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.