability to control the content of the high street. As he indicated, class E buildings can now be redeveloped as residential properties in the high street without any resort to the planning situation.
Secondly, we have the issue of council expenditure. As noble Lords have indicated, the Government are allocating the money to develop and draw up the plans, but not to implement them. All the speakers on the Bill have reservations as to whether this will produce any actual implementation. This is in the context of the overall shortage that local authorities are currently looking at—I think the LGA indicates that there will be a £4 billion shortfall for local authorities over the next one or two years. Inevitably, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, indicated, that will lead to cuts in street cleaning and maintenance because, increasingly, local authorities are able to focus their finances only on essential services, which those do not count as.
So, as I have said, we on these Benches are not opposing the Bill. It is a very small step indeed to deal with a very large problem. I might say cynically that perhaps that is why the Government are supporting it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests: I am one of the proud members of the growing number of vice-presidents of the LGA; I am also a serving county councillor on Hertfordshire County Council.
It has been an interesting debate and very helpful to hear from members of the Built Environment Committee —I am grateful for their input. I say from the outset that we will not oppose the Bill, on the basis that doing something, even something that represents a drop in the ocean, is usually better than doing nothing. However, I have much sympathy with the view of the Local Government Association, which characterises the Bill as unnecessary and a distraction from what councils really need to protect and enhance the future of their high streets. It recognises that what is really needed is a stable policy environment for high streets and planning, with sufficient resources and long-term growth and regeneration funding.
Much of my last eight years has been spent engaged with partners on the £1 billion regeneration programme for Stevenage town centre. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that it is not quite the Champs-Élysées, but our town centre in its early days was very influential in the development of Rotterdam.
We were very fortunate to have excellent advice from the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, in the early days, and the support of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, when there were unnecessary and unhelpful roadblocks put in our way, and we have ongoing support from the High Streets Task Force. We are now well under way with our project, to the extent that the noble Lord, Lord Harrington, in his excellent review of foreign direct investment last November, used us as a positive case study, saying:
“This approach is reflected in the collaborative work between Reef and UBS (developer and funder), and Stevenage Borough Council as both Local Planning Authority and landowner, to secure a new £65 million headquarters for Autolus Therapeutics. This development is the first of its kind globally and there is no other Town Centre advanced manufacturing cell and gene therapy facility across multiple floors”.
That was a really big plus for us.
I will talk more about purposefully driving footfall in this way in a moment, but I have mentioned this because I fear that there is an element in the Bill of pointing the finger of blame at local councils, many of which are currently trying to scale some of the obstacles that we too faced. As the tumbleweed of this Government’s 14 years of economic failure rolls through our town centres, both in actual and symbolic terms, it leaves communities feeling bereft, neglected and forgotten. Just this morning, we heard that the dreadful milestone of the 6,000th high street bank to close had been reached. Too many post offices that sat at the heart of neighbourhood high streets have been closed, presumably by the same dreadful decision-makers who imposed such misery on their own sub-postmasters.
The Government seem to stand by paralysed as the rise of overseas online retailers, such as Temu, almost literally steals the clothes from our retailers’ backs, with loss leaders that are surely paid for in less than ideal terms and conditions for workers. The uncertainty of the economic climate holds back investment in our high streets, and those brave enough to try, as the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, pointed out, find themselves penalised by an antiquated and inflexible business rates system and soaring energy costs. The catastrophic funding crisis facing local government, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hanworth, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, leaves too many councils too paralysed by pressures on adult social care, children’s services and temporary and emergency accommodation to give the necessary focus to economic development and place-making.
A combination of the impact of the cost of living crisis on our communities and a perception that public spaces feel unsafe drives people further towards online retail. I also point out that our attempts to amend the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill to further level the playing field between online and high street retail fell on deaf ears, sadly. We cannot turn the clock back on internet shopping, but we can surely ensure that it does not continue to enjoy the very significant financial advantage it currently has over high streets.
As well as these national issues, councils will face all the issues we did over complex ownership. There are more than 60 owners of property in my town centre to be worked through, as so ably articulated by my noble friend Lord Hanworth. Then there is the challenge of how we preserve heritage and history, and the constant challenge of successive funding pots, all with different demands and constraints and draining scarce council resources to put bids together, not to mention the issue of permitted development riding roughshod over our local plans, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mair, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
We have a positive story to tell in Stevenage, but this was achieved in spite of the barriers and obstacles we encountered. Following the wise principles set out by Bill Grimsey, we started with master-planning, engaging our community, developing strong cross-sector partnerships and attracting key private sector partners, concentrating on driving footfall, with new homes, workplaces and flexible workspaces in the town centre to support existing retail and offer new hospitality opportunities. Our public sector hub, planned with colleagues from both councils, the NHS, the police and others, will soon be in the development phase and we have developed a whole culture and leisure strategy to reinvigorate our town centre, with event space, new leisure and sport facilities and green spaces. We have capitalised on our strategic transport location with a station gateway project, including the development of a new bus station and linking our 45 kilometres of cycleway to the town centre network. We are focusing on the skills of the future by bringing a new science and technology training facility into the heart of our town centre, and after several years of absence, we are delighted that Marks & Spencer is now back.
If it is the intention of the Bill to follow up the plans it implores local councils to make with funding, planning changes and powers that will enable them to happen, it will not be a bad thing. I would be grateful if the Minister could shed any further light on the mechanism for incorporating these high street improvement plans into local plans.
We all know that our citizens want to see thriving community hubs in their town centres. If my party is given the opportunity to serve in government after the next general election, our six pledges announced yesterday will make an immediate start on supporting councils to do what they need to do. We will create the necessary economic stability by modernising the business rates system so that it works equally for sole traders and small businesses as it does for huge corporates.
We will crack down on anti-social behaviour with real action on shoplifting and town centre patrols, so that people and shopworkers feel safe and are safe. We will have a blitz on planning powers, working with local government to ensure that planning helps the builders not the blockers.
There will also be new powers for mayors so they can get on with the job of regenerating our communities after 14 years of not just stagnation but going backwards. But that is for the future, whether July, September, October or whenever the Government let the country decide. In the meantime, let us hope that the Bill will help our high streets a little while we wait for the change our residents want to see.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Whitby for his sponsorship of the Bill through the House, as well as the words of support from others in the Chamber—albeit some of them fairly caveated. I also take this opportunity to thank the honourable Jack Brereton MP for his leadership in the other place on this important issue.
Our high streets are evolving. In the face of challenges—such as the rise of online retail and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic—high streets have had to adapt. However, it is clear that some have been able to adapt more quickly than others. That is why the Government are working with local communities to help them navigate the change. We have introduced measures, such as the long-term plan for towns, which will invest £1.5 billion across 75 towns to drive regeneration, as well as the £830 million future high streets fund, which has already helped more than 72 high streets across the country to recover from the pandemic. It is why we are supporting the Bill, which will ensure that local authorities are prioritising high streets in their area, as well as fully utilising the powers already at their disposal.
On the specifics of the Bill, it will make the designation of high streets and the creation of high street improvement plans a statutory requirement. Each local authority will need to designate at least one street or network of streets in their area as a high street. Local authorities will be able to designate as many high streets as they want. However, the Government have committed to funding the costs of up to three high street designations, and any designations beyond this number will need to be funded by local authorities themselves. Local authorities will then have to create plans for improving the vitality of the designated high streets, which should be reviewed at least once every five years.
Partnerships are vital for the success of high street regeneration, which is why local residents, businesses and others will have a real say on the improvement plans. Local authorities will have a requirement to consult both on the high streets they designate and on the related improvement plans. The Bill will also mean that local authorities will have to take into account high street improvement plans when exercising their planning functions, supporting already strong protections for mixed-use high streets.
Taken together, these measures will ensure that local authorities not only prioritise the health of their high streets but use their existing powers to drive forward improvements—such as Section 215 powers to require land to be cleaned up when it is detracting from the surroundings. The Government appreciate the action that many local authorities have already taken to improve their high streets, which these new requirements will complement.
Following Royal Assent to the Bill, we will be issuing guidance for local authorities on what an improvement plan should look like. We know that local authorities are best placed to judge what high street improvement plans should cover, which is why officials in my department have already begun engaging with local authorities on this matter and will continue to do so as they further develop the guidance.
It is crucial that these plans are not just a tick-box exercise but remain relevant and assist local authorities in regenerating their local area. This is why the Bill requires local authorities to update their plans at least every five years, although it can be earlier, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested. We believe it will provide a balance between giving the plans enough time to have an effect and ensuring that they remain useful documents.
The Government fully recognise the pressure that local authorities are currently under, which is why, as my noble friend Lord Whitby said in his introductory remarks, extra funding will be provided, so that local authorities are able effectively to deliver the measures in the Bill. Alongside this funding, my department will be working closely with local authorities to ensure that they input into the development of guidance for the Bill, ensuring that it gives local authorities the agency and discretion to determine what is best for their area.
In response to the various noble Lords who have raised it, local authorities can already use Article 4 directions to suspend permitted development rights in designated areas which allow them to protect shopping areas. We agree—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Can the Minister then tell us how many Article 4 directions were allowed by the department?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I will revert to the noble Baroness with a response to that when my department gives me the numbers.
I agree that it is important that we consider the effect of all these things on the high streets, which is why we can include this in the guidance to local authorities. We will certainly consider how we can build this in to assist local authorities, to make sure that they can determine what is best for their area and use all the powers that they have.
The Bill is one part of a broader strategy to create thriving high streets and town centres, building on the wider work this Government are doing to regenerate the high streets. This work includes the high street rental auctions and high street accelerators, which also work alongside the long-term plans for towns, which is backed by £1.5 billion overall to drive ambitious plans to regenerate 75 towns across the UK over the next decade. The broader levelling-up fund of £4.8 billion is already being put to work.
The Bill also complements the work of the towns fund and the future high streets fund, where we have now already allocated over £2.35 billion-worth of town deals and over £830 million of future high streets funding across 170 high streets. We hope that local communities in England will regenerate in order to help create jobs and build more resilient local economies and communities.
To conclude, the Government fully recognise the serious challenges faced by high streets up and down the country and are committed to helping them turn things around. I appreciate, as I am sure all noble Lords do here, just how crucial the health of our high streets is for local communities. For many, places that they should be proud of are currently a shadow of their former selves. The Bill, alongside wider government measures, will help to regenerate our high streets and help to create places that people are proud of.
Lord Whitby (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in today’s important debate. Each contribution has underlined our collective passion for preserving and developing our high streets. If I may, I will make an observation or two.
Before I came here, my life, the journey I had made and my political contribution to society was through local government. To me, it is the essence of a democracy. My intellectual and philosophical journey throughout has been about devolving down to the people you are looking after and are concerned about. The noble Baroness, Lady Green, I believe, mentioned the interference of a top-heavy state. All I would say—
Lord Whitby (Con)
I apologise—a rose by any other name.
However, the point made about top-down interference is something I understand, as the leader of a metropolitan borough. I was the leader during Tony Blair’s period, and I liaised with him regularly. I was the leader while Gordon Brown and then David Cameron were Prime Minister. I share with noble Lords the frustration over the evolution of devolution. I know at what pace it goes, and I know how we aspire to accelerate that.
What I believe that this Private Member’s Bill introduces to that debate—I welcome this because all noble Lords have appreciated it—is a move in the right direction, even though it may only be an incremental movement to what we might perceive as utopia. To me, it is a tacit understanding that the Government realise that the movement is bottom-up, through the guidance that we will inform and the consultation that everyone ought to have. The Bill aims to align the munificence of the Government—I think it is almost £15 billion-worth of money through a whole plethora of pots—with the aspirations of local communities, which is what we all believe in.
I thank all noble Lords for expressing tacit support. I am sure that the observations that they have made will inform the guidance that the Government and the Secretary of State will write. We are happy to work with noble Lords and other stakeholders as we develop the guidance. As it is a Private Member’s Bill, an amendment would have killed the Bill, so I thank noble Lords again for their support.
I reiterate my thanks to the honourable Jack Brereton for both selecting me to take the Bill through the House and his leadership in the other place. I also thank my noble friend the Minister and her ministerial colleague Jacob Young in the other place for all their hard work on the Bill, as well as all the DLUHC officers for their work on it. I look forward to taking the Bill through the remaining stages. I beg to move.
British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Bill
Friday 17th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024 View all British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 April 2024 - (17 Apr 2024)
Lord Hay of Ballyore
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I am delighted to move this Bill in your Lordships’ House.
The Bill has a long and frustrating past. My colleague the Member for East Londonderry, Mr Campbell, a Member of the other House since 2001, introduced a Private Member’s Bill along similar lines as far back as 2005, which unfortunately ran out of time. Over the years, he has continually argued, through debates with and Questions to various Ministers, for long-standing residents of Northern Ireland born in the Republic of Ireland after 1948 to be recognised as citizens of this United Kingdom without the need to undertake a lengthy and costly process of applying to the Home Office for British citizenship.
The historical background to this issue is vital. We all know the history of Ireland: before 1922 Ireland was part of this United Kingdom, and between 1922 and 1949 the Irish Free State had dominion status and people born there were British subjects. The Republic of Ireland passed its own citizenship law in 1935. However, until 1948 people born anywhere in Ireland continued to be regarded as British subjects. Under the British Nationality Act 1948, which came into force on 1 January 1949, people born in the Republic of Ireland ceased to be British subjects.
Members will recognise that the problem in all this is that, when we listen to people in the media and elsewhere speak about the Belfast agreement, we often hear them cite parity of esteem—two communities working together and recognising themselves as British, Irish or other. Unfortunately, people born in the Republic of Ireland after 1948 cannot designate themselves as British in Northern Ireland. Surely this goes against the Belfast agreement, which recognises the birthright of all people born in Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as British, Irish or both, as they so choose.
Through the Belfast agreement, efforts were made to address issues of identity. While we reflect on the Belfast agreement, it was accepted that Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom was constitutionally settled. Even those with an Irish identity were afforded the opportunity to obtain Irish citizenship. The approach taken by the Irish Government offered people in Northern Ireland the opportunity to obtain Irish citizenship; some enjoy dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
Unfortunately, what was not settled at the time was in the other direction. Perhaps this was an anomaly that was missed or overlooked when the Belfast and St Andrews agreements were being negotiated, but we have an opportunity with this Bill to right a great wrong. The House knows our history, our relationship with these isles, and how the two have intertwined. The Bill gives us the opportunity to provide the finished piece of that relationship jigsaw. For anyone who was born in the Republic of Ireland who has made their home in the United Kingdom, and who satisfies the residency test, they should be able to avail themselves of UK citizenship.
The Irish Government have a very simple process of applying for an Irish passport, the system for which was reviewed in 2011. If you were born on the island of Ireland, or if your partner, grandparents or great grandparents were, you are entitled to an Irish passport, at a cost of €80—not the £1,500 to be a British citizen. That is the difference. It is a simple process, and when you apply for an Irish passport you can trace the whole process. Online applications can be completed within 20 working days. According to the latest figures, Irish passport applications have gone up by more than 30% and British passport applications have gone down by well over 40%. That is the answer to the problem in all of this.
This is a very short, two-clause Bill. It seeks to amend the British Nationality Act 1981 to enable citizens of the Republic of Ireland who are resident in the UK to register as British subjects. The Bill would establish a separate, stand-alone route to British citizenship for people born after 1948 who have made Northern Ireland their home for a significant period. Qualifying residents will be able to be part of the United Kingdom, not just Northern Ireland. I welcome that, because British citizenship should reflect the whole of the United Kingdom—this is not just about Northern Ireland, as shown in the amendment that the Government added to the Bill in the other place. That amendment strengthens the Bill, as it is now widened out to the rest of this United Kingdom. I would hope that the Bill will create a more straightforward route to becoming a British citizen—and, of course, that a Life in the UK test would not be required.
I want to raise one issue around the fees. I know that the Government very much support the Bill, but it appears unjust to require someone born in the Republic of Ireland who has lived in Northern Ireland for virtually their entire life to pay a fee of £1,500 to become a British citizen. It would help the House if the Minister could confirm what criteria would be used in setting the level of application fees under the new scheme. Over the years, what has put off a lot of people—even those who qualify for British citizenship—is that they still have to pay £1,500, and when they pay it and are accepted as a British citizen, there is no guarantee that they will be given a British passport. It allows you to apply for a British passport only after you have British citizenship, at a huge cost of £1,500. Can you imagine two people in a household paying that? That is £1,500 each, and at the moment for a child it is £1,000 to apply for British citizenship. When we come out the other end with this Bill, I hope there will be a simplified fee, with a simplified process. That is important. The whole process of applying for British citizenship has put a lot of people off. I would like to think that, under the new system, we can have a simplified process that works for everybody.
The Bill unites people from all backgrounds and traditions in Northern Ireland, whether they describe their nationality as British, Irish or other. This is a non-controversial issue. Even the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has looked at this issue on several occasions and made a number of recommendations to the Government, who then were not listening. There has been unity of purpose on the part of members of the committee from Northern Ireland on this whole issue; there has not been a dissenting voice. The Bill in its current form provides a wonderful opportunity for us as a nation to recognise our nearest neighbours and bring them closer. There have been many false dawns over the last 40 years on this. I hope and trust that today is an important moment to address this imbalance. I beg to move.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill. It is a proud moment for me to stand in your Lordships’ House today to support the Bill and the efforts of my noble friend Lord Hay of Ballyore in getting it one step closer to reaching the statute book.
Some of your Lordships may recall the last time we debated the issues the Bill addresses in this House, in 2022. It was obvious then, as I said in my speech on that occasion, that the bar on my noble friend and others like him to be recognised as true British citizens was not an anomaly but an abomination.
As chairman of the Ulster Unionist Party on Good Friday 1998, I accept my share of responsibility that people born in the Republic of Ireland were not included in the Belfast agreement’s definition of “the people of Northern Ireland”, and did not therefore benefit from its birthright provisions on identity and citizenship. However, many years have passed since then, and the error should have been corrected long before now.
Alongside my noble friend Lord Hay, much credit for where we have reached should go to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place, which in 2021 conducted an inquiry into the barriers to UK citizenship for Northern Ireland residents. The committee’s members recommended that a bespoke solution was needed for Irish citizens to be granted UK citizenship, reflecting
“personal ties, relationships, geopolitical realities and movement of people”
between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It also argued that the application fee, then £1,330—as mentioned by my noble friend, and which has risen in the intervening period to £1,630—should be abolished, alongside the requirement to pass the Life in the UK test. His Majesty’s Government’s response at the time could perhaps be described as dismissive, indeed verging on cold. However, a commitment was given by a Northern Ireland Office Minister at a subsequent Westminster Hall debate to reflect further on the points raised.
That period of reflection appeared to be open-ended, until January this year, when His Majesty’s Government committed to amending the current arrangements, as part of the Donaldson deal to persuade the DUP to reform the Stormont Executive. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to welcome the outcome, which, if the Bill receives Royal Assent, could benefit more than 30,000 people living in Northern Ireland and more than 250,000 across the UK as a whole.
I commend the sensible amendments made to the Bill in the other place, including the removal of the requirement for successful applicants to undertake a life in the UK test or prove their language skills. However, I note with significant alarm that the cost of applying for a UK passport via this route is yet to be finalised. Indeed, in Committee in the other place, the Legal Migration Minister Tom Pursglove said that fees were
“under active consideration as part of a wider piece of work. It is being carried out in the usual way when it comes to fee setting for borders and migrations services”.—[Official Report, Commons, British Citizenship (Northern Ireland) Bill Committee, 17/4/24; col. 8.]
Perhaps I am a sceptic, but I have also served in your Lordships’ House for more than a quarter of a century. In his wind-up, I hope the Minister will reassure me that there will be no additional charges to applicants beyond the standard cost of a British passport. To add a premium on top would be wrong and, most importantly, send the opposite of a warm welcome to the newest British citizens. It is with pleasure that I support the passage of the Bill.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I support this Private Member’s Bill and congratulate my noble friend Lord Hay of Ballyore on securing it, along with Gavin Robinson MP, who steered it successfully through the other place on 26 April 2024.
My noble friend has outlined the purpose of the Bill concisely and with great clarity. It is interesting to note that it has taken some 40 years of campaigning to achieve parity of treatment for Irish citizens who want to identify with Britishness. My noble friend has campaigned on this very personal issue for decades and I know that today is important for him—and, indeed, for many thousands of others in Northern Ireland and right across the United Kingdom, who will be impacted by the common-sense changes that will be introduced if this legislation passes.
Unfortunately, when the Belfast agreement was being drafted in 1998, an opportunity was missed to remove the financial and bureaucratic barriers that existed, making it difficult for Irish-born residents, who had lived for many years in the United Kingdom, to attain British citizenship. They may have identified as British for years or many decades, but a costly, overly bureaucratic and uniquely discriminatory process meant that, in the eyes of the law, they are technically not fully recognised as British citizens yet. To suggest that someone who has been paying taxes and contributing to society for decades should have to satisfy a life in the UK test and prove that they can speak English highlights the absurdity of the present situation.
It is wrong, in my view, that anyone should have to pay a naturalisation fee of £1,500 and complete a citizenship test. This is contrary to the spirit of reciprocation offered through the Belfast and St Andrews agreements. I welcome that the Minister and the Government have engaged with the Democratic Unionist Party and looked seriously at a different approach to this issue.
The process for attaining British citizenship has been set in stark contrast to the simple and easy way of applying for an Irish passport for those born and living in Northern Ireland. Some, who have never been to or lived in the Irish Republic, can quickly apply for and receive Irish passports for a small fee of €80, under the terms of the Belfast agreement. I am pleased that the Bill now provides an opportunity to address this imbalance and a parity of treatment that allows Irish-born citizens resident in the United Kingdom to identify with their Britishness.
I support the changes in this Bill. They widen the scope, as the Bill will now extend to England, Wales, Scotland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and even the British Overseas Territories. This will extend the potential to get a British passport to some 27,000 persons. The changes made in this Bill reflect the fact that many Irish nationals wish to be recognised as British.
The noble Lords, Lord Hay and Lord Rogan, raised the vital issue of fees. Can the Minister bring any clarity on the setting of the fees, as it is not in the Bill? I also note that, if passed, the Bill would come into force only on a day appointed by the Secretary of State. Does the Minister not agree that the commencement date needs to be on the day after Royal Assent, so that the Act can be expedited quickly? I suggest that, when the Bill becomes law—as I hope it will—the Home Office should look at launching a publicity campaign explaining that those who are legally entitled can apply for British citizenship, because there are many people who rightly qualify but may be ignorant of the process.
I will give a short illustration of this. In a case that is ongoing at the moment, a couple encountered great difficulties in registering their child as British. The mother, a British citizen, was due to give birth in a hospital in Belfast, but had to be transferred to a Dublin hospital to receive the necessary specialised medical treatment. When the child was born in Dublin, by law, the birth had to be registered in the Republic of Ireland. However, this meant that, when the child was transferred back to a hospital in Belfast for further treatment, it was not registered under the national health system and the parents could not register it with a general practitioner. As a consequence, they received numerous medical bills that caused them considerable stress. It took a considerable period of time—more than eight months, I believe—for them to realise that, because they had British citizenship, they were entitled to register the child with the United Kingdom authorities.
This Bill provides a solution to what was a uniquely unfair process and I am pleased to support it.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore. I am delighted that, after his many years of persistent campaigning, it is finally beginning to pay off. It is a pleasure to support this short Bill from these Benches.
I am glad that the Government appear to have shifted their position on this matter somewhat, towards one of common sense. I welcome that they have encouraged a wider interpretation than in the original Bill, tabled by Gavin Robinson MP in the House of Commons; and that the Bill was amended in Committee so that it will now apply to all Irish citizens, wherever they live in the UK, should they wish to benefit from it. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, when we last debated this matter during a debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hay, in October 2022, there was a somewhat dismissive attitude to it. I repeat that I am very glad that that attitude appears now to be shifting.
As I referred to in that debate, I am someone who has benefited from the generosity of the Irish passport provisions. My father was born in Enniskillen in County Fermanagh so, three years, ago I applied for an Irish passport, for which I am increasingly grateful. It is right that we recognise our special relationship, shared history and common bonds with our Irish friends and neighbours. So many people in the UK have Irish roots and ancestry—including the Minister, Tom Tugendhat MP, who dealt with this Bill at Third Reading in the other place.
It is also welcome that some of the unnecessary—and frankly insulting, as the noble Lord, Lord Hay, said—previous obstacles to acquiring UK passports and UK citizenship will now be dropped as a result of the Bill, once it goes through all stages. There are a few remaining questions, which have already been raised by other noble Lords, not least on fees and costs. I would therefore be very grateful if the Minister can give an indication of when the orders on fees for processing applications will be published, and what processes will be used for consultation.
In conclusion, I am pleased that this constructive Bill has so far received cross-party support. I hope that very soon, the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, who has served his country so long as an MLA, Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and now as a Member of your Lordships’ House, will finally be able to have a UK passport and citizenship.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, for the clarity of his explanation of this short but very important Bill, which has at its heart a simple but long-standing and unresolved issue, and for his long-standing campaign on this. The issue is that, notwithstanding the commitments made by the UK and Irish Governments in the Good Friday agreement more than 25 years ago, there are still outstanding questions about eligibility and access to citizenship for many people in Northern Ireland. My understanding is that attempts have been made to resolve this before, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hay, including by a previous Private Member’s Bill in 2005, and I note that, in 2021, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee produced a short report that concluded:
“The Government should abolish the naturalisation fee charged to Irish applicants who wish to naturalise as British citizens”.
Understandably, there has been great strength of feeling about the fact that there is such a significant contrast between the arrangements for people born in Northern Ireland, who are entitled to Irish citizenship at birth and need only pay the usual fee for an Irish passport, and those born in the Republic of Ireland after 31 December 1948, who must go through the process of satisfying residency requirements, passing a Life in the UK test, proving language skills and paying a fee—which I think is now £1,630.
We believe it is time that this long-standing anomaly was resolved, so we will certainly support the Bill today. Why has such heavy weather has been made of this, and why it has taken so long to get this through? We note that the Bill was amended with cross-party support in the House of Commons, and we welcome the amendments, moved by Gavin Robinson and accepted by the Minister in the other place, that broaden the scope of the Bill to cover “Irish citizens” rather than “persons born in Ireland” and change the absence requirement, as well as changing the title of the Bill to reflect the new provisions.
As all noble Lords have mentioned, the question of fees is still outstanding, and as my honourable friend Stephen Kinnock pointed out in the other place, it would really help the House if we could have some confirmation of
“what criteria will be used in setting the level of application fees under the new system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/24; col. 561.]
It has been argued that there should be parity, and there should be nothing to pay other than the current cost of a British passport. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some more information about the Government’s proposals in that regard.
I believe it was confirmed by the Minister in the other place that the Life in the UK test would not apply to applicants, but the Minister for Security indicated that perhaps a citizenship ceremony might be a requirement. Can the Minister clarify what is being proposed in relation to these two elements? In my view, retention of either would mean there is still a difference between the processes of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Although I come from a town in the south of England, it is fair to say we have incredibly strong connections with Ireland. As my town was built largely in the 1950s and 60s, there was a very significant community of Irish settlers and pioneers, who came to build the town and work in its industries. Our first Irish mayor, Mick Cotter, who later became a freeman of the borough, was one of those who came to build our town, but who also gave us the true legacy of a strong sense of community that blesses us to this day. The Irish Network Stevenage is one of our strongest community groups to this day, with over 1,000 members. When I was reading the background to the Bill, it reminded me of the fabulous service the network gives in helping people with their Irish citizenship. If members are listening today, I hope they will feel that we are at last doing the right thing here today—I will be in real trouble if we are not.
It is time the promises made 25 years ago were kept and this anomalous situation put right once and for all. I thank all those who have worked on and supported this Bill on its passage through both Houses, and all those who have spoken today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. This Bill will make it possible for Irish nationals who have been resident in the UK for five years to become British citizens in a far easier way than is currently possible. Before discussing the detail of the measures, I recognise the interest of, and work done in the past by, many noble Lords on this subject, most notably the Bill’s sponsor today, the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore. He will be aware that following the introduction of this Bill by the right honourable Member for Belfast East in the other place, the Government have supported its underlying principles. I am glad to say that our full support for it was confirmed following amendments passed in Committee.
Irish nationals can currently work, study and vote in the UK and are usually deemed to be settled from the moment they enter the UK. The common travel area arrangements for Irish nationals are now set out formally in statute in the Immigration Act 1971, which provides protections for the ability of Irish nationals to enter and live in the United Kingdom without needing a grant of immigration leave to enter or remain. This relationship is reciprocated by the Irish Government in regard to British citizens entering Ireland, and this strengthens the relationship between our two countries.
Irish nationals who are resident in the UK must currently complete the naturalisation process to gain British citizenship. There are many requirements associated with naturalisation, such as a period of residence, which is usually five years, and this is replicated in this Bill. However, many of the immigration-related requirements for naturalisation are designed for those who require formal permission to enter and live in the UK and are not applicable to Irish nationals. Equally, the UK has a unique relationship with Ireland, as noted eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, and the close historical links, geographical proximity and shared institutions between the two countries mean that those who could make use of this Bill would, in our view, already have a sufficient knowledge of language and life in the UK, which would be further reinforced by five years’ qualifying residence. As such, being expected to pass the Life in the UK test or to demonstrate competence in English is inconsistent with the reality.
The Bill as first introduced was limited in scope to Irish nationals born in Ireland after 31 December 1948 who were resident solely in Northern Ireland. The Government are delighted that the Bill before your Lordships today is now marginally broader in scope and more inclusive, and we should note the constructive conversations that led to these changes and have characterised the Bill’s progress.
Following amendments, the route to British citizenship will now be available to Irish nationals regardless of how they became Irish, not just those born in Ireland. Secondly, it will not have a requirement that an Irish national must have been born after 31 December 1948, meaning that there are no age restrictions and all Irish nationals may make use of the Bill. Thirdly, qualifying residency will be in any part of the United Kingdom, not just in Northern Ireland. This reflects the important consideration that becoming a British citizen is about a tie to the whole of the United Kingdom, not just one constituent part of it, even if the Bill may be expected to be used proportionately more in Northern Ireland. That is the right approach.
I turn to the specific details of the Bill. Clause 1 will insert a new section, namely Section 4AA, into the British Nationality Act 1981, which will allow an Irish national to be registered as a British citizen if they make an application and satisfy the requirements. To qualify under new Section 4AA, the person must have been in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the period of five years ending with the date of their application. They must not have been absent from the United Kingdom for more than 450 days in the five-year period ending with the date of their application, and they must not have been absent from the UK for more than 90 days in the 12-month period ending with the date of their application. They must also not have been in breach of the immigration laws at any time in the five-year period ending with the date of their application. Of course, the vast majority of Irish nationals already comply with this. The Secretary of State will, in special circumstances, be able to treat a person who has applied for registration under this section as satisfying the requirements, even if they did not fully satisfy them.
Clause 2 sets out the extent and commencement of the Bill. It extends to England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories, in keeping with the same extent of the British Nationality Act 1981, which it amends. It will come into force by commencement regulations made by the Secretary of State at a later date.
All speakers have made reference to the potential cost to applicants of this registration route. This is currently being considered. The Home Office undertakes an annual review of its migration and border services, and unit costs for this route will be calculated in line with the fees set as part of that exercise. The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border has committed to further discussions with the right honourable Member for Belfast East in this regard. However, nothing substantive has yet been decided on this matter. The Minister also noted the strength of views expressed in the other place on the issue of fees, and I will ensure that he is similarly made aware of the comments made in this House today.
Noble Lords have also queried when this registration route will be available. For a commencement date to be set, the Bill would need to be introduced by a commencement order and, were there to be any fees, there would need to be fees regulations. The Home Office is currently working to design processes and IT systems to enable decision-making on applications in this route. The commencement of this registration route will, of course, need to be fitted in with respect to the Government’s overall priorities.
I am pleased to say that there is considerable support for this Bill within Parliament and among the public. I hope that noble Lords will agree on the importance of the legislation. With this in mind, I can assure the House that I have listened carefully, as ever, to all the contributions made today. I look forward to continued engagement with noble Lords as the Bill goes forward.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, again for introducing this Bill. I commend the work done to ensure the smooth passage in the other place by the right honourable member for Belfast East and the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border. I commend this Bill to the House.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I thank Members for their contributions this afternoon, especially for their cross-party support for the Bill. I also congratulate my colleague the Member for Belfast East, Gavin Robinson. After nine years, he successfully secured the opportunity for a Private Member’s Bill on this issue and steered it through the other House.
Sometimes it is not mentioned, but I want to place on record my appreciation to the staff of this House, particularly the Library and the Minister’s officials, who have been kind and very engaging on this Bill. Sometimes, we forget the staff in this House who do a tremendous job.
I come back to the cost of all of this. I listened to what the Minister has said on the cost and when the Bill might commence when it comes out the other end. I emphasise to the Government that they should look seriously at the cost of fees in all of this. It should not still mean that it is £1,500 to apply for British citizenship. It would be totally wrong and a waste of time for this particular Bill. I believe the Government are coming at this Bill with a good spirit, and that is important.
The other issue is when all this might start. I got a wee bit worried when the Minister said that the Home Office is working out the issues around it. The Home Office has a lot of issues, and I know this Government have a lot of issues, but once again I emphasise to the Minister and the Government not to hold this particular Bill up—or this particular piece of law when it eventually hits the ground. I would not want it to be another six or nine months or a year until somebody in the Home Office works out the procedures around all of this.
I would hope, at the end of it all, there will be a very simple process of applying for British citizenship, because that is what the Bill is all about. It is about simplifying the process and reducing the cost. It is important that we can achieve that sooner rather than later. Once again, I thank the whole House, particularly for the cross-party support that the Bill has received.